Month: February 2018

February 28, 2018 Sunday Commentary Post a Comment

The Third Sunday of Lent

REFLECTIONS ON THE READINGS FOR

THE THIRD SUNDAY OF LENT, 04 March, 2018, CYCLE B

Exodus 20:1-17; Psalm 18:8-11; 1 Corinthians 1:22-25; John 2:13-25

 

Download

 

For the last two Sundays, our readings have recalled God’s covenant with Noah and with Abraham. Today, in our reading from Exodus, we are with God’s people at Sinai, hearing ”the Ten Words”, God’s covenant charter between God and God’s people, whom the Eternal One has redeemed from slavery in Egypt. These Words, accompanied by the sound of thunder and trumpet, are heard for miles around, and are the prime expression of the covenant demands.

 

The part of Psalm 18 which we read today is a hymn in praise of Torah, the Law, given by God to give us life, in which we rejoice, as we try to respond wholeheartedly to it throughout our lives. God’s ”Ten Words” are words which sustain us and so ”are more to be desired than … the purest of gold and are sweeter than the sweetest of imaginable honeys”.

 

Unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke, who place the controversy about the Temple immediately before Jesus’ Passion, John places it at the very beginning of his ministry. It gives us a point of entry for understanding Jesus’ life – and is directly related to the cause of his death. We see here the characteristic Johannine device of having Jesus say something which others only understand at one level, giving John the opportunity of explaining the true meaning, which is on quite another level entirely. The threat of destroying and the promise of rebuilding the Temple was deeply embedded in the early Christian tradition. As was the case with the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, prophetic actions at the time of Jesus were highly dramatic ways of conveying God’s will and purpose. The deeply significant episode concerning the Temple is related to his prophetic sayings which refer to the crisis and disaster which Jerusalem and the Temple faced. In the early decades of the first century, some Jewish groups did expect that in the ”last days” God would provide a ”new temple”, thus restoring the purity of Israel. While there was certainly an element of protest in the actions of Jesus, they are better understood as a prophetic gesture against the Temple itself. In this context, it is not surprising that Jesus adopted such a radical stance. But his words and actions against the Temple may have been the immediate cause of his downfall. Jesus seems to have expected that in the ”last days”, which he believed to be imminent, the Temple would be destroyed and replaced by a new and perfect Temple, built by God. In the eyes of the Jerusalem Temple establishment, these views were provocative and outrageous. It is hard to overestimate the importance of the Temple for the religious and political life of Jerusalem. Any serious threat to it would have been opposed vigorously both by the Temple authorities and by the local inhabitants of Jerusalem. They are certainly recalled during Jesus’ trial.

 

The words remembered by the disciples, ”Zeal for your house will devour me” are from Psalm 68, which begins, ”Save me, O God, for the waters have risen to my neck”. It is the cry of an innocent sufferer, in deep distress and the reference to it is poignant. The passage from John has a clear reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection, and this is the heart of our reading from Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians today: ”Here are we preaching a crucified Christ”, proof of God’s ”foolishness” being ”wiser than human wisdom”, and God’s ”weakness” being ”stronger than human strength”.

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Sr Margaret Shepherd, NDS, London, UK

margaretashepherd@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2018]

 

………………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

…………………………………………..…………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2018

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

Parashah Commentary Post a Comment

Parashat Ki Tisa

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashah Ki Tisa —Erev Shabbat March 2, 2018

Week of February 25–March 3, 2018

Torah portion: Ex. 30:11–34:35 Haftarah: 1 Kgs. 18 :1–39

 

Download

 

