Ash Wednesday, Cycle B

As we ponder the meaning of the season of Lent and the significance we would like for it to have this year for us and for the people with whom we live, we begin with these Ash Wednesday texts.

We see that in Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 and in Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21 the emphasis is on appropriate behavior. In Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 the Lord God commands the people to fast, weep, mourn, repent, and return to the Lord. In Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21 the guidelines are to help those who are in need, pray, fast, and to store up your treasures in heaven where they will never be lost. It is obvious that for those who selected these texts for use on Ash Wednesday the behavior commanded in these texts from Joel and from Matthew were very important, especially for the season of Lent. They then selected a portion of one of the best-known penitential psalms in the Psalter (Psalm 51) to indicate appropriate prayer to accompany appropriate behavior. Finally, the grace of God was brought into this series of texts with the inclusion of the Apostle Paul’s passive imperative verb katallagete (“be reconciled” to God) in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and in Paul’s entreaty in 2 Corinthians 6:1 not to receive the grace of God in vain. The 2 Corinthians reading provides for us, therefore, a very important addition to the appropriate behavior emphasis of the Joel and Matthew texts. The inclusion of the 2 Corinthians 5:20b–6:10 reading suggests that we emphasize the grace of God along with appropriate behavior during Lent each year and perhaps once each three years make it the primary focus.

During the height of the Civil Rights Movement forty years ago, many of us found in Isaiah 58 a message that resonated very well with us. It was that unless we are actively involved in social justice, in addressing the conditions in which people suffer economic and political oppression, as well as in being engaged in immediate and continued direct assistance to the oppressed, our fasting is no way acceptable to the Lord God. As a result, Isaiah 58:1-12 is now an alternative reading to Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 on Ash Wednesday. This inclusion of Isaiah 58:1-12 brings a very important dimension to our observance of Lent.

2 Corinthians 5:20b–6:10

Let us look more closely, first of all, at Paul’s passive imperative verb katallagete in 2 Corinthians 5:20. From a theological perspective, the passive imperative is one of the most significant grammatical constructions in Indo-European language. Paul exhorts the followers of Jesus in Corinth and, because his exhortation here is sacred Scripture for us, also exhorts us to be reconciled to God by the grace of God. We believe that God makes this reconciliation possible by means of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, through the great atonement proclaimed by Paul and elaborated upon by other Christian theologians later.

What, then, is our role in this reconciling action? According to the grammatical construction, we are passive. God in Christ is the active one. We are to be passive, to have this done to us. “Be reconciled to God!” we are told. We can, of course, choose to reject this reconciliation, but Paul urges his readers and hearers to permit it to be done, to be forgiven, to become a new creation in Christ, as described in the 2 Corinthians 5:20a portion that precedes this text. All are strongly urged to accept this grace of God from God and to live in this grace. In 2 Corinthians 6:3-13 and continuing in 7:2-4 Paul claims that he and his co-proclaimers are trying to put no obstacles in anyone’s path. He wants no obstacles of any kind to keep this message of passive reception of grace from anyone who might want to hear it.

Our work, therefore, on Ash Wednesday and throughout the Lenten season, in accordance with this 2 Corinthians 5:20b–6:10 text, is to prevent any and all obstacles from hindering God’s action of reconciling us and others to God through Jesus as the Christ.

Let us look now at the other texts appointed for us for this day in the light of Paul’s admonition to us that we should “Be reconciled to God by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Let us, as Martin Luther insisted, interpret Scripture by the use of Scripture. In this way, we shall be letting the “gospel” — which in the texts chosen for this day is in the “epistle” — shed light on the other texts selected.

Psalm 51:1-17

The portion of Psalm 51 selected here puts emphasis on the penitential prayer. The obstacles to be removed in this instance are the psalmist’s sins (and our sins). These sins are great, but the appeal is that God’s mercy is greater than our sins. From our Christian standpoint, the forgiveness of our sins is accomplished by God through Jesus’ death, and resurrection. We recognize, however, that the Israelites and Jewish people prior to, during, and after the pre-Christian era called upon the mercy of God with no reference to Jesus, and we can and should assume that God has been able to forgive them. To assume anything less would be to try to limit God.

In the portion of Psalm 51 that follows verses 1-13, the psalmist shows an awareness that God does not need burnt offerings and other sacrifices in order to be able to forgive sins. God is interested in our broken and contrite heart. When our hearts are contrite, then the offerings and sacrifices will have value.

Has this changed since the time the psalmist wrote or sang this psalm? Which is the more inclusive concept, atonement or forgiveness? Do we today always require atonement of each other (of our children for example) before we will forgive them? Within our cultural milieu is it possible that an overemphasis on atonement theology places an unnecessary limitation upon God and upon our perception of God?

