(29th Sunday in Ordinary Time) Exodus 33:12-23; Matthew 22:15-22

How are we to recognize God’s imprint on us and others? In our various ways, we all want to leave our mark on the world. As the song from the show “Evan Hansen” says, no one deserves to be forgotten. And yet we pour energy, strength, our money, our planning, our well being, into making sure our lives are unremarkable. We don’t make waves. We tow the line. We devote ourselves to the systems in place around us. There is a time for that, a place for that. Even Romans 13:1-2 suggests so.

But our complicity (active or passive) with systems that bring harm others is going against God’s intentions for us as a humanity. Thus slaves rose against their masters even though it was illegal. We rebelled against England even though it was illegal. South Africans embraced forgiveness rather than prosecution of those who committed crimes during apartheid even though that wasn’t conventional. Saint Theresa worked against the ravages at work in Calcutta even though she had no hope of transforming India in her lifetime. We participate in ministries with the poor and hungry even though there is no indication that our efforts will end those social challenges. Jesus challenged the systems around him even though he knew it would get him killed.

Octo

ber 2

2, 2

017

“Div

ine

Imp

ress

ion

s”

Scripture texts are from the Common English Bible (CEB)™.

We can focus so much on the mark we are or aren’t making on the world that we forget to tend to the mark God makes in us. We sometimes ignore the inspiration God’s divine impression on us gives to our lives to act, always, in faith.

Exodus 33:12-23 12 Moses said to the LORD[a], “Look, you’ve been telling me, ‘Lead these people forward.’ But you haven’t told me whom you will send with me. Yet you’ve assured me, ‘I know you by name and think highly of you.’ 13 Now if you do think highly of me, show me your ways so that I may know you and so that you may really approve of me. Remember too that this nation is your people.” 14 The LORD replied, “I’ll go myself, and I’ll help you.” 15 Moses replied, “If you won’t go yourself, don’t make us leave here. 16 Because how will anyone know that we have your special approval, both I and your people, unless you go with us? Only that distinguishes us, me and your people, from every other people on the earth.” 17 The LORD said to Moses, “I’ll do exactly what you’ve asked because you have my special approval, and I know you by name.”

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glorious presence.” 19 The LORD said, “I’ll make all my goodness pass in front of you, and I’ll proclaim before you the name, ‘The LORD.’ I will be kind to whomever I wish to be kind, and I will have compassion to whomever I wish to be compassionate. 20 But,” the LORD said, “you can’t see my face because no one can see me and live.” 21 The LORD said, “Here is a place near me where you will stand beside the rock. 22 As my glorious presence passes by, I’ll set you in a gap in the rock, and I’ll cover you with my hand until

of 2 8

I’ve passed by. 23 Then I’ll take away my hand, and you will see my back, but my face won’t be visible.” Footnote: [a] Where ever you find “the LORD” in the passage (that is ‘LORD’ in small caps) that is the divine name showing up in the Hebrew text (hwhy; ‘Yahweh’). • Is Moses having second thoughts

about proceeding to the Promised Land? (vv.12-17)

• Honestly, this passage has always struck me as strange. But in the end, it speaks to the special relationship Moses is described as having with God (and part of why he figures so prominently in Jewish identity despite not being permitted to enter the Promised Land).

• What’s the difference between this encounter and Moses’ experience with the burning bush?

• What do you think is the meaning of v.20?

Matthew 22:15-22 15 Then the Pharisees met together to find a way to trap Jesus in his words.16 They sent their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are genuine and that you teach God’s way as it really is. We know that you are not swayed by people’s opinions, because you don’t show favoritism. 17 So tell us what you think: Does the Law allow people to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 18 Knowing their evil motives, Jesus replied, “Why do you test me, you hypocrites?19  Show me the coin used to pay the tax.” And they brought him a denarion. 20 “Whose image and inscription is this?” he asked. 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” 22 When they heard this they were astonished, and they departed.

of 3 8

• Why do you think the leadership went to such great lengths to humiliate Jesus publicly?

• If the coin belongs to Caesar (presumably), then what belongs to God?

• Why do you think the leadership didn’t see this coming? How did they get trapped by their own trap?

Commentary on Matthew passage by Mark Davis http://leftbehindandlovingit.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-structure-of-entrapment.html

Many scribes near and far have pondered the implications of this conclusion to Jesus’ query. I’m not sure if there is content here, as much as form. The structure of the whole encounter has been between two options – compromise one’s faith in

acquiescence to the emperor or resist the emperor in the name of fidelity to God. The structure is introduced by the persons involved – Herodians and Pharisees, who are strange bedfellows, since their commitments should have put them on opposite sides of this matter. But, again, it is not a genuine question; it is a trap. And now I will proceed to allegorize the heck out of this trap. The chum around the trap is the ironic praise that the Herodians and Pharisees offer to Jesus, as one who teaches the way of God in truth and does not give attention to the face of humans. I call it ironic because, while it is lovely praise and begins with “we know,” it does not appear that the speakers themselves believe a word of it. The bait of the trap is the question that the Herodians and Pharisees ask, “Yes or no to the imperial tax?” I suggest that the hinge of the trap is implied in the word “lawful,” which can refer to the imperial “law of the land” or the religious “law of God.” As I state above, the twin jaws of the trap are sedition, if Jesus opposes the tax to Caesar, or blasphemy,

of 4 8

if he upholds it. If Jesus goes for the bait, he’s simply going to be caught between these two realities and they will have him. My sense is that they hope he will either provoke the Roman authorities or lose his popularity among the people. Jesus’ answer simply accepts that there is an imperial system at hand and there is the reign of God at hand. But, Jesus structures the answer in a way

that the questioners are put into the position of having to interpret the content. To give the things of Caesar to Caesar means … what? From the empire’s point of view, it is whatever Caesar requires or demands from a vassal state. To give the things of God to God means … what? From a religious point of view, the earth is the lord’s and everything in it. Jesus’ answer – it seems to me – does not resolve specific

of 5 8

“The problem is most don’t act or live as if God’s sovereignty indeed is true. And I am not so sure we pastor or preach as if we believe it either. Too much of ministry is hedging our bets, casting our loyalty towards those persons and things to whom and to which we have acquiesced influence and voice. As a result, the church and its institutions ask the kinds of questions asked of Jesus in this story, thereby missing the point entirely…Yet, at the heart of Jesus’ response to those who would test his loyalties is a rather simple but subversive sermon -- God’s sovereignty is not a choice but a truth. It is not a question of loyalty, but a statement of reality.” —Rev. Dr. Karoline Lewis

