CHRISTIAN SALVATION OR SOTERIOLOGY by David Jackson
St. Anselm’s view of the work of Jesus, that he came to pay for sin (expiation, the
satisfaction theory), has been a powerful force in the formation of Catholic understanding.
Recently some theologians have challenged this.
Elizabeth Johnson gave the keynote for the 2008 Assembly of the LCWR. In her presentation she called this “one of the worst theological ideas ever to take hold of this event” (Christ’s death). Johnson argues for seeing the cross not “as a death required by God in repayment for sin,” but rather “as an event of divine love” and as the price paid by Jesus for his ministry. “Jesus did not come to die but to live and to help others live in the joy of divine love.”
Just recently, watching the videos on the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman, gave me an aha moment. Ehrman says “he (Paul) had some kind of visionary experience of Jesus that changed his life....This experience completely transformed his understanding of Jesus. Paul’s thought process seems to have worked backward from his conviction that Jesus really was raised from the dead.” He goes on to say, “...Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for the sins of others. A person’s sins can, therefore, be removed if he or she will accept that sacrifice by faith, or trust in Christ’s death for salvation.” So Paul preceded Anselm’s interpretation.
Accepting Christ as one’s personal Savior seems to me to be quite parallel to Anselm’s thoughts. Christ offered his life on the cross so that we could be saved. The emphasis is more on his death than the life that he lived. Faith is more important than actions.
Johnson further states: “Today, criticisms of this idea that God required the death of Jesus in order to forgive sin are many. Among them: it makes it seem that the main purpose of Jesus’ coming was to die, thus diminishing the importance of his ministry and ignoring the resurrection.” (She then shares criticisms from spirituality, liberation theology, feminist theology and the picture of God that results. She also lists New Testament metaphors besides satisfaction to interpret the death of Jesus. )
Along this same line, Diarmuid O’Murchu in Catching Up With Jesus, p. 26 says: “If we diminish the significance of Jesus’ death, are we not undermining the very meaning of resurrection? This is another assumption we need to revisit. If we honor, as Jesus did, the primary role of the Kingdom of God, which is about life radically lived to the full, then resurrection is not so much about the vindication of his death as about the affirmation of a life lived in utter fullness. Resurrection belongs to the life rather than the death of Jesus. In a similar vein, resurrection is an affirmation and celebration of the fullness of life as exemplified by Jesus and offered as a new horizon of creative engagement for all who follow the pathway of Jesus.”
In Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence, Terrence Rynne points out that historical satisfaction theories of soteriology are being surpassed by contemporary views in terms of peace and nonviolence. Two reviews of this book speak of Rynne’s soteriology. Peter c. Phan, “This insight leads Rynne to offer an extensive critique of Anselm’s satisfaction theory of redemption, which in his eyes is predicated on a faulty understanding of God, lacks a biblical basis, ignores Jesus’ unique mode of ministry and glorifies human suffering.”
John C. Meyer of Bradley University, writes:”Rynne has done a major service for religious people of all denominations by presenting this in-depth study of Gandhi’s life and teaching that offers a model and a new way of understanding Christian salvation and our purpose on earth.” “He (Rynne) points out, however, that historical satisfaction theories of soteriology are being surpassed by contemporary views in terms of peace and nonviolence. Whereas great theologians such as Anselm in the past taught salvation as coming about through the obedient sacrifice of Jesus on the cross which appeased an angry God who needed to be satisfied by the blood of his son, more contemporary soteriologies try to show that it was Jesus’ whole life of suffering by practicing what he was preaching that brought about atonement. Rynne points out that: “Christ died because of the way he lived not because God the Father had him killed.”
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
31 C. Ordinary Time
31 C
Large lessons from Little Zacchaeus.
Introduction: The last sentence of today’s Gospel reads, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus candidly addressed the fact that people get lost. But the good news is that he came to seek out and save the lost. Together let us pray about these ideas this morning.
Homily: Today I would like to offer you some of my reflections on how people get lost. What does it mean that Jesus seeks out not just Zacchaeus, but also seeks out us, and what does it mean to be saved by Jesus?
I. LOST.
Some years back I remember the County Executive of Milwaukee, Wi. taking some steps to provide for a growing number of homeless people. His words to describe them were “lost souls”. When you hear the words, “Lost” who do you think of?
My own reflection on this question led me to make this list: Lost = People who feel overwhelmed by life, depressed, suicidal, desperate, those who feel completely worthless, empty, those into substance abuse. Depression is experienced in many different ways and at many different levels. Some people feel isolated, unaccepted, unhappy, unloved, frustrated, powerless, a lack of connectedness; they feel lost. Some people, even children feel rejected and belittled. People feel guilty, sinful, they feel compromised or compromising. To feel lost has many different meanings in our lives.
