Mark 6:30-34, 53-56

Mark 6:30-34, 53-56

³⁰ The apostles gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught. ³¹ He said to them, “Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. ³² And they went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. ³³ Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them. ³⁴ As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

⁵³ When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored the boat. ⁵⁴ When they got out of the boat, people at once recognized him, ⁵⁵ and rushed about that whole region and began to bring the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. ⁵⁶ And wherever he went, into villages or cities or farms, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed.

The readings today are two summaries of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. 

Mark 6:30-34 is a story about Jesus concerning the return of the disciples. In context, it appears that when Herod arrested John the Baptist, Jesus went to Galilee. The summary suggests that the purpose of the journey to Galilee was to escape attention by being out of the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. In the process, we will learn of the importance of finding time away from the busy quality of many of our lives. We need times of personal renewal. We also need to look upon the crowds and see what Jesus sees. 

Mark refers to the group around Jesus as ³⁰ the apostles (ἀπόστολοι). The surprise here is that he does not identify them as the disciples. However, the change may be intentional. Their mission has separated the apostles from Jesus. The apostle is the missionary here. Jesus commissions and empowers the disciples for the work of preaching and exorcism.  In part, the term reflects the role the Twelve had been given in 6:7, as those "sent out" or "missionaries." Yet it is also true that by the time of Mark's gospel, the term "apostle" had taken on a special, technical definition that identified the uniquely chosen first twelve disciples of Jesus. Certainly, for Mark's readers, the term "apostle" denotes one who operated in the name of another. An apostle claimed the authority of the one who sent him out. The word “apostle” is common in the New Testament (appearing some 58 times, mainly in Luke-Acts). However, the word rarely occurs in the gospel of Mark (only here and 3:14, and the portion of that verse that includes the word “apostle” does not occur in all manuscripts). The word is even rarer in the gospel of Matthew (occurring only once) and does not appear in the gospel of John at all. The word is also infrequent in classical Greek, suggesting that it had taken on technical aspects through its use in the New Testament. In comparison with the word “disciple,” which is much commoner (occurring 200 times in the gospels), the word apostle appears to have a more specialized meaning. The Greek work means “sent one,” and in the biblical context appears to be rooted in the Jewish tradition of one sent as emissary for a particular mission on behalf of and with the authority of a higher power (compare Isaiah 6:1-8). Applied to Jesus (only in Hebrews 3:1), the word apostle conveys the notion that Jesus was sent on a mission by the Father for a specific purpose, which appears to be the meaning of the word in our passage and throughout much of the New Testament. The term includes the 12 original named disciples, but others, as well (I Corinthians 15:7). Paul, who considered himself as an apostle, seemed to know of two groups considered apostles. One was those who had witnessed appearances of the risen Christ (as Paul himself had, I Corinthians 9:1; 15:5, 7; Galatians 1:17, 19). The other group was charismatic preachers, including women (such as Junia, Romans 16:7), authorized by local churches to engage in missionary activity (Acts 13:1-3; Revelation 2:2). The gospel writers limit the term to the companions of Jesus and witnesses to his resurrection (here and Matthew 10:2; Acts 1:21-22; compare Mark 6:7). This group gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught. This vague report clearly refers to their healings (6:13) as well as their proclamation of the message of repentance (6:12). ³¹ He said to them, “Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while.” Jesus' response to his apostles' return is also unique to this moment in Mark. For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. Unlike Jesus' individual retreats for prayer (cf.1:35; 6:45‑46), this appears to be a more physically prompted call for rest. By showing this concern for their physical welfare, this text serves to set the stage for the feeding miracle that swiftly follows. ³² They went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. They went to the west or northwest side of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus had returned to his hometown of Nazareth (6:1) and the unbelief expressed by the local populace who knew him impeded his work in nearby villages (6:3-6). Nazareth was located about 15 miles southwest of the Sea of Galilee. In a portion of the subsequent narrative, Jesus instructs his disciples to travel by boat ahead of him “to the other side, to Bethsaida” (v. 45), a city located less than two miles from the north-northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. The rejection of Jesus’ ministry on the Nazareth side of the lake may have been the immediate cause of his decision to continue his work on the opposite shore, as well as the fact that three of his disciples — Philip, Andrew and Peter — apparently came from Bethsaida (John 1:44). Evidently, his ministry did not have notable success there, either, however, since, according to Matthew 11:21, Jesus lamented over the lack of repentance in Chorazin and Bethsaida. Reports of escape by boat from the press of the crowds occur elsewhere in the gospels (e.g., Matthew 8:18; 13:2; 14:13; Mark 3:9, etc.).

In one of the great ironies of human life, we tend to run faster when we have lost our way.[1] In a narrowly secular way, we need time to renew ourselves. One man challenged another to an all-day wood chopping contest. The challenger worked very hard, stopping only for a brief lunch break. The other man had a leisurely lunch and took several breaks during the day. At the end of the day, the challenger was surprised and annoyed to find that the other fellow had chopped substantially more wood than he had. "I don't get it," he said. "Every time I checked, you were taking a rest, yet you chopped more wood than I did." "But you didn't notice," said the winning woodsman, "that I was sharpening my ax when I sat down to rest."

For the follower of Jesus, we need the time alone with God. The reason is that we are hungry and thirsty for more than just food and drink. Our souls become hungry and thirsty. Our inner sense of emptiness, our loss of direction or even meaning, lets us know we are ensouled bodies in the first place. Meeting our physical and social needs will not satisfy us. Yet, occasionally, we may feel a sense of deeper satisfaction. Then we know that most hungry and thirsty part of us has met its shepherd.[2] At such moments, we know that nothing else will satisfy us than to walk with God.[3]

