Year C, Easter 6
Year C, Easter 6
by Arch Taylor

Acts 16.9-16;
Rev 21.10; 21.10-2.25;
Jn 14.23-29;
Ps 67

ACTS 16: 9-15

We are so familiar with this passage that we neglect attending to the details which highlight the cultural/intellectual gap between them/then and us/now. Beginning with verse 6, the author mentions divine guidance for the evangelist missionaries in three modes: 1] The Holy Spirit forbidding them to speak the word in Asia (16.6); 2] the Spirit of Jesus not allowing them to enter Bithynia (16.7); and 3] a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing to Paul, asking for help (16.9). Paul saw this vision and was convinced that it was God's way of calling him and his associates to go to Macedonia (16.10). We read this story and accept it, but we don't expect anything similar to occur to us. I'm reminded of something (attributed to Barbara Brown Taylor?) If we speak to God we are said to be praying; if we say God spoke to us, we are considered crazy. The same might be said, perhaps even more so, if we claim that visions appear to us. And we tend to look askance at any other folks who make such claims.

Does God no longer communicate in these ways? Or have we become so spiritually dull or so intellectually sophisticated that we disable ourselves from receiving communications God may be even now trying to send us? In the NT, the word [horama = vision] occurs seven times, (six in Acts, one in Matt) each one marking an important turning point in the divine/human relationship. Matt 17.9 refers to the transfiguration event as a vision. In Acts 7.31, Stephen on trial speaks of Moses seeing the vision at the bush which changed his and Israel's destiny. Acts 10.17 and 11.5 refer to Peter's vision of the sheet lowered from heaven which resulted in taking the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 16 the vision sends the progress of the gospel toward the west rather than the east. The other example is in Acts 12.9 where Peter, freed from prison by an "angel," thought (mistakenly) that it was a vision. This last example shows the ambivalence of the idea of vision--in a real-world, in-the-body experience taxing his credulity, Peter thought it couldn't be real; he though it was a vision, i.e., something unreal.

What functions for us today like the visions which altered the course of biblical understanding of the character and purpose of God? How does God forbid us to go or to preach in places where our inclination turns us? How call us today to break with the familiar and usual and set out on a new direction? The Christ of the transfiguration vision took the disciples to the foot of the mountain to minister to a boy with mental and physical handicaps. The vision of the unclean animals took Peter into "unclean" Gentile homes. The vision which appeared to Paul took him from Asia to Europe and some of his most fruitful ministries. Who stand for us in the place of the "man of Macedonia?"

REVELATION 21.10; 21.22-25.5

The Lection committee's choices of Revelation texts for the 5, 6, 7th Sundays of Easter omit that highly symbolic description of the New Jerusalem which so many people have interpreted literally and futuristically -- pearly gates and streets of gold, etc. Some go so far as to calculate the volume of the cube shaped city to figure how many people could actually occupy it. Today's text speaks of "the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God..." (21.10), a verbatim repetition of last week's (21.2). The scene is not "up there" but emphatically "down here."

Furthermore, it's not a matter of some indeterminate future of perfection, but of the all too real present. Writing from the perspective of one accustomed to worshipping in house churches, the author pictures no imposing structure of wood and stone in this city -- it has no need of a temple, for the presence of the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will be the temple. Theoretically, and according to authentic theology, the true city of God can exist in this world without the burdens of real estate used one or two days a week for so-called worship of God with doors shut to the world outside.

In fact, cannot such temples repulse some from entering? The light emanating from this city will be that of the glory of God, and the Lamb will be the lamp (not the light as such, but the light bearer). Into a city like this the people of the nations and their kings will bring their glory and honor.

The river of water of life flows from the throne of God and the Lamb, and the tree of life by the river yields fruit every month. Its leaves are for the healing of the nations (22.1-2). The gates of the city are open always, no exclusivism. The offer of the water and of the healing is unconditional. Outside are the unclean and sinners, not because the doors are shut against them; they have not yet sought the free offer of life and healing.

Can we see this vision, not of the far off future beyond time, but the vision of what the church is called to be and by God's grace can be, here and now, not there and then?

JOHN 14: 23-29

The "realized eschatology" characteristic of the 4th Gospel fits the vision of the holy city of God on earth. Addressed to believers in personal terms, Jesus says, "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them" (14.23). This is precisely the here-and-now reality of Rev 21.22, that the city has no temple, for the presence of God and the Lamb obviate such real estate. The gospel word adds the promise of the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, sent by the Father in Jesus' name, to teach all things (14.26).

