The full text of the lessons can be found here. The links next to the lesson go to the full text with numbers in the Oremus
Bible Browser.
Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7 NRSV
text
“The LORD God took the man and put him in
the Garden of
Rules are made to be broken, right? It seems as if this lesson is showing us that though the words may not have been phrased that way, that idea has been around for a very long time. It also seems that here in the very beginning of all things, God is already not making things quite as clear as we would like. “The man” is told not to eat from that one tree, “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” Talk about telegraphing the story, everyone knows from the first time they see those words that he is going to eat the fruit. Just when, and what rationale he will use when he is caught, are still waiting.
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’” (vs. 3:1-3)
And here is where snakes begin to get a bad name, and it doesn’t do a lot for the image of women either. God tells the man, who apparently tells the woman; the serpent then sees that the woman is an easier touch so he goes to her first. I guess that second-hand knowledge of the warning doesn’t hold as much as direct knowledge.
As Brian Stoffregen wrote in his exegetical notes on the Gospel for this day, temptation is not coercion, and the one who tempts does not have the power to make the one who is being tempted do anything. Temptation amounts to trying to convince someone that a thing is good for them, what they want, what they need, enough for the person to change his or her mind from following the good to accepting the evil, or at least the bad. Too often the thing which is being used for the temptation, in this case that tree in the center of the garden which obviously was bearing fruit, is something that is desired on one level already. There is something that is preventing action on it (a warning that if the fruit is eaten, death will be the result), and if that can be removed (“God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” vs.3:5) then the action can be taken without fear.
Psalm 32 NRSV
text
“Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Happy are those to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no
deceit.
While I kept silence, my body wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the
heat of summer. Selah
Then I acknowledged my sin to you,
and I did not hide my iniquity;
I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’,
and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah
” (vs. 1-5)
This psalm reads like a primer for prayer, at least for those of us who have
something to be forgiven. It would seem
to me that rare is the sinner who went straightaway to ask forgiveness, whether
through a priest or pastor or directly, without at least dithering along the
way. And it always seems to get worse,
as the psalmist says “While I kept silence, my body wasted away”.
Romans 5:12-19 NRSV
text
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came
through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— sin was indeed
in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet
death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were
not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.”
(vs. 12-14)
This lesson really needs to be read following the Gospel lesson for the
day. I have always had a problem with
the order of O.T, Psalm, Epistle, Gospel. Liturgically they may seem to work, but there is that location of the
epistle lesson that often throws a monkey wrench into the works. This week is one when the Gospel lesson
should be read, followed by the epistle, as Romans and this part especially is
a commentary on the story in the Gospel. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense to read the explanation first,
then the story, though I know people would scream, “it has always been that
way.”
Matthew 4:1-11 NRSV
text
“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the
devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was
famished. The tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command
these stones to become loaves of bread.’ But he answered, ‘It is written,
“One does not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the
mouth of God.” ’”(vs. 1-4)
Jesus goes on a “vision quest”, at least I think it would qualify as that. Off into the wilds, no food for forty days
and nights, “and afterwards he was famished.” Surprised? And then, “The tempter
came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, . .’ Could there have been anything more
tempting? I believe the temptation was
not the idea of commanding stones to become bread, or of commanding angels to
keep him from harm, or even of submitting to the devil. Rather, the temptation was one of trying to
prove that he was the Son of God for personal gain, health, etc. Jesus had no doubt that he was the Son of
God, and had he succumbed to these temptations it might have made just that
little crack in his certainty, that little weakness in his self, that made it
impossible for him to continue in the way he knew he had to go.
From Chris Haslam’s clippings for this Sunday:
“Note that Mark tells of this event in only two verses: "... the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him". He probably tells what the disciples knew of this event: they knew that Jesus had been tempted but they did not know exactly what had gone on in Jesus' consciousness. The accounts in Matthew and Luke (which both seem to come from the Q source), are a narrative midrash or interpretation of the event in such as way as to make it pastorally useful for believers.”
And somewhere, out of this, came the idea that not eating meat for the forty days of Lent was a valid form of self-denial. Go figure.
I am sorry if my comments this week seem off-center even more than usual, I am
still getting over that flu bug. To make
up for it a bit, I offer this sermon suggestion:
“The
Testing Grounds of Faith,” - Lent 1 sermon, 13 February 2005, by Hubert Beck
(note - unless noted otherwise, links are via Textweek)
Comments