From: John Shearman
Date: 11/4/00
Time: 10:39:28 AM
TWENTY-SECOND SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST - NOVEMBER 12, 2000 RUTH 3:1-5; 4:13-17. The climax to the story comes through a clever plan by Ruth's mother-in-law, Naomi, to provide Ruth with security by marrying her kinsman, Boaz. Behind this plan lay the ancient Israelite custom of the nearest relative having responsibility for a widow's care. The child of Ruth and Boaz became the crowning glory of the whole story: he was the grandfather of King David.
PSALM 127. This is one of the Songs of Ascent believed to have been sung by pilgrims approaching the temple for great festivals. It celebrates the virtues of strong family life as the basis for national security.
HEBREWS 9:24-28. Reiterating the supremacy of Christ as the only true mediator between God and humanity, this passage points out how this differs from the Hebrew sacrificial tradition. Instead of repeated offerings, the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross has eternal effectiveness. The reading also cites the early Christian belief in the return of Christ when salvation will be complete.
MARK 12:38-44. Approaching the temple, Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the scribes (experts in religious law). He re-emphasized the point by drawing attention to the sacrificial offering of a poor widow in contrast to the large donations of the wealthy. This incident declares a whole new principle for charitable giving which can be used as effectively today as ever. Christian stewardship is best measured not by how much we give, but how much we have left for personal use and discretionary spending.
************
RUTH 3:1-5; 4:13-17. The central focus of the story is clearly stated in vs. 1. Ruth's mother-in-law, Naomi, had devised a clever plan to provide Ruth with security by marrying her kinsman, Boaz. The barley harvest had arrived and Boaz was busy winnowing the grain. That ancient agricultural process involved throwing the reaped and threshed grain into the air on a windy day so that the wind would separate the grain from the chaff. In the Jewish tradition, this story is read on Shavu'ot (also called the Festival of Weeks or Pentecost) which celebrates the end of the harvest.
Naomi's scheme was for Ruth to wait until he had retired after his evening meal; then she was to seduce him in his bed. When he discovered Ruth during the night, Boaz dealt gently with her, advised her of a complication in taking care of her as both of them desired, and provided her with food as her cover for spending the night with him. Behind this plan lay the ancient Israelite custom of levirate marriage. This required the nearest relative of a widow to redeem her by marriage. If the next of kin did not choose to do so, he still had the responsibility for a widow's care. Boaz was not Ruth closest relative, so he had to negotiate with her next of kin before he could marry her. That process is described in 4:1-16.
The climax to the story comes through the child of Ruth and Boaz: he was the grandfather of King David. But there is a curious twist in 4:16-17. When Naomi became the child's nurse, the women of the neighbourhood thought the child was hers. Could this have been a subtle way of making the Moabite ancestry of David more acceptable to an Israelite audience?
PSALM 127. While there is no conclusive evidence that the Songs of Ascent (Pss. 120-134) were sung by pilgrims approaching the temple for one of the great festivals, this remains the most likely hypothesis for their collection as a set of liturgical hymns. Several of them are oriented toward the temple (Pss. 122; 125; 129; 134), while others do not have any particular reference to pilgrims. A late Mishnah tract speculates that they were sung by the Levites on the fifteen steps leading from the court of women to the court of Israel (for men only), but this has been regarded as unlikely by most scholars. More probably, they came from several sources and were redacted as a book of devotions for pilgrims.
Ps. 127 celebrates the virtues of strong family life as the basis for national security. It has several characteristics of other wisdom psalms (Pss. 1; 49; 73 128). These show a concern for moral principles and practices of a secular nature which provide for the greatest possible happiness. This one expresses a strong interest in ordinary family life expressed in very humane terms, yet rooted in a humble piety. The opening couplet makes this very clear as does the very descriptive reference to marriage, sexuality and a large family in vss. 3-5. The mention of male progeny only reveals the typical male-dominant attitudes of Judaism where only men could be "b'nai b'rith - sons of the covenant."
A very colourful set of images lies behind these same verses. A man's sons came from the marriage of his youth (vs. 4). The greater the number, the better for him, as indicated by the vivid image of a warrior's quiver full of arrows (vs. 5). In his old age, he took his place as an elder seated at the town gate debating and giving judgments with his contemporaries. He had his opponents, of course. Jewish men loved to argue minute details of the law. The fact that he had many sons gave greater strength to his arguments. His enemies knew that family loyalties had persuasive force. The threat of vengeance prevented them from shaming him.
HEBREWS 9:24-28. Like so much else in the Letter to the Hebrews, this passage exhibits an extensive knowledge of Jewish sacrificial practice. The liturgy of the Day of Atonement is the central focus here. This was the one occasion in the whole year that the chief priest could enter the holy of holies, the most sacred shrine of Israel symbolic of the invisible presence of Yahweh. There he would perform three distinct sacrificial acts to atone for sin.
