Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4
Psalm 119:137-144
2 Thessalonians 1:1-4,11-12
Luke 19:1-10
Introduction
There is no single thread
uniting all of the Lections for this week, but there are several smaller
threads that unite one with another. Habakkuk begins with words as contemporary
and awful as the week’s newspapers. Death and destruction and horror control
human history but not God’s history. A brief word promised of God to the
horrors is so important that he says it is written large enough that those
running by can see it, and it will give hope to those who endure through their
faithfulness.
“Trouble and anguish” also
pervade 2 Thessalonians, but here it is the “persecutions and afflictions” that
the faithful suffer through while waiting for the imminent return of Jesus. But
here, the suffering has a direct purpose: “to make you worthy of the kingdom of God
While salvation in the
eschaton is the subject of 2 Thessalonians, the concern (well, one concern) of the Gospel text is with
salvation in the present: “today
salvation has come to this house,” Jesus announces to the crowd concerning
Zacchaeus.
Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4
Habakkuk is one of the most
poignant and painful books in the Bible. Judah Judah , before the
fall of Jerusalem
The first section “how long,
O Lord” stands in a tradition of other complaint passages in the Hebrew
Scriptures. Here are some examples:
Pss. 13:1-2
1 How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your
face from me?
2 How long must I bear
pain in my soul,
and have sorrow in my heart
all day long?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?
Psalm 62:3
3 How long will you
assail a person,
will you batter your victim,
all of you,
as you would a leaning wall,
a tottering fence?
Job 19:2
2 “How long will you
torment me,
and break me in pieces with
words?
In vss. 2-4, Habakkuk seems concerned not about
wars, but about the suffering caused by rampant corruption and injustice in his
country, something that also sounds eerily contemporary. “Strife and contention
arise,” he says. “The law becomes slack, and justice never prevails” (v.4). And
he asks why God seems so silent on them. “How long will I cry for help and you
will not listen” (v. 2).
Following that, in sections not included in our
Lectionary, Yahweh responds. Not with explanations, but with confrontations:
“Look and see…I am rousing the Chaldeans (probably Babylonians)
that
fierce and impetuous nation,
who march through he breadth of the earth
To seize dwellings not their own” (vv. 5-6).
The
trouble is that those sent to right the wrongs of oppression and corruption are
an army which has “come for violence” (v. 9a) and not just to right the
previous wrongs. “Justice and dignity proceed from themselves” (v. 7a), he says
of them. “Their might is their God” (11b). The “cure” becomes worse than the “disease.”
After
a devastating attack from an army who appear to be messengers of God’s will,
Habakkuk returns to prayer once again, this time in despair over the increased
suffering caused by the very ones he believes were sent to respond to his first
prayer. He begins by acknowledging that God has “marked them for judgment…and
established them for punishment” (v. 12). But his question is that since “Your
eyes are too pure to behold evil…why do you look upon the treacherous and are
silent when the wicked swallow up those more righteous than they?” (v. 13). In
other words, “Aren’t you God? Why do you allow this misery to happen to your
people? Doesn’t using such wicked enemies as your agents go against your very
essence? (v. 13).” The enemy is merciless and self-serving, like someone who
catches helpless fish (v. 15); he worships his own achievement, in immense
pride (v. 16). Does God care, when God’s appointed enemies are intent on
“destroying nations”? (v. 17).
Following
that, and returning to verses contained in the Lectionary, the prophet says
that he will now wait for another word from Yahweh. “I will keep watch to see
what he will say to me, and what he will answer” (v. 2: 1b). (As an interesting
aside, note that 2:1, in the King James Version, is the verse taken by the
Jehovah’s Witnesses for the title for their most important magazine, The Watchtower: “I will stand upon my watch,
and set me upon the tower, and will
watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am
reproved.”)
The
final response from God eventually comes (v. 2). The indication is that it is
of such critical importance that the prophet should write the message sufficiently
large that someone can even see it while running by. However, what is written
on the tablets is never precisely stated. It is possible that it is included in
the final message of v. 4. It is possible that the message from God, which is
written large for runners (running from the Chaldeans?), which is “the vision
for the appointed time,” that “speaks of the end,” and “does not lie,” is that
“the righteous live by their faith(fulness)” v. 4c).
