INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Year B - Proper 24 

JOB 38:1-7, (34-41). In this long poem dealing with the problem of suffering, Job's friends and a fourth participant, Elihu, have all said their pieces. None have satisfactorily answering the eternal question: Why do the innocent suffer? 

Now God enters the dialogue in response to Job's hostility. The divine rhetoric majestically declares the works of divine creativity and providence, yet never answers the fundamental question. It merely humiliates Job and illustrates the vast gulf between human and divine knowledge. The problem remains a mystery.

PSALM 104:1-9, 24.     This magnificent hymn of praise blesses God as the Creator and Upholder of all. Creation and control of nature by a supernatural power found expression in many cultures of the ancient world. The Jewish faith affirmed that the God of Israel brought all things into being and saw that they were good.

ISAIAH 53:4-12. (Alternate) This reading from the unknown prophet of Israel’s Babylonian exile quickly became the model for early Christian interpretation of Jesus’ Passion. As the fourth and last of the Servant Songs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it describes vicarious suffering on behalf of others which receives divine vindication. This was seen as Israel’s role in bringing God’s plan and purpose to the world.

From the spiritual point of view, the passage may also contain the solution to the problem of suffering: It can be redemptive, despite often having destructive powers that ultimately triumph over its victim. In its numerous forms, it enables us to recognize our own humanity and acknowledge our true selves in a universe that is subject to God’s dominion.

PSALM 91:9-16. (Alternate) This psalm proclaims the traditional faith that total dependence on God brings providential protection from evil. God does this graciously and mercifully because it is God's nature to do so, not as a reward for good behaviour.

HEBREWS 5:1-10.    The passage defines the role of the ideal priest expressed as the representative of others. Accordingly, he  offers the appropriate sacrifice on the Jewish feast of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Jesus, the Man of Galilee who is the Son of God, fulfills all the conditions as the ideal priest. By his obedience, suffering and death on the cross, the representative of God and humanity, wrought the atonement "designated by God," i.e. as God intends the story of human salvation to unfold.

MARK 10:35-45.     Their conviction that he is the Messiah firmly established, James and John boldly put their request for precedence in the messianic kingdom to Jesus. As he so often did, Jesus responded with another question. His reply symbolized his death and the two sacraments the church still uses to tell of its meaning.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

JOB 38:1-7.     The structure of the Book of Job consists of three or four main parts. The prologue and the epilogue are purely narrative and thought to have existed as a separate story before the poetry and dialogue in three cycles was written. The long speech by Elihu, the fourth participant, may also have been composed separately. In whatever manner the final form of the book occurred, we now have one of the great works of literature dealing with a universal human concern. Its essential value lies in the way it questions and challenges the earlier traditions of Hebrew moral theology that suffering is the inevitable retribution for sin. More than that, it emphasizes the moral quality of each person’s life and denies the circumstances of life as the common criterion for piety.

At this point in the poem, Job's friends and a fourth participant, Elihu, have all said their set pieces. None have satisfactorily answering the eternal question: Why do the innocent suffer? Now in response to Job's hostility, Yahweh enters the dialogue. In a long series of rhetorical questions, Yahweh majestically declares the works of divine creativity and providence. Yet the divine rhetoric never answers the fundamental question. It merely humiliates Job and illustrates the vast gulf between human and divine knowledge. The solution to the problem remains a mystery.

Yahweh’s relentless questioning never accuses Job of ethical transgressions,  but does deny Job’s right to question divine wisdom and power. This brief excerpt focuses attention on creation with Yahweh speaking from a whirlwind is a typical prophetic medium for a theophany. The creation motif continues through most of remaining segments of Yahweh’s address.

An appeal to creation is frequently used to justify the existence of God. A century ago, the eminent British theologian, P. T. Forsyth, declared that we had not yet got over our delight with having discovered evolution as the key to creation. Our fascination today with the unraveling of the genetic code tends to give science an even greater sense of its own power. At the same time, does not the destructive brutality of our fratricidal conflicts and the exploitive ruination of our environment reveal how much our ethical judgment has diminished even as our power over creation has increased? Would this not be the challenge that God would throw at us if any of us could take Job’s place in a similar rhetorical theophany? There is one question to which we all must respond:Is there any hope?

