progressive involvement

Pentecost 14 ::: Matthew 18: 15-20

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. ¹⁶But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. ¹⁸Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.¹⁹Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. ²⁰For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’

Translation:  But if your brother or sister might sin against you, go refute him between you and him alone.  If he hears you, you regained your brother.  But if you might not be heard, take with you yet one or two so that upon two or three mouths witnessing each word might be established.  But if he might be unwilling to hear them, speak to the church, and if he refuses to listen to the church, he is to you just as a gentile or a tax collector.  Truly, I say to you, "Whatever you might bind on the earth, it will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose upon the earth will be loosed in heaven."  Again, truly I say to you that if two out of you might agree on the earth about anything they might ask, it will come to them with my Father in heaven, for where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

Background and situation:  The lection is mostly unique to Matthew with a bit of Q thrown in (see Luke 17: 3).  Obviously, conflict in the church was an issue in the community around Matthew.  Matthew has previously discussed care for children and "little ones" in 18:1-14.  In today's lection, he shifts to care for the sinful brother or sister.

The word Matthew is using for "sin" is hamartia.  The word came originally from the world of archery and means "missing the mark."  "Sin" is not limited to morality, in other words, but involves a failure to hit the target, i.e. a failure to become the people we were created to be.  Matthew gets no more specific than that. 

Matthew reaches into the Hebrew tradition--Deuteronomy 19, Leviticus 19--for guidelines on how do deal with community "friction."  The Qumran community had a similar procedure for dealing with conflict, also based in Deuteronomy 19.  Deuteronomy 19: 15ff: 

"A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing...Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.  If a malicious witness comes forward to accuse someone of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges...and the judges shall make a thorough inquiry.  If the witness is a false witness...then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other.  So you shall purge the evil from your midst."  

Toward reconciliation:  The first step in the process is to go to the person directly.  Matthew encourages honest and direct communication. 

Sadly, it must be said that most of our conflicts are not handled in this way.  Much of our communication is indirect, as in whispers to third parties, and dishonest, as in malicious gossip.  This is a very unhealthy way to communicate and almost guarantees misunderstanding and further conflict.

Churches are especially prone to this form of social unhealthiness.  People want to get word back to somebody about something or other, but don't want to face them directly, so they put their argument out to third parties who then speak to others--"...a lot of people are saying..."--and then somehow expect the pastor or the staff to make things come out right, i.e. to their way of thinking. 

The issue has an amorphous and unspecified source and quite likely becomes distorted, or, more likely, further distorted, in the course of whispered parking lot conversations.  This can roil a congregation, yet without anyone's fingerprints being on it.

Contrary to what some people think, Jesus did not call his followers to be children, but rather adults.  Adult communication is characterized by responsibility, by having something to say and taking ownership when you say it.  This is at least partly what Dietrich Bonhoeffer was talking about when he referred to "a world come of age."  In "a world come of age," people act in freedom and with autonomy while also taking responsibility for their actions.

Going to a person directly does several things:  The one who is sinned against will be on the turf of the offender.  Meeting them on their ground treats the offender with respect.  It allows them the possibility of being able to save face.

Taking the initiative and going to the offender also accepts responsibility for the condition of the relationship.  Somebody has to be first, for cryin' out loud.  The communication itself is likely to be more clear and direct.  Misunderstandings may be worked out directly in private rather than exacerbated indirectly in public. 

And yes, one is quite likely to "regain" their brother or sister.  In the vast majority of cases that I have witnessed myself, reconciliation is nearly always exactly what happens, and reconciliation is the clear goal of today's lection.

On the off-chance that step one doesn't work, however, then the rest of the Deuteronomy 19 process is to be followed.  Take witnesses so that "every word" might be verified.  If that doesn't do it, go to the church--the ekkesia, the assembly--and, if the "poor miserable sinner" won't listen to the church, the church is perfectly justified in excommunicating that person.  "Let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax collector."

Except...except that Jesus has already expanded his mission to gentiles (15: 21-28), and tradition holds that the author of the very passage we are reading was himself once a tax collector.  Treat "such a one" like you do St. Matthew? 

Is Matthew writing tongue-in-cheek?  That person may be to you, and to the church, "as a gentile and a tax collector," but then again, the assembly of Jesus never gives up on anyone and Matthew himself is a good example.  (This position is even clearer when seen in light of the following verses where Jesus tells Peter to forgive "seventy times times.")

Leviticus 19: 17 also lies behind this text--"You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin;  you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself...you shall love your neighbor as yourself."  (Our lection uses elegxo, translated as "point out the fault" in NRSV.  This is the same word the Septuagint uses in Leviticus 19, translated "reprove" in the NRSV.)