This
is, incidentally, a phrase that is taken up and given critical importance by
the Apostle Paul. He interprets it (some would say contorts it) to mean that if you have faith in Jesus Christ, then
you will live (for eternity). What Habakkuk meant was that if you have
faithfulness, i.e. steadfast trust, you will survive (in this life). This is a profound message in its own right
and should be preached on its own and not connected to Paul. It is unfortunate
that the most important phrase in the Pauline corpus is based on a
misunderstanding of Habakkuk because it has great strength on its own, without
Paul's help.
For what it’s worth, the two
most famous places where Paul quotes it are:
Galatians 3:11 “Now
it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for ‘The one who
is righteous will live by faith.’”
And:
Romans 1:17 “For in it the righteousness of God is
revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous
will live by faith.’”
In the context of Habakkuk,
it means something like, if you maintain your faithfulness and don’t give in,
give up, or give out, then you will endure/survive/live until the end. It is a
perfectly fine—though different—message than Paul’s. The point of Habakkuk is
that overwhelming evil is not to be explained by logic.
I remember a fine made-for-TV
movie during the eighties starring Jane Alexander and called (I think) “Testament.”
It was about a town that was trying to survive following the explosion of
nuclear weapons over the US
That’s a promise. Not an easy
one, not always a satisfying one, to those of us who feel immortal and don’t
want there to ever be an end. But it is a holy one. If you are faithful, i.e.
strong, trusting, courageous, then God will be with you. You will feel “survival’
in your bones up to and including the very, very end.
2 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 11-12
There
is some degree of debate among scholars as to whether 2 Thessalonians was
actually written by Paul. Much of it sounds like him, but parts of it sound more
like a polemic against an overly fervent reaction to some of the things he said
in 1 Thessalonians. For example, while 1 Thessalonians assumes that Christ will
come again soon (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), and emphasizes that his
appearance will be a surprise, and that we cannot know when it will happen (see
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11), the “flavor” of 2 Thessalonians is in the opposite
direction: Christ will come, but not soon. While some scholars explain the
contrast between the two letters by saying that Paul wrote the second letter
soon after the first to overcome the disruption that expectation of the
imminent end caused, and to say that ethical conduct still matters, others see
the shift in emphasis as being so abrupt as to make Pauline authorship
unlikely. They also point out that significant differences in style suggest a
different author for the second letter.[1]
One
problematic issue is with the lectionary’s version of the text, which leaves
out the heart of the passage in vv. 5-10. The reason is that these vss. are
full of all of the blood and guts of hell fire and damnation that the
pre-millennialist fundamentalists love, but which give liberals a nose bleed.
But when they are left out, we lose the entire point of the passage, which is
the coming, the parousia, of Jesus
Christ.
Paul
begins the letter (after introductory salutations) by giving thanks for the Christians
at Thessalonica for two things:
(1) their growth in “faith” (v.
3) and love—because faith works itself out in love; and
(2) their example to other
churches of remaining faithful in spite of sufferings (probably ostracism) (v.
4). (Perhaps this is a point of connection with Habakkuk?)
That
they do endure through their
sufferings is “evidence” (v. 5) that, at the end of the era, God will find them
worthy of eternal life. When Christ comes again (“is revealed ...”, v. 7), God
will cause those who hurt them to suffer (v. 6) “inflicting vengeance upon
those who do not know God” (v. 8) (this is when the nosebleed comes in).
God will grant “relief” (v. 7, rest) to
those who have suffered.
In
general, those who have never heard of God, and those who have heard but
refused to accept the gospel, will suffer “eternal destruction” (v. 9,
presumably the opposite of “eternal life”), forever separated from Christ. When
Christ comes again, he will raise the faithful (“saints”, v. 10) to be with
him. With this objective (“to this end”, v. 11), Paul (or whoever) continually
petitions God in prayer first, to make the Christians at Thessalonica worthy of
being called by God, and second, to support to completion (through the power
of, “the name of our Lord Jesus”, v. 12) whatever intentions (“resolve”) and
acts of trust in God they initiate—so that Christ’s godliness (goodness) may be
seen in them, and theirs in Christ—achieved through the Father’s and the Son’s
“grace”, his gift of love.
