From the Lectionary for 17 November 2024 (Proper 28B)

Mark 13:24-32 (NRSV)

But in those days, after that suffering,

the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven,
    and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

~

"[Jesus is] in a sense trying to get [the disciples] out of thinking in terms of the times and signals that they thinking about. He's above all trying to get them to get out of conspiracy thinking, not to be moved by the great shocks and tribulations that are to come, but to be able to keep their eye on what is in fact coming in. So that's what the next verses are about.

"Now, at the same time that [...] Mark makes references to Ezekiel, which Jesus was enacting, there are the references to Daniel, another we would call apocalyptic book. But in Daniel the references are to the Son of Man coming - with Ezekiel he's leaving, with Daniel coming - and the whole point is that the two are happening simultaneously in the person of Jesus: the going and the coming are simultaneous in the person of Jesus. Many of the other quotes which Jesus hints at are from the book of Lamentations, again referring to the Lord going and the destruction that is about to come, but at the same time there are also references, not so hidden, to the Song of Songs, which is to do with the Lord being discovered, the Lord coming back and coming to meet his beloved.

"So these are the two that are going on: Ezekiel and Daniel, Lamentations and Song of Songs, both showing simultaneously departure and the arrival. I think that if we read today's Gospel with that dynamic in mind we'll get more out of it.

[...]

"[It's] actually quite a common theme, this notion of the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give it's light and the stars will be falling from heaven. This is the standard way of referring to un-creation, because if you remember, at the beginning of creation first of all there is the light, and that brings everything to being and thereafter order is established and so on. So this is a way that the disciples refer to something so terrible that it's as if the uncreation has happened.

[...]

"So here we have something that will be enacted at the crucifixion - remember that [at] the crucifixion the sun went out - there was no light of sun - and the moon did not give off any light. In other words, this passage was being fulfilled, uncreation actually happened [at the crucifixion]. The breathing out of Jesus' spirit going up to death was the going back outside to before the time of creation, because this was the work of the Creator bringing in the new Creation.

"Then they will see, at exactly that moment, they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Okay, so what did they see? They saw the Son of Man on a cross, and that was reigning from the Cross, as we sing at Easter, and the notion that it was the definitive sacrifice of the great high priest and therefore the clouds of incense were surrounding it. So what they were seeing was the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

"Now of course, at the moment that this happened, the crucifixion, they didn't see that - what they saw was someone being put to death, with the darkness. But of course it was the resurrection that brought out that in fact this was the real thing that had happened, that had been the Son of Man, and that those who'd actually seen the crucifixion had in fact seen the coming [of the Son of Man] without being aware of it.

"In other words, that from something that looked very small, frightening, insignificant and negative, that was in fact the moment of the coming: the going and the coming were the same thing.

[...]

"[...T]alking about the fig tree [...] “its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves.” So once again he's referring to the crucifixion and it's tenderness and it's vulnerability, but the huge effect that is coming behind it, because just as you see [...] the fig leaves becoming tender it's becoming the sign of the very very much bigger, more powerful thing that is in fact behind it, which is 'summer is a-coming in'. So Jesus is saying that what in fact [the disciples are] going to see, the tiny sign that is [him] dead on the cross, behind that there is all the power of the opening up of creation."

- James Alison, from video "Homily for Sunday 33 in Ordinary Time 2021" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFmAX8nNz_Y)

~

"I hope that you see some of the threads of subtlety which are to be found beneath Mark’s text. The so-called apocalyptic discourse of Jesus is nothing other than a brilliant exercise in the subverting from within of the apocalyptic imagination. It has as its end to teach the disciples how to live in the times that are to come, the time which I called ‘of Abel.’

"Above all it seeks to train the disciples with respect to what must be their deepest eschatological attitude: the absolutely flexible state of alert so as to perceive the coming of the Son of Man, the one who is seated at the right hand of God, in the most hidden and subtle forms in which, in fact, he comes. That is, we are dealing with instructions as to how to live with the mind fixed on the things that are above, where Christ is seated with God: not glued to some fantasy, but learning to perceive the comings of the Son of Man in the acts of betrayal, of rejection, of handing-over and of lynching.

"We can compare this with the experience of Elijah on Mount Horeb, who had to learn that God was not in the tempest, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the still, small voice which passes by unperceived (1 Kings 19:11-13). Well, we’re dealing with a similar experience: Jesus was explaining to the disciples that the state of alert in the face of his coming is a training in the perception, not of that which is bruited abroad, nor of what glistens appealingly, but of the way that all the majesty and splendour of God is to be found in the almost imperceptible victim, on the way out of being."

