Patrick Comerford
Next Sunday, 3 October 2021, is the Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XVIII), with the liturgical provisions are for Proper 22.
The readings in the Revised Common Lectionary as adapted for use in the Church of Ireland are:
Continuous Readings: Job 1: 1; 2: 1-10; Psalm 26; Hebrews 1: 1-4; 2: 5-12; Mark 10: 2-16.
Paired Readings: Genesis 2: 18-24; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1: 1-4; 2: 5-12; Mark 10: 2-16.
There is a link to the readings HERE.
Introducing the readings:
The challenges in the readings next Sunday include challenges about the differences between our perceptions of God’s ways and the actual working out of God’s ways, and challenges about the foundations of faith, which are weak if they depend on God meeting our expectations but in danger of being weakened when God does not meet our expectations.
Job challenges us to think about how much we tend to fashion God in our image and likeness, but throughout the first reading, Psalm and Epistle reading, we are challenged to be fashioned in God’s image and likeness.
A careful reading of the alternative first reading challenges old prejudices in language and custom about our understandings of being male and female … culturally embedded attitudes that are reflected in our memories of how we read the questions posed in the alternative Psalm.
The Gospel reading also challenges old ideas and customs – in the Pharisees’ tradition about divorce. But rather than accepting yet another tradition, how might we accept what Christ says as a way of challenge custom and tradition, and being brave enough to come to new conclusions that reflect the priorities of God and the compassion of Christ?
Job 1: 1; 2: 1-10
The Book of Job is the first poetic book in the Bible, along with the Psalms and the Book of Wisdom. This book addresses the problem of theodicy – the vindication of the justice of God in the light of human suffering. In his suffering and distress, Job laments the day of his birth, and would like to die, but even that is denied to him.
Earlier books in the Bible speak of humans deviating from God’s ways, being punished for their sins, repenting, and being restored to God’s favour. But the Wisdom literature invites us to explore another side of God’s relationship with people. Next Sunday’s reading sets the scene for the story of Job, in which the older way of knowing God is in sharp contrast with the newer was of knowing God.
Two things strike me as I seek to approach this reading with a fresh perspective:
1, Job is an outsider, not a traditional Jew. He lives in Uz, south-east of Palestine, and is drawn to God because of his faith, not because of his ethnic origins.
2, God appears to allow Satan to belittle and demean this good man. We are told Job is ‘blameless’ and ‘upright,’ that he has a right relationship with God, that he is reverent and obedient, and that he deliberately and consistently chooses to do good.
Why does God agree that Job should be tested by Satan? In the missing verses, Job loses his children and all his wealth (1: 13-19), he grieves (1: 20), and yet he accepts his lot before God (1: 21). ‘In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing’ (1: 22). Job passes the first test; he continues to bless God as the origin of all life: it is God’s to give and it is God’s to take away.
Now Job is tested again in Chapter 2. He excludes himself from human society, living on the rubbish dump. His wife nags him and advises him to end his misery and pain (2: 9), but Job is reasonable, kindly and wise in his answer, and he is steady in his faith in God.
If our health is ruined, our housing situation becomes desperate, our income dries up, we find ourselves marginalised or isolated from society, do we blame God? Or is the message of the Gospel that God is with us in this plight?
It needs to be asked whether we see material success and children as rewards for fidelity. Is faith, like love, not without seeking reward?
Perhaps there are connections to be made here too with the Gospel story where it speaks about both divorce and children.
Genesis 2: 18-24:
This is part of the second creation account in the Book Genesis. The first account is in Genesis 1: 1 to 2: 3; the second account is in Genesis 2: 4-25
In this section (verses 18-24), we are told that to be fully human is to be in relationship with others. This affinity is joyful and fruitful, expressed in the acclamation in verses 23 that playfully in the words for man (ish, איש) and woman (ishah, אשה).
The first ‘man’ is not specifically referred to as a male human (ish) until the operation mentioned in Genesis 2:21-22, when a part, or side, is taken out of him.
The author of Genesis 2 may want readers to understand that this husband and wife may have each been a part of, or one side of, the same human being (ha’adam).
The creation account in Genesis 2 is designed to show the mutuality, compatibility and unity of the first man and woman. It may be we are even meant to understand that they both had the same source, ha’adam, and shared the same flesh made from the same dust of the ground that had been personally enlivened by God’s own breath (Genesis 2: 7).