This week’s reading is one of the most dramatic in the whole Hebrew Bible. The opening conserves an idyllic tonality putting us rather backwards, to the previous section, with the detailed explanations concerning ritual laws and norms providing purity of person and that of the future Temple. Thus the goal of these meticulous prescriptions is to enable the sons of Israel (בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל), i.e. the sanctified people of God, to be testimonies of the Almighty’s self-opening for His holy ones’ sake [cf. Ex. 30:6]. In this sense both the numbering and a ransom for the soul of every man make it clear what kind of relationship binds The Holy One and his servants. The two beautiful metaphors of this complex and profound intimacy are to be found further: 1) the mixed fragrant ointment (שֶׁ֚מֶן) used to consecrate both the sanctuary and the sons of Aaron, and 2) the incense, a sort of the high-qualified, tempered together, pure and holy confected perfume (‎קְטֹ֔רֶת). The variety of those symbolic names and images renders with an excellent brightness how the extreme exclusiveness of the being apart from (it is the principal meaning of the term קֹ֖דֶשׁ) delimits the Revelation of the Lord and his perception from the point of view of His people. However this ideal picture tout court fails from the very beginning without even being performed in the mind of the attentive reader of the Biblical narrative.

 

The Golden Calf story strikes us by its hardness and unexpectedness. Its central place in this section is striking too, as if there were a counterpart of the giving of the tablets of Decalogue. In fact, we have to do with an agile narrative construction that puts forward the salvific dynamism of God’s Self-Revealing on Mount Sinai by using an antithetical language: first, Moses receives the tablets of Divine origin, then comes the tragedy of idolatry and finally, he makes by himself the new tablets after having destroyed the former ones. This intense antithetical polarity intertwined in itself – ad intra [the drama of Israel] & ad extra [the drama of the whole universe inscribed in the Divine Law as Rashi says] –, in the history of Christianity, was practically used and overused in order to discredit validity and distinctiveness of the First Testament. Especially in the Epistle of Barnabas this antagonistic attitude is exalted to an extreme point, so that his author may affirm: “when they turned to idols, they lost it (the covenant)” [Barn. 4:6c-7]. Similarly, in the Second Epistle to Corinthians [3:12–18] St. Paul seems to present rather a conflicting model of the relationship between the two Testaments and two nations: the veil of Moses is regarded as an obstacle for Israelites to see the divine glory. The coming of Christ removes it from the panorama of salvation, making of Christians a new Israel, the truly one who substitutes the ancient people of the ancient Covenant now completely broken.

 

The answer to such a challenging quest can be deduced from the biblical story itself. At the very end of the Parashah we are taught a lot of significant details that shed a light on the issue. The shining brilliance of the Moses’ face (as well as the veil!) focuses one’s attention on the divine dialectic or dialogical unity of the revelation and hiding, mercy and punishment, immanence and transcendence. Consequently, the turning point of the whole narrative lays on this divine choice, election that cannot all of a sudden be reduced or diminished by human will. Hence it is comprehensible why the mediation of Moses as a redeemer reached so quickly the Divine hesed (חסד), why Moses himself revives – in an impressive manner in this story – a partnership of a mystical betrothal that still binds people of Israel as Sion, Daughter of a Voice, to His Beloved Bridegroom [cf. Hos. 2:19].

 

The second reading with another impressive narrative profile of Elijah, irreprehensible in his prophetic zeal, functions as a perfect conclusion to the majestic story of the renewal of the unique Covenant pulsing in the heart of the whole of humanity. The triumph of the Lord over the false gods symbolized by two calves in the present Torah portion has to be proclaimed as the Prophet does (1 Kgs. 18:36ss.) inviting to this outstanding prayer heaven and earth [cf. Ps. 148]. From the point of view of pragmatics this final “The Eternal alone is God!” proclaimed twice echoes to a large extent in the previous and following sections stressing such a great need of dialogue in a modern time: a dialectics that opens mind and heart of everyone but mostly manifests a Divine Imperative to be attentive to a Voice that surrounds us, to hear It, to transmit It, to revive continually Its fullness and surprising presence.

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1. What kind of spiritual experience may suppose the shining face of Moses? Which other biblical texts revive these prominent “light” metaphors? 2. What are my real challenges and successes in this Lent’ season to keep unbroken a Covenant with God? 3. How are tensions of Divine Revelation realized in my life?