The first rite used smoking coals to cense the shrine so that the high priest himself might be safe from the divine mystery. After prayer in the nave of the temple,.the high priest returned to the holy of holies to sprinkle the blood of a slain bull as atonement for all the priests. Finally, after slaughtering a scapegoat chosen by lot from one of two victims, the high priest entered the inner shrine a third time to offer its blood on behalf of the people. The second scapegoat was then driven out of the temple and city into the wilderness with a red ribbon tied around its neck. When it was pushed over a cliff to its death, a similar red ribbon on the door of the sanctuary turned white as a sign that the sins of the people were forgiven.
Reiterating the supremacy of Christ as the only true mediator between God and humanity, this passage points out how Christian faith and practice differs from the Hebrew sacrificial tradition. Instead of repeated offerings, the one, all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross had eternal effectiveness. The writer enumerates the differences: (1) The sanctuary Christ entered was heaven itself (i.e. the real presence of God), not a temple built with human hands which supposedly was a copy of the heavenly dwelling of God (vs. 24). (2) He did not offer himself again and again, as in the annual ritual, nor year after year, as did the high priest (vs. 25). (3) He offered a single sacrifice, once for all (vs. 26). (4) Having died once bearing the sins of all people, as all mortals die who then face judgment, he will return, not to judge sin, but to save those who in faith eagerly await him (vss. 27-28).
By citing the belief in the return of Christ when salvation will be complete, this passage draws the indelible boundary of discontinuity between the Christian and Jewish messianic traditions. For Christians, Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. He came, lived and died, as do all humans. But his death was different. Not only did he sacrifice himself to atone for the sins of all people, he will come again to bring them to eternal life in the presence of the eternal God. As Messiah/Christ, he is both high priest and victim, and as such his death on the cross is the divinely appointed means of atonement between God and humanity.
There is only one thing more for the author to add. It is by faith in what Christ has done by his all-sufficient sacrifice that Christians must live and die. It is this final thought the occupies him for the remainder of the letter.
Some significance may also be given to the possible historical setting for this letter. An interesting hypothesis holds that it was written for a Jewish community struggling with their difficult situation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The Levitical priesthood was already in serious decline and there was competition within Judaism from many sects, especially the Essene movement centered in Qumran. That sect looked for an eschatological era when there would be a royal and a priestly messiah, both subordinate to the archangel Michael. Qumran literature also associated Michael with Melchizedek. A Jewish scholar, Yigael Yadin, has argued that this is the background of Hebrews. Some Jewish Christians may well have been attracted to the Essene movement or were former Essenes tempted to turn back to this sectarian belief. The Letter to the Hebrews could have been written to counter this compromise of the perfection of their salvation in Jesus Christ.
MARK 12:38-44. The pilgrimage to Jerusalem is over. While teaching in the temple precincts, Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the scribes (experts in religious law). This was a very controversial thing for him to do. Undoubtedly rabbis abounded in Jerusalem as did scribes. Although highly literate, scribes were not mere copyists who transmitted the law on written scrolls. They were also well trained in the interpretation of the law. Frequently, they acted as legal counselors to the priests and to the Pharisees. The gospel narratives usually link the three distinctive groups in uncomplimentary ways. Scribes did not create new law, they merely interpreted both ancient and contemporary understandings of what already existed in the Torah.
This allowed the scribes considerable room for fudging the literal transcriptions for which they may have been responsible. Jesus forthrightly condemned this hypocrisy. Apparently it had made some of the scribes very rich. Note what Jesus criticized most severely: their fine robes; their proud appearance in public, possibly to encourage business; their way of seeking the best seats on the synagogues because being seen was also good for business; their cunning deceit of the most vulnerable to gain control of widows' property; and their ostentatiously long prayers to display their piety. One is reminded of the public appearances, photo-opportunities and television interviews modern politicians seek as the time for elections comes around.
Mark tells us that Jesus re-emphasized the point he had made about hypocrisy by drawing attention to the sacrificial offering of a poor widow in contrast to the large donations of the wealthy. Every one who entered the temple had to pay temple tithes and taxes. This passage indicates that these people made a voluntary gift to the temple treasury, possibly something like a poor box. The Mishna described a trumpet-shaped vessel atop a chest in the Court of Women into which these monies were cast. Some gave substantial amounts; the poor widow had little to give, but gave what she had nonetheless. Mark did not explain how Jesus knew about her financial status. Perhaps it was no more than her ragged appearance in contrast to the fine clothes of the rich that gave him the clue.
This incident declares a whole new principle for charitable giving which can be used as effectively today as ever. Good stewardship is best measured not by how much we give, but how much we have left for personal use and discretionary spending. A recent newspaper report told of a Jewish businessman, presumed by many to be wealthy, but who died leaving a relatively small estate. After his death, it became public that for years he had engaged his rabbi in helping him direct his fortune to those most needing help in one way or another. He had given his wealth away. This was the kind of private stewardship Jesus authenticated in this pericope. It could well be the guiding principle for all governments to raise and invest public taxation for the common good