- James Alison, Raising Abel, pg. 149

[Note that I have chosen to present the Roman Catholic lectionary Gospel reading above. The RCL (Revised Common Lectionary) Gospel text for Proper 28B is Mark 13:1-8. For extensive analysis and discussion of this and the other lectionary texts, and the source of the quote from James Alison's Raising Abel, see: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper28b/]

From the Lectionary for 10 November 2024 (Proper 27B)

Mark 12:38-44 (NRSV)

As he taught, he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

~

"More sermons than not this Sunday, I suspect, will... use a rather uncritical equation of Temple=church to say that Jesus wants us to give more money to the church, trusting that God will take care of us if only we have the courage to pledge more.

"There's one problem with this reading. Actually, I have to amend that. There are MYRIAD problems with this reading, but let's start with the biggest one: Where do you see any suggestion at all in the text that Jesus thinks it's a wonderful thing that this poor widow put her last two coppers - all she had to live on - in the Temple treasury, going away destitute?

"It just isn't there. If anything, the text suggests the opposite. The passage starts with Jesus warning his followers to beware of those who like to walk around in long robes, receive the seats of honor, put on a good show of prayers, and DEVOUR WIDOWS' HOUSES. That last bit is particularly important because of what follows: Jesus watches a bunch of guys in long robes take a widow's last two coins - all she has to live on.

"Then Jesus says something. What he says boils down to “and just in case you thought I was making stuff up on that point, check out this woman - she just put literally her last cent, all she had to live on, in the treasury to maintain this lovely building.”"

- Sarah Dylan Breuer, Proper 27B, of “Dylan’s Lectionary Blog.” (https://www.sarahlaughed.net/.../11/proper_27_year_.html)

~

"This pericope [of "The Widow's Offering"] is an example of the rapacity [of the scribes] described in 12:40. The docile contributions of the crowd show that it and the temple are in league. Then Jesus singles out one person from the crowd, a poor widow who gave her whole life (holon ton bion autes, 12:44). She is swallowed up by the temple and its supporting crowd. She is a scapegoat figure.

"This text is usually read as a moral comment on the relatively greater importance of intention compared to action. Because of the total commitment of the gift, it is worth more than all the other gifts that cost their givers less. But we are left wondering about the fate of the widow, now that she has given her all to the system. How will she live? Is this sort of prodigality really being commended, or are we being shown an example of why [in verse 37] the crowd heard with gladness the announcement of the end of the system? We think that the latter message is the more likely, even though the crowd does not understand how the system depends on its complicity. Despite its complicity, the crowd understands the scapegoating method of the temple system.

"This story picks up the theme with which the section on the temple began, the theme of the faith of the individual over and against the barren system (11:22-25), and shows how the demands of the system make the life of the individual difficult if not impossible. It tells us that the intention of the individual, misguided and betrayed as it is, is nevertheless worth more than all the crowd’s participation in this oppression, and it presents the culminating indictment of the system as it prepares for the climactic announcement of its destruction."

- Robert Hamerton-Kelly, The Gospel and the Sacred, pp.33-34

~

"Now, [Jesus] doesn't say that [the widow is] being meritorious, it doesn't say that she's getting something [of] value for this. In fact, and this is a reading which I strongly urge you to suggest, [Jesus] says this with a certain sadness. It takes nothing away from her goodness, but what on earth is this poor woman doing contributing to this thing which is about to be swept away, which is about to go out of existence? She's wasting her money. It doesn't at all stop her from having a beautiful heart. The future disciple of Jesus will be like her in giving away, but not to the Temple built with hands [cf. Hebrews 9:24] [but] giving away to others.

"And that will be the form of blessedness that's going on, which is why the Church gives us the reading from Elijah today [(1 Kings 17:10-16)], with Elijah receiving the very little that the widow of Zarephath had to give him, not keeping the temple going but recognizing a prophet and receiving a prophet's reward. That's going to be the shape going forward of how we contribute to the [true] Temple, out of our nothing, we contribute and we will be given what enables us to survive.

"But once again, what's going on here is the Temple - how it's going to be destroyed, how all this contribution to it is worthless. There's an amazing indifference by Jesus to this at this stage. He's already said it's over, he's not angry with it. He's just looking in amazement as sees both pointless goodness given out of abundance from those who are keeping the thing going, and maybe getting 'brownie points' as you hear the big clunking of their coins as they go in, but also of the genuine devotion and generosity of someone who is giving all that she has, which is the sign of what it's going to be like when there is no temple."

- James Alison, from "Homily for Sunday 32 in Ordinary Time 2021" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3MNoa3yAmM)

[Source of Robert Hamerton-Kelly quote and link to Sarah Dylan Breuer blog, and for analysis and discussion on all this week's lectionary texts: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper27b/]

From the Lectionary for 3 November 2024 (Proper 26B)

Mark 12:28-34 (NRSV)

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Then the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbour as oneself,’—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.

~

"The religious and the secular powers have been shown to be transcended by the new community of the victim called “resurrection.” What then shall be the power of the new community? How shall society be preserved from chaos if not by [burnt offerings] and sacrifices? And what shall be the basis of law (prohibition) in the new community?