Most people are afraid of conflict, and, considering the way conflict is normally handled, it's easy to see why.  Unhealthy conflict, the kind characterized by indirect communication, often undermines and tears down.  Healthy conflict, on the other hand, is capable of building up in such a way that relationships are not only restored, but renewed and deepened.

The goal is always reconciliation motivated by love.  Each church is an "outpost" of the kingdom.  The new reign of God is to be modeled in our congregations as a sign to the world of the power of Jesus the Lord to heal wounds and end divisions.  Christ has reconciled the world to himself, and now this "ministry of reconciliation" has been given to us, said Paul. 

Bypass the priests:  There is a subtle "anti-hierarchical" bent to today's lection.  In the Deuteronomy passage, the second-stage appeal goes to the priests and judges.  In the Matthean passage, "one or two" of unspecified rank are called to be witnesses.  Score a point for egalitarianism.

Likewise, the passage exalts a high Christology.  In the time of Jesus, it was believed that whenever even a few Hebrews discussed the Torah, the divine presence--the shekinah--was with them.  In Matthew, the "two or three" are not gathered around Torah, but Jesus.  They are gathered "in my name."  Further, the shekinah is replaced with Jesus himself--"I am in the midst of them."

Lastly, the text says that "if two of you agree about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."  It goes on to say, "for where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."  Does this not anticipate the reconciliation of the wayward party?

Image:  Matthew 18:20, Anne C. Brink

 

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. ¹⁶But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. ¹⁸Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.¹⁹Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. ²⁰For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’

Translation:  But if your brother or sister might sin against you, go refute him between you and him alone.  If he hears you, you regained your brother.  But if you might not be heard, take with you yet one or two so that upon two or three mouths witnessing each word might be established.  But if he might be unwilling to hear them, speak to the church, and if he refuses to listen to the church, he is to you just as a gentile or a tax collector.  Truly, I say to you, "Whatever you might bind on the earth, it will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose upon the earth will be loosed in heaven."  Again, truly I say to you that if two out of you might agree on the earth about anything they might ask, it will come to them with my Father in heaven, for where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

Background and situation:  The lection is mostly unique to Matthew with a bit of Q thrown in (see Luke 17: 3).  Obviously, conflict in the church was an issue in the community around Matthew.  Matthew has previously discussed care for children and "little ones" in 18:1-14.  In today's lection, he shifts to care for the sinful brother or sister.

The word Matthew is using for "sin" is hamartia.  The word came originally from the world of archery and means "missing the mark."  "Sin" is not limited to morality, in other words, but involves a failure to hit the target, i.e. a failure to become the people we were created to be.  Matthew gets no more specific than that. 

Matthew reaches into the Hebrew tradition--Deuteronomy 19, Leviticus 19--for guidelines on how do deal with community "friction."  The Qumran community had a similar procedure for dealing with conflict, also based in Deuteronomy 19.  Deuteronomy 19: 15ff: 

"A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing...Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.  If a malicious witness comes forward to accuse someone of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges...and the judges shall make a thorough inquiry.  If the witness is a false witness...then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other.  So you shall purge the evil from your midst."  

Toward reconciliation:  The first step in the process is to go to the person directly.  Matthew encourages honest and direct communication. 

Sadly, it must be said that most of our conflicts are not handled in this way.  Much of our communication is indirect, as in whispers to third parties, and dishonest, as in malicious gossip.  This is a very unhealthy way to communicate and almost guarantees misunderstanding and further conflict.

Churches are especially prone to this form of social unhealthiness.  People want to get word back to somebody about something or other, but don't want to face them directly, so they put their argument out to third parties who then speak to others--"...a lot of people are saying..."--and then somehow expect the pastor or the staff to make things come out right, i.e. to their way of thinking. 

The issue has an amorphous and unspecified source and quite likely becomes distorted, or, more likely, further distorted, in the course of whispered parking lot conversations.  This can roil a congregation, yet without anyone's fingerprints being on it.

Contrary to what some people think, Jesus did not call his followers to be children, but rather adults.  Adult communication is characterized by responsibility, by having something to say and taking ownership when you say it.  This is at least partly what Dietrich Bonhoeffer was talking about when he referred to "a world come of age."  In "a world come of age," people act in freedom and with autonomy while also taking responsibility for their actions.

Going to a person directly does several things:  The one who is sinned against will be on the turf of the offender.  Meeting them on their ground treats the offender with respect.  It allows them the possibility of being able to save face.