 

Bibliography: Plaut, ed., The Torah, A Modern Commentary (New York, 1981); Grilli, Quale rapporto tra i due Testamenti? Riflessione critica sui modelli ermeneutici classici concernenti l’unità delle Scritture (Bologna, 2007); Fritz, “Sabbath Rest and Sunday Worship: We Are Entitled to Both”. P. 38–52 Available on this link.

 

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Philopheus Artyushin, Moscow Theol. Academy, Doctorate in Biblical Theology,

Bat Kol alumnus 2011 artyushins@yandex.ru [Copyright © 2018]

 

……………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Parashah commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. The commentaries, along with all materials published on the Bat Kol website, are copyrighted by the writers, and are made available for personal and group study, and local church purposes. Permission needed for other purposes. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

……………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 1983-2018

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

Website: www.batkol.info; Parashat Admin: gill@batkol.info

February 20, 2018 Sunday Commentary Post a Comment

Second Sunday of Lent

Second Sunday of Lent Year B (25 February 2018)

Gen. 22:1-2, 9a, 10-13, 15-18; Ps. 116:10, 15-19; Rom. 8:31b-34; Mark 9:2-10

Theme: Listen to Him

 

Download

 

Mark has placed his transfiguration story in the very center of his Gospel. It is part of the middle section, the story of Jesus and his disciples on “The Way” from Galilee to Jerusalem [Mk 8:22-10:52]. This section includes three passion predictions and represents a major turning point in the Gospel. The transfiguration story, in some sense a preview of the resurrection, emphasizes “God’s creative, transforming, transfiguring power to restore life” [Sabin, 97].

 

The story is replete with Old Testament echoes: six days, mountain, dazzling white, Elijah, Moses, dwellings, being terrified, cloud and voice. It is firmly anchored in Israel’s scriptures and particularly in stories about Mt Sinai (Horeb).

 

Bright light is a symbol of God’s presence. The coming of God on Mt Sinai is accompanied by lightning [Ex 19:16], and Moses’ face shines after speaking with God [Ex 34:29]. In some Jewish mystical literature angels are bathed in light: “The angel had in its hand a shining robe, which gave off a light as pure and bright as the angel’s” [Schwartz, 141]. Mark says that Jesus’ clothes became “glistening, intensely white” (RSV) or “dazzling white” (NAB), “such as no gnapheus on earth could bleach them”. The Greek gnapheus means ‘fuller’, whose job it was to whiten raw wool and tease it out (or ‘full’ it) to prepare it for spinning. Because the word is not in common use today many translations have ‘such as no one or no launderer …’ The color white symbolizes heaven so Jesus’ clothes are an external manifestation of his identity. White is also a sign of joy and feasting.

 

The dwellings (also translated shelters, booths, tents or tabernacles) that Peter wants to build in v.5 recall the annual Feast of Tabernacles that commemorated the past event of the exodus, but also looked forward to the time of the Messiah [Zc 14:16] that would be a time of joy and feasting when “every cooking pot…shall be sacred to the Lord of hosts”[Zc 14:21]. Peter’s suggestion seems to be that this is such a good experience let’s make it permanent. However this is not Jesus’ idea, as the following story of going down the mountain to heal the epileptic boy shows. There is still work to do.

 

The word ‘cloud’ (Heb arafel) appears nearly 50 times in the Five Books of Moses as a symbol for the presence of the Lord. The voice from the cloud proclaims “This is my Son, the Beloved”. Brendan Byrne sees the whole of Mark’s Gospel resting as it were on three pillars, three statements that Jesus is God’s Son: near the beginning (at the baptism in 1:11), in the middle (9:7), and towards the end (by the Roman centurion at the crucifixion in 15:39). The Hebrew scriptures are convinced that God communicates with us and this conviction carries through into the Talmud: “R. Abba says it is the divine voice as it has been taught: After the later prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel, but they still availed themselves of the Bat Kol” [Sotah 9b]. The voice continues “Listen to him”, something that Peter and the disciples had obviously not been doing. Finally, they find there is no one else with them “but only Jesus”. Do they need anyone else?