Atonement theology is useful and valuable within our understanding of God’s grace, but perhaps it should be seen as only one of the ways in which we may perceive God’s action in Christ and in history. Atonement theology was a way in which some of the followers of Jesus after the crucifixion of Jesus saw some very important good that God had brought about through that tragic event. Atonement theology is one of the ways in which we continue as Christians to see the crucifixion of Jesus, but it is only one of the ways in which we understand the crucifixion of Jesus. Considered together with the resurrection of Jesus, we see the action of God as a vindication of Jesus and of his life. God did not prevent the Romans from crucifying Jesus, but we believe that God vindicated Jesus and made the Romans powerless via the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. For more about this, see Hans Kueng, On Being a Christian (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 419-436.

Joel 2:1-2, 12-17

This text elaborates on the ideas of Psalm 51 beautifully and even more vividly. Again in relation to this text, let us consider the issues and questions raised above about atonement and forgiveness. Atonement is very important in “classical” Christian theology. There is no subject, however, in which Jews and Muslims are more significantly different from Christians than on the subject of atonement. Jews and Muslims understand and teach that no person, even God, can atone for the sins of someone else. For Jews and for Muslims, each person is totally responsible and accountable for that person’s own sins.

Forgiveness, on the other hand, is very important for Jews and for Muslims, as well as for Christians. We agree within these three religions that we should always seek forgiveness from people whom we have harmed and then also from God, asking God to spare God’s people, as this Joel 2 text indicates.

For more about the understanding among Jews and among Muslims that no one can atone for the sins of someone else, see Hassan Hathout, Reading the Muslim Mind (Plainfield: American Trust, 1995), 33-35, and my Blessed to be a Blessing to Each Other: Jews, Muslims, and Christians as Children of Abraham in the Middle East (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 2008), 51-54.

Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21

A glance at the Synoptic parallels shows that except for Matthew 6:19-21 the components of this periscope are peculiar to Matthew. We can say, therefore, that the materials in Matthew 6:1-6 and 16-18 are best understood as teachings of the leaders of the Matthean community in Jesus’ name. The positive aspects of these teachings are certainly applicable for us today as Christians. We should help those who are in need, we should pray to God, and we should fast, but we should do none of these in order to be praised. The negative anti-Jewish aspects that condemn the Jews and their leaders in these verses are not applicable for us today.

Isaiah 58:1-12

As indicated above, the inclusion of Isaiah 58:1-12 as a text to be read and reflected upon on Ash Wednesday and throughout the Lenten season brings a very important dimension to our observance of Lent. It reminds us that if want to do something that is truly important during Lent or at any other time, we should help people who are in need, especially those who are oppressed economically, politically, socially, and in any other way. That is what the inspired speaker and writer in this Isaiah tradition text said and apparently did. That is what the Jesus of history said and that is what the Jesus of history did. There can be no doubt about that.

Lent is the season of the Church Year in which we focus in our study and reflection upon the Jesus of history. There are a multitude of texts in the Four Gospels that are evidence of words and actions of the Jesus of history in support of those who were oppressed during that time. There is very little evidence in support of Jesus himself fasting, other than at the beginning of his public service in the Synoptic Gospels, and nothing about his giving up for a few weeks a bad habit that was obviously harmful to himself or to others. If we want to be like Jesus during Lent, or better yet throughout the year and during our entire lives, let us do whatever we can to change systems that rob the oppressed and give excess bounty to the rich, within our own nation and throughout the world.

These four texts are linked by the themes of covenant and of baptism, as well as of trust and of obedience. All are appropriate for the Lenten season. They provide many possibilities for Lenten keynote messages.

Psalm 25:1-10

The psalmist makes no attempt to present before the Lord a facade of sinlessness. Instead, the psalmist stakes everything on trust in the Lord. The psalmist reminds the Lord that the Lord is widely known and characterized by mercy and steadfast love. Therefore, the psalmist asks the Lord to concentrate on the goodness of the Lord and to teach that goodness and that way of life to those who, like the psalmist, are humble sinners who are eager to live according to the terms of the covenant that the Lord God has established with God’s people. Although this psalm may be nearly three thousand years old, it is not outdated. It provides an excellent model for us, and for the people among whom we serve, for Lent and for all seasons.

Genesis 9:8-17

Among the various covenants described within our biblical accounts, this covenant of God with Noah, with the descendants of Noah, and with every living creature is the most inclusive and perhaps the most gracious on the part of God, the mighty power in the covenant. In this covenant God makes no demands; God makes only promises. It is affirmed in the text that every rainbow that every living creature will ever see will be a reminder to God and to every living creature of God’s everlasting mercy and grace.

