Exodus 17:1-7

This is one of those passages where, when the lectionary reader says, “open your pew bibles”, the pastor is secretly hoping you will not. If you do, he or she hopes you will not read to the end of the chapter. The section included in the lection is a pretty straight forward story about God providing. People shouldn't question his authority. Moses' staff symbolizes the power of God once again. That's the thing people actually see, and we, the people hearing the story, know it's really God telling Moses what to do and providing the actual power.

In the verses immediately following this little miracle, we find out that staff has the power to kill. The Amalekites “attack”, so our wandering band of Godly people are the defenders, no mention of who's land this is or was there first, or any other diplomatic negotiations. Moses doesn't need to check with God this time, and if the people grumbled, it's not mentioned in the story. Our sojourning community of women and children and old men are suddenly transformed in to a viscious army.

How do they win the battle? By Moses holding up that staff of course. And when he gets tired, Aaron and Hur help him out. I'm not aware of any allegory in this one, no mystery. This is a statement of God supporting you in getting the water you need, and because of that, killing for him when he needs you to. For all their ability to turn a story on its head and find a universal message, I've never heard a liberal theologian touch this one. The lectionary skips it too.

Phillipians 2:1-13

Phillipians is accepted as an authentic letter from Paul to a church that he seemed to care much about. It probably came a little later in his journeys. As always, there is the possibility of some redaction. I don't find much useful symbolism here but it is certainly very much part of the “Christology”. It is a discussion of just who Jesus is and what his role is for us.

Knowing that this letter was written before the gospels, note carefully the language used. Jesus “emptied himself” and took the “form of a slave”. Paul is highlighting his Godly status, equal to God, but Christ didn't exploit that, instead he did these things for us, “became obedient” and experienced death on a cross. That word “cross” is intereperted in many different ways, but I'll leave that research to you for now.

These words are very generic, as far as when or where or how the actions took place. They don't place his actions in any particular context in the real world. They don't mention a family or birth or when this death took place or who witnessed it. This is standard for Paul. He has very few words that put Jesus in the time and space we experience. If we were to look at other stories being passed around at the time, gods from other religions and even some of the Jewish sects, we would find this language applies perfectly to celestial beings who “come down”, allow themselves to be sacrificed, often by their evil counterparts, and that sacrifice gives greater power to the good people, the ones who worship the correct God.

Matthew 21:23-32

This is an interesting little parable. I find it a useful tool for beginning a discussion about your own place in whatever organization you are interested in. You can easily apply this to people you know who go to church, but don't act “Christian” at all, but it can apply much more broadly as well. I recommend using it for more than just judging others. What's interesting is to see how the gospel writers hid messages in these stories and cleverly avoided a direct confrontation.

The story begins with that direct confrontation, some generic “chief priests” question Jesus on the source of his authority. This happens soon after his arrival in Jerusalem. A direct answer, the answer a Christian would give today, could result in his immediate arrest. If he says, “God”, he is claiming to be above those priests and above Ceasar. They could call him mad. If he says it's his own idea to do these little protests against the state, they would just call him a regular lunatic and at least make him look bad. So he doesn't give a straight answer.

He takes the trap they set for him and turns in on them. He answers the question with a question about John the Baptist and makes them give an answer, in front of a crowd that has been supporting John. It will reduce their popularity if they say he is not a prophet. When they don't answer, we get a parable, further codifying his response so everyone is left with something to think about it and no one goes to jail. If this were included in Herzog's book of analyzing parables, like last week's, we might get more insight into just what words were from the early 1st century and what interpretation was added on by the gospel author, but without that, we'll proceed as best we can.

Much is left to the imagination. Each son takes an action contrary to their normal behavior, but we aren't given much about their thought process. It's up to us to put ourselves in their place and think about how we respond to authority and then, when left to our own devices, actually act. I find the power of parables like this in the discussion of how we see ourselves in these characters, not so much in trying to figure out what whomever was trying to get us to think.

There is also something else going on here though. It is less useful for us today, but still interesting. This is one of three parables that occur in this section of Matthew that speak to the religious authorities. This literary construct of three is common throughout the gospels. It helps with remembering the story, since most people would just hear it, not have on their bookshelf, if they had a bookshelf. And by speaking in a parable, the story gives you the chance to discuss your own feelings and the feelings of others. It is leading you to conclude the chief priests are the ones who are claiming obedience, but really aren't obedient at all. They are the ones who saw and did not change their minds. You don't have to say that in public, but when you are home discussing it, you can.

When told earlier in the first century, that last verse, explaining this, might not have been there. When it was written down later, it may have been added for the literate so they wouldn't miss the message when reading it to others.