"A lawyer who has been impressed by the astuteness of Jesus’ answers asks him for the fundamental principle of the law. Jesus answers with the Shema, which is essentially a prohibition on idolatry. The love of God with all one’s powers leaves no love for other gods. If there is to be a new, community, it must be founded on the renunciation of idolatry, which is the worship of sacrificial violence in the guise of the deified victim. The renunciation of idolatry entails the renunciation of vengeance.

"The demand for the renunciation of vengeance takes the positive form of the command to love the neighbor as the self. The full quotation from Lev 19:18 is, “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” It is clearly a proscription of the fundamental principle of law, vengeance. The web of reciprocity must be broken and replaced by a network of love if there is to be a new community, and for that to happen the idol of the primitive Sacred must be forsworn.

"Jesus rejects the whole panoply of sacred violence in its first principle as idolatry and its social manifestation as vengeance. The lawyer is the one who expresses this fact when he says, “You spoke elegantly and truly, teacher, when you said that Cod is one and there is no other besides him, and that to love him with a whole heart and a whole mind and a whole strength and to love the neighbor as oneself is more than [burnt offerings] and sacrifices” (12:32-33). Jesus did not speak the words about [burnt offerings] and sacrifices; the lawyer added them, and we can only understand them as a summary of all that has gone before in the section beginning with the incident in the temple and the ensuing questioning of Jesus. The lawyer had been listening to the exchanges and was impressed by Jesus’ answers. He is not far from the kingdom because he understands the import of Jesus’ teaching on the non-sacrificial nature of the new community.

"The antagonists are silenced. “No one dared to question him any more” (12:34). It is now clear that a new society called “resurrection” is at hand, based on true transcendence and mutual love, and not on the law of vengeance and the order of the scapegoat. Jesus represents something more than the order of [burnt offerings] and sacrifices; he represents a new and different possibility of love."

- Robert Hamerton-Kelly, The Gospel and the Sacred, pp.30-34

~

"First let's concentrate on the Shema. The first commandment, curiously, is not 'love'. The first commandment is 'listen'. “Listen O Israel.” It's the collective listening. That is something which Jesus is indicating is the first and major commandment.

"We usually immediately go to the 'you must love God and your neighbour as yourself' bit, but as a good son of Israel, Jesus knows that the first commandment is 'listen'. It's being audibly under the voice of God, stretching your hearing, together with others, constantly trying to listen to the voice of God. That's at the beginning of the first commandment, there's no loving God with out that. The whole point of loving is not... 'okay, you've told me what to do now I must get on and do it, that's our problem'. No, in order to be able to love you have to undergo listening, that's the first commandment.

[...]

"So Jesus is interpreting [the commandments] in that sense: there's no love of God that is not also a love of neighbour. I'd just like to ask us to stop and think about that, because, at least psychologically for me, that's always been a tough one - knowing how. You say you should love God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind and the strength - what on earth does that mean? I understand, you know, pushing a trunk uphill with all my heart with all my soul with all my mind and my strength - it's something that I can feel myself doing. I have no idea what it means to love God with all my heart, my soul, my strength, my will, because God is not a trunk or an equivalent thing - God is not a stock exchange or a house or a boyfriend or a girlfriend.

"It doesn't seem obvious how you fulfil the command, and yet the criterion is now given: the criterion is your neighbour as yourself. In other words, it's exercising all the qualities which are referred to God with your neighbour, without rivalry. There is no rivalry between the loving of God and the loving of your neighbour. On the contrary, the loving of your neighbour is the criterion for loving God. That's the absolutely central linking of these two, which is again one of the pillar teachings of Christianity.

[...]

"[T]he scribe was so pleased, because he understood perfectly well that Jesus had answered the question with relation to the one God, and with relation to the cleaving to [God] and how one worships [God] with relation to the neighbour, in such a way as to say, “Yes, I may have threatened, indeed prophesied the collapse of the temple, but I'm not here to set up another temple. What I'm going to be doing is going to be done as a witness to you for how you create [...] neighbourliness, fraternity. [...] That's what I'm going to be doing. In other words, you don't need to be frightened that what I am coming to introduce is another temple, a different sort of burnt offering. It's not a burnt offering at all. I'm going to be giving myself and creating the temple without hands that will in fact enable us all to become neighbours, and all to worship the God who is One.” So this is why the scribe goes away happy.

"“When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.' After that no one dared to ask him any question.” Very interesting. Why didn't they dare? Well, he'd given the three pillar teachings, and in each one he'd shown himself to be absolutely loyal and central to the faith of Israel, absolutely understanding of the central texts of Israel, and absolutely determined to create neighbourliness without rivalry in what he was planning to do. In other words, those who wanted to get rid of him would have to do so by false accusation, they couldn't take anything that he had said.

"And that is the end of their formal attempts to trap him in the first place, but later, as in the case of the scribe, to begin to see that here was something really interesting, and something not to be frightened of. So the scribe was able to go away having been blessed. [...] Non-rivalry between God and neighbour is going to be introduced fully in line with the faith of Israel."

