15th Sunday after Trinity - September 8th, 2024

Dr. Vethakani Vedhanayagam

I Kings 17:8-16

Background
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the books -1 & 2 Samuel narrate the history of the united Israel kingdom. The next two books – 1 & 2 Kings are the continuation of the preceding books in which the role of the prophets is given literary and theological attention. Among these prophets, Elijah is depicted as a significant figure in advocating the will of Yahweh vigorously in crucial political times of Israel's kingdom. Elijah, the prophet was an important prophet among the prophets sent to Israel and Judea regions by Yahweh. The kings of the Northern kingdom were not faithful to Yahweh whereas most of the Southern kingdom's kings did not fail to keep faith in their God alone. In this context, the prophet Elijah was sent to the king of the Northern Kingdom, King Ahab to condemn his family and the Israel community’s act of worshipping and following Baal who was revered as a god of rain. In this context, Elijah’s prophecy of no rain for years was to demonstrate Yahweh’s rule over the existing religious powers to bring the Israelites back to the covenantal relationship.
Theology of Counter Narratives to the Baal Religio-politics
Baal was considered the husband of the land who fertilizes it, sometimes a creator god, who demanded loyalty and obedience from his people like Yahweh. Ahab allowed this worship to Samaria for his political gains. The subordination of religious principles to political and religious dynastic ambition led to the religious crisis which resulted in a protest by Elijah. The names Yahweh and Baal represented a social system and so, the conflict between Ahab and Elijah was a struggle between two ideologies-Yahwism and Baalism. In other words, the confrontation was between Yahwism which retained the pre-monarchic egalitarian societal values in which Yahweh owned the land and people in equal relationship. Baal’s religion fostered the city-state configuration in which gods legitimized the hierarchical social structure. Hence, the Israelites’ faithfulness to their God as a community was seen more than religious demand. The prophet’s vigorous counter to the Baal worshipers was a demand for the communities’ life in fullness, which was done through counter figures like the powerless widow and ignored creature -the crow who becomes a partner of Yahweh’s affirmation of life. Elijah Challenged the Israel community’s inculturation of Baal regio-polity and Ahab’s corrupt socio-economic policies manifested through the state of the hungry and the poor widows and ultimately the execution of Naboth (1 Kings 21). For instance, the clash between legal ordinances (chp.21) and ownership of lands was common in other countries like Assyria, but, not in Israel. Elisa who became Elijah’s successor continued to give voice to the traditional values which faced challenges under the socio-economic policies of the state (I King 16; 2 King 13)). Famine as discourse is another aspect to be underlined in the light of Baal as a god of rain and prosperity. This discourse was used to subvert Baal’s core power identity as the god of rain with the famine discourse of Yahweh.
Key Themes
Subversive polity as spirituality (chp.17 and 18) by engendering alternative power paradigm (ex. Widow at Zarephath and crow as life sustainers of the servant of the powerful Yahweh; the helpless king, Ahab; prophetic manifestation of power by Elijah Vs 400+ Baal prophets) Demonstration of God’s power/rule through the powerless wherever the socio-economic system and political order become subjugating and death-dealing powers.

II Thessalonians 3:6-13

Background
The discussion on the context of the second Letter to Thessalonians directs us to talk about the authorship of the letter. Though it has been believed that it was written by Paul, the internal evidence demands us to say it was not, but rather by someone who is from the Pauline circle, who wanted to explore what would have Paul talked about the Second Coming of Christ. For, the first letter to Thessalonians had already raised many concerns and disturbances among the readers of the church on the second coming of Christ which is mentioned six times in this letter. It claimed that, the second coming was going to happen soon, which made the community split into groups with the claims on the one hand, “it happened already” and on the other hand, “not yet happened.” To settle the confusion, and to make them clear on this faith conviction, the second letter was written. For, the group which claimed that the Second Coming already happened, became lazy which resulted in community disorder, immorality, and relationship issues (vv. 6-13).
Community Christology
The post-resurrection Christian communities were in demand to articulate their theology around Jesus in terms of Christology as a response to the questions of the communities’ context towards sustaining the life of those communities. Christological articulations were a response to the existential questions around the nascent church which very much meant the need for eschatological imagination. However, when this demand was not dealt with established community-based theological deliberations in turn resulted in community disorder. In this context, the author encountered the community with community values and disciplines. He affirms that articulating theology needs to be based towards community discipline and relations.
Key Themes
The text demands to acknowledge the connection between faith and hard work; and portrays being active/hard working (not lazy) as a Paradigm of life. He also demonstrates how self-responsibility in community life is an element of faith in Christ.

John 11: 1-11

Background
The narrative of the death of Lazarus (1-11) culminates in Jesus’ messianic life-giving power by resurrecting him from the dead. However, it is a foretaste of Jesus’ resurrection towards this narrative leads to, in John’s Gospel. The immediate context of this narrative is the Unbelief of Jews (10:22-42). In other words, it is about the messianic identity and authority of Jesus, which need to be manifested now, as he is at the end of his journey and entering Jerusalem to be killed soon (chp.12).
Unbelief for Belief
Theology of rejection is one of the major theological themes in the Gospels. This is a theologically profound aspect which offered space for non-Jews to explore and encounter Jesus the Messiah. In this narrative (John 11:1-11), it is not Lazarus or Jesus per se, but the identity and authority of Jesus as Messiah is the central focus. It also highlights the justice aspect of salvation in which the privileged are demanded to renounce their privileges which in turn affirm the life and rights of “gentiles.” Along the same line, the unbelief of the Jews demanded the messianic manifestation of Jesus which resulted in the belief of both Jews and “gentiles” in Jesus’ messianic role.
Questions:
What are the counter-faith paradigms in the context of neo-imperialism, the church has to offer to the communities? What is the normalised inculturation of dominant ideologies and lifestyles? What are the mission paradigms to measure the justice aspects of salvation towards salvation for all?

Prayer

God of life and hope, help us to discern our way and ethos of life not to normalise and enculturate the established enslaving ideologies and faith claims. Help us to articulate our faith to strengthen the communities and affirm the life of the needy. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Author

Dr. Vethakani Vedhanayagam, from the Diocese of Madurai-Ramnad of the Church of Church India, is an Assistant Professor (New Testament) at Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamilnadu.

Dear User, Sermon Lab now completes three years and enters the fourth. We would like to see this special moment also a time to make changes so that Sermon Lab is more useful and relevant.

We have a request for you.

We would appreciate if you could take a few minutes to share your feedback by responding to the following questions by clicking here.