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

questions we might have regarding taxation and the interplay between church and state. It deftly avoids the trap that has been laid for him. Beyond the interplay of the Pharisees setting traps and Jesus responding to them, this text may provide a structure for considering the questions that arise when we live with both the reality of imperial regimes and the reality of God’s reign. However, it seems to me that it only provides a form for framing those questions, not a whole lot of content for fleshing out what it means. There are still competing claims between the reign of God and the Empire of Rome….

Commentary on Exodus passage by Kathryn M. Schifferdecker http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=1012

…Commentators have long puzzled over this passage, especially because just a few verses earlier, it says that, "the LORD used to speak with Moses face to face, as one

speaks to a friend" (Exodus 33:11; cf. Deuteronomy 34:10). One can explain this seeming contradiction, of course, by appealing to different sources or traditions. But the text as we have it now speaks to a central, paradoxical theme in Exodus and in Scripture as a whole that is worth exploring; that is, that the Creator of the whole universe, whose glory fills the heavens, deigns to abide with finite human beings. That God chooses to abide with human beings is an astonishing thing indeed. That God chooses to be in relationship with human beings means that God makes himself vulnerable to the pain that ensues when that relationship is betrayed. But it also means that authentic communication is made possible, communication "face to face," and Moses is the model for us of that sort of authentic divine-human communication. That is, Moses models prayer for us, prayer that is not afraid to hold God to God's promises, prayer that is not afraid to appeal to God's love for God's people, even over and against

of 6 8

God's holiness. Moses, through this audacious prayer, succeeds in securing God's promise that God will indeed abide with the Israelites throughout their long wilderness wandering. Moses, in other words, wins the argument. But that's not the end of the conversation. There is this other matter about seeing God's glory. The fact that Moses' request is not granted reminds Moses, and us, that God is still God. For all his chutzpah, even Moses cannot presume too much. Even Moses cannot know or comprehend God completely. He cannot see God fully; he can see only God's back, the "afterglow of the effulgence of His presence," as Robert Alter describes it.1 And yet, it is enough. At this beginning of the wilderness journey, God has appeared in cloud and fire on Mt. Sinai, speaking to all the people "face to face" (as Moses says later in Deuteronomy 5:4). God has given instructions for the tabernacle, which will remind the people in a concrete way of God's abiding presence. And even in the face of betrayal,

God has renewed God's promise to be with the Israelites on the long journey that still lies ahead. It is enough. It is more than enough. Note:1Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), 506.

Additional Thoughts • “As many have pointed out, this

conversation seems to be taking place in the temple (21:23), where this coin would be unwelcomed because it bears the image of a living thing. Temple coinage – which one would obtain via a money-changer – was imprinted with numbers, letters, or even depictions of harvested wheat, but not a l iving thing, in d e f e r e n c e t o t h e commandment in Exodus 20:4. (I find the collection of coins to be one of the most interesting parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit whenever I visit it. Roman coinage was all about asking, “Who’s your Daddy?” w h i l e J e w i s h c o i n a g e fastidiously avoided images of living beings.)” —Rev. Mark Davis

• “The word εἰκὼν [‘icon’] is not the word in the [Greek Bible] of

of 7 8

Exodus 20:4 (εἴδωλον or ‘idol’), but is the word in the creation story of Genesis 1:27, where God creates humanity in God’s image (εἰκόνα).” —Rev. Mark Davis

• A trade mark is an easily recognizable sign of corporate identity and possession. What is God’s trademark for us?

• “So, sure ly th i s dramat ic moment in Matthew’s Gospel is not only about taxes, is it? Indeed, all of life is a constant negotiation for all that we have and all that we are and I am quite certain that by Jesus using the example of the emperor’s face on a coin, he is actually pointing to all of this — to all those things which compete for our obedience and our loyalty today.So maybe the best gift of the exchange before us now is that it throws us back on ourselves, inviting us to wonder about what Jesus’ first questioners were called to consider so long ago. Oh, maybe these are the sorts of questions you and I are called upon to ask and answer every day. And maybe by doing so, this is how we come to a clearer understanding of what a c t u a l l y b e l o n g s t o t h e

’emperor’ and what belongs to God.I expect this is true as well: you and I who gather around these words today already know that first and last we belong to God  for in our very very beginnings G o d ’ s i m a g e h a s b e e n imprinted on us (Genesis 1:27). And this being so then it follows that all that we are and all that we have and all that we hope to be belongs to God as well.”—Rev. Dr. Janet Hunt

• “…While God tells Moses that he cannot see God's glory and live (for God is way, way too much for a mere mortal to deal with), God also uses surprisingly anthropomorphic terms to engage Moses, covering him with God's "hand," and letting Moses see God's "back" as G o d ' s g l o r y p a s s e s b y , presumably on the rocky path along the mountainside, after God hides Moses safely in a little cleft in the rock. God, then, seems marvelously accessible and yet, at the same time, utterly unfathomable.”—Kathryn Matthews

of 8 8