Archive
RSS Feed
DonateMarch 30, 2003 |
See also: [Year B Archive] |
Numbers
21:4-9
Psalm
107:1-3, 17-22
Ephesians
2:1-10
John
3:14-21
I see a number of important Process themes in today’s readings. In the stories of ‘serpents’, the Ephesians’ Church, and the well-known passage from John, we are told that God works with the world as it is and not as we would like it to be or what we think it should be. In each of the readings we see that we are under God’s Grace, or ‘initial aim’, God gives a solution to problems, or a preferred option, then we are free to choose but are then responsible for our actions.
The story in Numbers reminds me of what Will Beardslee must have had in mind when he warned us to be “self-critical of the obvious, as they aid our preconceptions.” He reminds us that when we just look at the surface story we can miss the issues of “life-giving import”, and that our reading of the Bible and our understanding of it depend on our understanding of God. These are simple axioms, but it helps me to remind myself of them from time to time. The story in Numbers raises many questions. Why, so soon after the giving of the law against making images, did God tell Moses to make an image? Why did God send poisonous snakes in the first place, why did God not stop the snakes when the Israelites confessed their sins and asked for help? These questions are impossible to answer if you believe in an all-controlling God. If you believe in a God who leads by offering options, then the Israelites ‘sin’ was their complaining and their not taking responsibility for their actions. They refused not see God’s long-term future for them, but could only see their short-term discomfort. The remedy was in their hands; stop complaining and use the resources God had given them. One commentator has suggested that the ‘serpents’ represented the humans who spent their lives complaining, and as such were ‘biting others’. He refers to Galatians 5:14-15 where the Paul say, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, which is followed by the words, “if, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.” The ‘serpents’ that caused the Son of Man to be lifted up on the cross the humans who could not see God’s will for mankind.
J D G Dunn calls the passage from Ephesians; “one of the most forceful statements in the Bible regarding the human condition apart from God’s grace and the way in which that grace operates for salvation.” Paul describes the absence of the human condition from grace as combination of preordained human characteristics, social conditioning, and individual responsibility. Using metaphors to describe their understanding of the world of the First Century, Paul says that we have used the excuse of being under the control of the “rulers of the powers of the air”, and the influences of the world in which we live, to justify our disobedience and neglect of God’s aim for us. In our debate about genetic preconditioning, and the effect of social environment on behavior, are we not saying the same thing? Verse 10 can be interpreted as a clear statement that we are who God has made us, and that God has given us an initial aim. We are then responsible for our own actions, and cannot blame our inaction on outside influences, however demanding those influences may be. We have a loving God who is with us to help us make the correct decisions. Using the language of the resurrection, we are told that the state of deadness in ‘trespasses and sins’ has been ‘transformed’. What God has shown us in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, is that we have a choice. By God’s act of grace, God first coming to us, or what Whitehead calls the initial aim, we have space for our free action, and making us responsible for the outcome. God’s grace is freely given and is not obtained by any activity or work on our part, but the message of Paul is that the ‘self-centeredness’ of the old way of life has been given a new focus and a transformation which will lead to a new expression of our relationship with God and our all of God’s creation.
The section from John’s Gospel is the conclusion of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus concerning the differences between earthly life and spiritual life. In verse 13 the Gospel’s view of ‘salvation’ is summarised. Those who find this life on earth unsatisfactory can hope for one of two things, either that God will come down from heaven and relieve their discomfort, or that the way will be disclosed to them so that they live the life of heaven here on earth. The Gospel story goes on to tell us how we can live in the Kingdom of God here on earth. Verses 14-21 are then the concluding commentary to this discussion. To ‘see’ and to ‘enter’ the Kingdom of God in vs.3 and 5 are reformulated as ‘having eternal life’ in v 15. In verse 16 we have the life, death and resurrection of Jesus shown as God’s love for humanity in order to give this eternal life. This will remain a theme throughout John’s Gospel. In the Prologue (1:4), the theme of ‘life’ was introduced, which in 3:16 is changed to ‘eternal life’. Grayston explain that this does not really change the meaning. In today’s language ‘eternal’ usually means ‘that which has always existed and will always continue to exist’. The Greek word used, aiÎnios (usually translated as eternal), means ‘what is appropriate for such a long period’. Eternal life in this context means the kind of life appropriate to the period in which you are or will be living. The message in John’s Gospel is that eternal life is already available to those living in awareness of God and of His Son Jesus Christ. Eternal life is the opposite of walking in darkness, and coming to judgment and experiencing God’s wrath. The ‘judgment’ mentioned in vs. 17-19 is translated as ‘condemnation’ in the NIV. Where judgment implies separation, distinguishing good from bad, condemnation implies ‘self-administration’. “[T]he light has come into the world” and we are free to choose light or darkness. Choosing darkness shuts us off from hearing God’s call. In Jesus, God has shown us the possibility of preferring light to darkness. Marjory Suchocki refers to this choosing darkness as ‘missing the mark’ of following God’s will. She interprets missing the mark as failing to achieve the “fullest development of what can be, individually and communally, in expanding circles of caring to God, self, and neighbor.” Choosing darkness means “the refusal of love to and from God and from and to neighbor and even from and to oneself.”
In each of the readings we see that God has given humans an initial aim (living under God’s grace), a choice, and the responsibility for our actions. We believe that God is always calling us towards the good, and calling us to transform our lives so as to live in harmony with all of God’s creation – and to live in the Kingdom of God here on earth.
If you found this lectionary helpful, please consider contributing to Process & Faith by making a donation or becoming a member.