June 25 , 2006
12th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Proper 7)

1 Samuel 17:32-49
Psalm 9:9-20
2 Corinthians 6:1-13
Mark 4:35-41

It is interesting to play the two Old Testament texts against each other, especially if we place the former in the context of the longer story of which it is a part. I will begin with the Psalm. It expresses the orthodox Jewish view that God supports the righteous and punishes the sinful. Yet here, as often in the Psalms, this conviction is approached and expressed in multiple ways. Sometimes it is announced as historical and biographical fact. “You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.” “The nations have sunk in the pit that they have made; in the net that they hid has their own foot been caught. The Lord has made himself known, he has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands.”

Sometimes this belief is an expression of confident hope. Because God is just, therefore, “the needy shall not always be forgotten, nor the hope of the poor perish forever.” Here it seems that, in fact, the poor seem to be forgotten by God. Their hope has not been fulfilled. But they continue to hope and believe that justice will some day prevail because of their faith in God.

And finally, there is a beseeching of God to act. “Be gracious to me, O Lord. See what I suffer from those who hate me.” “Rise up, O Lord! Do not let mortals prevail: let the nations be judged before you.”

We can view the presence of all three motifs as confusion. Certainly they can become sharply separated and lead to quite different conclusions. Some of the historical writings hold firmly to the view of the justice of history and hence declare with respect to each king whether he was sinful or righteous, correlating this with his fate. The result is quite unconvincing.

The book of Job for the most part criticizes the view that what happens in life reflects any kind of justice. Even God’s speech for the whirlwind makes no claim that justice plays a role. Only the incongruous ending makes a stab at retrieving this doctrine.

Those who could not discern God’s justice in the course of events began to look to the future as the locus of God’s action. Some anticipated that eventually God would act in the course of history to restore justice within Israel or Israel’s place among the nations. Others viewed history as hopeless and depicted the future act of God as bringing an end to history altogether.

The Psalm can be viewed not as sheer confusion but as holding multiple motifs in effective tension. If we would stand close to where the Psalmist stands, we need to identify some historical basis for our own conviction that justice prevails. Certainly there are many instances in the last century where particularly arrogant and vicious rulers go too far and bring ruin upon themselves. This surely happened with Hitler and Mussolini. The Soviet government also brought destruction upon itself as did Japanese militarists and imperialists.

But if we stand with the Psalmist we will also be honest about the long continuing injustices that so deeply characterize our world. The poor and oppressed have been waiting a long time for relief, and it seems no closer now than ever before. The promises of economic globalization have proved empty and deceitful, as were those of Western colonialism before them. Their suffering of the poor cries out for relief. The response may be a combination of assurance that eventually “we shall overcome” and beseeching God to realize God’s justice in the world.

When we turn in Samuel to the story of David, there is some relief from viewing history too narrowly in the prism of God’s justice. The story is told from the point of view of David as hero, but it is not heavy handed in this respect. The world is not neatly divided into the good and evil. Even Saul comes through as one with whom the reader can often identify and certainly sympathize. David’s weaknesses and sins are not denied.

God’s favor is very important, but it has little to do with anything we could describe as justice. God’s spokesman, Samuel, wants Saul to perpetrate genocide on the Amalekites and to destroy all their possessions. The Hebrews are willing to kill the Amalekites, but they want to take over their possessions, and Saul lets them do this. For this reason Samuel tells Saul that God has withdrawn divine support of his rule. Of course the rule continues for some time, but a sense of doom hangs over it. Samuel selects David to replace Saul, but David has to win his way by his extraordinary charm and prowess. Whether he is plotting all along to take over the kingship is not clear.

The Philistines and their champion Goliath are the enemies of the Hebrews, and hence the villains, but there is no reason to consider them morally inferior. Goliath’s only reported vice is arrogance. The moral weakness of Saul is far more prominent than that of Goliath. Nevertheless, David evokes admiration for his courage and his skill and his success against what from a worldly perspective are great odds. He serves Saul well, perhaps too well. Saul rightly perceives him as a threat especially to the prospects of Jonathan’s succession to the throne. Saul cannot decide whether to appreciate David for his military service or to kill him because of his threat. Jonathan loves and serves David despite the consequences to his own role. There is no more moving story of love in the Bible than that of Jonathan for David. His death can surely not be viewed as a punishment. Indeed, none of this has much to say about God’s justice.

