The Spirit of Justice -- A Lectionary Meditation

Isaiah 42:1-9


Acts 10:34-43

Matthew 3:13-17

The Spirit of Justice

As we begin the season of Epiphany, which celebrates the coming of God’s light and revelation into the World, we are called upon to contemplate the ways in which God has enlightened us through the life and ministry of Jesus. The texts for the day of Epiphany include the story of the Magi who followed a star to the home of Jesus, whose own family had to flee from the oppressive forces of Herod, who sought to destroy a perceived threat – a sort of preemptive strike. As we turn to the texts for the first Sunday after Epiphany, the gospel brings us forward into time. The one whose family fled in the face of human violence had come to the Jordan to be baptized, and in the course of this event the Holy Spirit of God fell upon this man from Galilee. As a result, Jesus becomes the means through which and in which God brings light into the world and makes known God’s purpose and nature.

If light is a key theme for the season of Epiphany, one of the primary biblical themes is that of justice, and justice is part of this set of texts as well. The word justice appears regularly in Scripture, especially in the words of the Prophets. Its sort of odd that a TV personality would condemn churches for embracing the message of social justice since its so prevalent in the biblical text. But, perhaps the problem is that many in our society have forgotten the biblical mandates. It’s also possible that they misunderstand the nature of justice in its biblical context.

Most Americans think of justice in terms of law enforcement – of keeping criminals locked up. It’s telling that the Secretary of Justice is also the “Chief Law Enforcement” officer in the country. Although this department deals with issues that fall under the rubric social justice – things like equal opportunity – we usually think in terms of other kinds of justice – what some call retributive justice (punishment) rather than distributive justice, which deals with the way widows and orphans and the poor are treated. It is an implementation of God’s vision of equity, which means more than simply “getting what you deserve.” Surely, grace factors in here at some point.

As we contemplate God’s vision for the world, which is embodied in the one upon whom the Spirit of God fell during his baptism, anointing him the servant of God, we contemplate God’s justice and righteousness.

Our lectionary journey begins in Isaiah 42, a powerful text written during the period of the exile, by a prophet who announces the coming of the servant of God, the one in whom God has chosen to take delight. The servant isn’t identified by the prophet, which has led to much interpretive speculation. Suggestions as the identity of this prophet depend in part on one’s theology and faith tradition, whether you are Jewish or Christian, but they range from the prophet himself, to Israel, and from Jesus to Paul, Paul comes into play because the Servant is said to be a light to the Gentiles. There is still another possibility, which would involve “everyone who loves and trusts the Lord,” for thus “has assumed the task assigned to God’s servant in this passage” (Ronald Allen & Clark Williamson, Preaching the Old Testament, p. 16). As Ron Allen and Clark Williamson point out, any of these five identifications is appropriate, as long as we allow room for the others to be possible in their own way.

Upon this servant of God falls the Spirit who brings justice to the nations, and does so without faltering or discouragement. This text should be familiar to anyone who has read the Gospel of Luke, for in Luke, Jesus reads and interprets this passage as defining his own calling as God’s servant. God makes a covenant with this person (people), calling on them to be “a light for the gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind to free the captives from prison, and to release from the dungeons those who sit in darkness” (Is. 43:6-7 NIV 2010).

The justice spoken of here is not one that comes at the point of a sword or through coercion, but with humility and grace. This demeanor is defined in the opening lines of our passage, where we’re told that the Spirit-empowered servant doesn’t raise a voice or shout in the streets or even break a smoldering wick, but is instead one like a bruised reed. The justice that this servant brings is, as Allen and Williamson remind us, a “kindhearted justice.” They note further:

Some of the greatest injustices of history have been carried out by those in pursuit of a dream of absolute justice. Millions of people have died at the hands of those pursuing the classless society, a manifest destiny, or some idealistic political or economic vision of one kind or another. All our religious traditions have profaned the concept of God’s justice, Christians particularly in wars that they declared either just or holy, such as the Crusades or the wars of religion from 1618 to 1648. But God’s justice is justice on behalf of God’s children; it is like a mother whose love for her children leads her to seek justice for them. It is the justice of YHWH’s tender love (Allen & Williamson, pp. 16-17).

And so, we look forward to the fulfillment of God’s justice, which we have been called upon to embody as followers of the one who is baptized in fulfillment of God’s righteousness.