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1. Have you experienced anything you would describe as a ‘mountain-top’ experience? What effect did it have on you? 2. What might “listening to Jesus” mean for you? 3. Where do you think the Bat Kol is heard today? 4. Is Jesus enough for you?

 

Bibliography: Byrne, A Costly Freedom (Strathfield NSW, 2008); Sabin, ‘The Gospel According to Mark’ in Durken, New Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville MN, 2009); Schwartz, Gabriel’s Palace: Jewish mystical tales (Oxford, 1993).

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Br Kevin McDonnell cfc, PhD., Australia, Bat Kol Alumnus, 2003, 2004, 2005.
Email address: klmcdonnell@edmundrice.org

[Copyright © 2018]

 

……………………………………………………………..

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

……………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2018

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

 

Parashah Commentary Post a Comment

Parashat Tetzaveh

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashah Tetzaveh, Erev Shabbat 23rd February 2018

Week of 18th – 24th February 2018

Torah portion: Exodus 27:20 – 30:10 Haftarah 1Sam. 15:1-34

 

Download

 

Parashah Tetzaveh (and you shall further instruct…) continues from Parashat Trumah, with Moshe receiving more commands from God on furnishing the tabernacle including the preparation of vestments and ordination of the ministering priests in it.

 

The parashah opens with the Israelites being commanded to continuously bring crushed or beaten, clear olive oil for kindling the light of the lamps, in the Tabernacle, which Aaron and his sons are to keep burning from evening to morning.

 

It is fascinating to note that keeping a constant light burning in the tabernacle becomes the first instruction that God asks of Moshe to command the people. It seems to resonate with “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3). Moshe and the people seemingly are invited into participating in the Divine mission of creating God’s sanctuary in the midst of them: Moshe delivering the instructions through God’s guidance, God’s people themselves contributing by bringing continuously that which is essential in making light come into existence, and the priests participating by attentively keeping the light burning throughout. All coming and working together for one purpose.

 

A whole section follows with detailed instructions on making vestments of finest materials, stones and gems, prepared by the skilful, translated as “wise of heart”, (Etz, p.505) for Aaron and his lineage serving as priests for God in the Tabernacle. Again another parallel is seen between the creation of the world and fashioning of the tabernacle. (Etz, p.504)

 

It is delightful to read how in fashioning vestments of priests that calls forth holiness, for the priest, somehow involves the gathering of the people who have been gifted by God with wisdom to create balance and harmony with the best of what the created world can offer, making everything come together as one and whole.

 

Central though it seems to the instructions given in the whole parashah is found in reading Ex 29:42-45. God’s instructions lead to simply preparing a place where the Divine Presence can rest in the midst of the chosen people. God prepares God’s own for a deepening of a relationship where one is found abiding with the other.

 

As the parashah closes, instructions for an altar for regular incense offering to God throughout the ages is given. The aroma of a burning incense cannot be contained, it spreads farther than where it is burnt. Could it be, then, a witnessing to the rest of the world of the uncontainable growing relationship between God and God’s own?

 

Reflection and Discussion: 1. How have you created a place for God in your life? 2. How have you grown daily in becoming attuned to God’s presence in and around you? 3. How has your growing relationship become a witnessing to all who come to know you?

 

Bibliography: Lieber ed. Etz Hayim Torah and Commentary, Travel ed. (JPS New York 2004).

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Sr. Weeyaa Villanueva, RNDM. Senegal, West Africa, Bat Kol Alumna 2010.

