news

The Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time

The Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time (19 November 2017)

Prov 31:10-13,19-20,30-31; Ps 128; 1 Thess 5:1-6; Mt 25:14-30

Theme: Blessed are those who fear the Lord

 

Download

 

The woman whose praises are sung this Sunday is so full of energy.  In the passage as a whole (Prov 31:10-31) we learn she not only makes garments but sells them, she gets up while it is still dark “and provides food for her household and tasks for her servant-girls,” she buys a field, she plants a vineyard, she gives to the poor.  Her strong arms and skillful hands are always at work.  This is someone whose fear of the Lord is expressed by active engagement in the life of her family and her community.

 

Such a life of active service is held up for our imitation by Matthew, not only in the parable of the talents but in the two preceding parables, first of the faithful and unfaithful slave and then of the ten bridesmaids (Mt 24:45-25:13).  These three parables are followed by an account of the judgment of the nations, at which we will be rewarded or punished according to whether we have served others or have not.  In serving others we serve Jesus, who is our master.  As our master he will judge how well, or poorly, we have served him.

 

Michael Crosby writes: “The concept of ‘doing’—in contrast to ‘saying’ –and ‘doing good’ in contrast to ‘doing evil’ or nothing at all in the face of injustice and evil is central to Matthew.” (Crosby, 37)   One image for the contrast of doing good to doing evil/doing nothing is the image of light as opposed to darkness, which appears in all three of this Sunday’s passages. We are told of the woman in Proverbs that “her lamp does not go out at night (31:18). Paul tells us that we are “children of the light” so we should not “sleep as the rest do but…stay alert and sober.”  Paul’s words echo Matthew: “Blessed is the slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives.” (Mt 24:46) The servant who buries his master’s coins in the ground is condemned to be thrown “into the darkness.”

 

The parables of the bridesmaids and the talents can make us uncomfortable.  Couldn’t the wise bridesmaids have given some oil to the foolish ones? (Even though oil sufficient for five lamps would not have provided light for very long when distributed among ten lamps.)   The third servant may not have made his master any money, but he has not lost him any money either; burying coins for safe-keeping was normal practice.  (The fact that it was normal practice may explain why the master entrusts his servants with money rather than other forms of wealth such as olive groves or flocks of sheep. The parable requires property than can safely be hidden in the ground.)

 

But these parables were not written to instruct us in how we should treat our colleagues – who has not at some point either borrowed or lent ‘oil’? – or deal with workers who try to get by with doing as little as possible – yes, the man was timid and lazy but being thrown into outer darkness seems excessive.  We must remember that the message of the parables is how we are to serve Jesus—the bridegroom and the master.  If he wants ten lamps burning or his property to thrive that’s what he should have. After all, how hard would it have been to bring a flask of oil in case the bridegroom was late or to take the coins to the bank?

 

Bibliography:  Crosby, Michael H., “Matthew’s Gospel: The Disciples’ Call to Justice,” in The New Testament-Introducing the Way of Discipleship, ed. Wes Howard-Brook and Sharon H. Ringe (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 16-39

 

For Reflection and Discussion: 1. What have I been given—e.g., good health, education, money—that I have hidden in the ground rather than use it to serve? 2.  How could I dig up my ‘talent’ and put it to use?

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Anne Morton, BA, MA, MA (Theology); Bat Kol Alumna 2010
Email address: anmorton@mymts.net

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………………

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

1983-2017

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

gill@batkol.info

 

Parashat Toledot

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashat  Toledot–  Erev Shabbat   17th of November 2017

Week of 12th-18th of November 2017

Torah portion:   Genesis 25:19-28:9   Haftarah: Malachi 1:1-2:7

 

Download

 

Parashat Toledot is the sixth parashah into the Torah as we begin the new cycle of readings.  The word, “Toledot,” means “generations.”   It contains the story of the lineage of Isaac and Rebekah with them serving as a link between Abraham and Jacob, who would later become the father of the Twelve Tribes which is the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and Sarah.  The most prominent content of the parashah is the story of the twins, Esau and Jacob. 