 ³³ Now many saw them going and recognized them and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them. It seems odd that they would arrive ahead of Jesus and the disciples. To journey across the sea by boat would have been about four miles; to journey around the sea on foot would be about 10 miles of rough terrain, including crossing the Jordan. Matthew, Luke and John portray the crowds as following Jesus (cf. Matthew 14:13; Luke 9:11; John 6:3, 5). It seems more logical to have Jesus and the disciples arrive first and be in seclusion when the crowds suddenly descend on them. In any case, Mark describes the crowd (the recipient of the approaching miracle) as beating the boatload of disciples and Jesus to their "deserted‑place" destination. The multitudes have not come in order to get away from life; they have followed Jesus here because they are desperate to survive life.  ³⁴ As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them. (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη “to be moved with compassion.” The root means “vital organs” or “bowels” something that happens to him, way down in the pit of his stomach. Etymologically, the Greek word denotes to have something move someone in one’s viscera, which they regarded as the seat of the emotions and affections. The reaction is spontaneous and emotional, as distinct from a rational and calculating response. A further connotation emerges from the correspondence of the word to the Hebrew for compassion, which literally means “love from the womb.” However, there is even more possibilities for reflection in the Hebrew and secular Greek roots from which “compassion” draws. The Hebrew for compassion, rachamim, refers to the womb of God. Compassion is something that emanates out from deep within us. The Greek word has connections to one’s guts. From it, we get the English medical term splanchnic, referring to the internal vital organs: heart, liver, kidney. In the worship of first-century pagan gods and goddesses, one could offer a sacrifice to a deity. Worshippers would bring the animal sacrifice to that god’s temple, kill it, cut it open and pull out the vital organs. The worshipper sacrificed the animal carcass. However, the priest would take out the vital organs so that the worshippers could cook it as a meal.  Those vital organs were the splanchna — the New Testament noun for “compassion.” When people ate a worship meal of those cooked organs, they “had compassion.” The Latin cum means “with,” and passio means, “to suffer.” Compassion is “suffering with” another. It seeks to bring action into our affection). Instead of facing this unexpected welcoming committee with dismay, or trying to find a peaceful place for himself and the disciples, Jesus' response is one of compassion. This is the word used for Jesus’ reaction to the crowds. Compassion is to enter into people’s lives when they open their lives to us. It is to internalize their condition. It is to suffer with someone by taking on his or her burden. Even as he had shown tender concern for the physical welfare of his disciples, so great compassion now moves Jesus to offer help and healing to the pressing crowd. The gospels commonly use the expression to describe Jesus’ attitude toward groups of people (e.g., Matthew 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; Mark 8:2). Occasionally, the gospels use the expression for small groups of people or individuals for whom Jesus has compassion (e.g., Mark 1:41, a leper; Matthew 20:34, two blind men; Luke 7:13, a widow), and the word appears in some of Jesus’ parables (e.g., Matthew 18:27, translated “pity,” and Luke 15:20, the father of the prodigal). Much more than intellectually acknowledging or emotionally feeling the suffering of the crowds, Jesus is described in terms of having a somatic connection to what these people are going through. He undergoes the inter-subjective internalization of their suffering, and is compelled to alleviate it. “Empathy,” “pity” and “sympathy” simply do not carry the freight of conveying the meaning of this word. The only accurate English translation here is “compassion” (literally, to “suffer” or “bear with”). Other important examples of the word throughout the gospels can be found in the four feeding narratives to which 9:36 is related (Matthew 14:14; 15:32 and Mark 6:34; 8:2) as well as the parables of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:33) and the prodigal son (Luke 15:20). The fact that compassion motivated Jesus means that he would not close his mind to the existence and situation of the multitude. He did not isolate himself from it. rather, he allowed the multitude to affect him. It went to his heart. He made their situation his own. He identified himself with them. his followers must follow him in this. Solidarity with the world means that those who are genuinely pious approach the children of the world in this way. Those who are genuinely righteous are not ashamed to sit down with unrighteous friends. Those who are genuinely wise do not hesitate to seem to be fools among fools. Those who are genuinely hold are not too good or irreproachable to go down into hell in a very secular fashion.[4]

Jesus did not live in a compassionate world. The temple was a bloody place with its sacrificial animals. The conquering Romans were brutal. To read the last part of Daniel and the books of the Maccabees in the apocrypha is to read of the barbarity of the Hellenistic empire against the Jewish people. Raiders from the east would occasionally try to invade the Roman empire. Many religions in the world still offered the brutality of human sacrifice to the gods. Hundreds of years later, Muslim armies strode across north Africa and into Spain and parts of France and east Europe before being turned back. Their approach was often to convert or perish. The Viking raids of the British Isles and Europe were done in the name of their gods, which required human sacrifice. Their vision of Valhalla, the palace of Oden, was to fight and kill during the day and feast with the enemy at night. Such was their version of heaven. It was a cult of death, as they bravely, courageously, and without fear marched toward it. I wish I could say that our modern world, with its democracy, scientific advances, and value for individuality, had somehow become more compassionate. The 1700s saw wars for independence. The 1800s saw the 30 years war between Catholic and Protestant. The 1900s saw massive deaths fighting colonialism (WWI), fascism (WWII), and Communism (Korea, Vietnam, Cold War). Stalin would kill millions of his own people to maintain power. The Communist Party of China becomes increasingly ready to use its economic power in an aggressive way and its military power to nations close to it. The bloody borders of Islam are known well, as those of Islamic belief keep pushing their religion through violence. Terrorism funded by the wealth of Islamic nations remains a serious threat to the freedoms so many of us come to enjoy. 

The brutality of the modern world is not new. One morning a Russian nobleman — visiting British poet Alfred Tennyson (1808-1892) at his home on the Isle of Wight — set out on a hunting expedition.  Later that day, he returned with the proud news that he had shot two peasants. “You mean two ‘pheasants,’”  Tennyson politely corrected. “No,” the Russian emphatically replied, “two peasants. They were insolent, so I shot them.”

It will not be an easy action to allow oneself to look upon humanity with compassion. It almost seems to be against our nature. Yet, I think the calling of the people of God includes looking upon our world with the compassion Jesus had toward the crowds.

Years ago in a seminary course with Dr. James Wilkes, a Toronto psychiatrist, one student lamented that in this age of agnosticism and secularism we were no longer sure of the church’s vocation. Wilkes stared at the student for the longest time as if the student were half-deranged and then remarked, “Are you telling me that you can have a suffering human being in front of you and you don’t know what the church’s vocation is?”

There is a low-grade suffering that is simply part of the human condition; it never goes away. There is also high-grade suffering, intense pain, that can come upon us at any time for any reason and remain with us for any length of time. To be sure, professional expertise is often needed for people unwell in both respects; but even as professional expertise is called for, we should never think our ministry isn’t.[5]

What do you see when you look upon the crowds? Think of how often we have judged the crowds.  We judge the crowds in their sin, drunkenness, violence, drug abuse, hatred, and war.  Maybe one of the greatest proofs of the divinity of Jesus is that he looked upon the multitudes and had compassion. For some of us, the decisions America is making may make us feel like strangers in a strange land. There are many in our society who are in pain, not because of some psychological malady or something bad that happened to them when they were five. They are hurting because they are wandering like lost sheep in the desert. They are confused. It is not that they are sick; rather, they are ignorant. They simply have not taken the trouble, or not had the opportunity, to think through the faith. They confront the complexity of life with bits and pieces of insight cobbled together from here or there. They try to live in an adult world with the faith that they received as a 10-year-old or rejected as a 14-year-old. Sociologist Peter Berger has described us Christians as a “cognitive minority.” Christian modes of thought deviate from the officially sanctioned, socially enforced systems of knowledge. The world’s “plausibility structures” by which it knows what is possible and permissible, tell the world that the Christian faith is implausible. “It is, of course, possible to go against the social consensus that surrounds us, but there are powerful pressures (which manifest themselves as psychological pressures within our own consciousness) to conform to the views and beliefs of our” fellow citizens. A subtle yet powerful policing keeps us from uttering and affirming certain Christian convictions within conventional society. Christian education, teaching in the name of Jesus, is one of the ways that the church enables us to avoid the danger of the world conforming us to itself, but rather, allow the Spirit to transform us by the renewal of our minds (Rom 12:1-2).