Zacchaeus is a man of power and wealth, but yet he must have felt something missing, some emptiness. He must have felt stuck or trapped. There is a certain desperateness in his climbing that tree to see Jesus.
II. SEEK.
In many stories of Jesus he is asked something and responds. This is not an instance of “you asked me so I’ll tell you.” Luke the Gospel writer tells us, “Jesus came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town.” But Jesus changes his plans. He looked up, called Zacchaeus by name, and invited himself to Zacchaeus’ house. In this passage Jesus is the one who takes the initiative. This is a definite and deliberate seeking out by Jesus. Jesus accepted Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus received Jesus with joy. Nothing is forced or demanded by Jesus. It seems that Jesus looking at Zacchaeus, calling him by name and telling him that he must stay at his house was empowering for Zacchaeus. Beyond Jesus inviting himself to Zacchaeus home we are not told anything that Jesus might have said to Zacchaeus. It seems that Jesus acceptance of him was just the boost he needed to make some changes in his life. He is willing to give to the poor and make reparations.
III. SAVE.
Into Zacchaeus’ emptiness, lostness, stuckness, Jesus comes. Zacchaeus feels found, not found out. Jesus makes him feel saved not lost. Zacchaeus takes the initiative to tell how he is going to change his life. “Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over.” And Jesus said to him, “today salvation has come to this house…”
We too must realize that Jesus wants to stay with us. He knows us by name. How might Jesus be seeking us out today? Might Jesus be calling you to bring salvation, acceptance into the life of someone who feels lost?
Salvation has many different meanings in our lives.
In different ways we get stuck. Salvation is forgiveness of sin. Salvation is being able to forgive someone who has hurt us. Salvation is moving from desperation to direction. Salvation is being saved from feelings of worthlessness to a sense of self worth. Salvation can consist in being freed of vague, free floating anxiety to naming particular issues. Salvation can mean finding liberation from addiction to alcohol and other drugs through twelve step programs. Being saved can mean finding a solution to problems in my marriage or family. Salvation can mean finding a job. Salvation can mean finding help to overcome depression.
Let us each hear these words for ourselves, “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus truly wants to stay with you. He is looking up, he is calling you by name. He is accepting you and seeking you out. Perhaps Jesus wants to use you to save someone. How are you going to respond to this initiative of Jesus?
Large lessons from Little Zacchaeus.
Introduction: The last sentence of today’s Gospel reads, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus candidly addressed the fact that people get lost. But the good news is that he came to seek out and save the lost. Together let us pray about these ideas this morning.
Homily: Today I would like to offer you some of my reflections on how people get lost. What does it mean that Jesus seeks out not just Zacchaeus, but also seeks out us, and what does it mean to be saved by Jesus?
I. LOST.
Some years back I remember the County Executive of Milwaukee, Wi. taking some steps to provide for a growing number of homeless people. His words to describe them were “lost souls”. When you hear the words, “Lost” who do you think of?
My own reflection on this question led me to make this list: Lost = People who feel overwhelmed by life, depressed, suicidal, desperate, those who feel completely worthless, empty, those into substance abuse. Depression is experienced in many different ways and at many different levels. Some people feel isolated, unaccepted, unhappy, unloved, frustrated, powerless, a lack of connectedness; they feel lost. Some people, even children feel rejected and belittled. People feel guilty, sinful, they feel compromised or compromising. To feel lost has many different meanings in our lives.
Zacchaeus is a man of power and wealth, but yet he must have felt something missing, some emptiness. He must have felt stuck or trapped. There is a certain desperateness in his climbing that tree to see Jesus.
II. SEEK.
In many stories of Jesus he is asked something and responds. This is not an instance of “you asked me so I’ll tell you.” Luke the Gospel writer tells us, “Jesus came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town.” But Jesus changes his plans. He looked up, called Zacchaeus by name, and invited himself to Zacchaeus’ house. In this passage Jesus is the one who takes the initiative. This is a definite and deliberate seeking out by Jesus. Jesus accepted Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus received Jesus with joy. Nothing is forced or demanded by Jesus. It seems that Jesus looking at Zacchaeus, calling him by name and telling him that he must stay at his house was empowering for Zacchaeus. Beyond Jesus inviting himself to Zacchaeus home we are not told anything that Jesus might have said to Zacchaeus. It seems that Jesus acceptance of him was just the boost he needed to make some changes in his life. He is willing to give to the poor and make reparations.