1 Peter 3:18-22

The Lenten theme of redemption in Christ is extended in this text to those who, at the time of Noah, did not obey God. Through the waters of the great flood in the Noah story God destroyed all who were disobedient; in the waters of baptism now God saves those who are obedient. The covenant of baptism links the believer to Jesus the Christ, who is raised from the dead and ruling in the heavenly regions. By means of the baptismal covenant with Christ, the believer is endowed with the righteousness of Christ and linked to God the Father. 1 Peter 3:18-22 is a principal reason that 1 Peter, along with Paul’s letter to the Romans and the Gospel According to John, were the favorite New Testament documents for Martin Luther.

Mark 1:9-15

If Jesus was obedient to God in coming to John the Baptizer to participate in a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, how much more should not those who wish to follow Jesus as the Christ come to the Church, the Body of Christ, for baptism in Christ’s name? In the Gospel According to Mark the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptizer marks the beginning of a very special covenant relationship of God with Jesus, a covenant between Father and Son, a covenant in which Jesus is declared to be very pleasing to God. In this text Jesus is depicted as obedient to God even when Jesus is tempted by “Satan” in the wilderness. In this text Jesus proclaims the kingdom of God’s grace and rejects the kingdom of Roman power. He overcomes the temptation of “Satan,” the temptation to try to help Jesus’ fellow oppressed Jewish people by cooperating fully with the alluring, satanic power of the Roman state. Jesus is depicted in this text as not believing that by his cooperating fully with the oppressive Romans the Roman oppression will be reduced. With his life and with his words Jesus will speak out against the satanic power of the Roman state, the state that will near the end of the Gospel According to Mark and at the end for us of the season of Lent this year crucify Jesus. Nevertheless, the Roman state will not, even with all of its power and glory, be able to prevent God from raising Jesus from the dead on the third day, Easter morning for us. That is the Easter message that we will anticipate in a few short weeks when the season of Lent has run its course.

This text is a story about the covenant between the Lord God and Abram and his descendants. The story provides an etiology of the origin of the custom of the circumcision of all Israelite males as a sign of this covenant. The story also describes the name changes from Abram to Abraham and from Sarai to Sarah as commanded by the Lord. Since the Lord is proclaimed in this text as God Almighty, Abraham and his descendants are commanded to walk (live) under constant scrutiny of the Lord God and be blameless. The childless marriage of Abraham and Sarah will be blessed by God by the birth of a son, Isaac, even though Abraham, who is one hundred years old and Sarah ninety, laughs (verse 17) at the possibility of a child for himself and for Sarah. As an important factor in the Christian story of salvation (Heilsgeschichte), this account is appropriate for use in Christian worship services during the Lenten season.

Psalm 22:23-31

After crying out to God in despair while suffering from a life-threatening illness and describing his physical distress, the psalmist promises to offer a heartfelt testimony of gratitude to God in the presence of other Israelites. The psalmist proclaims that in the future all people in every nation will bow down in humble adoration of the Lord God, who has total power and authority over them.

Romans 4:13-25

The Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16 text chosen for this day puts no emphasis on the faith of Abraham. In fact, it states that when Abraham heard the Lord say that Sarah and he would be blessed with a son in their advanced age, Abraham laughed in disbelief. Instead of this text, the Apostle Paul used Genesis 15:6, in which it is written that Abraham believed the Lord, to support Paul’s argument in Romans 4:13-25 that the promise to Abraham and to Abraham’s descendants had been established by their faith and that the Lord would keep the promise the Lord made.

Alert members of our worshiping Christian congregations will wonder why those who compiled our lectionary did not use Genesis 15:1-6 rather than Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16 in conjunction with this text in Romans 4:13-25. Paul here in Romans 4:18 argued that Abraham believed with a hope that went far beyond all reason to hope and did not weaken in his faith even when he considered his own body and the prolonged infertility of Abraham and Sarah. This is in sharp contrast to the Genesis 17:17 note that Abraham laughed at the idea that God would bless Sarah and Abraham with a son when they were so old.

Mark 8:31-38

Mark 8:31 includes the first of three predictions by Jesus (to be followed in Mark 9:30-32 and 10:33-34) of his rejection, of his being seized in the Garden of Gethsemane, being crucified by the Romans, and after three days being raised to life by God. As used here on the Second Sunday in Lent, it serves as a projection toward Good Friday and Easter in our Church Year calendar. It also raises questions among thoughtful people today how Peter and the other disciples of Jesus could have responded so vehemently in protest to Jesus’ prediction of his death and ignored completely Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection that will occur three days after his death.

This account in Mark 8:31-38 provides for us much evidence of the inspired creativity of the Markan writer and of the earlier tradition. It is a particularly fascinating text to study, because three life situation levels can be discerned within the history of the tradition of this text up to the level of the Markan account.

