Robert J. P. Lyon, CD MA MDiv
writing, editing, publishing services
and Biblical and theological studies
e-mail: graphikos@graphikos.ca
R 519 821 8688 C 519 221 0339
To access any page, click on the appropriate Page# above.
SERMONS
1. On Psalm 2
2. On the Son of Man
3. On David and Goliath
A SERMON ON PSALM 2
St George's Church, Hamilton
18 April 2010
Whenever I read a passage like Psalm 2, it takes me back to a New Testament course at the Anglican Theological College in Vancouver. One day in class, a professor said something that didn't sit quite right, so I put up my hand and raised the question, "What about the Messianic prophecies in the Psalms?" To which the professor replied, "I don't think there are any Messianic prophecies in the Psalms."
In Luke 24, during two separate post-resurrection appearances – first on the road to Emmaus, and later with a collection of disciples at Jerusalem – Jesus said, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
So regardless of what the professor thought, Jesus thought that the Old Testament had things to say that applied to him. And that's the consistent view of all the writers of the New Testament. How could it be otherwise? In Jesus' day there was no New Testament. The Old Testament was the only Bible that they had that could inform their understanding of what God was doing in the world.
Psalm 2 actually says that it is Messianic. (You can follow this discussion on page 331 of the Psalter in your Book of Common Prayer.) "Why do the nations so furiously rage and why do the peoples imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed...."
So how is that Messianic? If you read the last phrase of verse 1 in the original Hebrew, it says "against the LORD and against his Messiah". The Hebrew word "Messiah" means "Anointed" – whence the translation. Or if you read it in the Septuagint, that pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, you'll see that it says, "against the Lord and against his Christ". The Greek word "Christos" means "Anointed". So clearly there is a Messianic reference here. But we have to ask: Who is this Messiah, this Christos, this Anointed of the LORD, that the Psalmist is referring to?
Psalm 2 is thought to be an enthronement psalm, a psalm chanted by the priests of the Temple at the coronation of the Hebrew kings, who were God's anointed. This psalm might even have been written by David for the coronation of his son Solomon. So in the sense of the king as God's anointed agent, Psalm 2 is Messianic. But if we are going to call it a messianic prophecy, then we have to ask: How is it also prophetic? It is prophetic, I would suggest, by a combination of two things: by the fact that God made a promise, and by the apparent failure of that promise.
We see the promise for the first time at 2 Samuel 7:12ff, where God through the prophet says to David, "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." Psalm 2 expands that promise at verse 8 to include all the nations of the world: "Desire of me and I shall give thee the nations for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession." So in the sense that a promise looks forward, and with the assurance that God keeps his promises, a line like "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" is prophetic.
Except that the promise seems to have failed. The Hebrew kingdom did not continue forever. Wise Solomon at the end of his life behaved most unwisely. He compromised both his faithfulness and his kingdom with too many wives, most of them foreign, and humored them by building temples to their pagan gods. In the centuries that followed, the kingdom was divided, and with few exceptions it was a religious and political failure. The kings didn't keep the faith. Moses had given rules for a "just society" but they were disregarded. Even some priests and prophets were corrupt. But this failure is in itself also prophetic. It is prophetic because it shows that human leadership is incapable of achieving the "just society", and human leadership is certainly not capable of achieving the kingdom of God.
Have you ever been in a situation, perhaps at work, where you knew that if you wanted some particular task to be done right – read that as, to be done your way – you were going to have to do it yourself? Well, Isaiah describes just such a situation in Chapter 59: "The LORD saw it" – where "it" refers to the condition of the Hebrew nation – "and it displeased him that there was no justice. He saw that there was no man, and he was appalled that there was no one to intercede. Then his own arm brought him salvation...." So the failure of the Hebrew kingdom is prophetic in the sense that if God's promise is going to be fulfilled, it will take a greater than Solomon to achieve it.
Fast forward to the First Century. Mary was a mother, and as a mother she must surely have told her son stories about his birth and about the birth of his cousin John. There stories must surely have raised questions like, Who am I? and What am I supposed to do? Questions to which, throughout his life, Jesus would seek answers in the Scriptures that he came to believe spoke about him. You can see snippets of his wrestling with the Scriptures over such questions during those forty days in the wilderness that followed his baptism – which I think was the climax of a process that gave us those statements in Luke 24 about finding himself portrayed in Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.
The Who? question was resolved at his baptism, when the voice spoke from heaven quoting Psalm 2: "Thou art my son...." The What? and How? questions were resolved in the desert, where the gospels tell us that the devil tempted him by misusing Scripture, and Jesus beat him back by using other Scriptures correctly.