III. SAVE.
Into Zacchaeus’ emptiness, lostness, stuckness, Jesus comes. Zacchaeus feels found, not found out. Jesus makes him feel saved not lost. Zacchaeus takes the initiative to tell how he is going to change his life. “Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over.” And Jesus said to him, “today salvation has come to this house…”
We too must realize that Jesus wants to stay with us. He knows us by name. How might Jesus be seeking us out today? Might Jesus be calling you to bring salvation, acceptance into the life of someone who feels lost?
Salvation has many different meanings in our lives.
In different ways we get stuck. Salvation is forgiveness of sin. Salvation is being able to forgive someone who has hurt us. Salvation is moving from desperation to direction. Salvation is being saved from feelings of worthlessness to a sense of self worth. Salvation can consist in being freed of vague, free floating anxiety to naming particular issues. Salvation can mean finding liberation from addiction to alcohol and other drugs through twelve step programs. Being saved can mean finding a solution to problems in my marriage or family. Salvation can mean finding a job. Salvation can mean finding help to overcome depression.
Let us each hear these words for ourselves, “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus truly wants to stay with you. He is looking up, he is calling you by name. He is accepting you and seeking you out. Perhaps Jesus wants to use you to save someone. How are you going to respond to this initiative of Jesus?
Monday, October 18, 2010
30th C
30th "C"
Going up and down in prayer
The THEME FOR THIS SUNDAY CONTINUES to be prayer. Last Sunday we heard the parable of the widow and the unjust judge. In that parable the theme is: persevere as the Widow did in naming and opposing injustice and thus be God-like. Today we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (publican). It talks about an attitude and prayer but much more.
Two go up and two go down. Going up the Pharisee is first, going down the
Tax collector is first.
Is this a time of private prayer or is it a setting of public worship?
Bailey senses evidence for public worship.
Pharisee in a gesture of religious superiority, stands apart from the
other worshipers.
Pharisee-- his posture is described briefly, his prayer at great length.
Tax collector–his posture is described in detail, his prayer very briefly.
Pharisee: I,I,I,I, catalogue of virtues, compares with another.
Prayer in Jewish piety involved primarily the offering of thanks/praise
to God for all of His gifts, and petitions for the worshiper's needs.
This Pharisee does neither. He does not thank God for His gifts but
rather boasts of his own self-achieved righteousness. He has no
requests. Mere self advertisement.
l) stands aloof lest he be defiled by the unrighteous around him, he
congratulates himself.
2) offers scathing criticism of a tax collector nearby.
3) brags of having not only kept the law but exceeded its demands.
Tax collector. Does not stand aloof but "afar off." Feels he is not
worthy to stand with God's people before the altar. His bodily gestures are themselves prayer, eyes not lifted, beats his breast. Does not unroll a catalogue of sins. Does not compare himself with others, trusts in God alone.
PATTERN FOR PRAYER SET FORTH:
Subjects for prayer: self congratulation, boasting of pious achievements, criticism of others are not appropriate.
Humble confession of sin and need, offered in hope
that through the atonement sacrifice this sin might be covered and those
needs met, is appropriate.
Attitudes: pride no place, humility is required.
Self righteousness distorts the vision. A profoundly moving demonstration of remorse was enacted by a sincerely repentant man before the eyes of the self-righteous Pharisee. He saw only a sinner to be avoided.
KINGDOM THEME OF REVERSAL. The widow who is expected to be weak and powerless is aggressive and courageous; she is described with metaphors from the boxing ring. The tax collector who represents a class who were aggressive and often even brutal, seems submissive and deferential.
PRAYER OR ACTION TENSION. The Gospel of Luke counters such facile polarization by juxtaposing the Samaritan who fulfills the law by
showing mercy in a concrete deed with Mary who listens to the word. In this passage he places together a widow who raises her voice in protest against injustice with a tax collector who quietly asks for God's mercy. For Luke, listening to the word of God, prayer for forgiveness, and concern for alleviating suffering and injustice are wedded inseparably, and no human being should put them asunder.
Going up and down in prayer
The THEME FOR THIS SUNDAY CONTINUES to be prayer. Last Sunday we heard the parable of the widow and the unjust judge. In that parable the theme is: persevere as the Widow did in naming and opposing injustice and thus be God-like. Today we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (publican). It talks about an attitude and prayer but much more.
Two go up and two go down. Going up the Pharisee is first, going down the
Tax collector is first.
Is this a time of private prayer or is it a setting of public worship?
Bailey senses evidence for public worship.
Pharisee in a gesture of religious superiority, stands apart from the
other worshipers.
Pharisee-- his posture is described briefly, his prayer at great length.