If we take these ancient stories as lessons in theology, there are several ways we can go. “The Lord” of Israel (unquestionably masculine) is more interested in the purity of Israel’s attachment to himself and in its military success than in justice and mercy. The Lord interacts with historical events, changing his course to adjust to them. He often uses startling, but not supernatural, means to achieve his ends.

These more ancient stories, written before Jewish theology was formulated in terms of righteousness and sin, may fit better with the actual course of history in which almost everything seems morally ambiguous. Christians of various stripes may celebrate different features. Those who emphasize God’s absolute sovereignty may point happily to the indication that God’s actions are not limited by any humanly graspable moral considerations. Realists may note that the theological interpretations can easily be deleted, since ordinary historical explanations for events are also provided.

As a process theologian, I do not share the view of those who celebrate God’s absolute sovereignty that God’s action need have no morally intelligible content. I will not worship an amoral being even if I am convinced of its power. My understanding of God leads me to assume that it was Samuel, rather than really God, who demanded the slaughter of the Amalekites, for example. On the other hand, I do not agree with the realists that God plays no role in history.

In my view the one whom Jesus called “abba” has never favored genocide but has always been involved in all that happens in the world. What I do like in the depiction of God in the story of David is that the divine-human relationship as interactive. God does not determine exactly happens. The actual course of events depends on human responses to God’s call. What happens may be very different from what God wills, but God responds to the new situation as it emerges. The emphasis on “sovereignty” easily, indeed, usually, misleads, and it should be subordinated, as in Jesus and Paul, to the emphasis on love. Hence God’s “plans” or hopes for the future are always contingent and always changing.

Does that mean that process theologians stand fully with Psalmist? Can we discern God’s activity as working always and everywhere for justice? Probably not. At least not when we understand justice as the Psalmist does. In the Psalm the enactment of justice divides people quite simply into the good and the bad. Although the punishment of sinners is not as much emphasized here as in some other Psalms, it is certainly asserted. “The Lord has made himself known, he has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. The wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forgot God.” Judgment as the sharp distinction of good people and bad people, the rewarding of the former and the punishing of the latter, does not fit with process theology’s understanding either of God or of humanity.

Although the idea of God as this kind of judge plays a role in both Testaments, both also transcend it. Jesus places the penitent prostitute closer to God’s basileia than the righteous, and self-righteous, in the community. He associates with those the dominant community considers sinners and unclean. God’s grace extends to sinners and righteous alike. We are called to love our enemies. The notion of “justice” becomes a great deal more complex. Paul teaches that through Christ God’s justice becomes God’s love.

Our New Testament passages are not about this change in the understanding of how God acts in history. They are about the basis for accepting their authority. In the case of Jesus, those who were with him experienced his authority in his message and his healings. In today’s passage from Mark they are astonished to discover that “even the winds and the waves” obey him. Nature miracles strain our credulity today, and it is quite possible that this story is grossly exaggerated. But its telling and acceptance in the early Christian communities attests to the sense of Jesus’ overwhelming authority among believers.

Paul’s case is somewhat different. His presence was not so imposing. Miracles played little part in his ministry. Most believers assumed that those closest to Jesus during his ministry were the authorities, and there was some tension between Paul and them. Paul could claim some authority on the basis of his vision. But he does not appeal to that here.

Some modern readers complain that Paul brags about himself. That is unfair. Paul is deeply convinced that he has understood the meaning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and that this has brought about a new historical era in which Gentiles can participate fully in salvation. Many Christian teachers, he saw, did not appreciate the radical nature of this change and still wanted to place obstacles in the way of Gentiles. How could he persuade the Corinthians to hold fast to the freedom he had proclaimed?

He judged that this could be done only as they accepted his right to proclaim it. This could not be based on direct instruction by Jesus. It could only be based on confidence in his integrity. He could not prove that. No one can. But he could remind the Corinthians of what they already knew – his total, selfless dedication to the proclamation of the gospel. In any worldly sense he gained nothing from his missionary work. Instead he suffered greatly for it. He did so without complaint because of the wonder of the content of his message and what happened to those who heard and believed.

At the very least the Corinthians could be assured that he was not a charlatan. He was convinced of his own teaching. And he gave profound and insightful reasons for understanding the implications of Christ in this way. Further, the Corinthians’ own experience witnessed to its truth. This combination sufficed for them, and it is still persuasive today.

John B. Cobb, Jr., is professor emeritus of the Claremont School of Theology. He is a co-founder of the Center for Process Studies and author of many books, including The Process Perspective, Christ in a Pluralistic Age, and Becoming a Thinking Christian. These titles are available from the Process & Fatih bookstore.       

---

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.