June 26 , 2005
Commentary by Helene Russell |
See also: [2008] |
Jeremiah
28:5-9 and Psalm
89:1-4, 15-18
Romans
6:12-23
Matthew
10:40-42
Jeremiah 28: 5-9 and Psalm 89:1-4, 15-18
Amen! Jeremiah says, and could have said, “from your lips to God’s ear” upon hearing the delightful words that Hananiah had spoken that God would return Israel to her land. The context of this reading is the exile of Israel in a foreign land. Other prophets have predicted that while the present is desolate for Israel , the future is even more bleak: there will be war and feminine against great nations in the name of God. In verse three Hananiah prophesizes that within two years, God will break the yoke of Babylon , and “the vessels of the Lord,” Israel , will be returned home to Judah . What happy words these must have been to Jeremiah and the exiled people of Israel .
It seems that Jeremiah is condoning this prophet’s words of peace and accepting him as a true prophet of God. He is saying, that since bad things are happening with great frequency. It doesn’t take a divinely inspired prophet to predict their continuation. But when a person predicts God’s peace and we experience it, then, I’ll accept her/him as a true prophet. As it turns out, Hananiah is not a true prophet.
Yet underneath this jaded commentary lies the important information that Jeremiah and his community have experienced many false prophets as well as true ones. This passage tells us that the Israelites desire the guidance of a true prophet and they are concerned to discern a true prophet from a false one. This concern has far reaching implications for the important role of critical evaluation in discerning true revelations from false prophecies.
There are criteria for judging truth from falsities. Let us look at the criteria Jeremiah puts forth and think about those that we might add for our discernment. The first criterion is that the ability to accurately predict the future by itself is not a decisive factor in this quest. A false prophet could predict the future, especially if he/she predicts something that seems likely to occur given the current and recent past series of events. Anyone could predict pestilence in the current situation and have it come to pass, but if someone predicts peace and it comes to pass, then that person is doing something stupendous and could be a true prophet. Another possible gauge is that the content of the prediction is different enough from the normal course of events that one may be divinely inspired to offer a creative vision of the future.
This next criterion is the most important and can continue to be used today by religiously responsible communities. A true prophet is judged by the consistency of his/her message with the content of what the tradition conveys about God’s character, God’s actions, and the religious community. Hananiah predicts peace, Biblical peace, Shalom, which is a vision that is given over and over again in the Hebrew scriptures. He also speaks of God’s faithfulness to God’s people, in returning the Israelites to Judah , another foundational theme in the tradition. For our contemporary discerning work we should note other characteristics of God and God’s message.
Note also that although not explicitly highlighted as a criterion, there is an appropriate form for the prophecy. The phrase “thus saith the Lord” must proceed the prophet’s pronouncements. It is imperative that the prophet point beyond him/herself to God as the source and power of his message. This is still an important element of a true prophet.
Over all, this passage conveys to us the important tradition of practicing and valuing critical evaluation of those messages/stories prophesies claim divine inspiration and guidance for behavior and ethics.
The psalm for today affirms that the love and commitment of God is steadfast and faithful. God is our enlightenment, both in terms of guiding our path toward righteousness, and in terms of our joy and delight toward right relationship with God and others. God is the power of our strength and the foundation and telos of our righteousness. When we realize this truth and it becomes real in our individual and communal life, the center and structure of our being and our society is made whole.
Beginning again with the term “therefore,” Paul’s concluding statement from last week’s reading is the beginning premise for his continued argument that sin leads to death while faith in Christ’s righteousness leads to eternal life. Paul continues with his juxtaposition of sin and grace, sin and sanctification, disobedience and obedience. He is concerned that the Christians in Rome understand and stay within the narrow boundaries between sinning by trusting in the righteousness of the law, (relying upon one’s own obedience and righteousness) on the one hand, and ignoring the command to obey and relying upon faith and God’s righteousness, on the other. There are two nuances to his argument in this section. First, obedience leads to righteousness, but is not equal to righteousness. Righteousness cannot be earned or attained by adherence to the law. The covenant, continuous from Abraham through Jesus and to the church at Rome (and perhaps beyond), is based upon faith in God’s righteousness, God’s integrity, and God’s steadfast love. Obedience is not a behavior associated with God, but with Jesus and an ideal that humans should strive toward. Righteousness, on the other hand, is a character of God. It is about being made right and ready for the coming kingdom.
Second, the body is named as the site of either sin or obedience. Paul’s concept of sin is not that the body is sinful, as he has sometimes been misread to claim. Rather, he is saying that the body is where the rubber meets the road. Righteousness, sanctification, and obedience are expressed corporally, in the body. Eternal life is not an escape from the body, but is the extension of the physical life and mortal body into immortality. Paul’s concept of sin and salvation then, are embodied concepts. Thus even though what we do or don’t do with our bodies is not the basis of our right relationship with God and with each other, what we do and don’t do does matter to God, to us, to others.
Previously, Matthew’s Jesus has been preaching unconventional wisdom—such as “who so ever finds his life shall loose it, and if one should loose it for my sake, he will gain it,” and the like.
Jesus has continued his advice to his disciples assuring them that even though they may be persecuted for proclaiming the gospel and may suffer for their faith, they will be rewarded in the end. Their commitment and sacrifice will be known by God in heaven who knows everything about them, internally and intimately. If God knows even the number of hairs on their head, certainly God knows the extent of their pain and passion for Jesus and his mission.
In today’s passage, the last three verses in this chapter, we notice a difference in audience and direction. For the previous 30 some verses, Jesus has been speaking to the commissioned disciples directly. These verses, however, are not about them nor address them. Instead, Jesus is talking about the crowd and addressing the crowd directly. Those who accept the disciples and their message will be rewarded. The reason that they will be rewarded is the fact of the internal connection between Jesus and the disciples, which in turn reflects the internal connection between Jesus and God who sent him. The implication is that we are also brought into solidarity with God.
Further, since the ones who are receiving the disciples are in reality receiving God through the intimacy established or reinforced by Jesus, they will receive a godlike reward. Jesus makes this argument implicitly based on the Hebrew tradition that if one receives a prophet, one will receive a prophet’s reward. Thus, if one receives a disciple who is internally related to God, then one receives a god’s reward.
All of the readings for today reinforce the understanding of humanity as embodied relational entities whose telos is to be in intimate solidarity with God and with each other and for each other.
Helene Tallon Russell is assistant professor of theology at The Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, IN. She specializes in process thought, feminist theology and theory, Kierkegaard, and systematic theology. She has published articles in Process Studies, Encounter, and World Faith's Encounter. She is an active member of All Saints Episcopal Church in Indianapolis. She lives with her Parrot Tangelo.
If you found this lectionary helpful, please consider contributing to Process & Faith by making a donation or becoming a member.
Process & Faith is a program of the Center for Process Studies, an affiliated program of the Claremont School of Theology.
This site and all content ©2006 Process & Faith, unless otherwise noted.
Please support this website by becoming a member of Process & Faith.
