Lectionary Ruminations 2.5 is a further revision and refinement
of my Lectionary Ruminations and Lectionary
Ruminations 2.0. Focusing on The Revised Common Lectionary Readings
for the upcoming Sunday from New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, Lectionary Ruminations 2.5 draws on over thirty years of pastoral
experience. Believing that the questions we ask are often more important
than any answers we find, without over reliance on commentaries, I intend with sometimes
pointed and sometimes snarky comments and Socratic like questions, to encourage
reflection and rumination for readers preparing to lead a Bible study, draft
liturgy, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged.
30:15 Why am I surprised
to read “See” rather than “Hear” or “Listen”? I am also somewhat
surprised to read “today” rather than “this day”. Does this verse feed the so
called “Prosperity Gospel?”
30:16 This is a rather long
verse with a lot packed into it. Are ways, commandments, decrees, and ordinances
synonyms used for emphasis or does each term refer to something different? Note
that life is paired with prosperity. Death is paired with adversity.
How much is this a linguistic/poetic construction and how much is it a
theological construction? Does this verse lend itself to a
justification by works or health/wealth/prosperity sort of faith?
30:17 Why now “hear” rather
than “see”? Is “hearing” an allusion to Deuteronomy 6:4?
30:18 I find it interesting
that while death will come quickly if people’s hearts turn but the people will
still enter and possess the land.
30:15-18 Note that 30:15-16
seems to be contrasted with 30:17-18.
30:19 Who can dispute with
witnesses like heaven and earth? In 30:15, the pairing was
life/prosperity and death/adversity. Now it is life/blessings and
death/curses. In 30:15 the scheme was A and A’, B and
B’. Here, it is A and B, A’ and B’.
30:20 This is the second occurrence
of “loving the LORD your God: see 30:15. Can we remain faithful to the text
while adding Sarah, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah, and Rachel?
PSALM 119:1-8
119:1 The First Reading
establishes the choice. The Psalm outlines the rewards or effects of
the better choice.
119:1-8 Note the synonyms: (1)
law, (2) decrees, (3) ways, (4) precepts, (5) statutes, (6) commandments, (7)
ordinances, and (8) statutes (again). What can teachers and
preachers learn from the Psalmist’s literary creativity in addition to the
Psalmist’s theology? This Psalm is also an acrostic! “Ah,
but can Doctors even feign great homilies? I judge keeping lovely muses
nasty. Oh, please, quit reading sarcastic tomes. Unveil
virtuous workers. Xanex yields zero.” These first eight verses are all “aleph”
verses. Do you ever play with words, rhyming schemes, acrostic
constructions, parallelisms, alliteration, or chiastic constructions in your
sermons? Try it sometime. Its fun!
1 CORINTHIANS 3:1-9
3:1 Picking up where we
left off last week . . . are you a spiritual person or are you an infant in
Christ? What about most of the people in the Christian community in
which you find yourself? Is Paul dissing or insulting the Corinthians, or maybe
applying a little tough love?
3:2 As a preacher or
teacher, do you serve milk, a Gerber’s Gospel, or a meat and potatoes
Gospel? How can we feed all the people with the Word of God when
some people are infants in Christ and others are spiritual people looking for,
and perhaps needing, a better-rounded and mature diet?
3:3 How much jealousy and
quarreling exist in your congregation? Of all the sins Paul could have called
out, he called out these two!
3:4 To whom do you belong?
Who are the Paul and the Apollos in the communities we know?
3:5 Note that Paul, in this
verse, sets himself on equal footing with Apollos and vice
versa. Peter and Christ have dropped out of the construction.
3:6 Are you a planter or a
waterer?
3:6-7 God may give the
growth, but who is the reaper?
3:8 What wages are
appropriate? Should planters be paid the same as waterers?
3:9 Note the “we/you”
language. Where do you fall in this dichotomy? After all
this agricultural imagery, why does Paul introduce “God’s building?”
MATTHEW 5:21-37
5:21 Note the emphasis on
hearing rather than sight and seeing. “It was said to those of
ancient times” sounds like something in the past that has no or little
influence in the present. Who said this and to whom? When
were those ancient times?
5:22 Judgment, the council,
the hell of fire – this sounds like increasing levels of punishment.
5:23-26 You might want to skip
over these verses during the stewardship drive. What if you have something
against your brother or sister?
5:24 How is
reconciliation accomplished. Maybe it is time we in the PC(USA) revisit the
Confession of 1967.
5:27 This is beginning to
sound formulaic (see 5:21).
5:27-28 I remind you to
comments made by Jimmy Carter when he was still President.
5:29-30 If we do not take this
literally, then what is the meaning of the figurative language? How might young
children hear this verse?
5:31 Note the slight change in
the formulaic introduction.
5:32 the logic seems flawed
in the husband divorces his wife for reasons other than unchastity.
5:33 More formulaic
language. Does it make a difference that all these things were said
rather than written?
5:34-36 How do we interpret
these verses when we are required to take a civil oath, as in an oath of public
office or court of law?
5:37 Goodbye equivocation
and qualification.
ADDENDUM
I am
a Minister Member of Upper Ohio Valley Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) and am serving as the Interim Pastor of the Richmond United
Presbyterian Church, Richmond, Ohio. Sunday Worship at Richmond begins at 11:00
AM. Some of my other blog posts have appeared on PRESBYTERIAN BLOGGERS and The
Trek.
No comments:
Post a Comment