John Shearman's
 Liberal Lectionary Analysis

Rev. John Shearman

 INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

[A more complete analysis follows this brief summary for church bulletins.]

2 SAMUEL 23:1-7. The author of this hymn of praise, regarded as King David's last words, saw them as a fitting conclusion to the long narrative of David's reign. Jews and Christians alike saw it as a prediction of the coming of God's anointed Messiah, in fulfillment of an everlasting covenant with God's faithful people. The last two verses of this reading also describe the destruction of those who do not believe.

PSALM 132:1-12, (13-18). Yet another of the songs pilgrims may have sung as they approached the temple, this one recalls the vow of David to build a permanent dwelling place for the Ark of the Covenant symbolizing the presence of God among God's people. The psalm also contains a promise that David's descendants would sit on the throne of Israel forever if they keep the covenant.

REVELATION 1:4b-8. The Book of Revelation fits the description of eschatology, a form of literature containing predictions about the fulfillment of God's purpose at the end of history. This introductory passage cites the expectation of the early church that the return of Christ would bring this about.

JOHN 18:33-37. Jesus had been accused by his opponents of claiming to be king of the Jews, a treasonable offense in the Roman empire. This exchange between Jesus and Pilate tells us what the early church believed about the true nature of Jesus' sovereignty. It was spiritual, not political; but it certainly has political implications.

2 SAMUEL 23:1-7. The author of this hymn of praise, regarded as King David's last words, saw them as a fitting conclusion to the long narrative of David's reign. Vs. 1 clarifies the tradition of David as the man whom God had specially chosen and exalted to be Israel's greatest king. The tone is more than hero-worship or hagiography. It has a prophetic and messianic flair to it. Jews and Christians alike saw it as a prediction of the coming of God's anointed Messiah, in fulfillment of an everlasting covenant with God's faithful people.

The prophetic element finds expression in vs. 2 where the spirit speaks through David in the same way that prophets spoke for Yahweh. The subsequent message reiterates the prophetic theme of justice (vs. 3) and elicits a striking simile of the world seen in the freshness of sunrise in spring (vs. 4).

The reference in vs. 5 to David's house, i.e. his descendants who ruled Israel after him, suggests that this hymn was written at a later date than the end of his own life (c. 950 BCE). It conveys the conviction that the Davidic dynasty was given the divine mandate to carry forward the covenant relationship with Yahweh. The question in vs. 5c might be interpreted as questioning whether or not David's heirs were succeeding in their duties. Not to do so would be tantamount to the apostasy and atheism for which later monarchs were infamous, resulting in the end of Israel as an independent nation in 586 BCE. The last two verses of the reading describe the destruction of those who do not believe. This judgment became the religious explanation for the nation's disastrous history by the great pre-exilic prophets and the post-exilic chroniclers.

One of the major difficulties in interpreting this passage is the corruption of the Hebrew text. Some scholars believe this is due to the antiquity of the poem. It bears some similarity to a poem in Numbers 24, thought to be from the J-document source in the 10th century BCE. If so, an early date for this composition is not an improbability. Other scholars contrast it with the so-called "Testament of Jacob" in Gen. 49 and the "Blessing of Moses" in Deut. 33. The former is from the post-exilic P-document, but the latter is thought to have originated in the 10th century BCE.

The reading is excerpted from the first of four visions attributed to Daniel, a Jewish hero ostensibly a servant in the Babylonian court during the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s successor, Balshazzar. Actually, the visions were composed during the oppressive reign of the Hellenistic ruler Antiochus Epiphanes in the early 2^nd century BCE. Antiochus sought to assimilate the Jews into his Hellenist empire and destroy their religious tradition. These visions and the earlier stories of Daniel and his three friends (chs. 1-6) were told to encourage Jews to remain faithful despite their suffering from persecution.

The vision of God, here described as "the ancient of days" seated on the throne of judgment, intended to contrast dramatically with the supposed power of Antiochus. The scene could have been drawn from any Middle Eastern culture, especially that of Persia. Such court scenes became a feature of Jewish eschatology to be found in prophetic literature. New Testament authors adapted this literature for their own eschatological purposes (cf. Mark 13; Matthew 25; Revelation 4 & 5).

In vss. 13-14 the vision changed suddenly to reveal a new figure approaching the throne. He represented a new era that followed the judgment. He is not a celestial figure despite coming "with the clouds of heaven." That mode of transportation was typical of eschatological literature (Isa. 19:1; Matt. 26:64; Rev. 1:7) Rather, he was a human with celestial origins. He is presented before the throne of God to receive divine sovereignty and authority.

