Sunday, 11 December 2011

Against Marcion

I was allowed to give another sermon today (11th December) for Advent 3. Readings here (though we seemed to use a bowlderised version - I was annoyed by they) Here is the text - ish :

Today is a day of rejoicing. It is why the clergy should be in pink, though they have failed me today, with the exception of Fr James. It's why we light a pink candle. In the church’s calendar it is gaudete Sunday. And gaudete simply means rejoice. Traditionally, advent is a season where the four last things are preached. You have come through death and judgement. It’s hell next week, but heaven today. Well done, you’ve chosen the right Sunday, where we rejoice in the anticipation of salvation and of heaven. 

Now heaven itself is pretty difficult to preach on. We don’t know much about it. Writers have struggled to say anything that isn’t a bit mad (think of the book of revelation) or a bit dull - there is a reason why they say the devil has all the best tunes. 

Salvation though is different: it is central to the gospel, where Jesus continually proclaims the coming of the Kingdom of God. It is the abiding pre-occupation of the church. So you’d expect a tight definition to have emerged in the last two thousand years, easy for me to package up for you now. You’d be wrong. The church has been reluctant to define salvation. For example, in a few minutes you’ll say the creed. There’s a long section on God, and a very long section on Jesus. And then buried in the middle, a line about salvation: ‘and for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven.’ 

I’m not going to cover all of salvation in a short sermon, even if I could, but I want to cover the promise of it, made in the Old Testament, fulfilled in the New. For it is an old promise that it is made by God to Abraham. At this time of year it is more important than ever that we remember the enduring promise of God. For it is that fulfilment what we rejoice in. 

So let’s start with Isaiah. After all, everyone else seems to have done so. 

This part of Isaiah was probably written in the sixth century BC, at a time when the Israelites had returned from their exile in Babylon, and were rebuilding their lives in Palestine. They were in Jerusalem, but a fairly run down version, it was a fairly bleak time. This final part of Isaiah is a set of prophecies about the world to come, about salvation. And it is uplifting stuff. 

From the chapter before our reading: 'all from Sheba shall come bearing gold and shall bring incense, and they shall publish the salvation of the Lord .... For the nations and the kingdoms that shall not serve thee shall perish (Is 60.6, 12). And this is followed by the opening lines from this morning, to proclaim liberty to the captives, freedom to the prisoner and - although this is omitted from the reading today, but should be in if we used the right lectionary - the day of vengeance of our God. 

That seems pretty clear. God’s people shall triumph, their enemies be crushed. The only flaw is it didn’t happen. The next few centuries saw a series of Empires vie for control over Palestine, culminating in the Roman Empire about the time of Christ. There is a distinct lack of enemies being crushed and of gold being delivered to the people of Israel. 

And it’s in this context that we should read the gospel. When the crowd pester John, asking are you the messiah? They’ve read Isaiah. They are expecting a messiah to come and bring them overlordship of the gentiles. They have been promised gold, cedarwood, tribute and authority. And they have waited a long time. So, every time you read about the messiah in the gospels, remember this. They’re not asking for someone who does a few parables and then inconveniently goes and dies, but for a warlord, who will restore Israel to power over the nations, give them perfect justice and a good supply of gold. They’re going to be disappointed. 

John has also read Isaiah: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness he says, just as we heard last week from Isaiah. I am preparing the way for the messiah to come. He does not mention (if he knew) that the messiah might not be quite what they were expecting. 

Jesus has also read Isaiah. In fact, very specifically, we know he reads this bit of Isaiah. Luke’s gospel tells us he reads the opening lines of our reading on the Sabbath in a synagogue. But he does two important things. Firstly, he misses the bit out about vengeance, just as we did today. He repeats the promise of good news to the poor and of liberty, but not of violence. Secondly, he then says to them, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing. The gospel then says they were amazed. I think here there is some poetic licence going on. I think a more accurate description may have been horrified and angry. We’ve read Isaiah, where is the gold they may ask. 

And it gets worse. A generation later, after Jesus has died, proving conclusively that he wouldn’t be the messiah at the head of an army, any hope the Israelites had was snuffed out. In AD70, the Roman legions of Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem, tore down the temple, expelled the Jews. 

Was the promise of the Old Testament wrong? 