Genesis 2 thus gives further insight regarding the equality of men and women that is already stated in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1: 26-28 tells us that men and women had the same status, the same authority, and the same purpose at creation. And in both Genesis 1 and 2, no one, man or woman, was given authority over another person. There is no hint of any gender hierarchy, or a difference in status, in humanity.
The use of ishshah and ish in Genesis 2 may be a play on words, a pun designed to highlight the connection between woman and man, wife and husband. We cannot assume that the intention may have been to convey the idea that ha’adam was originally male. A few puns in the Genesis 2-3 story highlight these connections and contrasts:
Adamah אֲדָמָה (dirt, ground, earth) and adam אָדָם (human) in Genesis 2: 7;
Arom עָרוֹם (naked, naive) in Genesis 2: 25, and arum עָרוּם (wise, shrewd) in Genesis 2: 25 to 3: 1;
Ish אִישׁ (man/husband) and ishshah אִשָּׁה (woman/wife) in Genesis 2: 23-24.
In the NRSVA translation of Genesis 2: 18, God says, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ The word helper is used in other modern translations such as the NIV, but other translations have used phrases such as ‘help meet’ and ‘helpmate.’ Both sets of translations seek, on one hand, to ignore, and, on the other, to emphasise the way in which this verse can be used to devalue and belittle women or make women subservient.
But the Hebrew word translated as ‘helper,’ ‘helpmate’ or ‘helpmeet’ needs to be put into context, taking account of all the other instances where it appears in the Bible. Other words could have used to describe the woman; instead, this passage uses the Hebrew word עזר (ezer) and the Hebrew phrase עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ezer kenegdo) – and this is not by accident.
The noun ezer is used 21 times in the Hebrew Bible: twice it is used in the context of the first woman; it appears three times for people helping – or failing to help – in life-threatening situations; and it is used 16 times in reference to God as a helper. It is never used of a subordinate – it is only ever used of a superior or equal.
Without exception, these Biblical texts talk about vital, powerful kinds of help. Help is too weak a translation because it suggests a merely auxiliary or secondary function, whereas ezer connotes active intervention on behalf of someone.
In Genesis 2: 18, God is quoted as describing women by using a word that is most often used as a self-descriptor for God. So, when ezer is applied to the first woman, it should never be interpreted to support oppressive, traditional or cultural views of women’s roles.
The Hebrew word ezer is most often used to describe God being an ezer to human beings. It has two roots: ‘to rescue, to save,’ and ‘to be strong.’ The word is most frequently used to describe how God is an ezer to humanity.
The word that accompanies ezer is kenegdo, which means ‘in front of him,’ ‘opposite as to him’ or ‘corresponding as to him’. The word kenegdo denotes the idea of equality, a mirror image of a man, but the opposite of him.
We would never interpret this phrase in other places in the Bible to mean God plays ‘second fiddle’ to humanity. It is as absurd to read Genesis 2: 18 in a way that diminishes or marginalises women, treating women as ‘second fiddle’ to men.
Finally, this reading concludes with the advice that a man should leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, and that they become one. In patriarchal societies, men were expected to remain in their father’s homes, and become their heirs and successors, while women were expected to leave their own homes and make their homes within the patriarchal family structures. Patriarchial expectations and male prerogatives are not only turned on their heads, but are abolished in this reading.
This reading has been used too often to oppress women and to reinforce patriarchy, when, in fact, it means the very opposite in every imaginable way.
Psalm 26:
In Psalm 26, the psalmist seeks delivery from his antagonists. He has lived with integrity, in a godly way, and he has trusted in God constantly. He protests his innocence in e negative way by listing those things he has not done, proclaiming this before the altar of God.
He prays for help and for deliverance from his ungodly enemies, but vows to continue to ‘live with integrity’ (verse 11), honouring God in public worship.
So there are obvious parallels in this psalm with the plight of Job, and Job’s response.
Psalm 8:
Psalm 8 is a hymn celebrating God's glory and the God-given dignity of humans.
This psalm is sometimes kown by its Latin title, Domine Dominus noster. Like Psalms 81 and 84, this psalm opens with a direction to the chief musician to perform upon the gittit or gittith (Hebrew, גתית), which either refers to a musical instrument, a style of performance, or alludes to persons and places in biblical history. he Hebrew root gat (גת) refers to a winepress, indicating that these are joyful psalms.