It is debatable whether the Jews regarded this figure as the Messiah who was believed to appear at the end of history and convert all Gentiles to the Israel’s faith tradition. This idea became prominent in some prophetic literature (cf. Isa. 2:2; 49:6; Zech. 8:21 ff; 14:9, 16-21). A similar messianic conversion has also been predicted in other religious traditions such as the Zoroastrian, Mandaean and Muslim. Without question, however, the Christian tradition adopted this concept of universal conversion as the concomitant of Christ’s return.

PSALM 132:1-12, (13-18). Here is yet another of the songs pilgrims may have sung as they approached the temple. This one recalls the vow of David to build a permanent dwelling place for the Ark of the Covenant symbolizing the presence of God among God's people. Unlike several of the other psalms of ascent, this one was created intentionally as a processional hymn commemorating David's bringing the Ark to Jerusalem. There are antiphonal parts for a soloist and a chorus. It has been speculated, with good reason, that its origin lay in the anniversary of the reigning king's accession together with the celebration of Yahweh's enthronement. This celebration is believed to have been held annually at the New Year in pre-exilic times. The psalm most likely came from the latter part of that period, but not from David's own reign.

"The hardships" in vs. 1 refer to the loss of the ark and the difficulties David had in recovering it and bringing it to Zion as told in 1 Samuel 4-6. There is, however, no record of his vow (vss. 2-5). That may be an imaginative addition to the tradition for theological purposes, a common practice of both OT and NT authors.

Vss. 6-7 re-enact David's search for the ark sung by the choir and summon the people to participate with them in bringing the ark to its appropriate place in the temple. A sense of awe in the holy presence symbolized by the ark comes to the fore in vss. 8-9 as the priests advance to carry the ark into the temple and lead the people in worship before it. As the ark entered the temple, the monarch offered a sacrifice with prayer for Yahweh's favor (vs. 10). The remaining verses of the shorter reading consist of an oracle which responds to the prayer giving Yahweh's promise of the continuance of David's dynasty (vss. 11-12).

A second oracle (vss. 13-18) promises Yahweh's continued presence in the temple and his providential care for both the priesthood and the monarchs who will continue David's dynasty. The repeated mention of "the anointed one" lent this psalm to a messianic interpretation, although the term originally was a pious euphemism for the monarch.

PSALM 93. (Alternate) This brief psalm celebrates the sovereignty of God as witnessed in creation. It may have formed part of the New Year enthronement ceremonies. Whereas other psalms celebrated political sovereignty to some extent, this one celebrates God’s dominion through nature (vss. 3-4). It emphasized the way in which at the beginning of each New Year enthronement rituals reasserted divine sovereignty in the cycle of the seasons and the produce of the land. Echoes of the creation myth of Genesis 1 echo through the roaring floods and thundering seas.

REVELATION 1:4b-8. The Book of Revelation fits the description of eschatology, a form of literature containing of predictions about the fulfillment of God's purpose at the end of history. Some people make the mistake of reading this book literally or allegorically, then try to guess how it fits into the current affairs they hear about on the daily news. One wonders where and how one could find reference to the current confusion about how democracy works or doesn't work in different countries. Perhaps this is the time to prepare a sermon on how to interpret apocalyptic and eschatological literature with its strange symbolism and imaginative visions that so fill the pages of Revelation.

One of the best resources I have found for understanding what John was trying so say is Professor George B. Caird's commentary in the Black's New Testament Commentaries (The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Adam & Charles Black, 1966). William Barclay's Daily Bible Study on Revelation is also excellent, as is exegesis and exposition by Martin Rist and Lynn Harold Hough in The Interpreter's Bible, Volume 12. J. W. Bowman presents the Book of Revelation as a drama in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, 58-71.

This reading contains a lot more than the greeting and address of the seven letters to follow in chs. 2-3. Seven is the traditional symbol for wholeness or completeness. So, in this instance, it does not only designate the specific churches addressed, but the church as a whole for whom John wrote. In other words, the book has a universal audience, all who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. According to Caird, "the seven spirits who are before the throne" represents the Spirit of God actively engaged with the churches in all its fullness and power. He also sees this as a reference to Zechariah 4 where the prophet has a vision of Israel represented by a candelabra with seven lamps. Rist also felt that the phrase referred to several OT passages which spoke of the seven archangels of Jewish speculation and to Persian astral theology where the sun, moon and five visible planets were thought to have control over human affairs.

There may certainly have been a hidden challenge to the imperial religion of Rome in this phrase. Coins from the early reign of Domitian showed the emperor's heir who died in childhood as an infant Zeus playing with the stars to compensate for the dominion he would never inherit. For John, there could be no other sovereign than the crucified, risen and ascended Christ. So immediately he calls forth the scene before the throne of God (vs. 5). The titles he gives to Christ proclaim his sovereignty to encourage those who are even now struggling with the challenge to be faithful witnesses as they faced persecution for not paying obeisance to the emperor.