- James Alison, from video "Homily for Sunday 31 in Ordinary Time 2021" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLT43GG2ZpA)

[Source of Robert Hamerton-Kelly quote, and for analysis and discussion on all this week's lectionary texts: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper26b/]

From the Lectionary for 27 October 2024 (Proper 25B)

Mark 10:46-52 (NRSV)

They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stood still and said, “Call him here.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you.” So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.” Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.

~

"The story of Jesus healing the blind man Bartimaeus is considered by many Bible scholars to be the closing bookend of what is called an inclusio. An inclusio is a literary device where two passages echo each other in such a way as to create bookends for the material in between them. In this portion of Mark, the two echoing stories involve the healing of a blind man. The material between these two stories is the journey to Jerusalem. The first healing (Mark 8: 22-26) takes place at Bethsaida. The second takes place as Jesus arrives at Jericho, the last stop before arriving in Jerusalem. In the intervening material the journey is punctuated by Jesus’ three predictions of his Passion coupled with the incomprehension of his disciples. Each of these predictions is also accompanied by disputes among the disciples as to who is the greatest.

"The blindness of the two men who need healing is often thought to represent the blindness of the disciples which also needs healing. With the man in Bethsaida, Jesus needs two tries to get the healing right, suggesting that the blindness of the disciples is difficult to heal. The much easier healing of the man in Jericho suggests hope that the disciples, though still blind, will also be healed.

"I agree with this interpretation of the inclusio but there is something else that has caught my attention. [...] When Bartimaeus cries out, the people in the crowd rebuke him and tell him to be quiet. Far from helping Bartimaeus in getting a healing, they try to hinder him. In this, they act the apostles who just a short time ago had tried to keep the mothers from bringing their children to Jesus. Moreover, the crowd has shifted its focus from Jesus to Bartimaeus and in an adversarial way at that. Again, this matches the disciples who focused on each other in their altercations rather than on Jesus.

"If the crowd at this point is an extension of the disciples, then they badly need healing and yet, the more healing they need for their blindness, the more resistant they are to healing. Bartimaeus, in calling out to Jesus by his Messianic title shows that he sees more than those who theoretically have eyes."

- Andrew Marr, Abbot of St. Gregory’s Abbey (Three Rivers, MI), from blog post titled “The Blind Man Who Could See.” (https://andrewmarrosb.blog/2015/10/22/the-blind-man-who-could-see/)

~

"Then Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’” There’s the self-revealing question again. “What do you want me to do for you?” Remember James and John’s answer was “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” How will the blind man reply by contrast?

"He begins, “My teacher,” not just teacher but “my” teacher. This is personal and relational. He feels close to Jesus. He believes his teacher has something to teach him. He knows he is not a self-made, self-contained and self-actualized reservoir of individuality. He acknowledges his dependency, his need for Jesus and the warmth and respect he feels coming from Jesus. Our hearts soften as we hear them talk to each other.

"“My teacher, let me see again.” A simple expression of a simple wish. He wants to be made whole, to see in living color and see his teacher’s face. His request is not referenced to any other human being. He doesn’t want to be better than anyone else, even other people who are blind. He asks not to be served, only made whole."

- Tom Truby, from a sermon titled “Blind Bartimaeus and the Sons of Thunder Meet Themselves in What They Ask For.” (https://girardianlectionary.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Truby-Proper25-2018-Blind-Bartimaeus-and-the-Sons-of-Thunder-Meet-Themselves-in-What-They-Ask-For.pdf)

~

"Jericho only gets mentioned as a place that they come to and effectively go through. So here is Jericho. Jericho is a Benjaminite city, and we'll see why that's important later. But more important for this particular purpose it was a standard place from which people would make the pilgrimage up to Jerusalem [...].

"And, of course, no one could do it on the Sabbath. So one of the things that you would have on at dawn after the Sabbath would be people gathered to start together to make the trip up to Jerusalem, a large crowd of people. So not only Jesus and his disciples but a large crowd were leaving Jericho - that would have been standard particularly the morning after the Sabbath. And remember that this is the day in which Jesus gets to Jerusalem. He comes in on donkeys, so it's what we call Palm Sunday.

[..]

"So here they are, they're all about to leave heading up, when suddenly Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, a blind beggar was sitting by the roadside. Okay, but the name is repeated twice means we're meant to pay a lot of attention to it. And here's the thing: it's a pun in Greek and in Aramaic. In Greek, “Timaeus” means worthy, honourable, bearer of prestige. In Aramaic, it can mean disgraced, poor. It has these two meanings together, and we're going to see in a second why that's so important because the pun is going to respond to something very real.