The first life situation level is the level of the activities of the Jesus of history with some of his closest followers. We can see two rather loosely connected sayings of Jesus (Mark 8:36-37 and 8:38) at this Jesus of history level, as well as a hint in 8:31 that the Jesus of history had talked with his followers about the likelihood that he would be killed by the Roman occupation authorities as a Jewish messianic figure. There is further evidence in 8:32-33 that, when the Jesus of history talked about the likelihood that he would be killed by the Roman authorities as a Jewish messianic figure, Peter (and perhaps others among Jesus’ followers who were present) objected strenuously to his talk about an imminent violent death. In spite of this, Jesus had refused to be deterred. He had resolutely continued his bold and courageous advocacy of the cause of God even when he was confronted by the fears of his disciples and their understandable attempts to dissuade him. During this first life situation, there would have been no prediction of and no expectation of the resurrection of Jesus three days after his death.

Behind this Mark 8:31-38 text, therefore, there may have been at least three separate situations within the activities of the Jesus of history. Let us try to reconstruct them as well as we can.

On one or more occasions, the Jesus of history probably said something about the likelihood that he would be killed by the Romans. As a highly intelligent and perceptive human being, he would have foreseen the likelihood that the military and political leader of the Roman occupation troops would order his arrest and crucifixion because Jesus was a Jewish messianic figure, passionately concerned about his fellow oppressed Jews and not afraid of the Roman authorities. Because he was helping his fellow oppressed Jews actively and openly, and because significant numbers of men and women from among his own people were often gathered around him, Jesus was perceived correctly by the Roman authorities to be a Jewish messianic figure and, therefore, a potential threat to the security of the Roman forces.

Although it is not likely that the Jesus of history ever encouraged his followers to use military actions and resistance against the Roman occupation authorities, the Romans could not be sure about that. Even though he himself would not encourage military resistance, which was not his purpose and which would have been foolhardy even if it had been, some of his excitable young followers might have attempted such action. Both the Roman occupation forces and the “Herodians” (Jewish religious and political leaders who cooperated fully with the Romans and opposed any attempts by Jewish Zealot types to foment a revolt or revolution that would almost certainly be crushed by the Romans with heavy loss of Jewish life, property, and position) were nervous, therefore, about the Jesus of history and about the excitable young men who were often gathered around him.

Eventually, of course, the Roman occupation leader, Pontius Pilate, did order the arrest, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. Pilate correctly considered Jesus to be a Jewish messianic figure, one among many others at that time. We note the inscription on the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” This inscription would demonstrate plainly and publicly to the Jewish populace what the Roman occupation authorities did to Jewish messianic figures. The “King of the Jews” inscription had probably been used many times (whenever the Romans crucified a Jewish leader of prominence) both before and after it was used as a designation of the reason that the Romans were crucifying Jesus. This was done by the Romans in order to keep the Jewish population subdued and to keep the number of Roman troops needed to control the Jewish population as small as possible.

On many occasions the Jesus of history probably talked about integrity and courage (and demonstrated great integrity and courage) in a way that was remembered, repeated, and recorded in the words of Mark 8:36-37, “What gain will there be for a person — even if the person should gain control of the whole world — if the integrity of that person is lost? For what could a person possibly give in exchange for that person’s integrity?”

Also, it is likely that the Jesus of history talked about the Son of man and about other terms and ideas commonly spoken about within Jewish apocalyptic circles at that time. The words of Mark 8:38, “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words within this adulterous and sinful generation — the Son of man will be ashamed of that person when the Son of man comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels,” probably are a reflection (with some additional development) over what the Jesus of history had said about these things. The Son of man is spoken about in the third person grammatically here, and “in the glory of his Father” may also be a part of this additional development of the text.

The second life situation level is the level of the reminiscences of followers of Jesus after he had been crucified. The words of 8:34b, “If anyone wishes to follow after me, let that person deny that person’s self and let that person take up that person’s own cross and follow me,” were probably developed during this period of reminiscence when the cross symbol was becoming meaningful to followers of Jesus. At this level the words of the Jesus of history about this adulterous and sinful generation” would be changing from internal criticism of Jews by a Jew (the Jesus of history) to external criticism of Jews by those who were not Jews (the Christ of faith and the early Christians). At this level of reminiscences of followers of Jesus after he had been crucified, the predictions of the Jesus of history that he would probably be killed by the Roman military forces would often be recalled — privately but not publicly and not in written form.