In the first part (verses 1-4), the glory of God is manifest in the night sky and in the songs of people. In second part (verses 5-8), God gives humans a share in his own dignity, giving them dominion over the rest of creation. According to the Midrash Tehillim, verses 5 to 10 in the Hebrew text contain questions that the angels asked God as God was creating the world. Verse 9 repeats the opening verse as a refrain.
Psalm 8 is well-known for two key questions and a key phrase:
The opening words of verse 2 are translated in the Authorised Version as ‘Out of the mouth and babes and sucklings,’ a phrase that has resonances that are almost proverbial in English usage.
The questions in verse 4 is still well-known in its KJV/AV poetic rendering: ‘What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him?’ Despite changes in language, modern translations seem to lack the literary impact of this early 17th century translation.
The question ‘What is man?’ from Psalm 8 may have inspired Shakespeare’s reflection ‘What a piece of work is a man’ in Hamlet. There is a suggestion that Shakespeare was inspired by a paraphrase of Psalm 8 composed by Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, as he awaited execution in the Tower of London in 1546-1547.
This question also appears as the title of Mark Twain’s essay What Is Man?, published anonymously in 1906. The title of a 1974 science fiction short story by the American writer Isaac Asimov, ‘… That Thou Art Mindful of Him,’ is also inspired by Psalm 8.
Two versions of this psalm are provided in the Book of Common Prayer, with different numbers for the verses than those found in most modern English translations (see pp 599-600). The first version retains the familiar questions in verse 4 as verse 5:
What is man, the you should be mindful of him;
the son of man, that you should seek him out?
Hebrews 1: 1-4; 2: 5-12
Christ is the priest who mediates and who purifies, who shares in the creation of the worlds, the heavens and the earth, and he continues to sustain all that is created. Being God, he is much superior to angels.
As with the reading from the Book of Job, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews contrasts the old and new ways of God: that of ‘long ago’ and that ‘in these last days’ (1: 2).
Christ shares in and mediates the creation of the worlds, he is the heir of God, and is an exact image or icon, of God, revealing the character of God.
In Jewish cosmology, angels controlled the world, but the priests were seen as angels. This title continues to be used for priests in the New Testament, so when Saint John writes to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor in the Book of Revelation, he addresses the leaders, the bishops or priests, of those seven churches as angels (see Revelation 2: 1, 8, 12, 18; 3: 1, 7, 14).
A connection could be made between Christ’s sufferings and death, which are then talked about in this reading, and the sufferings of Job and the Psalmist in the first two readings, or connections between the old ways and the new ways and how we wrestle with this in trying to understand our Gospel reading.
Mark 10: 2-16:
There is an old adage that it is a bad idea to plan a series of sermons on the Ten Commandments, because eventually your church is going to empty week-by-week by those who know they are due to be targeted in the next sermon, and that by the end of the ten weeks all your pews will be empty.
On first reading this Gospel passage, many may be inclined to skip over it altogether and preach on one of the other readings. At first reading, it seems Christ is being very harsh on those who have gone through a divorce. But there are people who are divorced in every parish and congregations on a Sunday morning. Where is the Good News in this reading, they may ask.
Divorce is now widely accepted in this society. And yet, at the very end of the prophetic books in the Bible, in the last prophecy, God says: ‘I hate divorce ... I hate divorce’ (Malachi 2: 16). What does it mean to say that God hates divorce?
Statistics in the US show the divorce rate is no different for couples who go to church on a regular basis, despite the old adage that ‘the family that prays together stays together.’ In fact, according to the Barna Research Group, a Church-based think tank, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significantly higher than for other faith groups, including atheists and agnostics.
Barna says ‘born-again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce … even more disturbing is that when those individuals experience a divorce, many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing.’
So what does this passage say about divorce?
And where is the Good News for those who are divorced?
Indeed, because there are two topics in this Gospel reading, divorce and children, and because there are doubtlessly going to be divorced, and suffering divorced people, in your church on Sunday week, you may think it is going to be an easier option to preach about the second part of this Gospel reading, thinking you might chose a topic like: ‘Let the little children come to me’ (Mark 10: 14).