The church does not simply reach out to and speak to the culture in which it lives and on which it depends. At some level, the churches seek to disrupt that culture by rescuing some people from its value system and to inculcate people into a new culture called the church. Followers of Jesus need to stay focused on what they believe and value. Practice compassion, because people will be hurting, as they choose paths that lead to lack of meaning, emptiness, and guilt. Such compassion and love followers of Jesus need to spread wherever they go. Such followers might begin in their homes. People who meet a follower of Jesus should leave better and happier. They need to be the living expression of the kindness and compassion of Jesus. Yes, others can see it our eyes, smile, and the warmth of our greeting. Such kindness and compassion have great power.[6]

He had compassion because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.The response of Jesus to the forlorn state of the people is to teach them, an important component of Jesus’ ministry (see, e.g., Matthew 11:1; 13:54; 22:16; Mark 4:1; 6:2, etc.). We can find parallels of the sheep without shepherd imagery in the Old Testament.[7]  Moses asks the Lord to appoint someone over the congregation so that the congregation of the Lord will not be like sheep without a shepherd (Numbers 27:17). The prophet Micaiah saw Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep who have no shepherd (I Kings 22:17/II Chronicles 18:16). Ezekiel notes that with no shepherd, the people scattered (Ezekiel 34:5).[8] Thus, Mark highlights Jesus' linkage to ancient Hebrew leaders by identifying his role with that of a good shepherd. Even as Moses and David had been shepherds/leaders of their people, so Jesus views the milling crowd before him as "sheep without a shepherd." By first teaching them (v.34) and then feeding them (vv.35‑44), Jesus fulfills the Ezekiel 34:23 role of the promised shepherd, where the Lord will give Israel one shepherd, the servant of the Lord, David. He will feed them and be their shepherd.[9]

Mark 6:53-56 is a summary of healings at Gennesaret. One should note the connection of this summary to its narrative context, moving from feeding to crossing to landing. The picture is that of a peripatetic ministry.

⁵³ When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret, lying 3 square miles along the Sea of Galilee on a fertile plain, it was well-known for its bountiful produce. It was on the northwest shore of the lake; the geography is confusing, since the disciples had launched in the direction of Bethsaida (v. 45), on the opposite shore. It is possible that the gospel writer and readers understood that the storm on the lake reported in verses 47-51 had blown the boat back onto the shore from which it had embarked. Much of the Galilean mission of Jesus occurs on or around the Sea of Galilee, which functions as both setting for his ministry and (in Mark 4:35-41; 6:45-52) object of his miraculous powers. It was not, of course, a proper (saline) sea, but is a large freshwater lake approximately 12.5 miles long and 7 miles wide at its largest points. “Sea of Galilee” is a designation used by Mark seven times (followed by Matthew, who uses the term 11 times), and may reflect the Hebrew designation yam as either sea proper or freshwater lake. This designation in turn likely reflects the theological idea of Jesus’ powers over the primordial force of chaos, the sea/sea monster (yam); (compare Job 38:8-11; Psalm 107:24-25, 28-29). Significantly, Luke, the most carefully researched of the gospels, never refers to this body of water as a sea, but always as the “lake of Gennesaret” (5:1, 2) or simply “the lake” (8:22-23), reserving the word “sea” exclusively for the Mediterranean. Classical sources know the lake as an abundant source of fish, and the thriving fishing industry in it and on its shores would account, in part, for the ready availability of fleets of boats traversing its surface employed by Jesus in his ministry. They moored the boat. The wind prevented landing at Bethsaida. Gennesaret is a fertile plain south of Capernaum, 3 miles long and 1 mile deep. ⁵⁴ When they got out of the boat, people at once recognized him, ⁵⁵ and rushed about that whole region and began to bring the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. ⁵⁶ In addition, wherever he went, into villages, cities, or farms, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it received healing. The teaching (interpretation) of the Mosaic Law, along with his parabolic wisdom and power to heal, formed the basis of Jesus’ public ministry and the core of his proclamation of the rule of God. This particular summary depicts the healing power of Jesus independent of his teaching. We can compare the elaboration of this popular understanding of the healing power of holy persons in story of the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage in 5:25-34.

---

[1] It is an old and ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way. Rollo May

[2] Frederick Buechner, Listening to Your Life, 1992.  Like sheep we get hungry, and hungry for more than just food.  We get thirsty for more than just drink.  Our souls get hungry and thirsty; in fact it is often that sense of inner emptiness that makes us know we hav souls in the first place.  There is nothing that the world has to give us, there is nothing that we have to give to each other even, that ever quite fills them.  But once in a while that inner emptiness is filled even so.  That is part of what the psalm means by saying that God is like a shepherd, I think.  It means that, like a shepherd, he feeds us.  He feeds that part of us which is hungriest and most in need of feeding.

[3] We cannot possibly be satisfied with anything less -- each day, each hour, each moment in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit -- than to walk with God.  -- Theologian H. C. G. Moule

[4] (Karl Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, IV.3.2., G. W. Bromiley, trans. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1962], p. 774.)

[5]   —Victor Shepherd, “Mandate for a congregation,” January 1998, Victor Shepherd Web Site, victorshepherd.on.ca.

[6] Mother Teresa was aware of the power that kindness and compassion can have. She said,

 “Spread love everywhere you go: First of all in your own house … let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier. Be the living expression of God’s kindness: kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm greeting.”

[7] We also find the imagery outside the canonical texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Damascus Document 13:9). "O sword, awake, against | my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow, says God\7, smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." And they that watch him are the poor of the flock.

[8] Numbers 27:17 

who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the LORD may not be like sheep without a shepherd."

1 Kings 22:17/II Chronicles 18:16

Then Micaiah said, "I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd; and the LORD said, 'These have no master; let each one go home in peace.'"