Email: weeyaavillanueva@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2018]

 

……………………………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Parashah commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. The commentaries, along with all materials published on the Bat Kol website, are copyrighted by the writers, and are made available for personal and group study, and local church purposes. Permission needed for other purposes. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

………………………………………………………………….

 

1983-2018

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

Website: www.batkol.info; Commentary admin: gill@batkol.info

February 12, 2018 Sunday Commentary Post a Comment

First Sunday of Lent

First Sunday of Lent Year B (18 February 2018)

Gen. 9:8-15; Ps. 24:4-9; 1 Pet. 3:18-22; Mark 1:12-15.

Theme: The Spirit drives Jesus into the Wilderness

 

 

Download

 

That the Spirit immediately drove Jesus into the wilderness [Mark 1:12] connects his stay there with the story of his baptism that has immediately preceded it. This connection is vital to understanding Jesus. The baptism story emphasizes his special father-son relationship with God while the wilderness story emphasizes his real humanity, his identification with us.

 

Nearly all English versions use the past tense ‘drove’, but the Greek word ekballei is present tense, so ‘drives’ is closer to the original. Perhaps Mark is saying that being in the wilderness is a permanent condition, both for Jesus and for us. It certainly must have seemed so to his first audience, persecuted and oppressed as they were by the power of imperial Rome.

 

The extent to which the wilderness impressed itself on the Jewish religious imagination is illustrated by the fact that words like ‘wilderness’ and ‘desert’ appear more than 300 times in the Hebrew Bible and about 450 times in the Talmud [e.g. Mas. Sanh. 99a (11) “just as they were afflicted forty years in the wilderness, so shall they rejoice forty years under the kingship of the Messiah”]. Primarily the wilderness is a place of testing, as in the Exodus story, “Remember the long way that the Lord your God has led you…testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments” [Deut 8:2], but it is also the privileged place of meeting with God, e.g. Moses on Mt Sinai [Ex 19:20-24], also Elijah [1Kg 19:9-14]; it is the place where God will speak to the heart of his beloved Israel [Ho 2:14]. For Jesus, too, it was a place both of testing and of reassurance.

 

The number ‘forty’, whether days or years, is also a symbolic term. It represents a lifetime, and was possibly the average life expectancy in biblical times. Even today in poorer countries in Africa it is only in the 50’s. Which raises the question as to how long Jesus was tempted – tempted to use possessions, wield status and exercise power in ways that were not in accordance with his Father’s will [see Mt 4:1-10]. The answer has to be for his whole lifetime! This is the position taken by the Letter to the Hebrews, “we have one (Jesus) who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin”. The Vatican II document The Church in the Modern World says likewise when it says of Jesus that he was “like to us in all things, except sin” [#22].

 

Jesus was not alone in the wilderness. He was “with the wild beasts” and “the angels waited on him”. Mary Healy suggests that the presence of the wild beasts that do no harm evokes Isaiah’s picture of harmony in creation at the coming of the Messiah [Is 11:1-9], though Robert Stein disagrees, seeing the wild beasts as part of an evil environment. The angels ministered to Jesus just as they had done to Israel during the exodus [Ex 14:19], and to Elijah before his forty-day journey to meet YHWH at Horeb [1 Kg 19:5-7]. In the Elijah story ‘angel’ and ‘the angel of the Lord’ are used interchangeably, and in the annunciation to Gideon in Judges 6:22-23 ‘the angel of the Lord’ is synonymous with ‘the Lord’. So the God of Jesus is with him through all the trials of his life, ministering to him and caring for him.

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1. What do you find (a) challenging, and (b) reassuring, about this passage from Mark? 2. How do you respond to Mark’s picture of Jesus being tempted all through his life? 3. In what ways might this story of Jesus in the wilderness shape your approach to Lent this year?

 

Bibliography: Healy, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids MI, 2008); Robinson, Change of Mind and Heart (Revesby NSW, 1994); Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids MI, 2008).

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Br Kevin McDonnell cfc, PhD., Australia, Bat Kol Alumnus, 2003, 2004, 2005.