"Anyhow, he's blind and he's a beggar, so he's doing something - he's begging, asking people for things as they go by. And he's sitting by the roadside. A wonderful memory comes up of a great figure of the Old Testament who blind sat by the roadside waiting for news of the Ark of [the Covenant]. And this was Eli - you remember, the great priest who had taken Samuel the prophet on as his acolyte, and whose two sons, Phinehas and Hophni, had been such bad models and were killed in battle, lost the Ark; and Eli had fallen over backwards. He'd been sitting by the side of the road, he'd fallen over backwards and died when he heard this news.

[...]

"Shortly before Eli dies, he's approached by another prophet, simply a man of God who comes to tick off Eli and his family. He says: “Now the Lord declares, far be it from me, for those who honour me, I will honour, and those who despise me shall be treated with contempt. See a time has come when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your ancestors' family so that no one in your family will live to old age. The fate of your two sons shall be a sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. I will raise up for myself a faithful priest who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. I will build him a sure house and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever. Everyone who is left in your family shall come to implore him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread.”

"I hope you can see that what we have here [in Mark's Gospel] is the fulfilment of the honour/dishonour paradox in that prophecy. What we have is the descendant of Eli here waiting, longing for the true priest, the true son of David, to come along who will establish the new house and will undo his dishonour and enable him to come back to honour again.

"“When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say: Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!” So this is the beginnings of the reference to the son of David. This is very important here because it's the whole of the Passion narrative is going to depend very much on Jesus fulfilling the David narrative. Remember, going up to Jerusalem was what David did in order initially to conquer it when it was a Jebusite city. During David's conquest of Jerusalem, some blind people and some lame people got in the way and he said - this is in 2 Samuel - he got cross with them and said, “May the blind and the lame never be on the mountain.” So they could never come into the Temple. [...] But here this appears to be one of the blind who wasn't allowed to go up, couldn't go up because of David's curse.

"So, here this is someone who's bearing with him so much, if you like, of the curses of old Israel: the failed nature, a failed priesthood, a blind person who couldn't go up, who couldn't fulfil the promised pilgrimage. But he hears that it's Jesus of Nazareth. So he knows something about this, he realises that a prophecy is being fulfilled: “Jesus son of David have mercy on me!” [...] In other words, he knows that at last that which old Eli had been waiting for, the promised Ark, the promised Priest, the one who would undo the disgrace was coming along.  

[...]

"So, he wanted to see, but notice he said it straight away. He's begging, so he's used to asking for things, but what he really wants is to see, to be the priest he was supposed to be. Whereas James and John, if you remember [in the passage directly preceding, covered in last week's lectionary], had made a request for the place of honour, and it was only later that they began to understand what they had really asked for, he, Bartimaeus had worked through the begging and now wanted what really mattered.

"And Jesus says to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” He doesn't say follow him, he says go, because he's not asking to be followed once, he's saying 'go up to Jerusalem, go on this route you can now [take], you're no longer forbidden from going up to the temple'. “Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.” In other words he becomes the model disciple without even needing to be told that this, what's going on, can only really be learned in the following. He goes up with them and will no doubt now be a witness to the events that will unfold from later that day when, after the very long walk, they get to Jerusalem - come in on the donkeys - and the week of the Passion begins."

- James Alison, from video "Homily for Sunday 30th in Ordinary Time 2021" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrLpMyrrDE)

[Source of links to Andrew Marr blog and Tom Truby sermon, and for discussion on all this week's lectionary texts: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper25b/]

From the Lectionary for 20 October 2024 (Proper 24B)

Mark 10:35-45 (NRSV)

James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They replied, “We are able.” Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. So Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

~

"The significance of [Mark 10:38-40] in our present discussion is massive. For Mark, it is clear that the two brigands on Jesus’s right and left, as described in 15:27, are the ones to whom “it’s been assigned already.” But that means, as we might have concluded from other evidence too, that Jesus’s crucifixion is the moment when he becomes king, when, as James and John say, he is “there in all [his] glory” (10:37). That is the powerful - if deeply paradoxical! - “coming of the kingdom” as spoken of in Mark 9:1. But the arrival of the kingdom in that way will not mean that James and John, and many others too, can look forward to an easy utopia thereafter. On the contrary, they will still have to drink Jesus’s cup and be baptized with his baptism, in other words, to share his suffering and quite possibly his death. (This happened to James quite quickly, as we discover in Acts 12:2.)

"It is in this context, as we have already seen, that we find the kingdom and the cross in close juxtaposition. Jesus contrasts the normal practice of pagan rulers with his own vision of power and prestige: “Anyone who wants to be great among you must become your servant” (10:43). This is at the centre of his vision of the kingdom.

"And this is not only illustrated, but instantiated, by Jesus’s own vocation: “The son of man didn’t come to be waited on. He came to be the servant, to give his life ‘as a ransom for many’” (10:45). This saying, so far from being (as has often been suggested) a detached, floating nugget of “atonement theology” within early church tradition that Mark or his source has tacked on to a story about something else (the reversal of normal modes of power), is in fact the theologically and politically apposite climax to the whole train of thought. What we call “atonement” and what we call “kingdom redefinition” seem in fact to be part and parcel of the same thing."