 

Since Jacob will later enjoy a good number of chapters and verses, I would like to expound on Esau and his characterization in the parashah.  Esau, as we already know, came out first from the womb of Rebekah.  He was described as reddish and hairy, thus, the origin of his name. He was also called “Edom” associating him with the red stew which he exchanged with his birthright. [Gen. 25:30] Esau and Jacob were fathers of two nations, Edom and Israel.  So, we might also regard the story as an etiology of the enmity of Israel and Edom.  This enmity is expressed in Malachi 1:2-5 where God showed preference to Israel over Edom.  Edom, the descendants of Esau, is an archenemy of Israel, the descendants of Jacob.  It is indeed a wonder why this turned out to be so considering that there were no violence that happened between the twins when they met each other later.  They even buried their father Isaac together. [Gen. 35:29]  Esau’s lineage was even recounted in Gen. 36:1-40! 

 

Now, let’s deal closely with Esau, the character in the parashah.  He was described as an adult as “a skillful hunter, man of the field” in contrast with Jacob who was a “quiet man, living in tents.” [Gen. 25:27 NRSV]  In the description alone, one can surmise the raw, masculine and wild energy of Esau.  One is not surprised with his action of exchanging his birthright with a bowl of stew and some bread.  The narrator comments, “Thus Esau despised his birthright.” [Gen. 25:34]  The next time we hear again of Esau was when he took as wives two Hittite women which caused life to be bitter for Isaac and Rebekah.  If he was to be the clan leader, he was supposed to be a bit choosy regarding the mothers of his children.  We are reminded of the concern of Abraham in finding a wife for Isaac; that she should not be from Canaan.    We note that Esau realized his mistakes after he witnessed Isaac blessing and instructing Jacob when he was about to leave for Paddan-aram. [Gen. 28:6] He realized that Isaac “looked with disfavor at the daughters of Canaan,” so, Esau then went to take as his wife the daughter of Ishmael, Mahalath.

 

 Generally, there was really no sympathy for Esau in the parashah.  The most gut-wrenching scene was when he begged his father for blessings, “Have you only one blessing, father?”  Esau turned out to be the unfavored child due to his characterization in the parashah.  One is repulsed by him immediately. 

 

Although there was no explicit condemnation of what Jacob did, the succeeding events in his life seem to indicate that he reaped what he had sown beginning with enmity with his twin, Esau.  He was deceived by his uncle by giving him Leah instead of Rachel and he was also deceived by his sons regarding Joseph. [Plaut, 182]        

 

The characterization of Esau is similar to how we, at times, demonize the ones we consider as ‘the other.’  The story that we carry in our minds color our perception of others.  A non-dualistic thinking leads us to respect the opposites without judgment but embracing both with the eyes of compassion.

 

Reflection and Discussion:   In what ways can we cultivate compassion in our hearts that would make us capable of embracing the opposites?

 

Bibliography:  Plaut, The Torah, Modern Commentary (UAHC New York 1981) 

 

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

 

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Sr. Petite Lao, RNDM, Bat Kol alum 2010, 2014

petitelao@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………..…………

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

1983-2017

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

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

32nd Sunday of Ordinary Time

32nd Sunday of Ordinary Time (12 November 2017)

Lectionary readings:  Wis. 6:12-16; Psalm 63; 1 Thes 5:1-6; Matthew 25:1-13

 Theme: Scarcity and Abundance

 

Download

 

In Hebrew, a parable is called mashal.  Two parables are found in the Old Testament which are the Parable of the Bramble [Judges 9.8-15] and the parable that Nathan spoke to David after the Bathsheba affair  [2Sam 12.1-7].  It is interesting to note that through the parable, David, king of Israel and also its judge, indicted himself.  Such could be the effect of parables.  Unlike other stories, parables do not have a clean finish.  The hearers are left to interpret and make sense of the parable. 

 

Usually, the most common interpretation of the Gospel parables is to treat it as an allegory.  Levine suggests, however, to  recover the “punch” of the parables, to recover its provocation.  To do so would require from a person a deep soul-searching in order to see the truth of the matter inside of herself/himself.           The parable in today’s gospel is usually taken as an allegory for Christians to be ready and diligently wait for the bridegroom who is Jesus.  Matthew already has given an interpretation at the end of the parable.  However, in this commentary, I wish to try the hermeneutics of parables that Levine was proposing in her book, “Short Stories by Jesus.”