During this level of reminiscences, followers of Jesus would gradually have added details to the passion predictions ex eventu as they came to believe that Jesus was now raised from the dead and with God. Here (or at the Markan level) the important step of adding the resurrection prediction was probably taken in what was to become Mark 8:31. This step was taken because it was thought that Jesus as God’s Son must have known that God would raise him from the dead, since along with his divine power he would also have omniscience. During this period of time the statement in Mark 8:36 that whoever loses life or integrity for Jesus’ sake would have been developed as incentive and motivation for followers of Jesus. Also at this level (and at the Markan level during the Jewish revolt of 66-72 C.E.) followers of Jesus who were transmitting the tradition would have been careful not to say anything publicly or in written form about the Romans as those who would kill Jesus, so that their own lives would not be further endangered. Jewish authorities could be blamed, since they did not have political and military power over followers of Jesus, especially after 67 C.E.

After Pilate had been discredited and removed from his office by the Romans, it became safe for followers of Jesus to speak publicly and to write about Pilate’s involvement on the crucifixion of Jesus. If Pilate had been retained in office and advanced in position by the Romans, it is probable that followers of Jesus would not have been able to speak publicly or to write about Pilate’s involvement in condemning Jesus to death. As it was, followers of Jesus were careful to present Pilate and the Romans only as rather passive participants rather than as the active agents that they were in ordering the arrest of Jesus, torturing him during the night, and crucifying him the next morning. It was perfectly safe, however, to blame the Jews by making them the active, aggressive instigators of the death sentence of Jesus. A few Jews, of course, the Herodians, may have been willing participants, but not the overwhelming majority of the Jews. We must be aware of this as Christian leaders today, and we must share our awareness of this with the people in our congregations.

The third life situation level, the level of the Markan composition of the document “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” that became canonical, brought together by the use of redactional connectors a variety of oral and written traditions into what we now have as Mark 8:31-38. At this level, additional detail was added, especially elements such as the words “and for the sake of the gospel” in 8:35.

Beyond this third level the Matthean redactors added details such as “to go away to Jerusalem” in Matthew 16:21 (Mark 8:31) and “May God mercifully spare you this! This must never happen to you!” in Matthew 16:22 (Mark 8:32). The Lukan writer-redactor went a different way by eliminating the rebuke by Peter (Luke 9:21-22).

There is an active debate currently about whether our proclamation should be limited to the canonical level of the tradition or whether we should sometimes base our proclamation or use in our proclamation other levels that are now accessible to us through use of exegetical methodologies. Personally, I think that we should be able to use all levels in our proclamation. Actually, whenever we place our emphasis on a particular portion of a text, we are choosing a particular level in the development of a text. If we use both Matthew and Mark, or Luke and Mark, or Deuteronomy and Exodus, or 1-2 Chronicles and 1-2 Kings, etc., we are actually using materials from more than one level of development of the traditions within the biblical account. Was not the tradition inspired at every level of its development? Particularly, I suggest that we should use the earliest discernible level of the development of texts from the Four Gospels. To limit our use to the canonical level would be reductionistic and would separate us unnecessarily from the Jesus of history. Of course, canon criticism and the canonical level are vitally important. So is text criticism that reveals changes in the text after the canon was established.

Mark 9:2-9

This Transfiguration story, along with its parallels in Matthew and in Luke, is considered by the great majority of Christians to be a record of an event that occurred just as it is recorded here. It is likely, however, that much more is involved in these texts than simply a record of an event. If these are simply records of an important, spectacular event that occurred during the public ministry of Jesus, we may wonder why there is no mention of such an astonishing occurrence within the Fourth Gospel. According to popular understanding, the Fourth Gospel was written by John, and John is said to have been present with Jesus on the mountain at the time of this event. How could the writer of the Fourth Gospel have forgotten this profound experience of seeing and hearing men who had lived and died hundreds of years earlier and who remained prominent in Jewish thought?

Although the Fourth Gospel has no mention of this event, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, who are nowhere said to have been present on the mountain, all include this story.

With our understanding of biblical symbolism, we can see that in these Synoptic Gospel Transfiguration stories Moses and Elijah function as symbols for the Torah and for the Prophetic Traditions respectively. The Torah and the Prophets together constituted the sacred Scriptures for most Jews and for the earliest Christians during the time in which the Synoptic Gospels were written. Symbolically, these Transfiguration stories may have been intended to proclaim that Jesus is in the “same league” with Moses and Elijah. By means of these stories Jesus and the words of Jesus are validated as on the same level of authority as the sacred Scriptures as the Scriptures were known at that time. (The so-called Writings had not yet been canonized.) From the standpoint of those who first heard or read the Transfiguration account in Mark, Jesus’ words and Jesus as a person were validated within these accounts by God God’s self by means of the very impressive voice from the cloud saying, “This is my Beloved Son! Listen to him!” In the story after the cloud moved away, the three awe-stricken disciples are said to have seen no one there except Jesus. Moses and Elijah were gone.