- N.T. Wright, How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels, pp. 227-228

~

"Now people often refer [ransom - Gr. 'lutros'] to the Isaiah passage which is our first reading [Isaiah 53:10-11]. I personally think that there's a lot more use of this word 'lutros' in the book of Numbers [Chapter 3], where it describes the selection of Aaron and the family of Levi to be the priests and Levites. Being a priest or a Levite is described as giving yourself as a ransom. So [Jesus] is saying that giving yourself as a ransom is, as it were, stepping into and undoing the sacrificial order. In the case of Israel, initially, it was setting up the sacrificial order. Now that that has served its teaching purpose, now it's up to us to learn to step into it. That's what he's proposing to them.

"And so you have the servant: the waiter [Gr. diakonos]; the slave: the someone under everyone; and the priestly figure, the self-giving priestly figure: the ransom for many. This is a pattern of desire. It's following on from the child - the waiter; the slave - someone who's eyes are fixed on the hands of their master; and then the self-giving priestly figure, all of which Jesus is going to inaugurate so that we can take part. That's going to be our walking towards Jerusalem with him.

"Stick with that. Here we have the beginnings of learning. James and John don't get it so badly wrong as we might think. Jesus is not trying to rebuke them for having desire. He's saying: no, it's good to want these things. You may be asking something that can't be done because it's only discovered in the process what your place is going to be, it's only in the process that you will discover your seats, if you like, your place in the overall picture. And then it's being like a boy, a waiter, someone who hangs around, attentive to others. That's how you're going to be the greatest, and you should want those things, that's wonderful. It's how you get there that's going to be the really important thing."

- James Alison, from video "Homily for Sunday 29 in Ordinary Time 2021" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InpLiKbS7ug)

~

"First, so as to give the disciples a new model for desire, in the wake of their dispute as to which of them is greatest, Jesus places a small child in their midst, and takes him in his arms (Mark 9:34-37). Shortly afterwards Jesus has to rebuke the disciples for hindering the access of children to him: “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Mark 10:15).

"Finally, James and John request places of honour, and the jealous indignation of the other disciples boils over (Mark 10:35-45). However, Jesus does not rebuke James and John for their desire - merely indicating to them the sort of tribulations they will have to go through before inheriting it. It is the other ten who are given a lecture presupposing the rivalistic nature of their own desire. James and John seem to have learnt from the child. It is not of course that children are ‘innocent’ in any way at all: it is just that they are less complicated and calculating about knowing what they want, running for it, and insisting on getting it. It is just such a pattern of desire that is able to receive the kingdom of God.

"Did Jesus himself desire in this way? That is to say, was it the ability to imagine an urgent good for himself that enabled him to live as he did and give himself up to death? Apart from what we may deduce from the parables, there is at least one indication that the apostolic witness saw him as desiring in exactly this way, and in this being the model for our desire:

…let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who *for the joy that was set before him* endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of God. (Heb. 12:1b-2, my emphasis)

"We cannot, it seems, run away from the fact that the apostolic witness presents Jesus as having, in fact, taught in terms of heavenly rewards, a superabundance of heavenly rewards indeed, and expected these to be a motivating factor in the lives of those who were to follow him, and a motivating factor without any sense of shame that one is following him so as to get something, and something good for me.

"I hope I have shown that this does not depend on a crude ‘pie in the sky’ theology, but is an essential part of the eschatological imagination that Jesus was opening up for the disciples, and the beginnings of the possibility of a morality based on the calling into being and satisfaction of real desires, rather than the castration of, or weird fencing matches with, the desires that already drive us. This eschatological imagination is intrinsically related to the opening up of the vision of God."

- James Alison, The Joy of Being Wrong, pp. 228-229

[Source of quotes from N.T. Wright and James Alison's The Joy of Being Wrong, and for extensive analysis and discussion on all this week's lectionary texts: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper24b/]

From the Lectionary for 13 October 2024 (Proper 23B)

Mark 10:17-31 (NRSV)

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” They were greatly astounded and said to one another, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”

Peter began to say to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

~

"The thought of the French thinker René Girard demonstrates that economic systems, like other interlocking social systems, are part of an all-pervasive system generated by what Girard called “mimetic desire.” That is, when one person wants something, other people are more apt to want it. The more somebody wants something, the more other people want it, not because of the intrinsic vale of whatever is valued but because something is valued. The interlocking of shared desires permeates society, making society a more tightly knotted system than the economical one. This is what the tenth commandment not to covet is all about. Jesus’ eleventh commandment [“You shall not defraud.” (Mk. 10:19)] deepens the tenth: you shall not steal what you covet because you have the social and economic power to do so. Coveting is not a vice only for the rich.