The first thing is to place any reading in its context. Christ is now in Judea, or east of the Jordan, in Perea. He arrived earlier in Capernaum (Mark 9: 33) on his journey from Caesarea Philippi (8: 27) to Jerusalem. The verse preceding this reading (Mark 10: 1) sets before us a journey that involves travelling south along the east bank of the Jordan and then crossing the river near Jericho. As we join Christ and the disciples on this journey, we hear him teaching them about community life, so that we have already heard about leadership and responsibility (Mark 9: 33-50) and now we hear two anecdotes about family life (Mark 10: 2-16).
Contextually, remember that Herod Antipas was then the Roman governor of Galilee. He had divorced his wife Aretus to marry Herodias, the wife of his brother, Herod Philip. This caused such a scandal at the time that when Saint John the Baptist confronted Herod about it he was beheaded (see Mark 6: 18-19).
If Christ says is unlawful for a man to divorce his wife, does he end up like John the Baptist? If he said it is acceptable, does he contradict the teaching of the Torah and leave himself open to the charge of blasphemy?
The Pharisees were divided on the legality of divorce and on the grounds for it, so their question is a trap in another way too. They say: ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her’ (Mark 10: 4). Mosaic law allowed a man to divorce his wife (but not a woman her husband) for cause, but the grounds were unclear. Deuteronomy 24: 1 says a man may divorce his wife if he finds ‘something objectionable about her.’
To do this, a man could simply ‘write a certificate of dismissal’ (verse 4), without going through any formal legal proceedings. ‘Something objectionable’ could cover a multitude, from adultery to an eccentric hair do. Indeed, by the time of Christ, divorce was allowed for the most trivial of reasons, and was common.
However, instead of falling into their traps, Christ asks the Pharisees: ‘What did Moses command you?’ (Mark 10: 3). In other words, what does the law say? He tells them Moses allowed this ‘because of your hardness of heart’ (Mark 10: 5), although elsewhere Christ accepts that a man may divorce an unfaithful wife. He then reminds those around him of God’s original intention. Marriage is a covenant relationship in which the two people become one and live in mutual love and affection.
God’s original plan is that marriage is for life: man and wife are ‘one flesh’; my stance is God’s plan, not Mosaic law. In this plan, remarriage is either literally ‘adultery’ (verse 11-12) or a deviation from God’s ways.
The retort of Christ, ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate,’ echoes similar phrases throughout this Gospel (see Mark 2: 9; 2: 17; 2: 27; 3: 4; and 7: 15).
Of course, it would be outrageous for us to undo what God has done. But the effect of his reply is to shift the focus from what might justify divorce to the more fundamental issue: breaking apart what God has joined is to be seen as departing from God’s intention.
Does this mean, as we so often hear at weddings, that God does the joining through the person officiating at the wedding? But the background to Christ’s answer is Genesis 2: 24 and what is seen as divine order. The coming together is the joining. The real ministers at the wedding are the two people who are joining themselves to each other.
Saint Paul uses the same passage (Genesis 2: 24) in I Corinthians 6: 16 to persuade the Corinthians that they should not have sexual union with prostitutes, to become one flesh with them (see I Corinthians 6: 12-20). The assumption there and in this Gospel passage is that sexual union is part of a total union that is divinely affirmed.
Of course, this positive affirmation of human sexuality and sexual intercourse carries its own implication. Sexual union, as part of total union, is so highly valued that we should not let anything undo the union it produces and celebrates. That is worlds away from the Pharisees’ concern about defining the grounds that exist for divorce. This text seems to rule out not only divorce, but also remarriage involving either of the original partners. Saint Mark alone includes the possibility of women also divorcing. This may have been normal in non-Jewish contexts, but in Judaism it was usually a male prerogative, and cases of Jewish women initiating divorce are known but rare.
We could soften the blow in this text by arguing the Christ’s concern here is with the abuse of women and the plight they face because of divorce. But is this the primary concern here? In this passage, women’s plight is not given as the rationale, but rather a belief about sexual union. If women’s plight is really the focus, it is difficult to understand why remarriage, at least on the part of the ‘innocent’ divorced woman – or man, for that matter – is forbidden.
The most we can say is that Christ’s positive regard for all people, especially the oppressed, could easily have led him to attack cheap divorce. But is this what we find here?
Saint Matthew adds the exception clause (see Matthew 5: 31; 19: 5), reflecting the common law at the time that ruled that a partner who committed adultery must be divorced. No forgiveness is possible. For example, Joseph had no choice in that regard (see Matthew 1: 19).