Ezekiel 34:5 

So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and scattered, they became food for all the wild animals.

[9] "I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd."

Ephesians 2:11-22

Ephesians 2:11-22

¹¹ So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision”—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— ¹² remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. ¹⁴ For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. ¹⁵ He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶ and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. ¹⁷ So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; ¹⁸ for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father.

¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, ²⁰ built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. ²¹ In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; ²² in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

            The theme of Ephesians 2:11-22 is that Jew and Gentile have peace through the Cross. This segment is the key and high point of the whole epistle. We can see an abiding link between the church and the Jewish people. We find here that by the death of Jesus Christ peace has come between Jew and Gentile, a peace within the church of Christ.[1]

Ephesians 2: 11-12 describe the division of humanity. He calls them to remember. ¹¹ So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those whom we know as "the circumcision”—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands. Paul does not belittle circumcision, but only a wrong attitude toward it. The circumcision would refer to both baptized Jews and other Jews. They are to ¹² remember that you were at that time without Christ. He will identify what this means. First, they were aliens (describing alienation from God and therefore human misery[2]) from the commonwealth of Israel (Israel was not a self-sustaining political identity). Second, they were strangers to the covenants (plural!) of promise (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34). They had no hope. It would be better to say that whatever hope the Gentiles had, they now have clarity to its content. In a broader theological perspective, we would not want to suggest that Gentiles were devoid of all hope. They were without God (aqeoi, only occurrence of this word in New Testament) in the world. He wants to stress the difference between Jew and Gentile before Christ. Christ has disclosed to them as Gentiles the care that God of Israel has had for the nations but that the people of God obscured by their teaching and way of life.

Ephesians 2:13-18 are a praise of Christ's work of reconciliation. What holds these verses together is the theme of the cost of peace between Jew and Gentile, people and God.  The passage speaks of the union of Christ and peace.  ¹³ However, now in Christ Jesus the blood of Christ has brought you who once were far off near. ¹⁴ For he is our peace. The passage alludes to Isaiah 57:19, where the Lord declares peace to those far away (exiled Jews) and to those who are near, bringing healing to them. Proselytes may already have used the phrase. In Ephesians, of course, those far off are Gentiles. The account of Pentecost in Acts 2 paints a graphic way in which this near and distant neighbor have peace.[3] Christ is “our peace,” that is, peace with God for both Jew and Gentile and between both Jew and Gentile. The cleavage between Jew and Gentile in antiquity was deep. Our time has had an iron curtain, color barriers, and national boundaries. Such distinctions present real barriers. Yet, the author is making it clear that regardless of the depth of division and hostility human beings develop, Christ has come to bring peace.[4] This peace is not just pietistic but is from God and with God and is social in between people. In that sense, while the hope of life with God in eternity is real, the mission and vision of the people of God is not simply to get there! Rather, we are to begin the work of transforming the life of the people of God so that it genuinely anticipates the peace and harmony eternity will bring.[5] The emphasis on peace occurs in v. 13, 17 and receives an extended comment in v. 14-16, 18-19. As the hymn writer reminds us, “Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.” A hymn like “In Christ there is no east or west” is in line with the sentiments here. “For the healing of the nations,” which have so much hostility, Christ desires to bring peace.

In fact, verses 14-16 may be a hymn, and if so, we can assume it had great significance to the community. There may also be a relationship between these verses and Colossians 1:19-22, a passage that also discusses themes of peace and reconciliation in Christ. The hymn focuses on the death of Christ and its effects. Christ makes peace through his death. To clarify further the type of healing the blood of Christ has brought, in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall of the Torah, that is, the hostility between us. On this basis, Roman Catholic theology wants to say that the church is the content of the divine mystery of salvation. It at least seems as if the mystery of salvation has to do in some way with the unity of the church in Christ. It seems that the new Christian people draws from every nationality and overcomes every barrier, but especially the barrier between Jew and Gentile.[6] ¹⁵ He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, as a way to separate Jew and Gentile. In light of the resurrection of the crucified, the law has lost its binding authority. The death of Christ has broken down the wall of enmity, depriving the Law of its force. He views the enmity between Jew and Gentile symbolized by Torah in light of the peace won through Christ.[7] The point was not to treat Israel's privileges with contempt.  Rather, the cross annuls only the formerly divisive element of the law.  A) A new humanity: 1) it is an act of creation, 2) should be a new person, 3) the two are Jew and Gentile.  The "one new person" is a social being.  B) Worship in v. 13, 18.  The making of peace is an act of worship.  The prelude to each of us who worship is reconciliation with one who was hostile, note Matthew 5:23-24, 6:5, 8, 12, 14, 25:31-46, as well as the prodigal son.  One might think of this as overly optimistic or even an expression of eschatological enthusiasm. Awareness of this reality of the future, however, impels Christian mission to the nations.[8] The reason Christ has done this is that he might create in himself one new humanity (Paul nowhere else writes like this) in place of the two, thus making peace. Further, Christ has done this so that he ¹⁶ might reconcile both groups to God in one body (referring to Christ[9] and praising the political result of the work of Christ) through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. The fruit of peace is a new humanity. Precisely by the event of the passion, Christ became a figure that transcends the national and religious differences of Jew and non-Jew.[10] Matthew and Mark describe Jesus' death as God-forsaken, while Paul describes it as what it means to be "made sin," bearing its weight and consequences, being "cursed".  Out of himself, Christ brings a partner, the church, making the church dependent upon Christ. Paul would normally write that God has done things in Christ, rather than affirming that Christ has done these things in himself. He is describing the essential condition of newness or oneness. The new humanity depends upon Christ.[11] ¹⁷ Therefore, he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. This proclamation may remind us of the high priest giving the blessing that the Lord bless and keep you, and give you peace (Numbers 6:24-26). Jesus of Nazareth did this in the course of his life, in word and deed. He proclaimed that peace in his death for us. ¹⁸ For, as another fruit of peace, through him both of us have access in one (Holy) Spirit (or one spirit of the people) to the Father. Thus, the author may well use the hymn to combat an anti-Jewish tendency.  Circumcision had many meanings but the concern here is with that of a covenant. Circumcision has now become the property of the church through Christ.  Christ has overcome the divisiveness of circumcision.  In Colossians 2:11, in Christ, Gentiles received spiritual circumcision by receiving the circumcision Christ has brought them. Christ's death is a sacrificial circumcision. The blood of Christ is the means of coming near, not circumcision, and those far off are all Gentiles, not just God-fearers.  The opposite of the Gentile's exclusion from Israel is their inclusion in the Messiah.  Jews did not win this peace by the dispersion or by Gentiles becoming proselytes, though these things were happening.  In Eph. 2, it is the Messiah's death which is the focus, while relevant OT texts would focus on the coming, enthronement, or victory of God's anointed, see Psalm 7:8-9, Ezekiel 37:22, 24-25, Isaiah 11:12-13, Zechariah 9:9-10. 

