Neh. [7: 72b-] 8: 1--3 [-4a], 5--6, 8--10 [-12] [suggested]
The New Jerusalem Bible(1) titles this section (in part) "Judaism is born". We understand the justification for that title. But we Christians should also realize that, as Levi was in the loins of his ancestor(2), so our faith and church were "in the loins" of the Jewish faith emerging through the events of this "day".
Looking behind, we read: Now, when the wall had been rebuilt and I had hung the doors.... (7: 1) This context is important: Nehemiah's primary goal had been accomplished; the people of Jerusalem could now live in secured peace. The entire assembly(3) now had the freedom to gather; it was a situation worthy of some manner of celebration. So this was a planned event, as v.4 shows, and it occurred by the will of the people: all the people gathered... and asked the scribe Ezra to bring the Book of the Law (1).
How much do we, as pastors, teachers and leaders of the church, think that it is our job to call the people to worship and Bible study? How much do we, who occupy the pews, imagine that we come to hear a certain preacher or teacher? But what does this Scripture tell us? That the people are the driving force: they gathered to hear the Book of the Law read and expounded. They asked the scribe Ezra and he responded to their call, translating [into everyday language] and giving the sense [as opposed to "interpreting"]; so the reading was understood. (8)
Look what happens when the people do understand, when the Spirit of Truth gets through to their hearts and minds: the people were all in tears (9). They felt embarassed, guilty, ashamed to be sure, but how did the LORD inspire the leaders to respond? 'Today [this moment, occasion] is sacred to Yahweh your God. Do not be mournful, do not weep.' (9)
Consider the astounding priority established here: the reading, hearing and understanding of God's Word is an event sacred to Yahweh. The reality of that sacredness obliterates all sense of embarassment, guilt and shame that we may have. And this realization-- that our understanding [not interpretation] of God's Word makes us a recipient of and partner to both 'Today' and its sacredness-- sacred to Yahweh, not to us.
What does sacred mean? Who determines what is sacred? The Council of Trent? Venerable tradition? High-level church courts? The pastor? Me? God?
And what is the purpose, the result, of participation in a sacred event? Read v.12, and see why I think it should be included in the lection.
Pastor, when you consider what you are giving your congregation, do you stop to think about what you may be depriving them of? Remember: The Law of Yahweh is perfect, refreshment to the soul; the decree of Yahweh is trustworthy, wisdom for the simple. (8) (That last phrase is not a put-down!) Listen: joy for the heart; light for the eyes (8), more desirable than gold, (10) brings great reward. (11) What do you desire for your congregants? Or, like Ezra, what have the people... asked you to bring to the assembly?
Paul's thought here is well connected to the readings from the Hebrew Scriptures: the body, the people. Within the context of ch.12, we tend to associate these thoughts with our teaching on the spiritual gifts, which is a viable relation.
But I think Paul has something more to say, deep down in his heart and words. Read verses 18--26 "out of context", as it were. Is not the Apostle preaching something about the church to the church? Do we, as "Christ's body", think and operate wholly, willingly and acceptingly-- especially in light of God's unmerited grace and unconditional love-- as Paul teaches we should? Or is there opportunity here for reflection, confession and repentance through changed attitudes, thoughts and behaviors? How can we-- how dare we-- think that God would entrust us with those precious spiritual gifts to minister in Christ's name to the world, if we continue to harbor resentment and ill-will toward other members of Christ's body? It makes a soul burn to proclaim the message of 1John, screaming from the peak of the steeple.
Amazing, are we not? We read: [Jesus] taught in their synagogues... (15) and think nothing of it. What!! Would you permit any "yokel" the privilege of your pulpit or to lead Bible study, just because that person had been away and has now returned? What would your congregation think if you did so?
Here is another problem we encounter when reading Scripture: we know the end of the story. We have a fairly decent idea (however [mis]construed) of who this "yokel" turns out to be; we are blinded and misled by the existence of our own faith. Consider: given the scarcity and costliness of parchment in Luke's day, why would he waste precious space on such trivia?
Because, to him and his audience, this was not a trivial matter. The synagogues had "rulers" (we have church officers), presiding officials whose function, in part, must have been to keep order in the house and to preserve the "sacredness" (to Yahweh, remember) of the act of reading and explaining the Book of the Law. Like you (or your board), this "ruler" would carefully consider the credentials of anyone before allowing them to read Scripture, translate and give the sense of the words.
Luke intended his readers to gasp in disbelief at the thought of Jesus doing this, then to wonder just who this person might possibly be, that this honor, privilege and sacramental duty had been assigned to him. Luke wants you, and me, to wonder who this Jesus is. Our problem, obviously, is that we think we already know.
Or do we?
1. 1 Cited throughout. 2 Heb. 7: 10. 3 Check the definition in 8: 2 & 3, and consider why this was deemed significant enough to
warrant repeating 4 I guess-- hope-- that I need not comment at length on how the selectors of the lectionary
disclose their bias by omitting v.31b. One gets the impression that they have not read, or
chose to ignore, v.26.
(comments to Phil at ENAPXH@aol.com )