Some time later, on the Mount of Transfiguration with Peter, James, and John, Jesus gets this confirmation once again: "This is my son...."
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews understands this Psalm the same way Jesus did: "To what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my Son. Today have I begotten thee." And a verse later, just to make sure we understand his Christology, he adds: "And again, when he brings his firstborn into the world" – that's Christmas Day he's speaking about – "he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"
In Acts 4, Peter, in a prayer, quotes Psalm 2 word for word from the Septuagint as a statement about Jesus: "Sovereign Lord, who made heaven and earth, who by the mouth of our Father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, 'Why did the heathen rage and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Christ' – for truly in this city they were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus....'"
In Acts 13, Paul not only quotes Psalm 2, but he even gives us a footnote! Preaching at a synagogue in Asia Minor, he says, "What God promised to our fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus. As also it is written in the second psalm , 'Thou art my son. Today I have begotten thee.'"
Psalm 2 concludes with a prophetic and Messianic anticipation of the day that St John – and Handel – describe: the day when "the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever." In fact, there are two words at the beginning of verse 12 that are so conspicuously "New Testament" in flavor that, around 1950, Bible translators and Prayer Book revisers descended into a quarter century of madness during which they left them out. The two words are nashqu bar, "kiss the Son." A footnote in the RSV says that the Hebrew text here is "uncertain"; in fact, the only peculiarity is that the writer has used an Aramaic word for "son" instead of the Hebrew word. I think the real problem is that the translators could not believe that an Old Testament writer might actually have said such a thing. The kiss referred to is a gesture of reverence or submission, like the old tradition of kneeling before your bishop and kissing his ring. Happily, those words have been restored in the best modern translations, and that's how I'm going to read them as we conclude. You can follow in your Prayer Book on p.332.
"Be wise, therefore, O ye kings. Be warned, ye that are judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and bow down to him with reverence. Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled." And for all who do so, this word of assurance: "Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Amen.
A SERMON ON THE SON OF MAN
St George's Church, Hamilton
16 May 2010
Daniel 7:1,9-10,13-14
Mark 14:55-64
Revelation 1:9-19
There is a well-known saying about the Bible, that the New Testament is contained in Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. You may have memorized it in these words: "The New Testament is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed." You can see how that is so in our readings of Daniel's vision in Babylon and John's vision on Patmos. In Mark 14 Jesus shows us how those passages should be interpreted together.
Daniel was a prophet in Babylon during the years of Exile. He tells us that his visions occurred during the first year of Belshazar's reign, which dates them at 553 BC. He had, he says, dreams and visions in the night as he lay in his bed, and then he says he wrote what he saw – which is what we have in the book of Daniel. Daniel had visions of four beasts – grotesque symbolic creatures – that signify the four major kingdoms or empires that oppressed God's covenant people: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman. The beasts are defeated and brought before divine Judgment, after which God establishes his everlasting kingdom.
Daniel's description reads like a piece of Divine theatre. Picture the stage at Stratford, complete with property guys, costumes, and special effects, but located but somewhere out in the cosmos. "As I looked, thrones were set in place...." – Can you see the property guys lugging big thrones out to centre stage? – "and the Ancient of Days took his seat..." The royal court is about to be convened. – "His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him...." Costume and special effects combine to convey, however imperfectly, the majesty of God. "A thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him...." – that's why you have to move the stage out of Stratford and into the cosmos – "The court sat in judgment [on the four beasts that symbolized the four empires] and the books were opened."
After the Judgment on the four beasts, Daniel describes Scene Two, in which a hero comes on stage and is presented before the throne. "With the clouds of heaven [picture the special effects] there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him." The expression "son of man" is a poetic Hebrew way of saying "a man". But, of course, in the circumstances, this man is the promised messianic offspring of David. So what we have here is the description of an investiture. "And to [this Man] was given dominion and glory and a kingdom; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
As Daniel understands it, all the events of history – including everything you see on your daily news channel and everything you read in the daily press – move forward to this one conclusion: the final vindication of God and of his people. No more wandering in the desert no more fighting off the hostile inhabitants of the land no more Exile.
Forward 500 years to Patmos, an island off the coast of Turkey, where the Apostle John is in exile because the government did not approve of his preaching. John says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day...." The apostle was attending a Sunday worship service. "In the Spirit" suggests that the Holy Spirit had caught him up in an ecstatic trance state in which he saw the unseeable, couched in familiar imagery. He says, "I saw...one like a son of man, clothed in a long robe, with a golden sash across his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like wool, like snow. His eyes were a flame of fire...."