Tax collector–his posture is described in detail, his prayer very briefly.
Pharisee: I,I,I,I, catalogue of virtues, compares with another.
Prayer in Jewish piety involved primarily the offering of thanks/praise
to God for all of His gifts, and petitions for the worshiper's needs.
This Pharisee does neither. He does not thank God for His gifts but
rather boasts of his own self-achieved righteousness. He has no
requests. Mere self advertisement.
l) stands aloof lest he be defiled by the unrighteous around him, he
congratulates himself.
2) offers scathing criticism of a tax collector nearby.
3) brags of having not only kept the law but exceeded its demands.
Tax collector. Does not stand aloof but "afar off." Feels he is not
worthy to stand with God's people before the altar. His bodily gestures are themselves prayer, eyes not lifted, beats his breast. Does not unroll a catalogue of sins. Does not compare himself with others, trusts in God alone.
PATTERN FOR PRAYER SET FORTH:
Subjects for prayer: self congratulation, boasting of pious achievements, criticism of others are not appropriate.
Humble confession of sin and need, offered in hope
that through the atonement sacrifice this sin might be covered and those
needs met, is appropriate.
Attitudes: pride no place, humility is required.
Self righteousness distorts the vision. A profoundly moving demonstration of remorse was enacted by a sincerely repentant man before the eyes of the self-righteous Pharisee. He saw only a sinner to be avoided.
KINGDOM THEME OF REVERSAL. The widow who is expected to be weak and powerless is aggressive and courageous; she is described with metaphors from the boxing ring. The tax collector who represents a class who were aggressive and often even brutal, seems submissive and deferential.
PRAYER OR ACTION TENSION. The Gospel of Luke counters such facile polarization by juxtaposing the Samaritan who fulfills the law by
showing mercy in a concrete deed with Mary who listens to the word. In this passage he places together a widow who raises her voice in protest against injustice with a tax collector who quietly asks for God's mercy. For Luke, listening to the word of God, prayer for forgiveness, and concern for alleviating suffering and injustice are wedded inseparably, and no human being should put them asunder.
Monday, October 11, 2010
29 C
29 C
Wisdom from Widow.
Introduction: This Sunday and next the Gospel will present us with twin parables. Both parables are about prayer. Luke often times presents us with a teaching which features a man and a woman. Today’s Gospel features a widow, next Sunday’s features a man. It is important to remember that in the time of Jesus life expectancy was very short. (Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, p. 41) “Few ordinary people (those of low status) lived out their thirties…much of Jesus’ audience would have been younger than he, disease-ridden, and looking at a decade or less of life expectancy.” In Jesus’ time with people having a short life span, women married in their early teens. So we should not think of this widow as aged and infirm.
Homily: In this parable two characters are introduced in the early verses. Neither fits the expected stereotype. A judge who neither fears God nor respects human beings is not acting according to what is expected of a good judge. The second book of Chronicles tells what a good judge should do: take care what they do, for they are judging not on behalf of human beings, but on behalf of God, who judges with them. They are admonished to let the fear of God be upon them. They are to act carefully because with God there is no injustice, no partiality, and no bribe taking. It seems that nothing shames this judge. There is no spark of honor left in his soul to which anyone can appeal. As the rich fool was blinded by his wealth, this judge seems to be blinded by his power. As the story proceeds, the judge remains utterly unmoved by the widow’s persistent pleas. The final incongruity is that a powerful judge is afraid that a seemingly poor, defenseless widow will come and give him a black eye.
No less startling is the character of the widow. The bible usually describes widows as poor and defenseless. Widows, orphans and aliens are seen as being the most vulnerable and without resources. Many widows were in financially precarious positions. They were without social status and at the mercy of her nearest male relative, who was responsible to take care of her. The widow in this parable, does not fit this portrait at all. Luke uses a parallel word structure to introduce both the judge and the widow. A stark and direct confrontation is set up.
The shock in the parable comes, not in the exploitation of widows, which was common, but in her public and persistent cry for justice. Bribery was a common practice in this time with judges, she refuses to resort to bribery. The woman speaks of an “adversary”. The issue is most likely a money matter: a debt, a pledge, or a portion of an inheritance that is being withheld from her. There is irony in the fact that her complaint may be against the very man who should have been her provider! (These insights are received from Barbara Reid’s, Parables for Preachers, Year C.)
Most commentators emphasize the judge and say that he is a negative example. If an unjust judge would give in to the relentless pleas of a widow, how much more will God, who is upright. This interpretation can give the wrong impression that if one badgers God persistently enough, one can eventually wear God down and get a positive response.