 

In the parable, the ten bridesmaids or virgins were already divided into those who were “foolish” or “wise.”  Those who were regarded as wise were those who have taken an extra flask of oil along with their lamps.  I will stop here for a minute and consider this.  Since childhood, we have been trained to always “save for the rainy day.”  I would certainly associate myself with the wise due to this socialization. 

 

 When asked by the “foolish” virgins for some oil, the “sensible” ones responded, “No!  There will not be enough for us…”  How did they know there will be not be enough?  Besides, the arrival of the bridegroom has already been announced.  Instead of sharing the oil, they advised the five to go and buy some oil from the dealers.  Shortly after the “foolish” ones have left, the bridegroom came.  If the “wise” ones shared, there would have been enough, then! For a perceived scarcity, is keeping one’s oil justifiable?  But, in our world today, the mindset of scarcity is what encourages accumulation of wealth and hoarding regardless of the consequences for our earth.  Furthermore, our economic system is based on scarcity.  Goods are more valuable if they are perceived to be scarce. This is one of our unquestioned assumptions. [O’Murchu, 38]

 

I worked with the Dulangan Manobo, an indigenous tribe, for many years.  Many of them do not have the concept of saving for the rainy day.  But their sense of generosity is immense. Their sense of community is very strong.  They would share even the last morsel of rice.  I have not tried to share this parable with them but I would say that if they heard this parable, they would really be mortified that some would be excluded from a celebration rather than be assisted to be able to enjoy and celebrate together.

 

Is this parable, heard in our context today, an indictment of our accumulation and hoarding at the expense of our earth and of the poor?  Is it asking us to reconsider what kind of mindset we need at this time to bring about the reign of God?  Are we being invited by the parable to look at our assumptions?  If we put on the mindset of abundance, what will our world look like? 

 

For Reflection and Discussion: How can we recover the punch of the other parables of Jesus?  In what ways are our thoughts and attitudes influenced by the economics of scarcity?

 

Bibliography: Levine, Short Stories by Jesus:  The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (New York, 2014); O’Murchu, God in the Midst of Change: Wisdom for Confusing Times (Quezon City, 2012)

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Sr. Petite Lao, RNDM, Bat Kol Alumna 2010, 2014

Senator Ninoy Aquino (Kulaman), Mindanao, Philippines
Email address: petitelao@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……….……………………………………………………

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

1983-2017

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

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

 

Parashat Chayei Sarah

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashat Chayei Sarah – Erev Shabbat 10th November 2017

Week of 5-11 November

Torah portion: Gen 23:1- 25:18                  Haftarah: I Kings 1:1-31

 

Download

 

Beginning in Parashah Lech L’cha, God promised Abraham a land and the blessing of offspring that would become a great nation (Gen 12:1-3, 17:1-8). As we pick up Abraham’s story in Chayei Sarah, Abraham is in the land, but as a resident alien (Gen 23:3). And while he has fathered many children, Isaac, the intended heir and next-generation patriarch, is unmarried and surrounded only by Canaanite women. The prospect of God’s promises being fully actualized appear challenged. And yet, in Chayei Sarah we read two important and detailed narratives which address the very nature of God’s promises to Abraham – the land and his offspring.

 

The opening words of Chayei Sarah – the life of Sarah – actually tell of Sarah’s death. Her life of 127 years was ideal (120 years) and sacred or perfect (7 years) (Gen 23:1). Although Sarah often remained in the background of the narratives about Abraham, this parashah’s initial focus on her proper burial is an important next step in acquiring God’s promised land. Abraham desires not to bury his wife alongside the road nor rely on a foreigner’s gift offer of a cave, but rather in a proper burial cave on land he owns. As a foreigner, however, he must gain permission from the Hittites to legally purchase such a site. After negotiation befitting of the culture and setting, Abraham is given the right to purchase a field and its entire contents including the trees and burial cave. While Abraham had to negotiate the right to purchase, he did not haggle on the asking price, as exorbitant as it was. The demanded price of 400 shekels of silver seems quite high, particularly when compared with Jeremiah’s later purchase of land for just 17 shekels (Jer 32:9). And yet he paid the demanded price without question, perhaps remembering again the cost of faithfulness to God. God’s promises can be trusted and will come about, but one cannot overlook God’s expectation of our active involvement in obedience and trust. As Sarah is laid to rest in the cave of the field of Machpelah facing Mamre (Hebron), Abraham is the full and legal owner of one piece of the promised land.