Email address: klmcdonnell@edmundrice.org

[Copyright © 2018]

 

…………………………………………………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

…………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2018

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

Parashah Commentary Post a Comment

Parashat Terumah

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashah Terumah Erev Shabbat, 17th February 2018

Week of 10th -18th February

Torah portion: Exodus 25:1-27:19 Haftarah: 1Kgs 5:26-6:13

 

Download

 

I was reminded of Harambee days in Kenya as I read the Torah portion for this week. Harambee means “all pulling together” in Swahili and it encompasses two activities; donations – both animals and money, channeled towards a building project. The energy generated by the act of freely given donations and the purpose wherein those were used on behalf of the community, was very palpable. A glimpse of the energy released to build a visible structure to house the Divine presence can be glimpsed in the fact that a halt had to be put on the flow of gifts that flowed so generously from the people. “The people are bringing more than is needed for the work G-d has ordered to be done” (Ex.36:5). Donations, sanctuary and tabernacle (mishkan) – are at the heart of parashah Terumah. “The Eternal One spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts, you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart is so moved….and let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them’ (Ex 25:1, 8). The stress is on G-d’s dwelling among the people not on the building. The Terumah Commentary 177, reads not “I will dwell in it”, but rather, “I will dwell in them”. Terumah can be translated as ‘a contribution’ but Rabbi Jonathan Sacks points out that it has a subtly different meaning for which there is no English equivalent. It means ‘something you lift up’ by dedicating it to a sacred cause. I glimpsed a moment like that at a Harambee day for building a church, when a young boy came up with his contribution, which was one copper coin. He lifted it up in front of the crowd and announced that this was for God. His statement met with awed silence by those present.

 

The description of the building of Solomon’s Temple in the Haftarah brings out the contrast between what is freely given from the heart and what is coerced. “King Solomon raised a levy throughout Israel for forced labor: the levy numbered thirty thousand men. He sent these to Lebanon in relays, ten thousand a month; they spent one month in Lebanon and two months at home”(1Kgs 5:27-28). In an unnerving way the building smacks something of the tyranny of the building programs of Egypt during the exile there.

 

The gifts necessary for the building are named beginning with gold, silver and copper. It is interesting that the copper is given the name “snake metal” from the Hebrew nachash. It “is a substance that recalls the stubborn impudence of the primordial snake’s denial of God.” (181) Is there a hint there that what we resist in our contributions can through integration into the fabric and structure of the sanctuary be open to transformation, not by exclusion but by inclusion into the whole?

 

Reflection: “The very act of giving flows from, or leads to, the understanding that what we give is part of what we were given. It is a way of giving thanks, an act of gratitude” (Rabbi Sacks). How is gratitude built into our lives? How do we ‘each build a tabernacle in our own hearts for G-d to dwell in’? (Malbim in Plaut, 557)

 

Bibliography: Commentary on Terumah, www.chabad.org.media; Fox, The Five Books of Moses (New York, 1995); Plaut (ed), The Torah, A Modern Commentary (New York, 1981); http://rabbisacks.org/parsha/Terumah – The Gift of Giving (Terumah 5776) 8th Feb 2016.