“There is a far simpler way to understand the parable. It is the widow who is cast in the image of God and who is presented to the disciples as a figure to emulate. When the widow is seen as the God-like figure, then the message of the parable is that when one doggedly resists injustice, faces it, names it, and denounces it until right is achieved, then one is acting as God does. Moreover, it reveals godly power in seeming weakness.
“In a culture that measures power in terms of acquisition of wealth, this parable underscores the paradoxical power of seeming weakness. It shows that the initiative in seeking justice comes from the one who has been wronged, and her power is in doggedly raising her voice day after day after day. The parable portrays not violence, but persistent naming and confronting injustice as the means to accomplish righteousness.”
Wisdom from Widow.
Introduction: This Sunday and next the Gospel will present us with twin parables. Both parables are about prayer. Luke often times presents us with a teaching which features a man and a woman. Today’s Gospel features a widow, next Sunday’s features a man. It is important to remember that in the time of Jesus life expectancy was very short. (Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, p. 41) “Few ordinary people (those of low status) lived out their thirties…much of Jesus’ audience would have been younger than he, disease-ridden, and looking at a decade or less of life expectancy.” In Jesus’ time with people having a short life span, women married in their early teens. So we should not think of this widow as aged and infirm.
Homily: In this parable two characters are introduced in the early verses. Neither fits the expected stereotype. A judge who neither fears God nor respects human beings is not acting according to what is expected of a good judge. The second book of Chronicles tells what a good judge should do: take care what they do, for they are judging not on behalf of human beings, but on behalf of God, who judges with them. They are admonished to let the fear of God be upon them. They are to act carefully because with God there is no injustice, no partiality, and no bribe taking. It seems that nothing shames this judge. There is no spark of honor left in his soul to which anyone can appeal. As the rich fool was blinded by his wealth, this judge seems to be blinded by his power. As the story proceeds, the judge remains utterly unmoved by the widow’s persistent pleas. The final incongruity is that a powerful judge is afraid that a seemingly poor, defenseless widow will come and give him a black eye.
No less startling is the character of the widow. The bible usually describes widows as poor and defenseless. Widows, orphans and aliens are seen as being the most vulnerable and without resources. Many widows were in financially precarious positions. They were without social status and at the mercy of her nearest male relative, who was responsible to take care of her. The widow in this parable, does not fit this portrait at all. Luke uses a parallel word structure to introduce both the judge and the widow. A stark and direct confrontation is set up.
The shock in the parable comes, not in the exploitation of widows, which was common, but in her public and persistent cry for justice. Bribery was a common practice in this time with judges, she refuses to resort to bribery. The woman speaks of an “adversary”. The issue is most likely a money matter: a debt, a pledge, or a portion of an inheritance that is being withheld from her. There is irony in the fact that her complaint may be against the very man who should have been her provider! (These insights are received from Barbara Reid’s, Parables for Preachers, Year C.)
Most commentators emphasize the judge and say that he is a negative example. If an unjust judge would give in to the relentless pleas of a widow, how much more will God, who is upright. This interpretation can give the wrong impression that if one badgers God persistently enough, one can eventually wear God down and get a positive response.
“There is a far simpler way to understand the parable. It is the widow who is cast in the image of God and who is presented to the disciples as a figure to emulate. When the widow is seen as the God-like figure, then the message of the parable is that when one doggedly resists injustice, faces it, names it, and denounces it until right is achieved, then one is acting as God does. Moreover, it reveals godly power in seeming weakness.
“In a culture that measures power in terms of acquisition of wealth, this parable underscores the paradoxical power of seeming weakness. It shows that the initiative in seeking justice comes from the one who has been wronged, and her power is in doggedly raising her voice day after day after day. The parable portrays not violence, but persistent naming and confronting injustice as the means to accomplish righteousness.”
Monday, October 4, 2010
Digging in to the Gospel tradition
Luke 17: 11-19 This account shows how a leper and legally observant Jesus should behave.
Contrast this with Mark 1:40-44 (read in the B cycle for the 6th Sunday of the year).
from John Crossan, Jesus, p. 83
"In terms of the original situation, Jesus' action puts him on a direct collision course with priestly authority in the Temple. After touching a leper he can hardly turn around and tell him to observe the purity code that he himself has just broken.
But what we see at the transmissional level is intense apologetics seeking to bring Jesus into line with traditional biblical and legal practice--to show him, in terms of purity regulations, as an observant Jew,....especially that terminal injunction in 1:44 to "go show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded."