"I am among those who are seriously offended by what some preachers call “the Prosperity Gospel,” which seems to contradict Jesus’ words to the Rich Man. Somewhere (sorry, I can’t remember where), I read that many people who are attracted to the “Prosperity Gospel” are not rich but poor. In mimetic desire, other people model desires for other people. That is, other people tell me and show me what to desire. In the case of the “Prosperity Gospel,” rich people model to the poor what they should desire. We see the same phenomenon among Jesus’ disciples when, after being told how hard it is for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God, asked Jesus: “Then who can be saved?” (Mk. 10: 26) The economic system, then, is fueled by the deeper system of mimetic desire wherein everybody wants to be like the rich landlords who break the tenth and eleventh commandments.

"Jesus, then, is not inviting one person who happens to be rich to change; Jesus is asking all of us to change in such a way that the system is changed. The omnipresence of mimetic desire makes it clear that, important as it is to reform economic structures, it isn’t enough to do the job on its own. Our hearts need a makeover individually and collectively. It is this new system of the heart that Jesus inaugurated at the beginning of his teaching ministry when he proclaimed a Jubilee of freedom from being either a debtor or a creditor. (Lk. 4: 16–21)"

- Andrew Marr, Abbot of St. Gregory’s Abbey (Three Rivers, MI), “The Eleventh Commandment” (https://andrewmarrosb.blog/.../12/the-eleventh-commandment/)

~

"Not only by his words but especially by his whole existence did Jesus call his disciples to follow him. Since his own desires and ambitions were focused on the will of the Father, he assigned the same goal to his disciples. When they saw him praying, they wanted to be able to pray like him (see Luke 11:1). If Jesus’ goal had been a limited good of the senses, unconditional discipleship would necessarily have led to rivalries. But since he renounced immediate desire, he motivated his disciples to similar deeds. They “left everything” and “followed” him (Mark 10:28). To everyone who wanted to gain life in the full sense, he pointed out this way (Mark 10:17-27); and he pointed out to them through his own word and deed the heavenly Father as the one truly desirable good. But this Father is an infinite good. He can therefore be sought after by many, indeed by all human beings without fear of rivalry.

"God as the infinite good is rich enough for all humankind. Jesus also showed that the heavenly Father is no rival to his creatures. In clear contrast to the serpent of the Paradise story, who tried to convince Eve of God’s jealousy, Jesus made it clear, above all with his healings on the Sabbath, that there is no opposition between the service of God and the well-being of humans. The Pharisees by raising certain statements of the Old Testament to the level of principle did set up such an opposition. But Jesus, appealing to other places in scripture, revealed a Father who wants mercy instead of sacrifice (Matt 12:1-8; see Luke 6:1-5). If God demanded sacrifice of men and women, his wish would of necessity enter constantly into conflict with human striving for its own fulfillment. But he wants nothing but the true well-being of his creatures."

- Raymund Schwager, Must There Be Scapegoats?, pp. 176-77

~

"I think this is part of the life of the Gospel, is finding that in fact you do have sisters and brothers and mothers and houses, and a sense of belonging. Maybe it's a weaker belonging than you were accustomed to when you were grasping on, but [it is] being held by this new crowd which Jesus is bringing into being which is called the Church, however poorly our institutional model holds that up. But nevertheless, over time we do find, we have found, these things, along with the persecution.

"“And in the age to come eternal life.” Because this is what God is doing, God is bringing into being the possibility that we can let go of things, and we can start to share, not out of some desire to punish us or make us feel wicked or [...] somehow being evil. To say, no, it's just that you can have more, so you have more when you're not holding onto it. That's how God gives you the singleness of heart, and giving the singleness of heart he enables you [to have] so much more access to belonging, to being, to having, that is not grasped at, but given."

- James Alison, from video "Homily for Sunday 28 in Ordinary Time 2021" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBDiD-u21k)

I very highly recommend listening to/watching the whole of James Alison's homily, as he illuminates many details of this Gospel passage that are hidden, or easily missed, particularly in our English translations. For example, the thread of 'one-ness' in the language, (the reason for the emphasis of "singleness of heart" in the quote above), as well as more linguistic and cultural allusions behind the "camel and the eye of the needle" metaphor than you have probably heard before.

[Source of Raymund Schwager quote and link to Andrew Marr's blog, and for extensive analysis and discussion on all this week's lectionary texts: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper23b/]

From the Lectionary for 6 October 2024 (Proper 22B)

Mark 10:1-16 (NRSV Updated Edition)

He left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan. And crowds again gathered around him, and, as was his custom, he again taught them.

Some, testing him, asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

People were bringing children to him in order that he might touch them, and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not stop them, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

~

"How did it become this situation where women belong to men and are subordinate to them? People married to each other aren’t two individuals fighting each other or one holding absolute power over the other so that they can’t fight. No, they are no longer two at all, but one flesh. Each side to the union constantly yields to the other. God made us this way; and strangely, we become human as we learn how to make it work. We must learn to converse and compromise. We must yield our hearts if we want to be fully human.