The hymn raises the question of when and how the Messiah came to them preaching peace.[12] The focus is a theology of the cross. We can see this death as a fulfillment of the sealing of the covenant with blood in the Old Testament. In another sense, his death for us and in our place speaks loudly of the love of God in Christ. This death is the means of reconciliation of forgiveness. In a sense, Christ makes the offering, is thus priest, but the offering is his life, and is thus victim. How can a sacrifice make peace? Isaiah 53:12 refers to the servant of the Lord pouring out his life to the point of death, bearing the sin of others, and in this means making intercession for those who sin. In this way, a sacrifice is intercession. The death of Christ is the mode and effect of the intercession of Christ for Jew and Gentile. His prayer embraces diverse hostile persons, groups, causes, and conditions. His prayer embraces their common plight, lapses, sins, hostility to God, and brings them before God. The focus is the cross, being itself the very moment, means, and cost of peace.

For a brief moment, reconciliation became a possibility in an unexpected place. The story of Jesse Owens, African-American track and field star who -- to the dismay of Adolf Hitler -- won four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is well known. What is not so well known is the friendship Owens developed with Luz Long, one of the German athletes competing against him in the long jump. Long, touted by the Nazi regime as a prime example of the new Aryan man, was favored to win the event, and had in fact already broken the Olympic record in one of the qualifying rounds. In a gesture of fair play, he had advised Owens to be careful not to get too close to the foul line when beginning his jump. As it turned out, Owens defeated him in the final round, edging him out for the gold medal. The two took off, arm in arm, to run a lap of honor around the stadium, under the very eyes of the disgruntled Nazi officials. Hitler's confidant, Albert Speer, described years later how der Fuhrer displayed his annoyance at Owens' success: "People whose antecedents came from the jungle were primitive, Hitler said with a shrug; their physiques were stronger than those of civilized whites and hence should be excluded from future games" [13] Owens himself returned to face prejudice in his own country. Attending a reception at New York's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, following the ticker-tape parade welcoming him and his fellow athletes back home, he was required to ride the freight elevator. Of Luz Long, Owens later remarked, "It took a lot of courage for him to express his friendship to me in front of Hitler.... You can win all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-carat friendship I felt for Long at that moment. Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace victoriously."[14]  Long served as an officer in the German Army during World War II and died in a British military hospital from wounds he received during the Allied invasion of Sicily.

Ephesians 2: 19-22 refer to the house of God. We are to think of it as a completed building, and therefore as a reference to the future.[15] ¹⁹ So then, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God. Jew and Gentile cooperated in the death of Jesus; yet, the death of Jesus has made them members of the household of God.[16] He sums up the hymn that we find in verses 14-18. The coming of Christ did not just mean proselytism.  It meant the most lawless Gentiles were included among God's people.  Note that he first mentions people's relation to one another and then their relation to God.  ²⁰ God has built the household upon (not alongside[17]) the foundation of something as recent as that of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone or keystone at the top of the arch). While usually Paul refers to Christ as the foundation, here the point is that witness to Christ serves the function of laying the foundation. He presents Christ as the keystone that holds the whole structure together.[18] If so, this would give weight to the eschatological interpretation, dependent upon the future work of Christ rather than speaking through the past as foundation. This letter assumes the apostles are still alive (4:17-18). ²¹ In him, God joined together (integrates[19]) the whole structure and grows it by size, number, power, maturity, and age into a holy temple in the Lord. As he concludes, he refers to another fruit of peace. He refers to Christ, ²² in whom God has also built you together spiritually, signifying the mutual coordination and support of Jew and Gentile that the presence of God will bring, into a dwelling place for God. The saints themselves are the dwelling.  This is a visible house, as visible as any church building.  The point is that people make up the church. We can see that the growth of the community is decisive rather than individuals, the earth is the place of this building, the community receives life for growth, and it reaches toward perfection. These verses have a strong ecclesiology, but they do not promote a triumphalist one. These verses are the tangible result of peace is the growing church. The house is unfinished, still awaiting God to grace it with divine presence. 

This passage raises the question of walls that human beings erect that divide us. Christ has come to bring peace by removing such walls. Yet, we in the church must admit that we are not good witnesses of the truth of this passage. The dividing wall between denominations is strong. Church fights are notorious. If Christ is our peace, if he constitutes one new humanity, if he reconciles formerly divided groups, then we can only speak of it as an eschatological truth. Such truth is our destiny, of which we shall receive only anticipatory glimpses in our history.

We can see the divisions among people today as well. They are deep. They cut across our society in troubling ways. Can the people of God be a bridge between the chasms that divide?             I want be in a church without walls.

The Methodist Church arose out of a merger in 1939 between the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church South. The only way the merger could occur was if the church created the Central Conference, an Annual Conference consisting of black churches from throughout the country. The reason was that the churches in the south said they would not meet in Annual Conference session with black churches. Now, I like unity as much as anyone does. However, the price was too high. The racial divide has harmed this nation profoundly. The church has helped erect that wall, and the church needs to become a place where that wall does not exist.

The old Indiana Conference of the Methodist Church did not ordain its first woman until the mid-1950’s. Today, the Annual Conference has female pastors, female District Superintendents, and the denomination has female bishops. The church has participated in erecting the wall, and the church needs to be out front in taking it down.

Our nation increasingly polarizes itself because of ideology. The United Methodist Church has participated in that division by adopting positions on complex political issues, and then claiming that Jesus would say or do the same thing. The reason issues are complex is that reasonable people can differ. I do not want Jesus demoted to one who baptizes any political or economic position, whether of the political Left or political Right. I think people claim Jesus would agree with their politics is that their arguments for their position is weak. It is a version of the old story of where the preacher wrote in the margin of his text: “Argument weak here; yell louder.” If our argument is weak, claiming Jesus would say or do the same thing at least makes us feel morally superior to the opposition. The church has participated in the problem. The church needs to be a place where genuine conversation over complex issues can take place, rather than lobbing ideological grenades at each other.

The church has polarized itself in theology, approaching theological discussions as another brand of ideology. We need to have places where we can face each other and discuss theological differences.