Jesus speaks of the ultimate worth of the apparently undesirable event of his going away, since the coming of the Spirit will ensue to their advantage. In John 14 Jesus' words prepare the disciples for the kind of world the lurid symbolism of Revelation describes: one in which "the ruler of this world" seems to operate freely, promising the "peace" of Babylon/Rome/Superpower, imposed from above by sheer military and economic dominance, bearing most heavily on the poor and any who offer criticism or opposition. In the midst of this world situation, Jesus offers the peace which rests on love for one another.

John may tempt us with a dualistic world view, we/they; insiders/outsiders; children of God/children of the devil; only those drawn by God come to Jesus/all others are ultimately rejected, etc. The universalism implicit in Revelation 4 & 5 should moderate that view. Also, John may tempt us to privatism with the view that his peace is only that of the heart of the individual in right relation to God. Revelation 21.24, speaking of peoples and nations of the world walking in the light of the city and bringing their glory into it, should turn our eyes and our efforts outward to the world; those nations still need healing.

PSALM 67

The universal application of this psalm is indicated by the use of three Hebrew words which, though sometimes interchangeable, have each a special nuance: [1] le'um/le'ummim = mass populations in general; [2] goy/goyim = nation, generally in the sense of having a political, governmental organization; and [3] `am/`ammim = people, emphasizing common cultural characteristics. Originally, `am was a kinship term designating paternal relatives, then a larger clan of related families, a tribe, etc. Israel most often considered itself `am yhwh, people of yhwh. The deity was considered the Divine Kinsman freely relating on a family basis with humans. This relationship underlay the concept of covenant. Often in the OT goyim pointed to non-Israelites, or Gentiles. In psalm 67, the psalmist still expresses a self-consciousness of Israel's special relation to God, but the differences between the three terms blur to extinction.

  1. 1 May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us,
  2. that your way may be known upon earth, your saving power among all nations [goyim].
  3. Let the peoples [`ammim] praise you, O God; let all the peoples [`ammim] praise you.
  4. Let the nations [le'ummim] be glad and sing for joy, for you judge the peoples [`ammim] with equity and guide the nations [le'ummim] upon earth.
  5. Let the peoples [`ammim] praise you, O God; let all the peoples [`ammim] praise you.
  6. The earth has yielded its increase; God, our God, has blessed us.
  7. May God continue to bless us; let all the ends of the earth revere him.
In my view based on various commentaries including Tate (WBC) and Dahood (AB), the poem has undergone a long development. Originally it was a prayer for agricultural fertility, particularly made possible by the gift of rain. Israel, the `am yhwh, needed the fruit of ground and flock and human family for survival on the most elemental level. Surrounded by possibly hostile goyim, Israel wished for this sign of divine favor to assert their special status and possibly to counter the claims of other gods. With growth of understanding of the character of YHWH as the just judge who rules without partiality over all nations, Israel came to desire for all other peoples the special blessings of the One God. In this psalm, the term for deity is not YHWH but Elohim. Like the author of Genesis 1.1-4.a, the author of this psalm has grown beyond the parochialism implied by the particular name YHWH. As there is only one God, there can be only one exemplar of the "class" God. Therefore no special name is needed. Simply saying "God" is sufficient.

In its final form the psalm also reflects the understanding that humankind may experience "saving power" not so much by externally imposed special acts but rather in the constant, subtle operation of divine presence in all of life, symbolized by the light of the face of God illuminating and enriching life. In our overemphasis on individuals, we overlook the biblical principle that God deals with nations, peoples, populations, in all their overlapping, interconnected, interdependent relationships.

Technologically advanced, knowledge based culture in Eurica, more and more divorced from the land, now extends control of agriculture on a global scale. US federal subsidies empower large agri-businesses to the loss of small family farms. Global free trade forces allow corporations to undercut farmers in the third world. World Bank and International Monetary Fund, together with commercial financial institutions, force debtor nations to turn to one-crop production for export and hard currency, while indigenous food supply dwindles, and peasants flock to the cities hoping for some sort of work simply to survive. First World nations' exploitation of diamonds, gold, copper, titanium, and other natural resources demanded by our market economies pits African tribes and factions against each other, displacing millions of people, condemned to death by disease and starvation.

As we continue to hinder the constant, subtle operation of divine presence in all of life by our interventions, we can expect only to experience baleful consequences. Industrial degradation of the environment is bringing climate changes in the form of droughts and floods which further impede agriculture in the poorer lands and which even our affluent First World nations are beginning to recognize as a threat.

What to do? At least let us begin with taking to heart the psalm's universal blurring of the lines separating le'ummim, goyim, and `ammim. Let us get our heads and our hearts around the fact that according to the genome project, all humankind on earth today shares 99.99% in common. Let us, in our personal, congregational, and political life act upon our knowledge that we all inhabit this one world.

The City of God is not "up there" some time in the far distant future. The nations need the healing of the tree of life here and now.