 

 In the very next chapter, Abraham turns his attention to finding a wife for he and Sarah’s son Isaac (Gen 24:1-9). While Isaac lives in the promised land, he is to remain set apart from the Canaanites who reside in the land and not marry one of their daughters. Set in a patriarchal, ancient near east society, the “getting” of a wife from Abraham’s birthplace and people is surprising on many accounts. Rebekah introduces herself (Gen 24:24), gives final consent to the marriage before leaving her homeland (Gen 24:58), and is the focus of the narration as Rebekah and Isaac meet (Gen 24:63). Just as Abraham eagerly responded to the three visitors (Gen 18:6-7), so too does Rebekah to Abraham’s senior servant; just as Abraham once obeyed God’s word to “go,” Rebekah agrees, “I will go”; just as Abraham left his homeland to go to a place he would be shown, Rebekah also leaves for that unknown land. In Abraham’s final days of life, God’s promises to make a great nation are surprisingly secured in Rebekah, the next generation’s Abraham-figure. God’s promises and faithfulness continues as the story comes not only full-circle, but as an expanding spiral that moves to the next generation.

 

For Reflection and Discussion:1.What promises has God given you, either personally or corporately? As you study Abraham’s faithfulness and the ways it “cost” him (binding of Isaac, high purchase price of the burial land), how does that impact your thoughts about God’s promises to you? What “costs” have you paid? 2.Discuss the suggestion that the Genesis narrative presents Rebekah as an Abraham-figure. How does that impact your understanding and thinking about her? What additional correlations between Rebekah and Abraham can you identify in the text? How might a female matriarch have challenged the cultures at the time? 3.One additional interesting aspect of this parashah is Genesis 25:1-2. Some Rabbinic commentaries suggest that Abraham’s new wife Keturah was actually a renewed, repentant Hagar. If indeed Keturah was Hagar, consider the implications of renewal, redemption, and forgiveness present in this passage, particularly as she moves from a maid servant to wife!

 

Bibliography: Berlin & Bretler, The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, Oxford University Press); Eskenazi, The Torah: A Women’s Commentary (New York, URJ Press); Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York, Union of American Hebrew Congregations).

 

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

Rev. Kristen B Marble, MDiv, MEd, Bat Kol Alumni 2013

Senior Pastor, West Morris Street Free Methodist Church, Indianapolis IN
Email address: kristen@kristenmarble.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……..……………………………………………..…

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

1983-2017

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

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

 

MAY THE LORD BLESS YOU FROM ZION – November Hebrew Song

 

MAY THE LORD BLESS YOU FROM ZION

יְבָרֶכְךָ ה’ מִצִּיוֹן וּרְאֵה בּטוּב יְרוּשָלַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶיךָ.

 וּרְאֵה בָנִים לְבָנֶיךָ שָלוֹם עַל יִשְרָאֵל.               

תְּהִלִים, קכח ה-ו

 

Yevare’checha hashem mi’tziyon ur’e betuv yerushalayim,

Yevare’checha hashem mi’tziyon, kol yemey ,yemey chayecha.

Ur’e vanim le-vanecha, shalom al yisra’el (X2)

 

May the Lord bless you from Zion;

May you share the prosperity of Jerusalem

All the days of your life, and live to see your children’s children.

May all be well with Israel.  Psalms 128, 5-6

 

This song is very popular in Israel. People sing it in weddings and in other occasions to express happiness. The song is comprised of these two verses from Psalms, without the  words  :”all the days of your life”. (in Hebrew: כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶיךָ.).

The verses are a blessing and explain the idea that if you are lucky to see the children of your children (your grand-children), then there will be peace on Israel, and on the rest of the world.