"Ironically, Jesus implies that Moses yielded to their hardness of heart in writing his commandment. Moses himself didn’t have to have it just his way. He could compromise. Can the Pharisees compromise or do they make their law higher than those it’s meant to serve? This is not an empty question. [...]

"The disciples, stirred by this, bring it up again when they are alone with Jesus inside a house. This time Jesus answers “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” He takes a strong position honoring commitment before God and then he adds the missing clause that makes the genders equal. “And if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” He holds wives and husbands equally responsible for avoiding adultery. There is no subordinate partner but both stand before God, their creator.

"All along the issue wasn’t marriage and divorce. It was power; who has it, how can it be shared and how to use it for the good of the union. Jesus wants us to take power over ourselves and not the other and to use that power to listen, yield and bless.

"An opportunity to demonstrate this kind of power soon follows. “People were bringing children to Jesus so that he would bless them. But the disciples scolded them.” They didn’t want Jesus to take up his time blessing children. They have no power and therefore don’t count. They have nothing of significance to say and therefore why listen. Just as women have been made subordinate to men, so too, have children. That’s still the way it is in much of the world.

"“When Jesus saw this, he grew angry and said to them, ‘Allow the children to come to me. Don’t forbid them, because God’s kingdom belongs to people like these children.’”  “God’s kingdom belongs to people like these children.” He grants full citizenship to those without power. They are of value too. He became angry with people who cause the little ones to stumble and now he is angry with those pushing the powerless away. For the third week in a row Mark has featured an awareness of the vulnerable and their importance.

"Beginning with the children he widens his description of participants in the new culture he is bringing. Everyone who wants to belong to this community must come to it as a child. You can’t come with arrogance and the assumption of your own superiority. You must be willing to take the other, even the one you consider lesser, into account and listen to them. You must allow yourself to be changed by them, and adapt your own behavior to them. The kingdom of God is a web of dynamic relations each vibrating in response to the other and all are in the web."

- Thomas L. and Laura C. Truby, from sermon delivered on October 4th, 2015 (https://girardianlectionary.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Proper22-2015-Yielding-and-Unyielding-Hearts.doc)

~

"I feel it would be helpful to put this matter of marriage and divorce squarely in its modern context. The institution of marriage has undergone tremendous change over the last several decades, and probably the biggest factor has been the liberation of women within the oppressive structures of a male dominated marriage. There has been so much change that many conservatives still cry out for a backlash or a return to the past. I think that the two parts of our gospel can help us to steer somewhat of a middle road, perhaps.

"The first part, Jesus’ challenge to the hard-hearted Pharisees and their way of oppressing others with all their laws and their false authority, is squarely on the side of liberation. No person, whether religious authority or husband or whomever, should attempt to take God’s place as the authority in another person’s life. The husband is not the head of a household; God is. And we can’t go back to situations of oppressive marriages. Jesus challenges the hard-hearted Pharisees, with their view of marriage and divorce, just as Moses challenged the hard-hearted Pharaoh saying, “Let my people go!” Our faith calls us to liberations of all kinds, calling us to be equal partners, brothers and sisters of our loving “Abba.”

"But the second part of our gospel, in which Jesus calls us to become like children, does bring a word of caution to our liberation movements, I think. We might need to ask ourselves: Do we become so liberated that we cease to see ourselves as God’s children, as still needing to be grounded and rooted in God’s loving desire for us and for Creation? In other words, have our liberation movements sometimes moved us to be equal brothers and sisters but no longer with any parent in our lives? No higher authority other than our own selves? And what is the cost of that loss of grounding in God? Haven’t we [seen] that the fruit of such a move is more rivalry and conflict, not less? So Jesus cautions us that no one can enter God’s household without becoming a child. We cannot be truly brothers and sisters, we cannot truly be equal partners in marriage, unless we have a parent. A loving, heavenly “Abba.”

"Finally, we would be remiss if we didn’t let the last word in a sermon on marriage and divorce be one of forgiveness. Jesus called us to know God as loving “Abba,” as the one who loves us unconditionally, as the one who is always calling us home with a forgiving love that can make us truly God’s children, and, as God’s children, loving brothers and sisters of one another. We are called first of all to be brothers and sisters in baptism.

"And we are called again and again to [the Communion/Eucharist table], where Jesus our older brother offers us God’s forgiveness for all of our sins. He offers us the strength and guidance of learning to becoming like a child. As the Son of God he shows us how to be sons and daughters, obedient to our loving “Abba’s” desire for us."

- Paul J. Nuechterlein, from sermon delivered on October 4-5, 1997 (https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper22b_1997_ser/)

[Source of the sermon links, and for extensive analysis and discussion on all this week's lectionary texts: https://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-b/proper22b/]

[I also highly recommend James Alison's video "Homily for Sunday 27 in Ordinary Time 2021" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOXL6U2pnu8]