In a perceptive column in the New York Times, journalist Tom Friedman stated the issue succinctly. Whether we realize it or not, we are putting our children and grandchildren in the grip of two merciless forces: the Free Market and Mother Nature. Then quoting environmentalist Rob Watson he said,  “Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics .... The market is just a second‑by‑second snapshot of the balance between greed and fear.”

In her very hopeful Thanksgiving message, Mardi Tindal, newly elected Moderator of the United Church of Canada wrote: “The degree to which there will be enough food, shelter, and ecological resilience is the degree to which we trust that these are shared desires and that the rest of our extended community—those in other political parties, cultural groups, faith communities, and families—will work with us to bring them about. Why would we assume otherwise? Why assume that others don’t want good things for their children, or that they aren’t prepared to work as hard toward these goals as we are?”

PSALM 104:1-9, 24. Echoing the rhetoric of Job 38-41, this magnificent hymn praises Yahweh as the Creator and Upholder of all. Originating in a primitive form of animism, creation and control of nature by a supernatural power found expression in many cultures of the ancient world. An Egyptian “Hymn to the Aton” dating from the time of the 14^th century BCE  most closely resembles this psalm. The Jewish faith affirmed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, brought all things into being and saw that they were good.

The phrase that Yahweh is “wrapped  in light as with a garment” (vs. 2) conveys the idea that while humans may see the effects of divine creativity, the true nature of the deity is concealed. The metaphor may well refer express that while no one can look at the sun without harm, yet the sun casts its light that all else is fully revealed.

A tiered universe is portrayed in vs. 3 where the “beams of your chambers on the waters” suggest successive layers of the heavens where Yahweh is presumed to dwell. In vs. 4, “winds” as ministering messengers appears to refer to angels. Jewish tradition likened angels doing Yahweh’s errands to wind and those in the heavenly choir as fire. However, these metaphors do seem to remove the deity from direct contact with creation. This rather deistic concept of divine creativity receives further reinforcement in the limits set on the boundaries of the waters of chaos described in vss. 5-9.

The reading skips to vs. 24 which summarizes the whole content of the psalm. The created universe came about through the wisdom of Yahweh. Even the most penetrating modern science cannot contradict the psalmists faith. 

ISAIAH 53:4-12. (Alternate) This reading from the unknown prophet of Israel’s Babylonian exile quickly became the model for early Christian interpretation of Jesus’ Passion. As the fourth and last of the Servant Songs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it describes vicarious suffering on behalf of others which receives divine vindication. (See also 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9.) This was seen as Israel’s role in bringing God’s plan and purpose to the world.

From the spiritual point of view, the passage may also contain the solution to the problem of suffering: It can be redemptive, despite often having destructive powers that ultimately triumph over its victim. In its numerous forms, suffering enables us to recognize our own humanity and acknowledge our true selves in a universe that is utterly dependent on divine providence.

The passage was crucial to the authors of the whole NT. The story of the Gospel as they heard and subsequently narrated it rested on their understanding of this passage from the writings of the unknown prophet of the Babylonian exile scholars have designated as Second Isaiah. The Passion of Christ was not only based on this passage, but was seen as the fulfilment of it.

Debate still rages whether the “Servant” is an individual or the whole nation of Israel. Many scholars hold to the thesis that Jesus himself adopted the mission of the Servant as the model for his own ministry. (See Richardson,  Alan. An Introduction to the New Testament, passim under the indexed subject ‘Servant of the Lord.’)  The apostolic community also drew on the Hebrew scriptures frequently discovering there new references which they interpreted as directly foreshadowing all that they had seen and heard from the person whom they now believed was the Messiah/Christ, Son of God. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 aptly suited their instructional purposes.