Many people have thought so. Marcion, a second century churchman, whose followers converted much of the middle east to Christianity, rejected it entirely. Modern agnostics, who are willing to the give the new testament the benefit of the doubt, can’t face the Old Testament. And the church itself can be a little too prone to talking about Jesus in a flat and simplistic manner, as if everything can be reduced to asking what would Jesus do and a few selective quotations from the New testament. Because the Old is long, and difficult and we don’t like some of the messages. It's noticeable in the compilers of today's lectionary, who have tried to smooth out the difficulties of the Old Testament by omitting some of the difficulties of the text as if it didn't matter.

But Jesus didn’t think like this, nor did Paul. And if we reject the Old Testament, then we are on very shaky ground indeed. C.S. Lewis in a famous aphorism attacked those who claimed to follow the moral teachings of Jesus but not the religious. He pointed out that if Jesus was not the son of God, then he was a madman; if he is not the messiah that the prophets spoke of, what is he? And what kind of God is God? The Old Testament contains (albeit sometimes obscurely) our best description of God and of salvation. It needs careful interpretation, it does not need rejection.

Fortunately, just like all our protagonists, we can read Isaiah too. And towards the of our reading, God makes clear his promise: 'I will rejoice in the Lord, says the prophet, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness.' A few lines later, in the next chapter, the same language is used, but this time, it ends not with the prophet rejoicing in the Lord, but the reverse, saying 'so will the Lord rejoice over you.' (Is. 62.5) 

That is the promise of the Old Testament, that God rejoices over us all. He covers us with salvation. And this is a promise, not an offer. There is no ‘if’ or ‘provided that’ in Isaiah. God will cover all people with salvation. And the time is coming when he will show his hand. 

Just as the rhetoric in Revelation isn’t a literal view of heaven, so the rhetoric of war in Isaiah isn’t the essential part of the message. The promise won’t be fulfilled as was expected, but it is fulfilled in a more potent way than the Israelites ever imagined. The coming of Christ does not defeat the enemies of Israel, but death itself. 

The Marcionites and the moderns are wrong. It is God’s promise to Abraham and through him the world that will be fulfilled at the end of Advent. In our epistle this morning, Paul adds a coda to a longer letter to the church in Thessalonica. After the specific advice he gives, he asks them to hold fast and reminds them once again, that 'the one who calls you is faithful.' 

God’s promise of salvation is one that has endured. The Old testament is the witness to the promise of God, the coming (the advent) of Christ is its fulfilment, for the one who calls us is faithful. 

Rejoice, rejoice!

Amen

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

One thing that always amazes me is when Pauline Christians pretend to defend the Old Testament against Marcion. Perhaps Marcion rejected it as a whole, but Pauline Christians also reject it as a whole aside from a few passages they feel they can twist to make the Law promise its own invalidation. Its so hypocritical. If the Old Testament were really believed by Christians they would reject Paul's theory of 'grace' since he uses grace to mean something wholly different than what the Old Testament means by it. Grace in the Old Testament is the mercy whereby God forgives all who repent; whereas in Paul it is some magic power he gives to a set of lucky lottery winners. Paul's 'grace' is nothing but 'favoritism'; the Biblical grace is 'mercy.' By biblical, I mean the Old Testament, the original Bible, which ought to be used as a basis for judging and condemning Paul's errors--for Paul is the original Marcionite.

Anonymous said...

In fact, obviously, Marcion drew a lot of his theology from 2 Cor 3-4 where Paul attacks Moses as dishonest. Verse 3:12 and 3:13 We use honest speech unlike Moses who hid his face in a veil--Paul means to impugn Moses as dishonest--verse 3:15 which veil is still on their hearts in the reading of the Old Testament--he means to say the reading of the Old Testament hinders us from salvation. 4:2 we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty--renewal of the claim that Moses was dishonest. He further asserts that there are two gods: 4:4 there is "the god of this world hath blinded the minds" of the Jews against "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ" and there is 4:6 "the god, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness...to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

This second statement about commanding light to shine is not about Genesis 1 but about sending forth the gospel, and thus more an allusion to John 1 "that was the true light."

Paul's meaning is clear: there are two gods -- the god of this world, the OT god who blinds the Jews against the gospel of Christ, and the god who send Christ. Although the Catholic editors have added lot of positive Old Testament usages (or twistings) into Paul's epistles, and although they have made Paul confess the God of the OT to be the God of the NT at various points, they were too lazy to remove the clear original Marcionism of Paul's argument in this place. In fact, is it right to say that Marcion developed his doctrines from 2 Cor 3-4, or would it be more proper to say that Marcion wrote the original form of the Pauline epistles? Paul's doctrine is so very Marcionite that I am not actually able to choose between the two options. All I know is Paul doesn't know how to properly read the Old Testament.