Exodus 20:1-17 is well-known as the first statement of the Ten Commandments. This passage is appointed as the First Reading for the 3rd Sunday in Lent in the Year of Mark. When looked at closely, it is an outline as to what it means to live faithfully in a covenantal relationship with God, not merely a list of "Ten Suggestions" as some have blithely written. The preacher's task, then, will be to ponder and preach what this covenantal relationship asks of us. This is no easy task.
(The following questions have been developed to help preachers discover the way the Word functions in a text. They are not intended to be exhaustive, but are best used in conjunction with other fine sets of questions suggested in other methods. The way the Word functions is a particular concern of Law and Gospel preachers, and this method is particularly aimed towards them. For more on this method and on Law and Gospel preaching in general, see my brief guide, Afflicting the Comfortable, Comforting the Afflicted, available from wipfandstock.com or amazon.)
1. How does the Word function in the text? The opening verse makes clear that everything said here is based on our relationship with God as Liberator/Savior/Champion. We are not being called to repentance here, but rather obedience. In essence, what God says is, "I am your Savior. This is how you shall live in response to my love."
2. How is the Word not functioning in the text? There is no call to repentance here, no word which exposes our need for a Savior. While God's identity as Savior is clear (Gospel), our need for a Savior is not evident (Law).
3. With whom are you identifying in the text? Augustine reminds us that Israel received this word following their deliverance at the Red Sea. Likewise, he says, we have received this word following baptism. We identify, therefore, with "the baptized" people of God who first received this word.
4. What Law/Gospel couplet is suggested by this text? Since this text functions neither as Law or Gospel, our imaginations will need to focus on the underlying relationship. Some suggestions: ignored/instructed; cast aside/honored; without a home/embraced.
5. Exegetical work: As is often the case, context is important. In the chapters leading up to this text we see that the people whom God makes covenant with are not described glowingly. The irony is clear: in chapter 15 Israel complains at Marah, in chapter 16 at Elim, and in chapter 17 at Rephidim. Yet in chapter 19 when God promises to make them "a treasured possession, a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation" if they will keep God's covenant, they say, "Everything that the Lord has spoken we will do." (19:8) Nonetheless, God makes covenant with Israel and calls them to live in this covenant daily. Sarna, in his commentary, notes that this decalogue "opens with 'The Lord your God' and closes with 'your neighbor.'" (The JPS Torah Commentary, Exodus, p.108). He also notes that there is no identified audience. This is, he says, unique in the Torah. (Ibid., p.109). Another insight Sarna provides is that "Hebrew does not feature a verb 'to have' but expresses possession by hava, literally 'to be to'...the same term is used for entering into the marriage bond. (Ibid.) Fretheim also gives insight into some of the unique features of this text. He says that "this is the only instance in the Old Testament where the gathered community is confronted with such a direct experience of God, hearing God speak without an intermediary. It is a unique divine appearance." (Interpretation series, Exodus, p.214). Fretheim goes on: "The people are not to obey this word because God stands before them as a threat. The proper response to what God has said and done is not fright but reverence." (Ibid., p.216). The key to this passage, says Fretheim, is understanding that "it is not obedience vis-a-vis an objective code" that is commanded, but "It is obedience to the one who gives the law." (Ibid.). Again, Fretheim is highlighting the need to understand these commandments relationally rather than legalistically. (Ibid., p.219).
6. Consider the insights of the pioneers of the New Homiletic? Eugene Lowry's model of sermon structure always included moving the listener from disequilibrium to equilibrium. This might be a model worth pursuing here.
Blessings on your proclamation!
No comments:
Post a Comment