Finally, at the third or redactional level, as Mark records the story in his gospel, he makes one very significant final change. He himself is much more in sympathy with that legally unobservant Jesus at the story's original level, so he adds, after the injunction to go to the Temple, a phrase translated as "as a testimony to them." It could be better translated with, "as a witness against them"--in other words, "to show them who's boss." But in either case, for Mark, Jesus is enjoining the visit to the Temple not as legal observance but as confrontational witness."
Contrast this with Mark 1:40-44 (read in the B cycle for the 6th Sunday of the year).
from John Crossan, Jesus, p. 83
"In terms of the original situation, Jesus' action puts him on a direct collision course with priestly authority in the Temple. After touching a leper he can hardly turn around and tell him to observe the purity code that he himself has just broken.
But what we see at the transmissional level is intense apologetics seeking to bring Jesus into line with traditional biblical and legal practice--to show him, in terms of purity regulations, as an observant Jew,....especially that terminal injunction in 1:44 to "go show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded."
Finally, at the third or redactional level, as Mark records the story in his gospel, he makes one very significant final change. He himself is much more in sympathy with that legally unobservant Jesus at the story's original level, so he adds, after the injunction to go to the Temple, a phrase translated as "as a testimony to them." It could be better translated with, "as a witness against them"--in other words, "to show them who's boss." But in either case, for Mark, Jesus is enjoining the visit to the Temple not as legal observance but as confrontational witness."
28 C of Ordinary Time
28 C
Lessons from lepers.
Introduction: The first reading and the Gospel today speak about persons with leprosy. There is healing and thanks are returned by one of the ten that Jesus heals.
Homily: The first reading today is obviously chosen because it like the Gospel speaks of a cure from leprosy. But this brief passage that we read does not do justice to this story in the Second Book of Kings. Much of the drama and message of this story is contained in what comes before today’s Gospel passage and what comes after it. In my own words I’d like to retell you the story. Namaan was the commander of the army of the King of Aram. He was held in high esteem by the king. But he was a leper.
In Naaman’s household was a young girl captive from the land of Israel. She had been captured in one of the Arameans raids on Israel. She served Naaman’s wife. This nameless slave girl knew of a prophet in Israel in the land of Samaria. She told her mistress that this prophet could cure Naaman. We are not told how the mistress communicates this message to her husband. But the next thing we know Naaman is telling his king what the young girl said. (Already we have a rather strange phenomenon taking place, the slave girl tells the mistress, the mistress tells her husband and the husband tells the king. It would be rare that the words of a slave girl would have such an impact.)
The King on hearing what the slave girl said, sends Naaman with a letter to the King of Israel. Naaman takes with him large sums of money. But Israel’s king is afraid that the King of Aram is trying to pick a quarrel with him. (We are not told how, but Elisha heard that the King of Israel had torn his garments in fear.) Elisha sends a message to his king to send Naaman to him. So Naaman came, the writer of the Second Book of Kings tells us, “with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha’s house.”
But at this point the story takes a peculiar twist. Elisha sent a messenger to him saying, “Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.” “But Naaman became angry and went away saying, ‘I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy. Are not…the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’” He turned and went away in a rage.
So here we have a bit of a paradox. Naaman heeded the word of the Israel slave girl but he does not heed the word of the prophet Elisha. The reason he can’t listen to Elisha is because he had a preconceived idea about how this healing should take place. The author of 2 Kings strains to tell us in detail how Naaman thought the healing should go. Elisha did not follow his preconceived ideas. Elisha didn’t come out but sent a messanger. Elisha didn’t call on the name of his God. Elisha didn’t stand before him. He didn’t wave his hand over the spot. We almost have to stop and pause for a moment before going on. Though we wonder at Naaman’s response, there is a dynamic of the story that catches us. We probably sense a certain resonance here with people and dynamics in our own life. Does this dynamic between Naaman and Elisha capture something that also happens in my life? Do my preconceived ideas hinder good from happening?
Curiously enough it is the servants who confront Naaman with his foolishness. His servants approached him and said, “Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, ‘Wash and be clean?’” Naaman has to be an impetuous man (makes quick decisions). We are then told: “So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.”
Naaman then returns to Elisha and says, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” Naaman wishes to give a gift to the prophet. But the prophet won’t accept it. We almost wonder if Naaman is going to get angry again and go away in a snit. But no, this time Naaman’s reaction is different. Naaman asks for two mule-loads of earth and promises he will not offer holocaust or sacrifice to any other god except to the Lord. (This is where this Sunday’s passage ends. But there is still more to the story…
Naaman is in a difficult position because on his return to his own country he must accompany his master to worship services to the god Rimmon. Naaman asks that Elisha pardon him on this one count. Elisha tells him, “Go in peace.” We almost feel like we’ve been part of a confession.