John's vision borrows imagery from Daniel's, but not without some differences. "One like a Son of Man" is a reappearance of Daniel's Messianic figure, but he reappears with a golden sash across his chest. Think back to the royalty you have seen on stage at Stratford – colored sash over the shoulder and joined on the opposite hip – in John's day a symbol of Imperial power. Daniel's promise of "dominion and glory and a kingdom" is here fulfilled. This son of man is the long expected King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
But notice this difference: "The hairs of his head were white, like wool, like snow." The Messiah may be like a son of man, but this picture shows him to be significantly more than a man. "White hair" identifies him with Daniel's Ancient of Days: "Thrones were placed [says Daniel] and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool." The Jesus whom John sees is the universal Emperor precisely because he is the King of the Universe – as in the Jewish prayers that begin, "Blessed art thou, O LORD our God, King of the Universe...." It's no wonder John says, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead"
Now, a Jew reading Daniel 7 will tell you that the Son of Man is a man, who some day in God's good time will establish peace on earth. But the Son of Man is human, the Ancient of Days is divine, and the two are separate and distinct. That is certainly a possible reading of Daniel 7. So how do we get from that understanding of the Son of Man to John's understanding, where hair white like snow, eyes of fire, a face shining like the sun, and the Word of God coming from his mouth in the image of a two-edged sword depict Jesus as the Ancient of Days, as Godhead ?
When you read the gospels, you find that Son of Man is the label Jesus preferred. It had less baggage than other things Jesus could have called himself. In first-century Palestine, a messiah could have been seen as a revolutionary. And the prevalence of Greek culture in Jesus' day made the title "Son of God" open to misunderstanding. But "Son of Man" was a term that Jesus could fill with his own meaning, as indeed he did. We know how Jesus understood the term "Son of Man", and we know how he interpreted Daniel 7, because in Mark 14, at his trial before Caiaphas, Jesus cites Daniel 7 as a reference to himself: "Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking evidence against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. Many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. [And Jesus] remained silent.... [Then] the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ – [Are you the Messiah] – the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' Then [Caiaphas] the high priest tore his garments and said, 'What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?' And they all condemned him as deserving death." (Mark 14:55-64)
"You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power " –
Where did Jesus get that? Jesus knew his Bible, and he knew that Daniel says "thrones were set in place" – thrones, in the plural – one for the Ancient of Days, the other for the Son of Man, who is about to be invested with dominion and glory and kingship. He also knew Psalm 110:1, where God says, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool."In the presence of Majesty, mere mortals stand, bow, kneel, or fall on our faces, but Jesus claims the prerogative of being seated – as we say in the Creed – "at the right hand of the Father".
Such an outrageous claim by a man on trial for his life necessarily polarizes all who hear it. It compels us to identify either with Caiaphas, who rejected Jesus' claim as false and offensive – or perhaps delusionary, but still offensive – or with John, who fell at his feet, felt the hand of Jesus on his shoulder, and heard him say "Fear not. I am the first and the last and the living one. I died, but see: I am alive forevermore. And I hold the keys of death – and the grave." For which we say: Thanks be to God.
A SERMON ON DAVID AND GOLIATH
St George's Church, Hamilton
18 July 2010
1 Samuel 17
In his letter to the Romans (15.4), Paul says that "..whatever things were written aforetime" – he is referring here to the Old Testament – "were written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
It follows from this that the account of David and Goliath should have something to say to us as Christians. But when we read an Old Testament passage as Christians, we should first try to understand what the passage meant to its original Hebrew audience, and that can help us understand how it applies to Christians. If we neglect what the passage meant to its original audience, we risk reading into it supposedly Christian meanings that may not really be there.
As we consider the account of David and Goliath, we should be aware that in the Hebrew Bible the two books that we call First and Second Samuel were originally all one book that should read as a single continuous narrative. When we do that we find that the Book of Samuel is about the establishment of the Hebrew people as a covenant theocracy – a nation that not only acknowledges God, but for whom God actually makes the rules. The high point of the story occurs at 2 Samuel 7, where King David tells Nathan the Prophet that he proposes to make a house for the LORD – a permanent place of worship to replace the tent that they used in the wilderness. So Nathan consults God, and God sends him back to tell David:
10 I will appoint a place for my people Israel and I will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more 11 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 I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come 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.
When we turn back 20 years from that point in the narrative to the Goliath story, we see David as a youth, already displaying the heroic qualities that will make him a fit king for God's covenant people. But in spite of David's heroic qualities, notice what God emphasizes through the prophet: I will appoint a place for my people I will plant them I will give you rest from your enemies and I the LORD will make you a house. So David is God's agent, but it is God who plans and God who makes things happen.