From Isaiah’s brilliant vision, we turn to Peter’s confession that “God does not show favoritism, but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right” (Acts 10:34-35 NIV

We can take this reference to the devil in a number of ways. It’s likely that Luke has in mind Jesus’ ministry of exorcism, but it might also have some less obvious, but clearly political implications. If we take seriously the Isaiah passage, then to fulfill his calling as the Servant of God, Jesus would be engaging in actions that are clearly political or social in nature. He would be acting out God’s vision of justice by releasing the people from bondage to the Powers and Principalities, which in shorthand could be the devil. But, as Peter reminds us, this ministry of justice led to Jesus’ death on the cross, but it also lead to resurrection, so that Christ might be seen by those whom God had chosen, so that he might judge the living and the dead. To those who believe on him (Jesus) is given forgiveness of sins. Peter is simply rehearsing the basics of the gospel message as he understood it and as it is presented in the New Testament. One might quibble with this or that part of the message, but the point is – Peter understood that the Spirit of God was present in the world, and God didn’t show favoritism, but instead embraced all who would come. Did Peter have a universalist understanding salvation? Probably not, but still present in this brief text is the recognition that God’s love and God’s justice is inclusive.

Finally we come to the text that defines the day – the baptism of Jesus by John in the Jordan. Jesus seems to believe that this act is an essential part of his journey, even if John resists, recognizing in him something that in his mind would preclude this step. But Jesus says, I need to do this to fulfill all righteousness. At that John consents to Jesus’ request. But what is it that Jesus must fulfill? As Allen and Williamson write, Matthew is concerned with a “higher righteousness,” one that stands in contrast with that of persons like Herod, who wish to dominate and destroy. Perhaps this is the answer to our question of why Jesus took this step: “Trusting in status and rank, being full of oneself in matters of faith, counts for nothing in Matthews eyes. What counts is morally responsible actions” (Allen and Williamson, Preaching the Gospels without Blaming the Jews, p. 13). In taking his action of receiving baptism, whether in John’s eyes or our eyes, he needs to do this, he represents for us the attitude of the Servant of God whose coming is announced by Isaiah and witnessed to by Peter. And now, in this powerful moment of experiencing baptism at the hands of John, God provides God’s witness, as the Holy Spirit falls on him in the form of a dove and God speaks from the heavens: “This is my Son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17).

The Baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, the point at which he takes up the call of doing good and bringing healing to the people, which is part of Peter’s own testimony. As we remember the baptism of Jesus, let us remember that he took up the mantle described by Isaiah, and that he lived out God’s justice, having been filled with the Spirit of the God of Justice and Love. Yes, remember that the Justice of God is couched in the Love of God.

The Pivot Point in the Biblical Drama: A Question for Ron Allen

On Saturday, at our 1st annual Perry Gresham Bible Lecture, Ron Allen, Professor of  Preaching and New Testament at Christian Theological Seminary (author of Life of Jesus for Today, WJK, 2008), laid out a scenario of a biblical drama that begins in Eden, moves to the Fall and then envisions a New Kingdom Age.  As Ron laid out this view of the biblical drama he noted that the biblical writers envisioned Jesus being the pivot point where the New Age intersects with the Old Age -- which leads to an age in between where both old and new exist together -- an age of conflict of values.

John, who is a member of the church and a frequent commenter here, raised a question with Ron concerning the point at which Jesus fits in as pivot point.  His question was:  

"What moment is the pivot point in history in this four-epoch scenario. Ron posited four points in Jesus life, and then declined to choose: birth, baptism, death, resurrection."

Ron has offered his response here:

We should take two matters into account in responding to the excellent issues John raises.

First, as John notes, the writers in the Gospels and Letters envision different moments in connection with the life of Jesus as the pivot moments in the transition from the Old Age to the New. For Paul, the transition occurs at the cross and the resurrection. For Mark, the baptism of Jesus is the hinge of history. For Matthew and Luke, the pivot is the birth of Jesus. The Fourth Gospel does not operate with the old age/new age view of history but sees the incarnation (when the Word, Jesus, becomes flesh) as the decisive moment that begins the revelation of God in Jesus for the sake of those who live in “the world.”

From the point of view of contemporary scholarship, these  viewpoints are different. Nevertheless, the church has effectively agreed with John (your learned parishioner, not the gospel writer) that Matthew and Luke take priority. We can see this with particular clarity in the creeds which begin their affirmations about Jesus by speaking about his birth.

Second, and I did not get into this at CWCC because of a shortage of time, there is a bigger theological question raised both by the presence of the Fourth Gospel and by occasional theological reflections over the history of the church. This question is whether we should view the world and God’s relationship to it from the perspective of the old age/new age scenario. To get immediately to the heart of the matter, the question is whether that scenario is completely true to real life experience. If the old age/new age typology is completely true, then we would expect the experience of life to be qualitatively different in the two ages. However, many Christians today think that the actual phenomena in the world are much the same both before and after Jesus. The good things are still good in about the same amount and degree and the bad things are still bad. In the language of philosophy, there is no phenomenological difference between the time before and after Christ.