Sarah Israeli

 


The Thirty First Sunday of the Year

The Thirty First Sunday of the Year (5th November 2017)

Malachi 1:14b–2:2b, 8–10; Psalm 131; 1 Thessalonians 2:7b–9, 13; Matthew 23:1-12

Family disputes

Download

 

Some of the worst disputes take place within families or between branches of the same religious family.  The Gospel text for use in today’s liturgy is an example.  It portrays Jesus in conflict with the Pharisees, a religious movement active in the land of Israel between 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE (Harrington, 56).  It is thought that the Pharisees were the precursors of rabbinic Judaism and the group Jesus had most in common with (Levine, 527).  The seemingly hard words coming from the mouth of Jesus may reflect the ways rival groups debated with one another in the first century and competed with one another in the late first century after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.  The second group spoken of in this Gospel passage, the Scribes were people trained in the knowledge and interpretation of the Law.

 

In this chapter of Matthew, the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees is recognized using the image of their occupying the ‘’chair of Moses”, the person through whom God gave the Law to the people of Israel. The chair of Moses was also the name given to the special seat in ancient synagogues reserved for the most distinguished of the elders (Lachs, 366).  Jesus tells his listeners to do and observe what the Scribes and Pharisees tell them but not to follow their example.   His instruction is based on Deuteronomy 17:10, “Carry out exactly the decision announced to you…….diligently observing everything they instruct you”, a verse which became the biblical basis for rabbinic authority replacing that of the priests (Lachs, 366).  It seems, however, that there were some Scribes and Pharisees who instructed people what to do but who failed to carry out the instructions themselves. 

 

 Matthew’s Gospel also indicates that the behavior of some of these two groups of people was not consonant with the protocol of the day.  Phylacteries (the straps which attached the boxes worn by Jewish men to the forearm and to the forehead) were to be of a prescribed length. The tzitzit (fringes on the tephillin worn at prayer) were also required to be of a certain length. (Lachs, 366, 367)  There was protocol regarding seating at banquets and in the synagogue and regarding greetings.  If any of these protocols were ignored or if they were fulfilled with ostentation subsequent criticism was justified.  Lachs points out that there are many statements in the Mishnah decrying self-aggrandizement (366). 

 

 Finally, Matthew has Jesus tell his disciples that they must not be called “Rabbi”.  Lach discusses whether this teaching is anachronistic as the title “Rabbi” was not used until after the destruction of the Temple (367)

 

Reflection questions:  1.How would you counter those who assert that Matthew identified the Scribes and Pharisees as Jesus’ enemies?  2. Can you name any ways followers of Jesus are guilty of self-aggrandizement today?

 

Bibliography: Daniel Harrington, The Synoptic Gospels Set Free, (Paulist Press, 2009), Samuel Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, (Ktav, 1987), Amy Jill Levine (Ed), The Jewish Annotated New Testament, (Oxford, 2011)

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Clare Jardine nds, BD, MA (Jewish Studies), Rome, Italy

clare@notredamedesion.org

 

              [Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………

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

1983-2017

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

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

Parashat Vayera

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashat Vayera – Erev Shabbat 3rd  November 2017

Week of 29 October- 4 November 2017

Torah portion: Genesis 18:1-22:24 Haftarah: 2 Kings 4:1-37

Download

 

Central to all these eight stories related in this parashah is Vayera ‘he (the Lord) appeared’. Fox names the various vignettes as follows: 1) Visit and Promise (18:1-15); 2) The Great Intercession (18:16-33); 3) The end of Sedom and Amora (c. 19); 4) The Wife – II (c.20); 5) Yitzhak is born (21:1-8); 6) Yishmael banished (21:9-21); 7) Treaty (21:22-34); and 8) The Great Test (c. 22).

 

The first story describes the Lord appearing to Abraham at the hottest time of the day. The Lord is firstly, ‘three men’ to whom Abraham offers immediate hospitality. The ‘three men’ bring a message that Sarah will have a child. The ‘three men’ then become ‘I’ and the Lord who works wonders – Sarah in her old age will have a son.

 

‘The Great Intercession’ describes ‘the men’ gazing down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Then ‘the Lord’ tries to decide whether to share the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham, whom the Lord has chosen. The Lord then shares with Abraham concerning the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah. The men turn away and go to Sodom while Abraham is left standing before the Lord. Then follows the wonderful interchange of dialogue between Abraham and the Lord where Abraham pleads for the cities. Sadly, there are not ten just men and the Lord departs and Abraham returns to his place.

