The Flesh is Weak -- A lectionary meditation
Genesis 25:19-34
Romans 8:1-11
Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23
The
Flesh is Weak . . .
“The spirit is
willing, but the flesh is weak.” That’s
Paul’s analysis of the human condition.
It is a problem we face as human beings – we set our sights on doing
great things, but often find ourselves falling short. We get distracted by video games, TV,
Facebook, procrastinating, and sometimes just plain rebellion. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is
weak. I will confess – this is my story. When I think of all the time wasted just
putzing around, I wonder what I could have done had I “really put my mind into
it.” In our three texts for the week
(even if I’m not preaching this Sunday I’ll offer my thoughts), we have texts
that witness to this dilemma, but also offer possibilities of hope. All is not lost!
In
the reading from the Hebrew Bible – the Genesis reading (24:19-34) – we move on
a generation from Isaac – the one Abraham almost sacrificed before God provided
the alternative. The covenant has been
extended – God still has an opportunity to bless the nations, but the question
is – through whom will the covenant extend.
Isaac and Rebekah have two sons – twins actually – who even in the womb
have struggled for dominance. The
parents-to-be are told by God (Isaac had prayed that God would free his wife
from her barren state so he might have an heir, and God provided, but with a
proviso. These two children will be the
father of two different nations and the elder of the two will serve the
younger).
The first born – Esau –
is born with a reddish complexion and his body covered with hair (these
comments help explain why he will be the father of the nation of Edom (from a
word meaning red – and the hairiness signifying the crudeness, which the Jews
ascribed to the Edomites), and as he grows up he will become a skilled hunter
and live in the fields. In other words –
this is a man’s man!! And, Isaac will
show a preference for the first born (even if only by minutes). The second born is very different from the
elder, but he is a fighter. Indeed, he
came out of the womb, says the writer of this part of Genesis, grasping the
heel of the brother, seeking to supplant his brother (thus the name –
Jacob). And the struggle would continue
once out of the womb. The second born,
whom they named Jacob was, according to our text” quiet and lived in tents. Rebekah preferred the more refined second
son!
Now comes the point of
the story – Esau is the one who by rights of primogeniture (first born son) is
to receive the bulk of the inheritance.
He is the heir, but God has already made it clear that the older will
serve the younger. When Esau comes in
from the fields, he is tired and hungry (famished), and when he sees the stew
his brother is cooking he asks for some food.
But Jacob, while willing to share, is the supplanter, and even as he was
trying to get ahead coming out of the womb, he decides on a new way of
accomplishing this goal of gaining the birth right. He preys upon the weakness of the flesh, and
tells his brother that he’ll give him a meal in exchange for his birthright –
short term gain in exchange for long term gain.
Esau has decided that if he doesn’t eat he won’t live, so why not. He even swears an oath when requested. And so the famished one, the older brother,
exchanges his future for a bowl of lentil stew.
And the writer of this text comments:
“Thus Esau despised his birthright.”
Why, because the flesh was weak!
And the pathway of blessing will go through the supplanter!
What is described in
narrative form in Genesis receives more doctrinal development in this text from
Romans 8, a passage that begins with a fairly well known statement – “There is
therefore no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.” Here is a word of blessing – if you want to
live a life free of condemnation, then be in Christ. In him the law of sin and death is overcome
by the law of the spirit of life. The
flesh – it is weak. It will trade a
birthright for a bowl of stew. It will
trade the long term for the short term.
It thinks with the stomach not the heart and mind. That is the way of the flesh, but the way of
the Spirit is different. While the
flesh is hostile to God, to be in the Spirit is to have God dwelling within,
and thus to be in Christ is to have life in the Spirit – and death will have
lost its hold on one’s life, making it possible to live in a way that is
pleasing to God.
Finally we come to the
Gospel. It too is a well known
text. If you’re not sure what Jesus is
talking about in the beginning, Matthew offers an official interpretation of
the Parable of the Sower. Very simply,
the sower sows seed rather indiscriminately, with some landing on the path,
where the birds eat it. Some falls in
the rocks and while it grows quickly, once the sun comes out it withers and
dies, because it doesn’t have deep roots.
Then there is the seed that falls amongst the thorns and gets choked out
by them (we all know about weeds – nothing seems to be able to outgrow
them. Then, finally, some of the seed
lands on good soil and the seed produces grain anywhere from 30 fold to 100
fold. So, what have we learned? Perhaps one should be more discriminating
where one plants seed if one wants to have a good harvest. Of course that’s not what Jesus or Matthew
has in mind.
So, if your ears have
yet to understand the issues present in the parable, in verses 18-23 Matthew
offers an interpretation. This is, as
most parables are, about the kingdom of God.
The parable seeks to explain why some hear the message and respond
positively and others don’t. It has to
do, in large part to the nature of human flesh! So, sometimes, Jesus tells us, the evil one
comes along and snatches the word away from us before it has a chance to get
planted in our hearts and minds. Or we
could say – the recipient of the message simply wasn’t paying attention so it
bounced back. Then there’s the rocky
ground – wherein the person hears the message and joyfully responds, except
that they don’t really plant deep roots and so when difficulty emerges they
fall away. This is a very common
problem, and requires our attention, for too often a person comes into the
community, shows lively interest, we have a need, and we dump a job on
them. They take it up, but when
difficulties come (and they always do, especially in the church) they simply
fall away from faith and community. Then
there is that common malady of having our faith crowded out by all the cares of
the world. We would walk with God, we
would engage with the community, but we have to do this and do that. Thus, the message falls again on deaf ears. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!
Finally there is the
good soil – and the one who hears and understands and bears fruit is the one
who possesses good soil. This is the one
in whom the Spirit is moving, the one who is receptive, the one whose ears are
ready to hear.
With the passages from
Paul and Matthew in mind, I return to the story of Jacob and Esau. As is often true in Genesis, the narrator is
trying to explain the realities of the world.
There are two nations that are in competition – Edom and Israel – who
have common ancestry, but who have gone different directions. But for us, the question has to do with the
short term versus the long term. Esau
was thinking short term when he exchanged his birthright for a bowl of
stew. The question is – how often do we
make the same choice – exchanging long term benefits for the short term
pleasure of the moment. I know that this
true for me in my diet and many other areas.
I fail to look long term. Our
nations do the same thing. When it comes
to the environment – we hear it said that it will be too expensive, and while
this is true in the short term, when we look downstream a few decades it’s
clear that what seems expensive now is really not nearly as expensive as
trading one’s birth right for a bowl of stew!
So, while the Spirit is
willing, the flesh is weak! But, in Christ, the law of sin and death gives way to the Spirit of life. So there is hope! Indeed, there is good soil that can produce a bountiful harvest. May Christ prepare the soil of one's life to receive the seed of the Word!
Comments
Delete here if you wish to reduce the noise.
You think Marty tied it up? – did you read Salazar? – if yes, what about the plurality opinion? – what does that tell you about the secularization thesis? In re. your questions (fair ones) – if your question is whether secularization is good for the symbol itself, and if you have a Martin Marty-esque advocacy (as Marty does) of public and publicized appearances of religion in the polis, then can you have your cake (pro-public religion) and eat it too without this secularization of your iconography and your praxis becoming inevitable?
My sense is that somewhere in between these hard questions, it is Marty himself who hedged his own bets instead of really coming clean. Salazar’s plurality opinion mirrors back this very irony – the Justices in plurality doing quite fine theological writing from the legal skew as is anywhere else on display.
Cheers,
Jim