000 Allen FMT (i-xxii) - The Presbyterian Leader

34 Third Sunday in Lent/Year A
Sarai and Abram were chosen not for special privilege but for witness.
God chose them to be conduits of the knowledge of blessing to the wider
human community. This story is a paradigm for subsequent generations.
Given the age and circumstances of Sarai and Abram, it seemed unlikely that
these promises could come true. Yet, these two responded by doing what
God said, and discovered that God could bring about the promise. Where,
in our world, do possibilities for blessing seem unlikely? How can we
respond like Abram and Sarai by moving in response to the divine leading?
Genesis 12:1–9 is not organically related to either John 3:1–17 or
Matthew 17:1–9. However, Romans 4:1–5, 13–17, is a Pauline exegesis of
the story of Sarah and Abraham. While Paul does not directly quote from
Genesis 12, the preacher can call attention to a theme that is fundamental
both to the Priestly theologians and to Paul in Romans 4: to show that
through Sarah and Abraham God intended to bless Gentiles. Other passages
refer to Genesis 12, often with emphasis upon God blessing Gentiles, for
example, Acts 3:25; Galatians 3:6–9, 16; cf. Acts 7:4–5; Hebrews 11:8–12.
Third Sunday in Lent/Year A
Exodus 17:1–7
In the previous passage in Exodus (Proper 20/Year A), the Israelites complained
to Moses because of their hunger in the wilderness of Sin: “you have
brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger”
(Exod. 16:3). Now they demand: “Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to
kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?” (17:3). The apparent
absence of God’s care in the lack of the necessities without which life and
well-being are impossible, leads to a loss of trust in God. God’s liberation
of the people does not look so good when the result is an agonizing thirst.
The key to today’s passage is in verse 7: Moses “called the place Massah
[test] and Meribah [quarrel], because the Israelites tested the LORD,
saying, ‘Is the LORD among us or not?’” Interpretation is made difficult
because we face what appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it is difficult
not to empathize with people whose throats are parched and whose
strength is sapped because there is no water to drink. This is a perilous
condition, especially in a desert. On the other hand, it is inappropriate for
the people to stake out the conditions that God must meet if they were to
recognize that God was, indeed, present with them. This is a failure to
trust God to do for us those things which only God can do. We must admit
that we are all prone, in the midst of deep crisis, to do the same.