 

This section has echoes of God hearing the outcries of the Israelites in Egypt and the trusting open relationship between the Lord and Moses throughout Exodus to Deuteronomy. I have sometimes thought that the Lord and Moses are like a married couple discussing how they will deal with their children (Nm 14: 10b-20). ‘The End of Sedom and Amora’ presents us with ‘two divine emissaries’. Lot offers them hospitality. They save Lot from the men of the city and blind them with lighting. The men reveal to Lot that the Lord is about to destroy the cities and that he and his family must escape. The men had to take Lot and his family by the hands to get them out of the city: their home with all their acquired possessions which Lot’s wife had to look back at with longing. When Lot and his two daughters were safely in Zoar, Sodom and Gomorrah were totally destroyed for their sinfulness. The Lord had saved Abraham and his family and Lot and his daughters from disaster.

 

Chapter 20 shows how God’s intervention in a dream prevents Abimelech from taking Sarah to be his wife. Abraham gains land and possessions from Abimelech – God’s plans will not be thwarted. ‘Isaac is born’ narrates the long-awaited son of promise. Sarah says: God has brought me to laughter; all who hear will laugh at me (21:6). Now Abraham has two sons whom he loves but he has to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Early the next morning (21:14) Abraham sends Hagar and their son away. In the wilderness Hagar meets God who consoles her and her son and promises that her son will be a great nation. The ‘Treaty’ is only of interest in this context because of what Abimelech and Pichol say to Abraham: God is with you in all you do (21:22b).

 

Finally we come to the ‘Great Test’ which alone has been the subject of many commentaries and sermons. Here we see how in yet another experience of impending loss, God is present and guiding along the way: On the mount of the Lord, God will be seen (22:14). It is only when we climb the mountain of the Lord in faith and trust, in whatever circumstance and no matter how painful, that we shall ‘see’ the Lord and know the Lord’s will. The Lord’s messenger reveals to Abraham the Lord’s continued guidance of and graciousness towards Abraham’s descendants. The last five verses of this Parashah give the descendants of Abraham’s brother, Nahor and his wife, Milcah from whom Rebecca was born. So God has provided for the next generation in a wife for Isaac. Immanuel, God is with us (Is 7:14; Mt 1:23).

 

Reflection: Take note of the Lord God’s constant and varied appearances in your life. Praise, thank our God!

 

Bibliography: Eskenazi, T. C. Weiss, A.L.  A Women’s Commentary (New York: 2008); Fox, Everett. The Five Books of Moses (New York: 1997); African Bible (Nairobi: 2004).

 

This week’s teaching commentary is by

Bernadette Chellew, Durban, South Africa    

Bat Kol alum 2008

Email: btrnchellew@gmail.com

 [Copyright © 2017]

 

………………………………………………………..

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

1983-2017

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

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

 

THE 30th SUNDAY OF THE YEAR

REFLECTIONS ON THE READINGS FOR

THE 30th SUNDAY OF THE YEAR, 29th OCTOBER, 2017, CYCLE A

Exodus 22:20-26; Psalm 18; 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10; Matthew 22:34-40

 

Download

 

Today our readings focus on the most important aspect of what it is to be fully human:  love of God and love of neighbour, making a fitting prelude to the coming celebrations of All Saints and All souls, which remember and honour those who truly loved God and neighbour.  In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus answers the scribe’s question by saying that “the whole law and the prophets” depend on the commands to love God “with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “your neighbour as yourself”.  Jesus, Jewish teacher that he is, is quoting here from Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18.  He’s not unique in summarizing God’s law by these two central commands: his contemporary, the great rabbi Hillel, when challenged by a prospective convert to recite the whole Torah standing on one foot, replied, “What you hate for yourself, do not do to your neighbour.  This is the whole law.  The rest is commentary.” 

 

Our reading from Exodus speaks of how placing themselves in the situation of others should determine the Israelites’ actions:  “You must not molest the stranger or oppress him, for you lived as strangers in the land of Egypt.”  Significantly, the Hebrew word for “stranger”  here is “ger” , which is the term applied to the resident non-Israelite who could no longer count on the protection of his former tribe or community.  The “ger”, mentioned 33 times in the Torah, was to be given every consideration.  Again and again, the Israelites were reminded that they themselves had been strangers in Egypt. 