The church has trouble with sexual matters. We have debated whether we will accept people who have experienced divorce. We hold up the ideal of preserving sexual expression for marriage, even though we know we fall short of that ideal. We hold up the ideal of sexuality only between a man and a woman. I want to be quite clear. I think Jesus had high ideals as well, and taught his disciples to share those ideals. I also notice that the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus broke down walls all over the place because had had compassion upon them. Think of how often we have judged the crowds: they live in sin, in drunkenness, in violence, in drug abuse, in hatred, in war.  Maybe one of the greatest proofs of the divinity of Jesus is that he looked upon the multitudes and had compassion.

Our faith asserts that the hope is Christ, the one who brings together those who are "far off," and makes us sisters and brothers. Christ's major means of healing our divisions, of making those who were strangers into beloved siblings, is the church. He is our cornerstone, the basis of any unity we hope to achieve. On him, the promises of God have their origin and their basis. The failure of the church to be the place where walls can come down is a matter of daily repentance within the church.

Yet, I also want to be in a church with walls. I need some care here, for I do not mean the kind of self-righteous walls the Pharisee might build.

To be in the church is to be a member of an alternative community, a new people with values, views, and virtues different from the world in order that God in Christ would save the world from itself. Unfortunately, the church has too often failed to provide an alternative model of human community. The church tends to duplicate the sins of society within itself. Pastors struggle constantly with problems of unity within the congregation, with barriers between people, with the never-ending project to unify people within the church. Paul probably addresses this letter to a bitterly divided church. Preachers do not keep telling the congregation to act like Christians and get along with each other if they are already doing that.

If you thought that being a Christian is something that comes naturally, the natural, normal American thing to do, think again. Nobody comes in here by natural generation - birth. God must adopt you, transfer you into, and build you into this household. Being Christian is no longer the normal, natural, American thing to do. Our children watch an average of 15 hours of television every week. They are in church a maximum of a couple of hours per week. The content of our values and notions of the good life come from many places other than the church.

There may well be such a person as “anonymous Christians,” a group of people who are sincere in their faith and life, but who have not yet embraced the Christian faith. They are on the way toward Christ without knowing it.[20] Yet, we must understand that to be a Christian is to be someone who self-consciously follows, or attempts to follow, the way of Christ. Such persons wants to let the story of Christ and guide their lives.

When individuals do not know proper boundaries in relationships, we call them sick. A church without boundaries, with no borders, without distinctive marks, is hardly a church. It has a sickness. Our text uses architectural images of the church as a building, a house, a place. Perhaps there was a time when it was enough, in our culture, to be merely sincere, to have a warm feeling in your heart at the mention of the word religion, to try to do the best that you could in life, in a wholesome sort of way. Now, things have changed. Many Christians feel like aliens in a nation that previous generations of Christians helped create. Times have changed.  We feel the spoiling of the moral and spiritual environment of America, even if we might name and identify it in differing ways.

In such a time, a text like this begins to make sense again. The church is an identifiable new family. This family consists of all those diverse people whom Jesus has called to follow him. The house has Christ as its cornerstone, that stone, upon which God has built the whole house, that foundation upon which everything else rests. We have a new reality forming, a household, and a place with boundaries between itself in the world.

There is a medieval legend about a great war in heaven.  Satan had mounted a rebellion for overthrowing God.  Satan had gotten enough angels for an army to lead against God.  All of heaven was dividing into two camps.  Some followed Satan, while the others followed God.  Nevertheless, there was a third group of angels.  They could not make up their minds which way to go.  They were the ones who would be made into men and women, and they have been faced with the problem of loyalty ever since.

Will we be the ones who anticipate our destiny and live in a way that preaches in our word and deed: Christ is our peace?

---

[1]  (Pannenberg 1998, 1991), Volume 3, 472.

[2]  (Pannenberg 1998, 1991), Volume 2, 179.

[3]  (Barth 2004, 1932-67), III.4 [54.3] 323.

[4] F.F. Bruce said, "No iron curtain, no color bar, no national distinction or frontier of today is more absolute than the cleavage between the Jew and Gentile was in antiquity."

[5] The Kingdom of God is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven. --Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis (Macmillan, 1913), 65.

[6]  (Pannenberg 1998, 1991), Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 40, 368, 480.

[7] Verses 14-15, the dividing wall, has several possible meanings. 1) A wall in the precincts of Jerusalem, if written after 70 AD, the destruction of the temple itself, 2) the curtain that separated the holiest of holies from the Holy inside the temple.  3) The fence around the law.  4) Sin or enmity against God.  5) A fusion of the Torah, cosmic order, fate.  Nevertheless, note context.  What does the passage mean by law?  1) The law given by God.  2) Only the commandments.  3) The oral tradition.  4) The specific role in bringing knowledge of sin with its curse and death upon humanity.  5) The law as a separation between Jew and Gentile.  As their barrier, it is no longer valid in Christ.  Barth prefers #5.  Paul views the enmity in light of the peace won through Christ. 

[8]  (Pannenberg 1998, 1991), Systematic Theology, Volume 3, 494-5.

[9] The phrase "one single body" may also aid in interpretation: 1) The body of Jesus, 2) the church, 3) the mystical body, as I Cor. 12:12-13.  It could also refer to the sacrament.  Markus Barth prefers #1.

[10]  (Pannenberg 1998, 1991), Systematic Theology, Volume 2, 312.

[11] In verses 15-16, Christ is said to have created in himself and killed in himself, whereas Paul would normally write that God did these things in Christ.  1) Christ creates himself to be the new humanity, but nowhere does Paul speak like this.  2) Out of himself, Christ brings a partner, thus making the church dependent upon Christ.  3) Could be neuter and refer only to death of Christ, and this would solve all of the problems.  4) Rather than describing where or how the "one new humanity" was created, it describes the essential condition of newness or oneness.  The new humanity depends upon Christ.  The phrase: "killing the enmity in his person" has the same problems as above.  One can view the psalm of verses 14-18 as focused on Christ's death and its effects.  Christ has made peace by this means.  Nevertheless, some would not agree.  They would make references of body and blood, etc., refer to the physical body of Christ or to the Eucharist.  At stake is whether the text is a theology of the cross, the incarnation, or of the sacrament.  The blood is able to bring peace because: 1) spilled blood speaks louder than a voice, 2) blood is poured out in the making of a covenant, 3) blood of circumcision and of the Passover lamb is credited with the power to ward off destruction, 4) blood is the means of reconciliation and forgiveness.  The passage views Christ as both priest and victim!  How can a sacrifice make peace?  In the Old Testament, some passages view sacrifice as intercession.  Note Isaiah 53.  If one views the sacrifice of Christ as the mode and effect of Christ's intercession before God on behalf of Jews and Gentiles, then his prayer is embracing diverse hostile persons, groups, causes, and conditions, their common plight, lapses, sins, hostility to God, and bringing them before God.  Markus Barth rejects the incarnational views of the text.  The focus is the cross, being itself the very moment, means, and cost of peace.  Barth also rejects association with the Gnostic parallels. 