Symbolically, therefore, both the Torah and the Prophetic traditions were also no longer to be seen nor heard. At this point the message intended almost certainly was to indicate vividly that Jesus and the words of Jesus have replaced the Torah and the Prophets as sacred authorities for followers of Jesus. The Transfiguration account in Mark 9:2-9, therefore, served to validate the entire “Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark) much as the “Burning Bush” account in Exodus served as a validation of the entire book of Exodus or even of the entire Torah. When the Matthean and Lukan redactors included the Markan Transfiguration account in their expanded Gospels, the Transfiguration accounts served the same purpose in those documents as validation stories for those documents.

The writers of the Fourth Gospel chose to validate their account also, but not by using the Markan Transfiguration account. Instead, they validated the Fourth Gospel by their use of the great “I Am” statements that they have the Johannine Jesus express in key places in their document.

Thus we have the Four Gospels validated as “words of Jesus” and actually as “Word of God” that God God’s self directly and indirectly is said to have commanded us to hear as we transition from the Epiphany season to Ash Wednesday and to the Lenten season.

Within Series B of this lectionary, the Gospel account for next Sunday, the Third Sunday in Lent, John 2:13-22, is, in a sense, a sequel to last Sunday’s Mark 8:31-38 passion-resurrection prediction. This John 2:13-22 passion-resurrection prediction of the Johannine Jesus is couched in typical Johannine terms that are much more obscure and symbolic than are those within the Synoptic traditions. Not only is the cleansing of the temple placed near the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather than at the end where it is in the Synoptics, but also the Johannine writers placed this passion-resurrection prediction near the beginning of their account of Jesus’ public ministry rather than well into the account as was done in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Further comparison of the cleansing of the temple accounts indicates that the Johannine tradition made the temple cleansing action of Jesus much more violent than in the Synoptics by having the Johannine Jesus form a whip of thorn bushes and using it to drive from the temple court those who had been selling animals there for use in the temple sacrifices and changing Roman coins into Jewish “tokens” that would be acceptable as temple offerings. Such comparison of texts also reveals that the Johannine tradition used its temple cleansing account as the basis for its passion-resurrection prediction in this John 2:13-22 text. (Note how the play on words in John 2:13-22 is dependent upon the cleansing of the temple account in John 2:13-17.) As with so many other texts, we are impressed by the creativity of the inspired writers of these traditions. We can say that this John 2:13-22 text is basically a product of the inspired Johannine community.

Among the indications that this John 23-22 text is a product of the inspired Johannine community are the following. First, there are the words of the Johannine Jesus in 2:19, “Destroy this temple, and (or If you destroy this temple,) within three days I will raise it up,” and second, there is the use of the words “the Jews” in 2:13, 18, and 20. Let us look more closely at these two factors.

The words of John 2:19 are characteristic of a Divine Sovereign who cannot be limited or removed by death. Even though his temple-body might be destroyed by evil people, he has the power of self-resurrection at whatever time he designates. A human being, on the other hand, cannot accomplish self-resurrection. (Even Egyptian pharaohs who had mammoth pyramids constructed in which their bodies were to be placed could not accomplish self-resurrection.) We see that the words of the Johannine Jesus, here and elsewhere within the Fourth Gospel, are expressions of what the people of the Johannine community believed about Jesus as they perceived him. Their perception bordered on what was later to be called Docetism (that Jesus only seemed to have been human), although they guarded against that somewhat with their “and the Word became flesh in the Johannine Prologue.

The distance between the Jesus of history and this account as we have it here is also portrayed in the use in this text of the expression “the Jews.” By the time and in the place of the full development of this text, the members of the Johannine community were far removed theologically from Jews who remained Jews. They had in effect “forgotten,” or perhaps we should say “chosen to forget” that the Jesus of history had lived and died as a Jew. Because of the way in which they used the expression “the Jews” in this and in many other Johannine texts, most Christians have also “forgotten” or “chosen to forget,” or at least have not realized that Jesus himself was a Jew. As a result, destructive and hateful anti-Semitism became accepted and inherent within the Christian Church and in many Christian people.