But the incident is still not over, there is a kind of epilogue (after story). In contrast to the way the servants have served Naaman we are now told how Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, now does his master a disservice. Gehazi thinks that Elisha has left Naaman off too easily by not accepting what was offered. Gehazi decides to run after him and get something from him. Gehazi lies to Naaman and says that unexpectedly two prophets have come from the hill country and need assistance. Gehazi is well paid. Two of Naaman’s servants accompany him back to the city. Gehazi hides the treasure he has wrongly acquired. When asked by Elisha where he had gone, Gehazi lies. But the prophet who worked the cure on Naaman says that he had accompanied Gehazi in spirit, while Gehazi lied and accepted money. Now Elisha says to his servant: “Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you, and to your descendants forever.” And the writer of Second kings tells us, “So he left his presence leprous, as white as snow.”
There is much to reflect on in the persons of this story. Naaman He can accept a message that comes to him through his wife who heard it from her slave girl and share it with his king. Maybe it is the desperation of the leprosy that allows him to do this. (In the Gospel it is this same desperation that puts together the Samaritan leper and the Jewish lepers.) But he seems to think that he can buy his cure from the prophet of Samaria. He comes with his preconceived ideas about how the cure should take place and because of his anger and impetuosity almost misses his cure. But when cured he accepts that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” He wants to present Elisha with a gift. When refused he doesn’t turn away in anger this time, but asks for two mule loads of earth. Interpreters tell us he wishes to worship the God of Israel on dirt from Israel. And finally Naaman asks pardon on one account. He knows he cannot sever himself from his responsibility to his king who will worship a different god. He asks and receives permission to accompany his master. “Go in peace.”
The nameless slave girl of Naaman’s wife. It must have been a bit of a risk to share her information about the prophet in Israel in the land of Samaria who she said could cure Naaman. But the slave girl is courageous.
The other servants of Naaman who remain nameless. They take the risk to confront Naaman with the foolishness he has just engaged in. “If he told you to do something difficult you would have, why not wash and be clean?”
The servant of Elisha, Gehazi. He is a wheeler dealer and can’t let his master be gypped. Or is he more concerned about getting wealthy?
We may want to think about the Samaritan leper of the Gospel who was cured and came back to give thanks. Nine did not.
Lessons from lepers.
Introduction: The first reading and the Gospel today speak about persons with leprosy. There is healing and thanks are returned by one of the ten that Jesus heals.
Homily: The first reading today is obviously chosen because it like the Gospel speaks of a cure from leprosy. But this brief passage that we read does not do justice to this story in the Second Book of Kings. Much of the drama and message of this story is contained in what comes before today’s Gospel passage and what comes after it. In my own words I’d like to retell you the story. Namaan was the commander of the army of the King of Aram. He was held in high esteem by the king. But he was a leper.
In Naaman’s household was a young girl captive from the land of Israel. She had been captured in one of the Arameans raids on Israel. She served Naaman’s wife. This nameless slave girl knew of a prophet in Israel in the land of Samaria. She told her mistress that this prophet could cure Naaman. We are not told how the mistress communicates this message to her husband. But the next thing we know Naaman is telling his king what the young girl said. (Already we have a rather strange phenomenon taking place, the slave girl tells the mistress, the mistress tells her husband and the husband tells the king. It would be rare that the words of a slave girl would have such an impact.)
The King on hearing what the slave girl said, sends Naaman with a letter to the King of Israel. Naaman takes with him large sums of money. But Israel’s king is afraid that the King of Aram is trying to pick a quarrel with him. (We are not told how, but Elisha heard that the King of Israel had torn his garments in fear.) Elisha sends a message to his king to send Naaman to him. So Naaman came, the writer of the Second Book of Kings tells us, “with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha’s house.”
But at this point the story takes a peculiar twist. Elisha sent a messenger to him saying, “Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.” “But Naaman became angry and went away saying, ‘I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy. Are not…the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’” He turned and went away in a rage.
So here we have a bit of a paradox. Naaman heeded the word of the Israel slave girl but he does not heed the word of the prophet Elisha. The reason he can’t listen to Elisha is because he had a preconceived idea about how this healing should take place. The author of 2 Kings strains to tell us in detail how Naaman thought the healing should go. Elisha did not follow his preconceived ideas. Elisha didn’t come out but sent a messanger. Elisha didn’t call on the name of his God. Elisha didn’t stand before him. He didn’t wave his hand over the spot. We almost have to stop and pause for a moment before going on. Though we wonder at Naaman’s response, there is a dynamic of the story that catches us. We probably sense a certain resonance here with people and dynamics in our own life. Does this dynamic between Naaman and Elisha capture something that also happens in my life? Do my preconceived ideas hinder good from happening?