The presence of the Fourth Gospel indicates that some in the early church did not find the old age/new age way of thinking to be satisfactory. To be honest, I do not find either the old age/new age or the heaven/world ways of understanding existence to be true to my experience of the world today. As I said several times in the seminar, I am not an end-time thinker myself as I think the end-time viewpoint is a surface way of thinking. The deeper point of the end-time theology, I believe, is to indicate that God is dissatisfied with the way things are and is at work to help the world better embody God’s loving purposes. I side with the process theologians in believing that life is an ongoing process and that God is ever loving presence to offer us the highest possibilities that are available within each circumstance. For Christians, Jesus is God’s agent and lure towards those possibilities.

What is the World that God so Loves . . .

At football and baseball games, among other events, you are likely to see someone flash a sign with the phrase John 3:16.  The assumption of those who share this sign is that the person -- probably at home watching TV -- will get the urge to find out what this cryptic sign means.  After all, who is John 3:16 -- that is an awfully odd last name.  Of course, many of us know that John 3:16 refers to a passage of scripture in which Jesus, as interpreted by John, says to Nicodemus, a Pharisee who wishes to know the meaning of Jesus' message:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life"  (John 3:16 NRSV).

The assumption in this text is that God loved the world so that he sent his son into the world, so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life.  What is often assumed, but is left unspoken here is that God sent his son into the world to die on the cross, and as a result of believing this message, humanity might experience salvation and eternal life.  It needs to be said that in this context nothing is said about a cross, only belief in Jesus -- but what is it that needs to be believed lest, as we read in the following verses, they face judgment and death?

Well, in our conversation this morning about the Gospel of John, Ron Allen reminded us about John's view of reality.  It is a dualistic message, but different from the one found in the Synoptic Gospels.  There the dualism is one of time -- a new age intersecting with an old age.  Here it is a dualism of space, with Heaven standing above the World.  Heaven is where we find love, justice, light, sight, etc.  The world on the other hand isn't the physical world -- rocks and trees, and stuff like that -- but the domain of the devil, where hate, darkness, blindness, etc.  reside.  In this scenario, as I heard Ron tell it (and I don't have my notes in front of me), Jesus resides with God in the Heavenly realm, but has come down into the world, so as to show those who find themselves caught in the World, might find their way to the Heavenly Realm.  Thus it's not necessarily the cross that is the means to salvation, it is accepting Jesus as being the light, the way, that leads us out of the darkness of the world into the light of the Heavenly Realm.  

The problem with this scenario is it tends to be exclusive -- if you don't believe you're condemned.  But, as Ron noted, in the gospel itself there is the basic confession that God is love, so there is the antidote to the exclusivism present in the text.

So the final question might be -- if God loves us so much that God would send a light into the darkness, how might we who have experienced the light, become bearers of the light (without this becoming a moment of exclusivism)?

An Anniversary Not To Be Celebrated?

On October 7th, just a few days back, the United States marked the ninth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan.  Just weeks after the attacks of 9-11, the US began dropping bombs in Afghanistan, and in a wink, the US and its allies, which included the Northern Alliance, had driven Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of power.  The invasion was launched as retaliation for the earlier attacks, and with the assumption that it was needed to remove the strategic foundation for Al Qaeda.  But, while the Taliban was driven from power, the country was never secured, and before long we were involved in another war in Iraq.  The latter is winding down, but the war in Afghanistan continues unabated.

Now, at the time I didn't think that this invasion was warranted, but I understood the rationale.  The invasion of Iraq made no sense, but now nine years later, where are we?  What have we accomplished?  The years of focus on Iraq has meant that the Afghanistan war is nowhere close to a conclusion.  Besides history demonstrates that no invading force has held it for long -- not Alexander, not the British, and surely not the Soviets.  What makes us think things would be different this time? 

But, ultimately my point isn't to debate the reasons for the invasion or even the current battle plans.  It is simply to remember that it has been nine years.  Back then I was pastor of the church in Santa Barbara.  I'm in my second pastorate since then.  My son, who was in elementary school then is now in college.  So, maybe the question is -- what is it we're up to?

And as I ask the question I'm reminded of the tenor of the conversation in today's bible lecture by Ron Allen -- we talked about the new age breaking in on the old one.  The old age, which is full of violence has dug in its heels, but the new age is with us anyway.  The question then that is posed to me concerns the way in which I will participate with God in bringing the new age, the new realm of God into fruition?  And, how that impacts the way I look at Afghanistan and other places of American military involvement?