Christ devotes much of his teaching time interpreting scripture in a way that gives priority to human wellbeing. For example, the Sabbath is made for us rather than we being made for the Sabbath. Similarly, we could say he is saying here that the order of marriage is made for us, not that we are made for the ordering of marriage.
Saint Paul had no difficulties in contemplating circumstances where divorce might be appropriate almost in the same breath as citing Christ’s prohibition (see I Corinthians 7: 10-16). The way Christ interprets scriptural law ought to provide a clue to how we interpret his teaching.
So, would Christ’s primary concern for human well-being result sometimes in a decision that would override what he might have said about some aspect of life at one time? Saint Paul would say yes, for he is not trying to get around strict laws, but is being realistic and caring.
Sexual union takes on enormous significance in this Sunday Gospel passage. How can we draw on Christ’s views and Saint Paul’s views as we explore human sexual fulfilment and responsibility in today’s contexts?
And on Sunday next, how would you connect the teaching about divorce with the story that follows about little children (Mark 10: 13-16)? We might remember that there is a similar story just a few verses earlier (see Mark 9: 36-37).
Mark 10: 13-16:
You might decide to opt out of dealing with the question of divorce completely, and think of just preaching on the verses about little children. The Psalm in the paired readings tells us: ‘Out of the mouths of infants and children your majesty is praised above the heavens’ (Psalm 8: 2).
But this story is easily trivialised. It is not just about being childlike. It is also about the dignity and worth of children.
Would you talk about some of the issues today, such as the rights of children, or the plight of children in emergency housing in hotels and hostels, or children in direct provision centres?
Or would you talk about some of the problems of our own day, such as the exclusion, demeaning behaviour, abuse, violation, enslavement and killing of children?
Would you challenge people to hear the cries of children in the slums, in the sweat shops, in the brothels, and the cries of children behind the bedroom doors of respectability?
Some reflections
Today, it may appear, many of us are on the side of the Pharisees on the question of divorce. While the laws may be different today, we live in a society where divorce is common. Churches and individual Christians take various views regarding divorce, but most of us accept it as a reality. Our laws and our customs, like those of the Pharisees in this Gospel story, assume that divorce happens. But here Christ appears to take a hard, uncompromising view of divorce. He says it is wrong, rooted in our sinfulness.
And that leaves us with a problem.
It is easy to think that the Adam and Eve story is about men and women since those are the characters in the story. But is that story not truly really about individuals and families, about life together, that it is better to live life together than to live life alone, and not that men are superior to women?
Marriage is a relationship that works on the principle of self-giving when all our instincts are self-serving – so, is it counter-intuitive, or is it part of the natural order?
The truth is that in many marriages life together becomes a gift that is more than we can handle. Marriages can get stale or toxic, angry or depressed. Relationships can dry up or lose focus, self-destruct, or break down under pressure. Things go wrong for far too many reasons.
A divorce is a burial for a dead marriage. Divorces do not kill marriages any more than funerals kill people. Although, one of the great tragedies today is that far too many couples are burying their relationship when it is only sick or injured.
But is it not possible that our promise to be together until death can refer to the death of the relationship as well as the death of the person?
Is it not possible to recall that the original intent of our loving and caring God who gave us the gift of marriage was to make our lives better?
Does that desire of God evaporate when we are no longer in a marriage?
Sometimes it is better not to avoid the difficult passages in the Lectionary readings. If we fail to wrestle with the difficult passages, not only can we not expect people to do it themselves, but they may also think we are shallow in our preaching, and we may even find that once we start choosing passages that we find easy for ourselves we start making God in our own image and likeness rather than seeking to be shaped in the image and likeness of God.
From the opening of this story, it is clear the Pharisees are not seeking Christ’s wisdom. Instead, they are seeking a way to entrap him. But marriage is not a matter of expediency in which the wife is the property of the husband.
But what does all this mean for us today?
Of course, the covenant of marriage is still just as valid today. Ideally, when two people marry, they commit themselves to each other in an exclusive relationship of love and devotion in a new entity.
But that is easier to say than it is to face up to reality, which includes the complexity of child-rearing, careers and competing religious, social and economic claims and responsibilities.