Before we take up the practical question of what we shall proclaim next Sunday using this text as our primary biblical basis, let us consider for a moment a few thoughts about the resurrection predictions in John 2:13-22 to supplement our reflections over the passion-resurrection predictions in Mark 8:31-38 last week. We can see and understand how resurrection predictions would be attributed to Jesus after followers of Jesus began to believe that Jesus who had been crucified by the Romans was alive again, raised from the dead by God or even self-resurrected, was in the Spirit of God truly present with them, and uniquely one with God the Father. Resurrection predictions such as these are a natural development ex eventu. They are classic examples of vaticinia ex eventu (predictions made after the event has occurred). Once it was perceived that Jesus was the unique Son of God, soon to be considered to be “God the Son,” It is in no way surprising that followers of Jesus would have believed and taught that Jesus was and is omniscient. Therefore, it was reasoned or at least assumed that Jesus must have known prior to his death precisely when and how he would be killed and when and how he would rise from the dead. Resurrection vaticinia ex eventu were therefore an entirely normal development. After it was proclaimed and taught, however, that Jesus had known and had revealed to his disciples that within three days after his death he would be raised from the dead, it became necessary to emphasize that his followers could not understand and did not remember Jesus’ resurrection predictions until after Jesus’ death and resurrection had occurred. For if his male disciples had believed and remembered Jesus’ resurrection predictions, presumably they would have waited confidently for three days to pass, gathering early in the morning on the third day at the tomb of Jesus to welcome him back from the dead, never doubting that they would soon see him alive again, instead of doubting the word of the women who had experienced and then announced his resurrection to male followers of Jesus.

It is important for us to try to discern Jesus’ own perception of the suffering that he would soon endure in Gethsemane, during the horrible torture by the Roman soldiers of the crucifixion squad during the night, and on the cross. The earlier Gospels, Mark and Matthew, retained an emphasis on Jesus’ agony and suffering by utilizing the first verse of Psalm 22, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” as the only words of Jesus on the cross. On the other hand, the later Gospels, Luke and especially John, portray Jesus as essentially in control of the situation even while he was dying on the cross and as never in despair.

Now let us face the practical question of what we should proclaim based on this text this coming Sunday. We can portray how clever Jesus was, how adamant “the Jews” were, and how slow the disciples were to recognize and to process what Jesus had said. We can marvel at the daring and strength of Jesus as he drove men and animals from the temple court. Or, as a result of a more intense study of this text within the broader context of the Fourth Gospel and of the Synoptics, we can proclaim that this text reveals some of the things that the people of the Johannine community believed about Jesus and wrote about some of the Jews who were contemporary with the Johannine community during the time of the development of the Fourth Gospel. We can demonstrate how the people of the Fourth Gospel community formulated this passion-resurrection prediction as an additional inducement to faith in the Johannine Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It will be helpful to get back as much as possible into the situation of the people who developed and first used this text. It will be helpful to express our faith as they expressed their faith, but without condemning the Jews. Certainly, we want our proclamation this coming Sunday to be both faith-inducing and edifying.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25

It is probable that this text was chosen to be used with John 2:13-22 because, like John 2:13-22, it is an indication that many Jews during the decades after the death of Jesus were asking those who were followers of Jesus for some indication that the human condition and especially their human condition was improved as a result of the death of Jesus and the efforts of Jesus’ followers. From the standpoint of the Jews, there was an expectation that when the Messiah would come, a new age of peace, security, joy, and happiness for all people would occur. They were asking for indications of this sort, not for miracles as such, but for radically changed political, social, and spiritual conditions. If the political, social, and spiritual conditions not only of the Jews but of all people had improved dramatically as a result of Jesus’ life and death, most Jews probably would have accepted Jesus as having been the Messiah.

Most Jews, however, saw little evidence that the human condition had improved dramatically as a result of the life and death of Jesus. Instead, as a result of the attempt by nationalistically minded Jews to attain their autonomy in Galilee and in Judea that had been crushed by the Romans with terrible suffering by the Jews, the condition of Jews had decreased horribly. Pressure from followers of Jesus who were placing the blame for Jesus’ suffering and death on the Jews and were at the same time trying to persuade Jews to become followers of Jesus certainly did not improve the human condition of the Jews. By our becoming aware of this, we as Christians can have a better understanding of why antagonism against the Jews by Christians, why anti-Jewish polemic in the Newer Testament documents and in the Church, and why anti-Semitism by Christians throughout most of the history of the Church have always been so counterproductive for Christians, especially when some of them have continued to try to “convert” Jews to Christianity. It would be helpful if we could explain some of this in our message this coming Sunday.

Paul wrote that the Jews ask for signs and that the Greeks seek wisdom, as apparently many of them did during the first century of the common era. Was not their search valid? Should not our proclamation also be intellectually respectable? Paul’s point here, however, apparently was that his message centered on the crucifixion and on the resurrection of Jesus. So should our message as well. Are we not called in our situation to proclaim that message in ways that are appropriate and helpful where we are, just as Paul was called to do in his situation?

Psalm 19

The reason this text was selected for the Third Sunday in Lent in Series B is probably the connection between Psalm 19:7b, “The testimony of the Lord is sure. It makes even the simple person wise,” and Paul’s insistence in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 that the message of Christ crucified brings the power and the wisdom of God to everyone who will accept this message. Psalm 19:7-14, of course, provides for us an important insight into how Jews traditionally have regarded the Torah. These verses are similar in this respect to the greatly expanded Psalm 119:1-176.

