Acts 16: 9--15
Verse 13 indicates that there was no synagogue at Philippi, which means a very small (or even zero) Jewish population in that city. Looking for a place of prayer, Paul and his companions sat down and talked to the women who were gathered there. (13) Why were these women by the riverside? Being Greek, they had no concern for the Sabbath, and Greek and Roman religions had temples everywhere, so it is doubtful that they were gathered "for prayer". Most likely they were doing laundry or, perhaps, working for Lydia, preparing fabrics for dying. In either case, they would have been too busy to be receptive to a prolonged interruption for a philosophical discourse relevant to a little-known alien religion.
Besides that, however, this occurrence is remarkable: a few men-- and "strange" ones, foreigners, at that-- approach a group of women in public, and the women permit it. For those times and cultures, unthinkable; but it happened. Smashing the social and religious mores of both Greek and Jew, this small and mostly anonymous group engages in one of the more significant events of the birth of the Church: women invited and included openly, unhesitatingly, unconditionally.
There is another point in this story which the Church today neglects. Having believed, Lydia was baptized, and her household with her (15). The text gives no indication that anyone in her household(1) heard any Gospel, repented of(2) any sins, or professed any faith; they were all accepted by the Apostle and baptized on the strength of Lydia's faith alone(3). Some denominations practice infant baptism, but the public, and probably the majority of parents taking part, think of it as a naming ritual, having little or nothing to do with God, Jesus, faith or salvation. But if a believing church member brings a spouse, parent, grown child, neighbor or co-worker for baptism, whose faith does the Church address? It seems that Lydia's story might as well not have been written. But Luke wrote it, and the Church has proclaimed it to be Sacred Scripture. Why?
Psalm 67
Verse 1 instantly reminds us of Num. 6: 24--26 and Lutkin's beautiful, beloved anthem.
No-one knows (yet) what selah means, but suppose it serves as a repeat sign, like the double-dots on a music score. If this is the intent, then the Psalm would read: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Try it, and see what the Spirit says to you, especially when verse 2 follows verse 4.
Notice the envelope structure of verses 3--5. But the outer verses do more than emphasize the inner one; their exact duplication stresses the importance of their own thought:
- Let the peoples praise you, God;
let all peoples praise you.
Pay attention also to the terms used relative to God's blessing and favor: grace, praise, joy, equity, guidance, praise and reverence. Compare the Psalm's concerns with the conditions and stipulations which the Church places on people! Is God trying to tell us something?
Rev. 21: [9-] 10, 22--22: 5 [suggested]
Perhaps the reason the lectionary omits verse 9 is to defend the Church's doctrine that we who believe are 'the bride, the wife of the Lamb.' (10) But this text denies that conceit. First, the angel says (assuming it is not lying), 'I will show you the bride,' and the author reports he... showed me Jerusalem, the Holy City (10), and spends three more verses describing physical aspects of it.
I must admit that I do not like the Revelation(4). The majority of these fabulous visions make no sense to me (apart from their surface meanings, which are largely immaterial(5) to the message being conveyed). I cannot achieve a mindset to properly visualize them. Should I try LSD? I think not. I only need to wait until the Spirit determines that I am ready for "revelation". Sure, some of the images are meaningul, and I could write about them. But that is dealing in details without comprehending the whole. Would you care to discourse on the Guernica if all you could interpret was a raised, clenched fist?
Perhaps "you had to be there" in order to "get the picture", to know what the author was implying. Maybe-- and I agree with this-- there is meaning for us also, even when most of us have no true concept of what oppression and tribulation really are. I just hope that we do not need to suffer such experiences in order to receive the comfort and reassurance of God's Word of all-inclusive, unconditional love.
Can you begin a public reading with the words, Jesus replied, without letting your audience hear what He was responding to? Yes, including Judas' question raises problems, for it shows that he failed to understand Jesus' earlier statements, particularly verse 21. But I hope these difficulties will not keep you from choosing this text, for it contains some of the most beautiful and reassuring words of Scripture.
It also has phrases easily overlooked or mis-read, such as the condition here: 'Anyone who loves me will heed what I say; then my Father will love....' (23) And: 'whoever does not love me does not heed what I say.' (24) This is, of course, a negative restatement of verse 23, and we Christians read right by it, confident that we do love Jesus. But stop; strip yourself naked before the eyes of the Spirit of Truth and consider how perfectly you do 'heed what I say.'
Sadly, none of us do; no, not one (Psa. 14: 3, 53: 3; Rom. 3: 10--12); all of us must turn away in tears. But our gracious Lord and Savior, because he loved us first (1Jn. 4: 19), continues: 'Set your troubled hearts at rest, and banish your fears.' (27)
Nevertheless, 'heed what I say.' 'Love one another, as I have loved you.' (15: 12; see 1Jn. 4: 20--21)
1 Husband, children of all ages, possibly parents, and their slaves.
2 Or "renounced".
3 Unless you want to argue from silence.
4 Is this sacrilege? Then being honest is sacrilegious.
5 If not deliberately misleading, due to the necessity of "secrecy" when written.
(comments to Phil at ENAPXH@aol.com )