Luke 19:1-10
Background:
The
story takes place in Jericho
This
is also the end of a long section which began at Chapter 15, often called the
“Gospel of the Outcast,” because in one way or another, all of the characters
in it are marginalized or outcasts. This section is also occasionally called
the “heart” of Luke’s Gospel, because, “here Luke’s use of his ‘L’ material
seems to reveal a deliberate attempt to show God’s concern for those human
beings whom people tend to despise or condemn.”[2]
Included
in that section are stories of the Lost Coin, Sheep, and Son (Prodigal), the
dishonest manager, the dishonest judge, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Ten
Lepers, and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It is interesting to note and
wonder about, that Luke ends his “Gospel of the Outcasts” just as Jesus is entering
Jerusalem, in which he will be “despised and rejected,” and left to die outside
the gates of the city….
In
terms of the origin of the story itself, most Bible scholars question whether
it is an actual story of Jesus. The “Jesus Seminar” people give it a black
rating, which means not at all likely that it happened. One probable scenario
is that it was expanded by Luke, or his tradition, from the story of the call
of Levi the tax collector (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27) with which it has a large number
of similarities. Bultmann believes it to be derived and elaborated from that
story, but by Luke’s tradition, not Luke himself. He believes that Luke himself
added v. 8 (about Zacchaeus giving away half his goods, etc.) to the story. He
thinks this for two reasons. First, because it contains some typical Lukan
language and a message about giving to the poor, a major concern of Luke’s. (Or
as Bultmann puts it, less generously, “its moral suits him.”[3]
Second,
because vv. 7 and 9 read fairly well together without v. 8 in between them.[4]
He also thinks that v. 10 is added, because it is a saying that shows up in
other contexts unrelated to this story (Luke 9:56, Matt. 18:11). However,
Joseph Fitzmyer and others disagree, saying that there is nothing wrong with saying
that Jesus could have said the same thing on more than one occasion.
To
me, v 9 is a little garbled, and that may be a result of the passage’s
composite nature. It begins with “Then Jesus said to him [Zacchaeus],” but then
he addresses the crowd instead, “Today salvation has come to this house,
because he too is a son of Abraham.” Bultmann argues that the solution is that
the text should follow the ancient variants that have “Then Jesus said, “with reference to him” instead of “to him,” and I guess that helps, but if
that is the case, I wonder why the nrsv
folk never figured that out. In our English version, the passage is just
unclear.
Note on Tax (Toll)-Collectors
This
is probably not of great interest to anybody, but I looked it up so you’ve got
to hear about it. There was a difference in Israel Rome
An
interesting problem in interpreting this passage is that, logically, some tax
collectors were dishonest, but at least some others must have been honest, and
some were in between. However, they are universally dissed in the Gospels. Why?
To understand that, Malina and Rohrbaugh make the obvious observation that
taxes were collected on almost nobody but the rich (those who had land or
property). The poor had little to be taxed for, and there was no middle class
to speak of. So, logically, those who would hate the tax collectors and be
constantly calling for tax relief, would most of the time be those of the
wealthy classes (or those from the poorer classes who have been convinced by
the wealthy and the media that our taxes are too high, but that’s another
story). It’s interesting to note, that in almost every instance of a negative assessment of tax collectors in the
NT, it comes from the (wealthy) Pharisees. Read for example, Matthew 9:9-12, Jesus’ call of Matthew the tax
collector, and the criticism by the Pharisees; Matthew 22:15-22, the Pharisees
questioning of Jesus about who should pay taxes; or last week’s Lection, Luke
18:9-14, comparing a pompous Pharisee and a repentant tax collector.[5]
By contrast to this, tax collectors are all but universally
befriended by Jesus. See for example,
Matt:9:-12, the call of Matthew; Matt. 21:31, Jesus’ assessment that even the “the tax collectors
and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you…[the ‘chief
priests and the elders of the people’],” and that “the tax collectors and the
prostitutes believed [John] and even after you [the chief priests, etc.] saw
it, you did not change your minds and believe him.” And others.