Taking the initiative and going to the offender also accepts responsibility for the condition of the relationship.  Somebody has to be first, for cryin' out loud.  The communication itself is likely to be more clear and direct.  Misunderstandings may be worked out directly in private rather than exacerbated indirectly in public. 

And yes, one is quite likely to "regain" their brother or sister.  In the vast majority of cases that I have witnessed myself, reconciliation is nearly always exactly what happens, and reconciliation is the clear goal of today's lection.

On the off-chance that step one doesn't work, however, then the rest of the Deuteronomy 19 process is to be followed.  Take witnesses so that "every word" might be verified.  If that doesn't do it, go to the church--the ekkesia, the assembly--and, if the "poor miserable sinner" won't listen to the church, the church is perfectly justified in excommunicating that person.  "Let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax collector."

Except...except that Jesus has already expanded his mission to gentiles (15: 21-28), and tradition holds that the author of the very passage we are reading was himself once a tax collector.  Treat "such a one" like you do St. Matthew? 

Is Matthew writing tongue-in-cheek?  That person may be to you, and to the church, "as a gentile and a tax collector," but then again, the assembly of Jesus never gives up on anyone and Matthew himself is a good example.  (This position is even clearer when seen in light of the following verses where Jesus tells Peter to forgive "seventy times times.")

Leviticus 19: 17 also lies behind this text--"You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin;  you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself...you shall love your neighbor as yourself."  (Our lection uses elegxo, translated as "point out the fault" in NRSV.  This is the same word the Septuagint uses in Leviticus 19, translated "reprove" in the NRSV.)

Most people are afraid of conflict, and, considering the way conflict is normally handled, it's easy to see why.  Unhealthy conflict, the kind characterized by indirect communication, often undermines and tears down.  Healthy conflict, on the other hand, is capable of building up in such a way that relationships are not only restored, but renewed and deepened.

The goal is always reconciliation motivated by love.  Each church is an "outpost" of the kingdom.  The new reign of God is to be modeled in our congregations as a sign to the world of the power of Jesus the Lord to heal wounds and end divisions.  Christ has reconciled the world to himself, and now this "ministry of reconciliation" has been given to us, said Paul. 

Bypass the priests:  There is a subtle "anti-hierarchical" bent to today's lection.  In the Deuteronomy passage, the second-stage appeal goes to the priests and judges.  In the Matthean passage, "one or two" of unspecified rank are called to be witnesses.  Score a point for egalitarianism.

Likewise, the passage exalts a high Christology.  In the time of Jesus, it was believed that whenever even a few Hebrews discussed the Torah, the divine presence--the shekinah--was with them.  In Matthew, the "two or three" are not gathered around Torah, but Jesus.  They are gathered "in my name."  Further, the shekinah is replaced with Jesus himself--"I am in the midst of them."

Lastly, the text says that "if two of you agree about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."  It goes on to say, "for where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."  Does this not anticipate the reconciliation of the wayward party?

Image:  Matthew 18:20, Anne C. Brink

Pentecost 13 ::: Matthew 16: 21-28

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ 23But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’

 24 Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. 26For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?  27 ‘For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’

Translation:  From then on, Jesus began to show his disciples that it is necessary (for) him to depart into Jerusalem, and to suffer greatly from the pastors and chief priests and lawyers, and be surely killed, and on the third day be raised up.  And Peter, taking him aside, began to censure him, saying, "Mercy to you, Lord.  Surely this will not happen to you."  He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan.  You are a stumbling block to me for you do not understand the things of God but the things of humanity."

Then he said to his disciples, "If anyone desires to follow after me, let that one deny themselves and raise up their cross and follow me.  For if that one desires his life saved he will destroy it, but the one who might destroy his life on account of me will eventually get it.  For what will it benefit them if they might gain the whole universe but their life might suffer loss?  Or what will a person give in return for their life?"

For the son of man intends to be coming in the glory of his father with his angels, and then he will deliver each according to his doings.  Truly, I say to you, some are standing in this place, the ones who will surely not be tasting of death until they might see the son of man coming in his kingdom."

Background and situation:  Matthew recounts three episodes concerning the passion of Jesus--16: 21-28, 17: 22-33, 20: 17-19.  His source was Mark--the parallels are Mark 8:31-38, 9: 31-32, 10: 33-34.  

This section of Matthew's gospel, which began in 14:1, is characterized by increasing controversy, and a darkening mood.  The cross, which has been looming in the background ever since Herod's rampage against the innocents (2:16), now comes increasingly to the fore.