Curiously enough it is the servants who confront Naaman with his foolishness. His servants approached him and said, “Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, ‘Wash and be clean?’” Naaman has to be an impetuous man (makes quick decisions). We are then told: “So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.”
Naaman then returns to Elisha and says, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” Naaman wishes to give a gift to the prophet. But the prophet won’t accept it. We almost wonder if Naaman is going to get angry again and go away in a snit. But no, this time Naaman’s reaction is different. Naaman asks for two mule-loads of earth and promises he will not offer holocaust or sacrifice to any other god except to the Lord. (This is where this Sunday’s passage ends. But there is still more to the story…
Naaman is in a difficult position because on his return to his own country he must accompany his master to worship services to the god Rimmon. Naaman asks that Elisha pardon him on this one count. Elisha tells him, “Go in peace.” We almost feel like we’ve been part of a confession.
But the incident is still not over, there is a kind of epilogue (after story). In contrast to the way the servants have served Naaman we are now told how Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, now does his master a disservice. Gehazi thinks that Elisha has left Naaman off too easily by not accepting what was offered. Gehazi decides to run after him and get something from him. Gehazi lies to Naaman and says that unexpectedly two prophets have come from the hill country and need assistance. Gehazi is well paid. Two of Naaman’s servants accompany him back to the city. Gehazi hides the treasure he has wrongly acquired. When asked by Elisha where he had gone, Gehazi lies. But the prophet who worked the cure on Naaman says that he had accompanied Gehazi in spirit, while Gehazi lied and accepted money. Now Elisha says to his servant: “Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you, and to your descendants forever.” And the writer of Second kings tells us, “So he left his presence leprous, as white as snow.”
There is much to reflect on in the persons of this story. Naaman He can accept a message that comes to him through his wife who heard it from her slave girl and share it with his king. Maybe it is the desperation of the leprosy that allows him to do this. (In the Gospel it is this same desperation that puts together the Samaritan leper and the Jewish lepers.) But he seems to think that he can buy his cure from the prophet of Samaria. He comes with his preconceived ideas about how the cure should take place and because of his anger and impetuosity almost misses his cure. But when cured he accepts that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” He wants to present Elisha with a gift. When refused he doesn’t turn away in anger this time, but asks for two mule loads of earth. Interpreters tell us he wishes to worship the God of Israel on dirt from Israel. And finally Naaman asks pardon on one account. He knows he cannot sever himself from his responsibility to his king who will worship a different god. He asks and receives permission to accompany his master. “Go in peace.”
The nameless slave girl of Naaman’s wife. It must have been a bit of a risk to share her information about the prophet in Israel in the land of Samaria who she said could cure Naaman. But the slave girl is courageous.
The other servants of Naaman who remain nameless. They take the risk to confront Naaman with the foolishness he has just engaged in. “If he told you to do something difficult you would have, why not wash and be clean?”
The servant of Elisha, Gehazi. He is a wheeler dealer and can’t let his master be gypped. Or is he more concerned about getting wealthy?
We may want to think about the Samaritan leper of the Gospel who was cured and came back to give thanks. Nine did not.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
27th Sunday of Ordinary Time
Two scripture scholars have an interesting insight into the final verse of today's Gospel.
Barbara Reid, "The final verse of today's Gospel asserts not that faithful servants are "unprofitable" (NAB), "WORTHLESS" (NRSV) or "useless (NJB), As some translations render the Greek archreioi. Rather, the words mean literally that they are "without need"." Proclaiming the empowering vision of God's reign and rendering faithful service to bring it about satisfies every want and need of disciples."
JOhn Kilgallen, S.J. "This cannot be the correct translation, for the servant in the parable works for his master all day; this servant cannot be called 'useless' or 'unprofitable'. Better is it to say that the servant should say that he has no claim on the master, that he has no right to expect anything but what a servant should receive."
Barbara Reid, "The final verse of today's Gospel asserts not that faithful servants are "unprofitable" (NAB), "WORTHLESS" (NRSV) or "useless (NJB), As some translations render the Greek archreioi. Rather, the words mean literally that they are "without need"." Proclaiming the empowering vision of God's reign and rendering faithful service to bring it about satisfies every want and need of disciples."
JOhn Kilgallen, S.J. "This cannot be the correct translation, for the servant in the parable works for his master all day; this servant cannot be called 'useless' or 'unprofitable'. Better is it to say that the servant should say that he has no claim on the master, that he has no right to expect anything but what a servant should receive."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