The first witness to the saving, redeeming love of God was Jesus Christ himself. Faithful unto death, he was raised from the dead and now is seated at the right hand of God as the reigning sovereign of heaven and earth. To him even the emperor owes allegiance for he is "ruler of the kings of the earth." The term "firstborn of the dead" refers not only to the resurrection, but to the spiritual experience of every believer who enters into Christ's death and resurrection through the act of baptism. Compare also the words of Jesus to Nicodemus about being born again of the Spirit in John 3: 5-6.

A double reference to the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrament of Holy Communion leads into the next sentence of John's address to the churches. This same sentence resonates with the Fourth Gospel in speaking of the both the sacrament and the glorification of Christ by his death and resurrection. John also knew the OT (probably in the LXX version) and voiced the tradition of the apostolic church that the church was the continuation of Israel as "a kingdom (and) priests serving God" (vs. 6 cf. Exod. 19:6). What is more, John believed and returned to the thought several times that those whom Christ had released from their sins would reign with him. It remains a question whether they would exercise this dominion in this life or in life beyond death (cf. 2:26; 3:21; 5:10; 7:13-15; 20:6).

In vs. 7, John combined two apocalyptic references from Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10 to create a vivid picture of the Second Coming of Christ when even those who crucified him will submit to him. But is their wailing when they see his wounds a true repentance and acclamation of him as Lord and God as was the case with Thomas (cf. John 20:28)? John, the author of Revelation, has no doubt. He proclaims Jesus "the beginning and the end" i.e the great "I am," the One in whom we are perpetually confronted by the living, ever-present and all powerful God. In the OT, those terms are caught up in the Hebrew name Yahweh Sebaoth, translated in English versions as "the Lord of hosts." One of the LXX translations for that name was Pantokrator, "the Almighty." For John the word meant something else than the Hebrew interpretation that Yahweh's Messiah would lead a great army into victorious battle over Israel's enemies. Christ's omnipotence does not exist in unlimited coercive military power, but in the authority of self-giving love that cannot be defeated. This surely has something to say about all the current manipulations in the pursuit of political power.

JOHN 18:33-37. Through the centuries Jesus' trial before Pilate has engendered incredible flights of imaginative fancy. Despite all the research and preaching based on this event as John narrated it, we have no clear, definitive indication of what actually happened. We have no more than this pericope tells us. Jesus had been accused by his opponents of claiming to be king of the Jews, a treasonable offense in the Roman empire. The automatic penalty was death. Pilate had very little personal reason to examine the prisoner before him. After all the others he had ordered executed, one more dead Jew would mean little or nothing to his career. His governorship lasted for another six years. Why then did John tell of this incident told in this way?

This exchange between Jesus and Pilate helps us understand what the early church believed about the true nature of Jesus' sovereignty. John designed this part of the passion story to reiterate something he had Jesus say earlier. He wanted to reaffirm Jesus as "the way, the truth and the life." (Cf. John 14:6) He also wanted to clarify the true nature of the kingdom of God as Jesus had revealed it, although the phrase actually occurs in only one other passage in John. (3:3 & 5)

This interchange revolved around the meaning of the word "kingdom." (Greek = basileia). The word occurs no less than six times, twice as many as "truth" (Greek = aletheia) on which so much expository and homiletic attention has been focused. As John narrated it, Jesus and Pilate talked right past each other, but that appears to have been quite intentional on John's part. The meaning of the word "kingdom" was the key to what each of the two men said. Each had a totally different interpretation of it.

For Pilate, "kingdom" had a purely political reference. As Roman governor, he recognized Herod Antipas as one of two puppet kings, also known as tetrarchs, of the Jews. Philip, half brother of Antipas, was the other. Antipas had limited authority in Galilee; Philip in Transjordan. Luke added a complication to the trial of Jesus before Pilate passed sentence on him by having Pilate send Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:6-12). At most, Pilate must have been curious about this Galilean usurper of Herod's jurisdiction, little though it was under Roman imperial sovereignty. For Jesus, the meaning of "kingdom" was quite another matter.

As Jesus exercised it, true sovereignty was spiritual, not political. Had it been political, he told Pilate, his followers would be fighting in the streets to keep him from being handed over to the Jews. We may note in passing that this is yet another hook on which to hang the accusation that John's Gospel is anti-Semitic. Actually, the nature of Jesus' sovereignty prevents that from being credible except in its literal sense. The central drama of John's Gospel includes this conflict between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus had been brought before Pilate on a purely political charge. Jesus did not deny his kingship; he interpreted it on a level on which people of all nations and races could respond to it.