The issue of the cross:  It seems odd to say, but the cross was an issue for the people of the early church.  For Jewish Christians, to be "hung on a tree" was associated with an ancient curse.  Paul refers to it in Gal 3: 13:  "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’"  (The reference is Dt 21:23.)

That was one thing.  The other was that the Romans used crucifixions as a campaign of domestic terror against anyone plotting against Rome's interests.  It was a humiliating and gruesome way to die.  No Roman citizen could be crucified.  It was only for slaves and political rebels.  The message was clear:  This is what happens to people who rebel. Do so at your supreme peril.

The cross did not become a popular image for Christianity until the 5th century.  The earliest image of Jesus portrays him as the good shepherd, not the crucified.  The earliest known image of the cross is a piece of grafitti making fun of the very idea of the divinity dying on one.

The cross needed explanation.  Mark and Matthew have Jesus trying to break his own disciples in on the idea.  It is said here first, has to be repeated twice, and they still don't get it.  (This week's lection says Jesus "began to show" his disciples that the cross was coming, apparently with the idea that it would take some repetition.)

Mark and Matthew say:  It was not as it appears.  It was not the inglorious and humiliating death of our leader, our master, our lord, and our movement!  It was, rather, "necessary" (dei) that this happen.  The messiah is the messiah precisely because he suffers and he loses all.  (The phrase regarding "suffering" is explicit and emphasized in the Greek text.  The Greek "be killed"--apoktanthenai--carries the sense not only of death, but also annihilation and "complete perishing.")

Peter as Satan:  In Mark, both Peter's confession and his subsequent rebuke by Jesus are held together closely.  Matthew generally follows Mark, but, in this case, softens the anti-Petrine position of Mark by inserting a paragraph on the new name, Peter, that Jesus gives Simon, and then asserting Peter's central role in the church (16:13-20).  

When Jesus says that he will suffer and be killed, Peter speaks (unlike in Mark) and says:  "Mercy to you, Lord.  Surely this will not happen to you."  The NRSV has "God forbid it."  NIV has "Never, Lord!"  The word is helios, which means "mercy"--more specifically, God's mercy.  Peter is calling for God to protect Jesus.  

In Mark, Jesus is specifically said to "rebuke" Peter.  In Matthew, Jesus does not rebuke Peter.  Instead, he simply "said" to Peter:  "Get behind me, Satan"--yupage opiso mou, satana. 

The temptation to power and glory was Satan's idea in the first place (4:8).  It was the last of three temptations in the wilderness.  The temptation, we remember, was to assert divine perogative in order to make things come out well for Jesus.  (He could be the benevolent dictator of the cosmos, which, actually, most of us would favor.)  

Already in the 4th chapter, the idea of avoiding suffering and the cross so that Jesus himself would be better off is associated with the "satanic," which is why Jesus refers to Peter as satan here.  He "must" (dei) go to Jerusalem (16:21).  This is a divine imperative, and he is not to be diverted by appeals on behalf of his personal safety.

While Matthew's view of Peter is, over-all, more positive than Mark's, it should be noted that Peter does not get off the hook in Matthew.  As Peter was taking Jesus aside, Jesus "turned" and, it would appear, called Peter a "stumbling block" right to his face--from "rock" (16:18) to "stumbling block" (16:23) in only five verses!

The cross is laid on every person:  In Mark, Jesus addresses crowds at this point.  In Matthew, he addresses only the disciples.  If any want to follow Jesus, he says, they should take up "their cross."  I interpret ton stauron autou--literally, "the cross of him"--in two ways:

(1)  Earlier in Matthew, Jesus had said that his followers can expect no different fate than that of their master.  Most of chapter 10 is about the difficulties that will be faced by his followers.  

They will "hand you over" (10:16)--the same phrase will be used about Jesus when he is "handed over" to his persecutors.  They will "flog" you.  You will be hated.   "A disciple is not above the teacher," he says in 10:24.  His followers can expect the same treatment as Jesus.  

Later, in 10: 38-9, Jesus says, "And whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it."  (Those words will be stated again in this context.)

This is rather classic exhortation to a beleaguered minority.  Hang in there.  Stay loyal.  No matter how bad it gets, keep the faith! 

(2)  The word "him" (autou) is genitive--literally, "cross of him."  "Him" could refer to Jesus, in which case the reference is to the cross of Jesus.  On the other hand, the context seems to infer "him" as the individual follower--not Jesus' cross, in this case, but your own cross, the burdens that come with being a human being.  Every person has issues.  They are to be dealt with, not swept under the rug.