 

~~~~~~~~~

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Moya Hegarty osu; moyaosu@eircom.net, Sligo, Ireland.

Bat Kol Alum, 2007/2015

[Copyright 2018]

 

…………………………………………..…………………

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Parashah commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. The commentaries, along with all materials published on the Bat Kol website, are copyrighted by the writers, and are made available for personal and group study, and local church purposes. Permission needed for other purposes. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

………………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2018

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

Website: www.batkol.info; Parashah Admin: gill@batkol.info

 

February 5, 2018 Sunday Commentary Post a Comment

Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B (11 February 2018)

Lev. 13:1-2, 44-46; Ps. 32:1-2, 5, 11; 1 Cor. 10:31-11:1; Mark 1:40-45.

Theme: Jesus touched him.

 

Download

 

Jesus has scarcely begun his tour of the villages of Galilee to announce the new Reign of God when he is confronted by the leper in today’s Gospel story. What happens next spells out for the reader one of the defining features of that Reign.

 

‘Leprosy’ in the Bible covers a range of skin diseases and need not be equated with Hansen’s disease. In NT times there was a connection between ‘leprosy’ and poverty. In his study of poverty in Roman Palestine Gildas Hamel quotes the Greek physician Galen (2nd century CE) who says that in times of food shortage, during the winter or in times of famine, country people were reduced to eating twigs of trees and bushes, wild herbs and even grass. As a result they suffered vitamin deficiencies that caused a variety of ulcerating skin diseases.

 

The leper in the story begs Jesus not for a cure but for cleansing, “…you can make me clean”. His greatest trial was not the physical ailment but expulsion from his community [Lv 13:45-56] and ritual uncleanness that would have excluded him from Temple worship.

 

Jesus’ response is often translated “Moved with pity”, sometimes “with compassion”. The Greek splagchnitzomai however is much stronger, and less polite. It is related to the word for intestines or guts, which suggests that Jesus was moved to the depths of his being. Perhaps he had this gut-wrenching feeling that “Things should not be like this!” and out of that deeply felt compassion he acted. Nicholas King in his commentary on Pope Francis’ proclamation of the Year of Mercy in 2015 says Jesus felt ‘gutted’ when the leper came to him.

 

Some ancient manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel have a different Greek word instead of splagchnitzomai. It is a word that means ‘anger’. If this was the original reading, some scholars suggest that it might have been prompted by Jesus’ “very stern warning” in 1:43, or that Jesus was angry because of the apparent doubt of the man that Jesus could cure him. It seems to me much more likely that if Jesus was angry it would have been at the system that further punished a man who was already a victim of poverty and disease. The weight of opinion however is that splagchnitzomai was most probably the original wording.

 

Jesus’ world-view was no doubt shaped by his familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures. Compassion is one of the attributes of God highlighted particularly in the Wisdom literature and the Prophets: Psalm 145:9 for example, “The Lord is good to all and has compassion over all that he has made”, and Isaiah 54:10 “…my steadfast love shall not depart from you…says the Lord, who has compassion on you”. Here the compassion of God towards Israel is an expression of his hesed, steadfast love. In both cases the Hebrew word translated ‘compassion’ is related to rehem = womb, another word that evokes the deeply felt nature of compassion.

 

In the closing verse of the story Jesus, who has touched the leper, is now the one who is marginalized. As Mary Healy observes: “He has healed the man with leprosy at a cost to himself—just as later in the Gospel he will take on Barabbas’ status as a condemned criminal, while Barabbas goes free (15:15)”. Jesus models the self-giving love of a compassionate God.

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1. Have you experienced a deeply moving reaction to some situation of distress? How did it affect you? 2. In what way(s) does your own society marginalize some people? 3. Recount examples of selfless compassion that you know about.

 

Bibliography: Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine (Oakland CA, 1990); Healy, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids MI, 2008); King, ‘From the Beginning’, The Tablet 269, 2130, 10-11 (2015).

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Br Kevin McDonnell cfc, PhD., Australia, Bat Kol Alumnus, 2003, 2004, 2005.
Email address: klmcdonnell@edmundrice.org

[Copyright © 2018]

 

………………………………………………………………….

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Gospel commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Sunday Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

…………………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

1983-2018

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