As originally written, the passage did not explicitly refer to someone who was born, lived and died more than 500 years earlier. The prophetic image of one man suffering for others appeared in more than this particular passage. If anything, it was a typical prophetic motif and many of the prophets did suffer for their witness to the will and purpose of Yahweh in the history of Israel as recorded in the OT. This was, indeed, Ezekiel’s own title for himself who spoke of the Shepherd-Servant who would save the flock of God from evil shepherds (Ezek. 34:23).  The prophetic servant is also named in Amos 3:7 as the one to whom Yahweh would reveal the divine will. If Jesus ever applied the term to himself, it is not recorded except perhaps in his shepherd and sheep parables and similar references attributed to him (e.g. John 10:1-18). It is impossible to discern whether these are actual words as spoken by Jesus or the apostolic teaching about him in subsequent years before they were recorded in the gospels.

Thus, the words of this passage from Second Isaiah actually convey the image of how this particular prophet saw his own role and experienced suffering in a period of great religious, social and political devastation. Israel had been overwhelmed by the Babylonians, its temple destroyed, it leading citizens led away as captive slaves, its common folk destitute after what must have been a frightful holocaust, and left to mourn their dead under the heel of an oppressive foreign regime. We cannot tell whether the prophet-poet who wrote these lines was himself an exile or one of those who remained behind and could only recall in painful memory what he had seen as he shared the fate of his compatriots.  If 53:8-9 gives a clue, he may have been in Babylon when he died and this passage was written by one of his circle of followers.

Nonetheless, Christians do well to embrace this passage as a messianic prophecy. Whether Jesus himself taught this about himself or not, or whether we have instead his apostles’ teaching after the resurrection, this is how Jesus himself died. The church has always claimed this role for Jesus of Nazareth: he suffered for us.

PSALM 91: 9-16. (Alternate) This psalm proclaims Israel's traditional faith that total dependence on Yahweh brought providential protection from all evil. It may be claimed that the psalmist has little or no awareness of the complexity of the problem of evil. The perils of living in an imperfect world do not seem to worry him or detract from his absolute trust. This recalls Ps. 46 as a similar confession of trust.

The psalm recalls Satan tempting Jesus in Matthew 4:6 and Luke 4:10-11. On the other hand, we should interpret the devoutly expressed trust in God metaphorically rather than literally as Satan did. Jesus replied in such a way as to deflect such a literal interpretation by quoting another scripture text from Deuteronomy 6:16. Scripture texts so quoted may easily contradict one another.

The concluding vss. 14-16 give a different bent to the psalmist's trust. The basis for it lies in the covenant love between Yahweh and Israel which extends to each individual Israelite. The RSV and NEB convey this better than the NRSV: "Because his love is set on me, I will deliver him; I will lift him beyond danger, for he knows me by my name." (NEB) Yahweh does this graciously and mercifully because it is Yahweh’s nature to do so, and it is in fulfilment of the covenant, not a reward for good behaviour.

HEBREWS 5:1-10.    The passage defines the role of the ideal priest expressed as the representative of others. Accordingly, he offers the appropriate sacrifice on the Jewish feast of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. As with most apologetic statements of faith, the image of the ideal high priest and his role in the Hebrew tradition rarely agrees with the actual historical record. This reference may appear all the more surprising from a Christian apologist who must have known about the role the high priests Annas and Caiaphas played in the crucifixion of Jesus. Perhaps that explains why the author of this letter refers specifically to Aaron, the original high priest according to the priestly tradition of the Pentateuch (Exod. 28-29) and Chronicles (1 Chron. 24:1). Indeed, the latter part of the Book of Exodus and the whole of Leviticus and Numbers focus overwhelmingly on Aaron and his functions as high priest of Israel.

In order to draw the parallel between the high priest and Christ, however, the author goes further back into the Israelite tradition to the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, an ancient Canaanite priest-king of Salem to whom Abraham submitted and paid tribute (Gen. 14:17-24). Consequently, Melchizedek was regarded as superior to both Abraham, his descendent, Aaron, and the Aaronic priesthood.  Fragments of text from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that the Melchizedek tradition was very much alive in late Judaism. It would appear that this tradition was well-known to the author of this letter and perhaps to his audience. Further, Melchizedek served an even more important purpose for this author. He became the core of his messianic argument. In his analysis of these fragments, Geza Vermes gave very helpful insight into the role of this enigmatic figure. (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1997, 500-502.)