Ideally, we are not to live alone, but in loving and committed relationships. In an ideal world, there would be no such thing as divorce. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a fallen and broken world in which human nature always falls short of the glory of God. Whether we like it or not, divorce is a reality and we have to live with that.
Despite the best efforts by the best people, marriages fail, for any number of reasons, and that is the reality of human nature. And so, divorce is not going to go away.
So many times when people go through a divorce, the church is the last place they can turn to for help and understanding.
But divorce is like a death. It is the death of a relationship, and so people grieve, and they need sympathy and to be consoled. Would you dare chastise someone who was grieving after the death of family member?
I was reminded once by a divorced priest in the Church of Ireland that when God says: ‘I hate divorce … I hate divorce’ (Malachi 2: 16), that of course God hates divorce because he has gone through the sufferings and grieving of divorce through the faithlessness and wandering of God’s own people.
God hates divorces because God has suffered divorce.
What a profound insight.
Too often, in debates, passages of Scripture taken out of context, or one-sided interpretations of the tradition of the Church can be used to set a trap so that people are forced to accept only one standard or practice for the marriage in the world today. But in this Gospel reading, Christ responds to those who seek to trap him by refusing to accept unquestioningly their interpretation of Scripture or Tradition. Instead, he challenges those around them to think for themselves and to think with compassion.
Let us not use this reading to trap Jesus. And let us not use this reading to trap vulnerable, suffering and grieving people who remain open to loving and being loved. Instead, we should face questions about marriage and divorces, about who can be married and who can be divorced, as challenging issues that require us to think outside the box, without trying to trap Jesus or to trap those who are faced with honest questions about marriage and about divorce.
Mark 10: 2-16 (NRSVA):
2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ 3 He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 4 They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.’ 5 But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” 7 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’
10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’
13 People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. 14 But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. 15 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.’ 16 And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.
Liturgical Resources:
Liturgical Colour: Green (Ordinary Time, Year B)
The Collect:
Almighty and everlasting God:
Increase in us your gift of faith
that, forsaking what lies behind,
we may run the way of your commandments
and win the crown of everlasting joy;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Collect of the Word:
O God,
your Son has taught us
that we must receive your sovereign rule like a little child:
help us to turn to you in faith and simplicity of heart,
so that we may receive your blessing
and enter the kingdom your Son has promised;
through the same Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
All praise and thanks, O Christ,
for this sacred banquet,
in which by faith we receive you,
the memory of your passion is renewed,
our lives are filled with grace,
and a pledge of future glory given,
to feast at that table where you reign
with all your saints for ever.
Suggested Hymns:
Job 1: 1 and 2: 1-10:
638, O for a heart to praise my God
Psalm 26:
343, We love the place, O God
Genesis 2: 18-24:
618, Lord of all hopefulness, Lord of all joy
634, Love divine, all loves excelling
Psalm 8:
316, Bright the vision that delighted
6, Immortal, invisible, God only wise
362, O God beyond all praising
32, O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder
33, O Lord of every shining constellation
Hebrews 1: 1-4 and 2: 5-12:
250, All hail the power of Jesus’ name
259, Christ triumphant, ever reigning
263, Crown him with many crowns
381, God has spoken – by his prophets
696, God, we praise you! God we bless you!
94, In the name of Jesus (verses 1-3, 8)
276, Majesty! Worship his majesty!
228, Meekness and majesty (omit verse 2)
7, My God, how wonderful thou art
175, Of the Father’s heart begotten
387, Thanks to God whose Word was spoken
285, The head that once was crowned with thorns
376, Ye holy angels bright
Mark 10: 2-16:
630, Blessed are the pure in heart
318, Father, Lord of all creation
649, Happy are they, they that love God
651, Jesus, friend of little children
585, Jesus, good above all other
213, Jesus’ hands were kind hands, doing good to all
652, Lead us, heavenly Father, lead us
618, Lord of all hopefulness, Lord of all joy
543, Lord of the home, your only Son
634, Love divine, all loves excelling
524, May the grace of Christ our Saviour
361, Now thank we all our God
544, O perfect love, all human thought transcending
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
The hymn suggestions are provided in Sing to the Word (2000), edited by Bishop Edward Darling. The hymn numbers refer to the Church of Ireland’s Church Hymnal (5th edition, Oxford: OUP, 2000)
Material from the Book of Common Prayer is copyright © 2004, Representative Body of the Church of Ireland.
No comments:
Post a Comment