[12] 1) During Jesus' ministry, 2) John's Gospel has the risen Lord saying a word of peace; 3) the risen Lord continues to speak in the congregation, 4) the whole of the word and deed and death of Jesus is the proclamation. All of this may well be what the author intends.

[13] [Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (Macmillan, 1970),73].

[14] [Larry Schwartz, "Owens pierced a myth," http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/

features/00016393.html. Retrieved February 8, 2012].

[15]  (Barth 2004, 1932-67), Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 629.

[16]  (Barth 2004, 1932-67), Church Dogmatics IV.4, 84.

[17]  (Barth 2004, 1932-67), Church Dogmatics I.2 [20.1] 580.

[18]  (Pannenberg 1998, 1991), Systematic Theology Volume 3, 108-9.

[19]  (Barth 2004, 1932-67), Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.1] 636.

[20] Karl Rahner

II Samuel 7:1-14

II Samuel 7:1-14a

7 Now when the king was settled in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, ² the king said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.” ³ Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the Lord is with you.”

⁴ But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan: ⁵ Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? ⁶ I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. ⁷ Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?” ⁸ Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; ⁹ and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. ¹⁰ And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, ¹¹ from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. ¹² When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹³ He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴ I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.

II Samuel 7:1-14a is part of a chapter that deserves close attention. It is part of one of the most important theological text in the account of David. Prior to this passage, the reader has seen the rise of David to power in Israel, contrasted with the fall of Saul and his family. In fact, an interesting way to read the story of Saul and David is the way in which power makes and unmakes leaders. David had conquered Jebusite Jerusalem and established "the city of David" as the centralized capital of Judah (the southern tribes) and Israel (the northern tribes), which he had united by being king of both. In II Samuel 6, he had brought the ark to Jerusalem and placed it in the tent. 

We quickly learn that this passage will have a fascinating wordplay on the meanings of one word. In Hebrew, the word is “bayit,” occurring 15 times in the chapter. The NRSV translates the word as “house.”^[1] The Lord objects to the plan of David to build the Lord a house (temple) and announces instead that the Lord will make a house (dynasty) for David, and that the son of David will build the Lord a house (temple).

We first have a brief introduction. ^1aNow when the king, David, was settled in his house (bayit). We learn that ^1bthe Lord gave David rest from his enemies, a sought after condition in the history of Israel. The Lord makes an extension of the promise offered to Abraham in Genesis 12 by applying some of its themes to David. However, the following chapters describe further wars. The passage could be out of place historically. Second, we have a speech from the Lord. ²The king said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I am living in a house of cedar, paneled with precious cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.” A theme of the story of David has been that he consulted the Lord. He does not do so here.  He may have been enamored with his success. David's desire to build a temple, then, reveals that he might be trying to pay the Lord back for what the Lord had done for him. It is a transactional way of thinking -- I owe the Lord a debt and the more I do for the Lord, the more the Lord will do for me in turn. Quid pro quo. This thinking was typical of the Canaanite pagan religions, and it is unfortunately typical of the way that too many think of their relationship with God. It would have been typical of David, and us, to think in terms of paying the Lord back. Given the recent victories he ascribed to the Lord, we can understand how he might view his relationship with the Lord as a transactional one. The Lord has acted for him; he now does something for the Lord, so that the Lord will do more actions for him in the future. He may have wanted to build a house for the Lord because he wanted to ensure the favor of the Lord in the future. We need to ponder this: has David gone too far in taking the initiative in his relationship with the Lord? Such arrogance on the part of a powerful and successful ruler would be a way of making the Lord into a responsive patron. Such initiative is what we might expect from the power of the political state. [2] ³ Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the Lord is with you.” Was Nathan enamored with the success of David as well? Second, we have a speech from the Lord. Regardless of his motive, ⁴ But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan. While Nathan has encouraged David to carry out his plan, the Lord objects. His personal feelings were not in accord with God. In I Samuel 8:6-7, for example, Samuel opposed the demand of the people for a king, whereas God consented. We can see here that, given the difficult message that the Lord will give him, Nathan is open to having the Lord adjust his first impression. ⁵ Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord, the messenger formula that assumes that the following words are the words of the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? ⁶ I have not lived in a house (bayit) since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. In Shiloh, however, there was a House of the Lord (I Samuel 1:7, 9), but there was also a tent that symbolized the idea that the Lord is not restricted to one fixed place.  ⁷ Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house (bayit) of cedar?” We can see here the tension at this early stage of the history of Israel between the notions that the Lord enthroned in heaven might also have a dwelling on earth.^[3] 8 Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; ^9a and I have been with you wherever you went, affirming what Nathan originally told David, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; ^9bThe Lord will make for David a great name among the great ones of the earth. ¹⁰The Lord will appoint a place for the people of Israel. The divine promise is that the Lord will plant them, that they willlive in their own place, and that no one will disturb them anymore. This combination of phrases is striking to me. The Lord will plant each of us because the Lord has a place for us. Each of us has our own place to live, and the intent of the Lord is that we flourish in that place. Yes, a basic sense of peace and security is the hoped-for condition. Further, ^11athe promise is that evildoers shall not afflict them, and the Lord will give them rest from their enemies. ^11bMoreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house (bayit). David wanted to build the Lord a house to pay the Lord back and as a way of ensuring the favor of the Lord in the future. The Lord tells David, however, that it is not necessary. David has not earned the favor of the Lord. And in any case, David cannot repay the Lord for preserving him and making him king. All of this is the result of the initiative of the Lord on David's behalf and on behalf of the people of the Lord. ¹²When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring, referring to Solomon, but in rabbinic times was applied to the Messiah, who will be of the house of David and whose reign will last forever,after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. ^13a He, the descendant of David, will build a house for my name, making it clear that the essence of the Lord does not dwell there, but rather, the “name,” focusing on one of the main themes of the chapter, the building of the temple. ^13band I will establish the throne (bayit^[4])of his kingdom forever, focusing one of the main themes of the chapter, the dynasty of David. ¹⁴ I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. Like a father and son, the Lord will chastise the successor of David, but never reject him. We should note that the term “father” when applied to God is rare in the Old Testament, but here is one of the cases when it does so by God being father to the king.^[5] As such, the king was the earthly representative of divine lordship.^[6] As such, this terminology became a fitting place to which the New Testament goes to describe Jesus. Referring to Jesus as the Son of the Father has an intimation here and in Psalm 2:7.^[7] The title of Son or Son of God was fitting for the Messiah, for the Davidic king was the son of God.^[8]

The concept of covenant runs through Chapter 7, even though the word itself does not appear. In Scripture, when God says, "I am / will be your God, and you are / will be my people," this is covenant-language (e.g., see Ezekiel 37:26-27; Jeremiah 31:33; cf. Revelation 21:1-3). The concept of covenant (Hebrew berit -- pronounced buh-REET) pervades much of the theology of the Hebrew Bible / OT. Among the many last words of David, see II Samuel 23:5: "Is not my house [bayit] like this with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant [berit 'olam], ordered in all things and secure ... ." Covenant / berit can mean a treaty, agreement, or arrangement. In theological settings, it delineates a mutual relationship, initiated and given by God. 