 

Those whom Paul is addressing in his Letter to the Thessalonians, written less than twenty years after the death of Jesus, were probably all gentiles, coming from the poor, non-elite of their society.  Their new faith in Christ meant that they had to abandon their traditional gods in favour of the one God, but that would have set them at odds against the rest of the society in which they lived, where kinship, politics, economics and religion were inextricably interrelated.  This meant that they would have been ostracized, even stoned in the streets: “…in spite of the great opposition all round you ….you broke with idolatry when you were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God”. Paul encourages them to persevere and discover mutual strength in their new identity, at the same time calling them to treat outsiders well: “May the Lord be generous in increasing your love and make you love one another and the whole human race …” (1 Thess 3:12).

 

In the Bible, love of God is often expressed as gratitude and remembrance for what God has done rather than what we do for God.  That is clearly the essence of Psalm 18, which begins, almost impetuously, with the words, “I love you, Lord, my strength”.  The form of the Hebrew verb used for “love” – “raham”, is an Aramaic usage that appears only here in the Hebrew Bible.  It is, strikingly, better translated as “I am impassioned of you, Lord, my strength!”  The passionate love of God – and neighbour – is key to our readings today and is our privileged calling.

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Sr Margaret Shepherd, NDS, London, UK

margaretashepherd@gmail.com

[Copyright © 2017]

 

……………………………………………………………

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

1983-2017

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

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

Parashat Lekh Lekha

Shabbat Table Talk

Parashat Lekh Lekha, Erev Shabbat 27 October 2015

Week of 22-28 October

Torah portion: Gen. 12:1–17:27         Haftarah: Isa. 40:27–41:16

 

Download

 

YHWH’s communication with Abraham, as it is presented in the biblical text, begins with two words, lekh-lekha (12:1), which are found in this combination only once more in the shared Scriptures. The second occurrence is found in Genesis 22:2, when God (elohim) gives Abraham the instruction to “go” to the land of Moriah, which we will explore in next week’s commentary. These two words mark both the beginning and the conclusion of YHWH’s biblical conversation with Abraham, as well as the limits of his physical journey. The phrase is a combination of lekh, the qal imperative masculine singular form of the verb hlk (“to walk, go”), the preposition le (“to”) and the masculine singular pronominal suffix kha (“you”). Whilst this particular construction allows for the translation, “go to yourself,” there seems to be relatively little variation in English translations of the phrase, most likely due the difficulties inherent in rendering the phrase adequately. Even though most translations of the phrase refrain from rendering lekh-lekha literally, Jewish scholarship and commentary, has focused considerable attention on the interpretive possibilities offered by this peculiar grammatical construction.

 

Aviva Gotlieb Zornberg (135) commences her discussion of the phrase lekh-lekha in a particularly Jewish manner, with a question: “What is the force of lekha?” In line with common Jewish practice she looks for answers in the work of the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, who translates the term as: “for your benefit and for your good.” According to Rashi, the act of going will in and of itself be advantageous: Abraham will become the ancestor of a great nation; he will be blessed, which is traditionally linked with prosperity in the Jewish interpretive tradition, and his name will become great. Rashi also notes, contradistinctively, that travel is actually detrimental to “one’s family life” (and presumably the potential for reproduction), “one’s financial standing” and even one’s “renown” (name or reputation) (Ibid. 138). However, it is only by leaving Haran and travelling to an as yet unseen place, thus risking the inherent consequences of travel (above), that Abraham will receive the benefits hinted at by Rashi, which will in turn bring blessing to his descendants, those who bless him and, ultimately, all the families of the earth.

 

Understanding that there is always more than one possible interpretation of any biblical text, other Jewish commentators suggest that Abraham is being called to “leave behind those things that make [him] someone else” (Sacks, 79) in order to find his “authentic self” (Lieber 2001, 70). Further, Plaut (112) notes, “The aloneness of Abraham foreshadows that of all religious seekers and, above all, that of the people of Israel in their historic solitude.”

 

For Reflection and Discussion:  The journey that Abraham is called to take is set into motion with the deceptively simple command from YHWH to go: with yourself, to yourself and by yourself. Have you ever experienced a divine call to go? What did it mean for you?