Exodus 20:1-17

Since the Torah has been acclaimed in Psalm 19:7-14, the “heart” of the Torah in the Decalogue in this Exodus 20:1-17 Priestly account is then added as the Older Testament reading. In this connection, see the article, “Commandments in Context: The Function of Torah in Early Israel,” by Paul D. Hanson in the Lutheran Theological Seminary Bulletin, Gettysburg, PA (Summer, 1981), 14-24. Copies are available for a nominal charge for postage and handling from the Business Office, The Bulletin, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.

The series of passion-resurrection predictions during these Series B Lenten texts continues here with a third text (John 3:14-21), and it is extended further with a fourth text (John 12:20-33) for the Fifth Sunday in Lent. All three of these Johannine Jesus passion-resurrection predictions (John 2:13-22 on Lent 3, John 3:14-21 on Lent 4, and John 12:20-33 on Lent 5) are expressed in similar Johannine style, obscure and symbolic, in contrast to the straightforward Mark 8:31-32a with which this series of passion-resurrection predictions began in the Gospel account for Lent 2.

John 3:14-21

In typical Fourth Gospel style this passage begins with a setting (in this instance a meeting involving Jesus and Nicodemus) for which is provided an extended dialogue and here eventually changing into a monologue. Nicodemus fades out of the picture somewhere around the place where our 3:14-21 text begins. Within 3:14-21 it is actually the Johannine writers and community who collectively are speaking about Jesus as “the Son of man” being lifted up, as “God’s only-begotten Son,” and as “the Light of the world.” It is virtually impossible to discern where the Johannine Jesus stops speaking here and the Johannine writers and community begin. Red-letter editions of the Newer Testament generally code all of John 3:14-21 as words of Jesus. Actually, throughout the entire Fourth Gospel it is the Johannine writers and community who are speaking. True to the gospel genre, these writers and this community of believers say what they believe about God, about Jesus, and about themselves and others in words of Jesus within a ministry of Jesus vehicle.

What these writers and community have provided for us can become for us to share a three-part message about Jesus as (1) the Son of man being lifted up, (2) God’s only-begotten Son, and (3) the Light of the world. The passion-resurrection prediction about the Son of man being lifted up to provide life for all who believe in him just as Moses was said to have lifted up the serpent in the wilderness to preserve life for all who look at it is largely a vaticinium ex eventu, an interpretation of the significance of the death of Jesus after that death had occurred and an expression of belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Is that not what we also do (especially during the Lenten and Easter seasons), i.e., we provide interpretations of the death of Jesus and of the significance of that death for all people, and we proclaim that God raised Jesus from the dead and will raise us also with Jesus into a glorious life? John 3:15-18a (especially John 3:16, which is so important to us) is “gospel” in positive, non-judgmental terminology. John 3:18b-21, however, brings in condemnation of all who do not follow this Johannine “one way.” Which of these shall we emphasize next Sunday? What are we called to proclaim, good news, or condemnation, or both?

Numbers 21:4-9

It is somewhat surprising that this account was incorporated by the Israelites into the Torah, since the serpent was a Canaanite symbol. Perhaps the most satisfactory commentary on this text is provided in Wisdom of Solomon 16:6-12 in the Old Testament Apocrypha, in which the bronze serpent is described as a symbol of salvation, and in which it is said that those who looked at the serpent were saved from the effects of the poisonous snake bites not by the power of the bronze snake but because they were obedient to the word of the Lord given through Moses.

Theologically, the account in Numbers 21:4-9 says that the people had sinned by speaking against God and against Moses. God punished them. The people repented and asked Moses to intercede for them. Moses interceded in behalf of the people. God forgave them and provided a tangible way in which they could now be obedient to God and receive healing benefits from God.

The details of the account were undoubtedly based on experiences with poisonous snakes within the Sinai Peninsula and in the southern Negev region and upon the popular belief that the creature that caused pain and death should also be the creature through which deliverance from pain and death could be accomplished. This is a principle that is similar in some ways to what occurs in medical immunizations.

Ephesians 2:1-10

In this summary of Paul’s message elsewhere, the writer here presents those who will read and hear as already figuratively raised up with Christ by God and caused to sit with Christ Jesus in the heavenly places. What shall we say about this? Was this bordering on Gnostic Christian perceptions? What the writer apparently wanted to stress was the certainty of the salvation that God provides through Christ. In our own ways we too should express this conviction.

Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22

This psalm of thanksgiving to God for the salvation in this life of deliverance from the devastating effects of serious illnesses is an appropriate complement of the other texts selected for this occasion. Together with the Numbers 21:4-9 text, it places its emphasis on salvation within this life here and now, providing for us a balance against the other-worldly emphases in the John 3:14-21 and Ephesians 2:1-10 texts.