gill@batkol.info Website: www.batkol.info

Parashah Commentary Post a Comment

Parashat Mishpatim

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashah Mishpatim  Erev Shabbat, 9th of February, 2018

Week of 4th- 10th February

Torah portion:  Ex.21:1-24:18 Haftarah: 2 Kings 11:17-12:1

 

Download

 

God instructed Moses to inform the Israelites, “These are the laws you are to set before them.” (21:1) This is the first body of legislation in the Torah dealing in great detail with the civil, moral and religious laws with the intention of establishing a just society. When Moses had explained all of this to the people they answered in one voice saying, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do!” (24:3) Such a confident and total commitment showed the great love of the people for God and of their trust in his servant, Moses.

 

Slavery which dates back to ancient times had become a way of life. Wherever there are wealthy and powerful while others are poor, the wealthy will hire the poor to do labor and will in effect control them. This servitude can easily evolve into slavery. In the Torah, we find great concern for the treatment of slaves. The question arises as to why the Torah allowed slavery when the basic premise is that all human beings are created in God’s image and therefore need to be treated with dignity and respect. The Torah did not resolve this issue but saw it as an institution that needed healing. Legislated laws were needed to protect the person from abuse and mistreatment. Initially, it probably began as an arrangement to repay stolen items and to provide a home situation for the destitute and the homeless.

 

The Israelites were always reminded not to oppress the stranger for they were once strangers in Egypt. (23:9) According to Nahmanides the stranger is powerless, they are not surrounded by family, friends, neighbors nor a community ready to come to their defense. Therefore, the Torah warns against any ill treatment of the slaves because God has made Himself their protector.” (Sacks 182)

 

There are other issues dealt within this parashah that are part of everyday living and are frequently misunderstood. First of all that of gossip, the spreading of falsehood by one’s speech (23:1). For the sages gossip meant killing three – the teller, the listener and the subject. A midrash prohibits both the listening and the spreading of these rumors because he/she has already participated in the gossip just by listening and receiving it. (Etz Hayim 470)

 

Secondly, “The penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye,” (21:24) This expression of course cannot be taken literally. Rather it was considered as a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges. The original meaning was that one paid to the injured party the value of that eye in monetary compensation. In this graphic manner it was stressed that the punishment must fit the crime and circumstances ensuring that the punishment was not either too lenient or too harsh.

 

Thirdly, the whole understanding of keeping kosher (meaning suitable, proper, pure) stems from the statement which prohibits preparing, serving or eating meat and dairy products together. (23:19) The Torah does not specify a reason for these laws but their observance shows the person’s belief and obedience to God.

 

Fourthly, that of offering a blessing over food before eating. The Israelites were called to be a holy people (19:6) and thus prayer was an integral part of everyday life. When a blessing was said, it served as a reminder of God’s presence and their relationship with God. The sages condemned a person who while enjoying the goods of God’s creation yet failed to acknowledge and thank God. Such a person was seen as a thief. (Etz Hayim 475)

 

For Reflection and Discussion: [1.] If in our daily practices there is no conscious intention, what value is there in doing them? [2.] God’s command to Abraham to be a blessing seems to conclude that a conscious and intentional effort is necessary.

 

Bibliography: Jonathan Sacks, Covenant & Conversation, (London, 2010), Etz Hayim, Torah and Commentary (New York, 2001);

 

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Rita Kammermayer, nds, BA, B.Ed, Masters of Pastoral Studies, Jerusalem, Bat Kol alumni 2001

ritakammermayer@netscape.net

[Copyright © 2018]

 

……………………………………………………….

PLEASE NOTE: The weekly Parashah commentaries represent the research and creative thought of their authors, and are meant to stimulate deeper thinking about the meaning of the Scriptures. While they draw upon the study methods and sources employed by the Bat Kol Institute, the views and conclusions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of Bat Kol. The commentaries, along with all materials published on the Bat Kol website, are copyrighted by the writers, and are made available for personal and group study, and local church purposes. Permission needed for other purposes. Questions, comments and feedback are always welcome.

………………………………………………………

 

Bat Kol Institute for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem

~~1983-2018~~

“Christians Studying the Bible within its Jewish milieu, using Jewish Sources.”

Website: www.batkol.info; Parashat Admin: gill@batkol.info