The Qumran scroll designated 11Q Melchizedek identifies Melchizedek with the archangel Michael as the Prince of Heaven, the head of the “sons of Heaven” or “gods of Justice.” He is also referred to as elohim and el which in this context means a judge rather than God. Melchizedek is portrayed as presiding over the judgment of Belial/Satan, the Prince of Darkness. This is an eschatological midrash presaging an event which will occur on the Day of Atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee cycle. Melchizedek liberates those whom Satan has held captive (Isaiah 61:10), restores property to rightful owners (Lev. 25:13) and remits rents (Deut. 15:2)

By introducing Melchizidek in relation to Jesus here and much more explicitly in chapter 7, the author of the letter is making a profound messianic confession. Jesus, the Man of Galilee who is the Son of God, fulfilled all the conditions as the ideal priest. By his obedience, suffering and death, the representative of God and humanity wrought the atonement God intends for human salvation. He was more than that, however, in that by his death he became the eschatological Liberator in the same way that Melchizedek had been portrayed in the Qumran scroll.

MARK 10:35-45.      Prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, a wide variety of sacrifices played a major part in the religious observance of the Jewish people. In two volumes of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (vol. 4, R-Z, 147ff and the supplemental vol. 5, 763ff) two articles on the subject extend over 20 pages. This emphasis on sacrifice as a means of worship or propitiation should not be regarded as unusual. All religious traditions have included sacrifices of one kind or another. Throughout the past two millennia Christians have taken great pains to clarify the perceived difference between those traditions and the Christian forms of sacrifice, although not always successfully. The two parts of this pericope provide the basis for that distinction.

Their conviction that he is the Messiah firmly established, James and John boldly put to Jesus their request for precedence in the messianic kingdom. As he so often did, Jesus responded with another question. His question symbolized his suffering and death in the sacramental language of cup and baptism the church still uses to tell of its meaning.

It may be instructive to note how the other gospels dealt with the same issue. Matthew put the blame of “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 20:20) perhaps out of respect for James and John, two of the inner circle of apostles. According to Acts 12:1-2, James also became the first apostle to be martyred. Luke, on the other hand, does not identify who raised the issue of precedence, but does include Jesus’ response  to the anger of the others at James and John, as does Matthew (20:24-28). From this one naturally concludes that the emphasis of this pericope must be placed on the latter part rather than on the question James and John asked.

Thus we are challenged to deal with the nature of sacrifice in the Christian tradition. Significantly, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (IDB) discusses “Sacrifice in the NT” under the heading of “Atonement” although that word does not appear anywhere in the NT. This appears to say that only in the Christian tradition is an atoning sacrifice effective. Indeed, the summary of the IDB article reads: “The NT declares that in Christ and his death is all that man needs in order to find his sins forgiven and his life reconciled to God; in him is that which can cancel out the ill effects of sin, release man from the burden of its guilt, and grant him peace with God.” (IDB, I.311)

Also notable are the closing words of this pericope on which generations of Christians have built the substitution theory of atonement: “to give his life as a ransom for many” (vs. 45). Generally speaking, scholars agree that Isaiah 53 had considerable influence in the saying and its subsequent theological use. Others have argued that this is simply a vivid metaphor for what Paul wrote in Gal. 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free.” Two references in the Pastoral Letters (1 Tim. 2:6 and Titus 2:14) also reflect this same statement in Mark.

Finally, we must ask if the uniqueness of Christian sacrifice as defined in this passage depends on offering oneself instead of some valued possession, even one’s first born child as was common in cultures that practiced human sacrifice. If so, what does this say about the theological stance that in Christ God offered himself? As Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:19, “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.” Are we not saying, therefore, that Christian sacrifice is the sacrifice of God-in-Christ internalized and realized by each person by the action of the Holy Spirit transforming every word and deed into an expression of God’s self-giving love?

-30-