Perhaps
the greatest interpretive problem in the story is v. 8. The nrsv has the verbs in the future tense,
“Half of my possessions I will give
to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” Joseph Fitzmyer, in his
commentary on Luke, notes that the problem with this translation is that in the
Greek, the words are all in the present
tense, which dramatically alters the meaning of the passage: didÅmi (“I give away”), and apodidomi (“I give, pay back”). The
question, then, for preachers is, do these words describe Zacchaeus’ future
promise under a change life, or a defense of his present practices? The present
tense of the sentence seems to argue for the latter (present practice).
To understand Zacchaeus’ comments as a defense of
his present actions may make him look a bit self-righteous and boastful, but
that isn’t necessarily a reason for Jesus not to affirm him. Consider:
(1) Is it clear that he is a
repentant sinner (as he is usually interpreted), like the toll-collector
(18:9-15), the “woman of the city” (7:37-48, or the prodigal son (15:11-32)? He
doesn’t beg for mercy (as in 17:13; 18:38) or express sorrow (as in 15:21;
18:13).
(2) Jesus makes no reference to
the man’s faith, or to his growing faith or to any other kind of faith (as he
does in 7:50; 8:48), or to his repentance or conversion (as in 15:7, 10), or to
anything at all.
The
traditional interpretation also occasionally creates a time break between v. 7,
and v. 8 (between the criticism of “all” his neighbors, and his
“promise” of good deeds). It is
often
assumed that between the two times, Jesus has gone into Zacchaeus’ home, converted
him, and then at
v. 8, he comes out and says he is now planning on giving away half his goods.
But in the literal text, there is no time break. All of the action and all of
the conversation take place on the front steps of Zacchaeus’ home in only a few
moments. The sense is that he is a man eager to see Jesus. Jesus senses this,
and calls up to him and says he wants to stay in his home. Zacchaeus comes down
to oblige, but many (wealthy Pharisees?) in the crowd are offended by it and
call him a sinner, to which he defends himself by saying he gives away half his
goods and if he is found to have cheated anyone, he returns four times back.
Jesus then turns to him and says that Salvation is present in this house (and
presumably in the man also). Without the overlay of the traditional
interpretation, the story looks more like a vindication story than a forgiveness
story.
Fitzmyer’s
comment on this is that “Part of the problem [with understanding the story in
this new way] is the modern reader’s reluctance to admit that the Lucan Jesus
could declare the vindication of a rich person who was concerned for the poor
and even for his own customary conduct.”[6]
Jesus’
statement in v. 9 (“salvation has come to this house today”) is not made as a
pronouncement of a deed made by Jesus. There is no hint that Jesus actually did
anything. The words are directed to the angry mob outside of Zacchaeus’ house.
The words vindicate the behavior of Zacchaeus. They acknowledge that Zacchaeus
is a child of Abraham, “with as much claim to the salvation which Jesus brings
as any other Israelite.”[7]
As Bultmann says, “Jesus does not establish his relationship to Zacchaeus by
appealing to his morality, as v. 8 seems to suppose, but on the simple fact
that Zacchaeus is as much a Jew as the rest.”[8]
Note the very similar thought in 13:16, “and ought not this woman, a daughter
of Abraham, whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this
bondage on the Sabbath day?”
A
sermon which uses this interpretation could be a “discovery” sermon (“I used to
think the story meant this, but I’ve
now discovered that it means that”).
People love that. Its point is that when Jesus discovers righteousness, even in
unlikely sources, he still affirms the possibility of salvation. We (liberals?)
tend to act like wealth alone condemns. But this story seems to say that Jesus
will accept even the wealthy if their ethics live up to their faith.
[2] T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 282, cited in
Fitzmyer, p. 1072.
[3] Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, tr.
John Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1963, rev. ed. 1976), p. 34.
[4] History of the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 33-34.
[5] Bruce Malina and Richard L.
Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on
the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis
[6] Fitzmyer, p. 1221.
[7] Fitzmyer, Ibid.
[8] Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 34