Of course, the kingdom in the mind of the writer is an earthly nation-state. But after the days David and Solomon that earthly kingdom experienced more failure than success because its leaders kept neglecting the covenant. Twice in its history the house of God that David wanted to build was destroyed by invading armies – first during the Exile, and second following the Resurrection. But that did not mean that God had failed his promise to establish David's throne forever. It meant instead that maybe an earthly kingdom was at best only an interim goal maybe we should be looking for a descendant of David who could credibly say, My kingdom is not of this world (John 18.36).
Now, the writer of the Book of Samuel has some very definite ideas about how God builds his kingdom. And if we understand that earthly kingdom as an object lesson that looks forward to God's everlasting kingdom, then the Book of Samuel has things to teach us about how God wants to build his kingdom even among us at St George's. I can see at least four insights that the author of Samuel gives us in David's victory over Goliath – and you may very well find more.
First: God builds his kingdom by means of providence. I once asked Dr A. W. Tozer – a Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor in Toronto back in the 1960s – how he understood the notion of providence. "Providence," said Dr Tozer, "is God playing his checkers." God knows every piece that's on the board, and every possible move and God uses that knowledge so that the game plays out the way he wants it.
Long before David became king, God in his providence was positioning him to gain the knowledge and the visibility and the credibility that he would need for the job. David "just happened" to be available to play music that would soothe King Saul when his fits of schizophrenia came on him. And that exposure gave David first-hand knowledge of what went on in the king's court. David "just happened" to be bringing a CARE package to his brothers on the battlefield when Goliath proposed his challenge of single combat. And Saul "just happened" to offer his daughter Michal as the prize for the hero who could beat Goliath, thereby locking in David's claim to the throne.
In that respect, nothing has changed. As God works among us, we find ourselves in situations that invite us to do things for his kingdom. They may be as simple as an opportunity to show hospitality or to do some kindness – perhaps just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Of course, we can dismiss such things as coincidences, but I remember a chap who used to say, "Yes, they may be coincidences but when I stop praying, the coincidences stop happening." So pray that God will make us sensitive to the coincidences that he sends us, so that we will use them for the building of his kingdom.
Second: David was insignificant, but he was God's choice for the job. He was the youngest of eight brothers, a mere kid who looked after sheep while his three eldest brothers served in the army. They didn't mind that he brought them CARE packages from their father, but as soon as David showed interest in the Goliath problem, they accused him of slacking and told him to get back to the sheep where he belonged. They were afraid of Goliath like everyone else, but they were not going to be upstaged by their kid brother.
It is not an accident that David had this underling role. God delights in using those whom the world counts as insignificant. 26 For consider your calling, brethren, says Paul to the Corinthians, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are – why? – 29 so that no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1)
Third: David's success did not depend on numbers nor on the latest human methods, but on God's sufficiency. When David's friend Jonathan and his armor bearer attacked a Philistine garrison single-handedly, Jonathan said: Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few (1 Samuel 14.6). Even by the standards of 1063 BC David's weaponry was primitive. How could he compete against Goliath with a mere slingshot? When he turned down the use of Saul's armor, he explained tactfully that he wasn't skilled in using it. What he really meant was that he believed that God had already given him the tools he needed for the task that God had called him to do.
"You come to me," David said to Goliath, "with a sword and a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, whom you have defied." And David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone. There was no sword in the hand of David (1 Samuel 17:46,50).
Whatever God may call us to do – even here at St George's – is possible within the skills and resources and numbers that God has given us – or, in his providence, will give us. This is true for us corporately as a congregation, and individually in the ministries that he intends for each and every one of us.
Fourth, and most importantly: God did not send David out to do a job in his own strength and wisdom. The writer tells us that as soon as Samuel had anointed David to be Saul's successor, the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon David from that day forward (1 Samuel 16.13). This was not a one-off occurrence; it is part of the divine modus operandi; it is how God works. In the same way, when Saul was anointed 30 years earlier, Samuel told him that he would meet a group of prophets and then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man (1 Samuel 10.6). The writer also tells us that after Saul disobeyed God's word through the prophet, and God rejected him from being king, the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16.14). Four hundred years later, when the Jews returned from Babylon to rebuild the Temple and the nation, Zechariah gave them the same word: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts (Zechariah 4:1).
These are some of the keys to building God's kingdom, whether 3000 years and half a world away, or here in Hamilton. As we seek to be and to build God's church where we live, may we pray for, and may he grant us, the working of his providence, the discernment to know his will, confidence in his sufficiency, and the empowering of his Spirit – for Jesus' sake, who said, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16.18).