The covenant of the Lord with David has come under some criticism in academic and Christian Left circles. It becomes a way to analyze the abuse of power in our day, usually from a politically Left perspective.^[9] The problem I see with this interpretation is that the Old Testament values the covenant with David and his family as the promise of justly rule and righteousness. If we look upon ourselves as in conversation with this text, then we need to listen with generosity. We can approach the text as antagonists, but we have then left the realm of conversation and entered the realm of polemics. 

If we view our reading of the text as a conversation, then we recognize that such texts are the basis for the Messianic hope of Israel for a world of justly rule. Such texts form part of the biblical basis for the development of the Christian notion of the Trinity. This hope also becomes part of the Christian hope for the return of Christ. The promise made to David is for time to come. It explicitly concerns David’s son Solomon, but there are always sons to come, generations of Davids yet unborn, each of which is the carrier of this unconditional promise. By this announcement, the line of David is no longer simply a historical accident but is a constitutive factor in God’s shaping of the historical process. Out of this oracle there emerges the hope held by Israel in every season that there is a coming David who will right wrong and establish a good governance. That coming hidden in the vagaries of history, may experience resistance from the recalcitrance of injustice and unrighteousness, but nevertheless there is one coming who will make things right.

This text does not intend to point to Jesus. If we expand the conversation beyond the text, we may see how easy and natural it was for the community around Jesus to seize upon this text to understand the reality of Jesus. Aside from the specificity of Jesus, however, this enduring promise to David has placed messianism at the heart of both Judaism and Christianity. This utterance by Yahweh through the mouth of Nathan has made these communities to be communities of hope. That hope believes, confesses, and trusts that God will keep God’s promise of righting the world and that the promise will be kept within the historical process through a historical agent. This promise, then, is not one among many for Jews and Christians; it is the decisive shaper of both these communities who trust God’s work to become visible within the historical process.^[10]

Some biblical covenants followed the form of an ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaty, where a powerful emperor would make a covenant with a vassal king. The suzerain pledged protection to the vassal, and the vassal pledged absolute loyalty to the suzerain and obedience to specific stipulations. The covenant which God made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai / Horeb follows this pattern. The Lord graciously promised to be their God and protectively to provide for them; in turn, his people owed the Lord full loyalty (no other gods) and full obedience to his stipulated torah (law/instruction). Other ancient Near Eastern covenants were in the form of royal grants (gracious gifts), where the stronger party would give something of value to his already-loyal subordinates, without a lengthy list of specific requirements. The covenant of Genesis 17 follows this pattern, as does the covenant which God made with David in II Samuel 7. David prayerfully acknowledges that it was not due to himself, but to the Lord, the only God (vv. 18-29), an acknowledgment of which we read throughout the story of the successes of David at war.

The promises that the Lord made to David and his successors would later be understood messianically, as each king was anointed. "Messiah" -- mashiah (hard "h") in Hebrew -- means "anointed one." NT writers believed that Jesus Christ (christos/"anointed one" -- the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"), in the legal line of David, was the ultimate fulfillment of those dynastic promises to David. The accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-18a and Luke 1:30-33, 2:1-14 are obvious as the New Testament witness views Jesus as a fulfillment of the promise of a dynasty for David. Peter refers to the promise to David that his son would sit upon the throne as finding fulfillment in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (Acts 2:29-36). Paul affirms that the Son of God is an offspring of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:1-4). He is an offspring of David (II Timothy 2:8). The risen Lord declares himself to be the root and offspring of David (Revelation 22:16).  See also multiple references in Matthew to Jesus as "son of David." God has, in grace, fulfilled his covenantal dynastic promises. "Jesus, Lord, at thy birth" (in "Silent Night") will come to be called not only "King of the Jews," but also "King of kings and Lord of lords" (the greatest king and highest lord) of all humanity. We receive God's Christmas Gift and trustingly follow him.

With all that David accomplished in his life, here is one desire of his heart that was not fulfilled. He never built the temple. Most of us can think of something that was a desire of the heart that has remained unfulfilled. It may well be that we need to offer praise for what the Lord has done in our lives and surrender the desire of our hearts to the Lord. That desire may well have had another role in our lives than that of fulfillment.

---

^[1] The Hebrew word bayit (pronounced "BUY-it") appears 15 times in the chapter; the NRSV translates it as "house" every time. But, depending on the context, bayit actually means palace, temple or dynasty (elsewhere it can mean clan, family or nation, as in "the 'house' of Judah"). Bayit becomes beth- when it's immediately followed by a noun it's (technically speaking) "in construct with." Beth- is used as a part of place names, such as Beth-el ("the house of God" -- Genesis 28:15-19) and Beth-lehem ("house of bread" -- Genesis 35:19; Micah 5:2 = Matthew 2:6. Jesus is the bread of life -- John 6:32-35, 48).

[2] Walter Brueggemann (David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory)

^[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 414.

^[4] We see throughout the canonical text of II Samuel 7 the play on words with “bayit,” which one can translate as house, as does the NRSV throughout, but it can carry other meanings, as the context reveals here. The Hebrew word bayit (pronounced "BUY-it") appears 15 times in the chapter; the NRSV translates it as "house" every time. But, depending on the context, bayit actually means palace, temple or dynasty (elsewhere it can mean clan, family or nation, as in "the 'house' of Judah"). Bayit becomes beth- when it's immediately followed by a noun it's (technically speaking) "in construct with." Beth- is used as a part of place names, such as Beth-el ("the house of God" -- Genesis 28:15-19) and Beth-lehem ("house of bread" -- Genesis 35:19; Micah 5:2 = Matthew 2:6. Jesus is the bread of life -- John 6:32-35, 48).

^[5] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 260.

^[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 50.

^[7] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 317.

^[8] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 364.

^[9] Walter Bruggemann (David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory)

^[10] —Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (John Knox Press, 1990), 257–259.