 

Bibliography: Lieber, Etz Hayim (The Jewish Publication Society, 2001); Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary, Revised Edition (Union of Hebrew Congregations, 2006); Sacks, Genesis: Covenant and Conversation (Koren Publishers, 2009); Walsh, Himig Ugnayan Vol XV (AR 2014-2015) 69-91; Zornberg, The Murmuring Deep: Reflections on the Biblical Unconscious (Schocken Books, 2009).

 

This week’s teaching commentary was prepared by

 Mark David Walsh, B.A., B.Theol. Grad. Dip. R.E., M.R.E., Australia

Bat Kol alum ‘01, ‘02, ’04, ‘13

(Email: markdavidwalsh@gmail.com)

 [Copyright © 2017]

 

……………..…………………………………………………

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

1983-2017

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

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

THE 29th SUNDAY OF THE YEAR

The Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time (22 October 2017)

Is 45:1,4-6; Ps 96; 1Thes 1:1-10; Mt 22:15-21

  Theme: Who is the King of Your Heart?

 

Download

 

Repeatedly in Israel’s history, the nation finds itself in exile. And repeatedly, G-d has proven to be Israel’s faithful LORD as he uses different nations and their kings to enact his salvation for his people and judge those nations who have overstepped their power. In our readings today, the authors of Isaiah 45 and Psalm 96, reiterate G-d’s sovereignty over the nations and not just Israel. G-d uses the stage of international politics to show that the kings are but his servants. He has given them limited authority as his instruments of justice and salvation for both his chosen nation and goyim or the nations around them. G-d was the True Suzerain over the nations and their kings were only his vassals, blessed when they extend G-d’s justice and goodness to the people and judged when they abuse their power over their constituents. The trial speeches against the nations in Isaiah showed that Babylonian diviners didn’t expect the rise of Cyrus thus rendering their gods speechless and insignificant compared to the G-d of Israel.

 

 In the turning point of Israel’s history, G-d uses Cyrus king of Persia to bring back his people from their long exile in Babylon to rebuild the walls and the Holy City in Jerusalem. The decree by Cyrus the Great that sent the exiles back to Israel seemed to be the liberation the people had long anticipated. Although we see in the Gospel of Matthew that Israel was again captive to another Superpower, Rome, and it’s cruel Caesar, Herod. The fate and faith of Israel was once again put to the test. Although Caesar’s rule had dawned the age of roads and infrastructure that eased commerce and travel, his reign had also persecuted those who refused to worship him as the divine son, and emissary of the gods. Caesar’s Pax Romana and the cruelty by which he ushered in this ‘peace’ was infamously historical.

 

 Taxes and tributes were the main means by which Caesar imposed his oppression on the foreigners in the land. And this was not a welcome policy for the Israelites, many of whom were at the brink of poverty and living as aliens in their own land. In the Gospel reading, Jesus teaches an implicit lesson when he was questioned for his loyalty. “As a teacher of the Law, was it against the Torah to pay taxes to Caesar?” In true Rabbinic form, Jesus answers through a rhetorical reply, “Who’s image is on that coin?” It does not take a genius to know that the face is indeed Caesar’s. And thus, Jesus says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to G-d what is G-d’s.” This seemed to be the end of the conversation. But if one seeks further, one might ask, “If the coin is Caesar’s as it has his image on it, what then belongs to G-d?” The right question in reply is, “Who’s image is on you?”

 

Jesus reminds us, as in Israel’s history, G-d is faithful to his promises. And in spite the many difficult circumstances, he remains King of the nations and thus he longs to remain King of our hearts.

 

For Reflection and Discussion: Was there a very difficult time in your life that made you question G-d’s sovereignty in your life? What does the concept of G-d’s kingship tell us about our circumstances?

 

Bibliography: Boyles, Craig. The Major Prophets in the FaithLife Study Bible. (Washington:2016); Frymer-Kensy, Tikva. The Image: Religious Anthropology in Judaism and Christianity in Christianity in Jewish Terms, (Colorado:2000); Lamerson, Samuel. The Graeco-Roman Background of the New Testament in the FaithLife Study Bible. (Washington : 2016).

 

This week’s Sunday Gospel Commentary was prepared by

Jojee Martinez, MDiv Biblical Studies, Philippines

Bat Kol Alumni July 2016
Email address: jojeemartinez@gmail.com

 

[Copyright © 2017 ]

 

……………….………………………………………………

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

1983-2017

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

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