Take up the struggles of your life, yes, but note as well that Jesus never glorifies suffering simply for the sake of suffering.  Life is tough enough as it is.  Besides, buying in to that kind of logic is eminently a human way of thinking, to wit:  "If it takes suffering to be a great Christian, I'll be the champion sufferer of all time."  Suffering is not an achievement.  There are crosses enough in life without making them on purpose. 

The "things of God" vs. the "things of humanity":  Human standards are about striving and achieving, becoming king of the hill, or having the most money.  One should resist making a moral judgment about this.  The impulse to strive and achieve has at least some evolutionary advantage.  The ones who did so tended to survive.

That's one reason a lot of what Jesus had to say went right over peoples' heads.  He talked to them about a different way, one that was not, it appeared, in one's social or financial interests, and one that was not, it was sure, in one's survival interests.  Who helps the poor?  There's no advantage in that.  

It took some creative thinking for people to begin to realize that maybe "the way we've always done things" is not really life-giving.  It took a real leap of insight--then and (especially) now--for some of Jesus' ideas to even begin to sink in.

In human ways of thinking--the default survival mechanisms embedded in our ways of thinking and acting--the one who saves their life saves it.  The one who gains the whole universe gains the whole dang universe, and everybody else has to figure out a way to get their own universe. 

Jesus completely upends all customary conceptions of gain and loss.  True life is not in getting but in giving.  Trying to save your life--looking out for yourself--is the path of destruction.  The one who lives like Jesus--one who gives for others--will "receive" life.  Where's the benefit if you own everything, but have no life?

The promise:  Jesus is going to come with the angels "in the glory of his Father."  Power and majesty are on their way!  Oh frabjous  day!  

And when he comes, he will "repay everyone for what has been done."  Clunk.  (Or better:  Lutherans will feel a clunk.  We get neuralgic at the merest hint of any reward being given to any human effort.)   

This is not about that.  Matthew means these words as words of reassurance.  There will be a reward for the sacrifice of Jesus' disciples.  Even though there may be dark days ahead, calling for every reserve of emotional, physical, and spiritual strength, nevertheless God knows their trials, and God will reward their endurance.

The lection concludes with these puzzling words:  "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."  Matthew is writing in AD 80, or thereabouts.  He knew full well that some people had indeed died before Jesus came in the fullness of his kingdom.

He is not talking about timetables regarding the so-called second coming.  He's talking about the transfiguration of Jesus, which immediately follows, and, more broadly, the resurrection itself.  "Some standing here" would have included Peter, James, and John.  In six days--and in the very next verse!--these three of the disciples will see Jesus in his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Image:  Follow me, Anthony Falbo 

Pentecost 12 ::: Matthew 16: 13-20

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ ¹⁴And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ ¹⁵He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ ¹⁶Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’²⁰Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Translation:  But when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea of Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Who do the people say the son of man to be?"  But they said, "Certainly John the Baptist, but others Elijah, but yet others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."  He said to them, "But who do you say I am to be?"  But Simon Peter answered, saying, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."  And Jesus answered him and said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in the heavens.  And I say to you that you are Peter and on this rock, I will build up my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.  I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you might bind on the earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you release upon the earth will be released in the heavens."  Then he distinctly instructed the disciples so that they would surely not say that he is the Christ.

Background and situation:  Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of the land of Israel.  It was originally named Paneas, after the Greek god Pan, the god of music.  This far northern region was known as "the panion"--the region of Pan.  

In 198 BC, the Seleucids (the Greeks of the middle east) defeated the Ptolemies (the Greeks of Egypt) at the Battle of Panian.  This re-established Seleucid control over the region, which lasted until the Maccabean revolt about thirty years later.  The Seleucids built a monument to Pan in the city.  

Rome, of course, later conquered the entire region.  In 20 BC, Caesar Augustus gave the town to Herod the (so-called) Great.  Upon Herod's death in 4 BC, his son, Phillip, inherited the city and renamed it after Caesar and himself.  With this Roman city mentioned in the introduction to the pericope, Matthew intends the following story to be read and heard in light of Roman power. 

The main source is Mark, but Matthew adds several Matthean touches.  Where Mark has, "Who do people say me to be?" Matthew has "Who do the people say the son of man to be?"  The more formal-sounding "son of man" adds a bit of gravitas to the question.  The phrase "son of man" comes from Daniel 7--"...one like a son of man..."--which adds a typically Matthean touch of eschatology and apocalyptism.

The parallels for Matthew 16: 13-16 are Mark 8: 27-30 and Luke 9: 18-20.  The latter portion of the reading, verses 17-20, appears only in Matthew.

Who do the people say the son of man to be?  John the Baptist, Elijah, and Jeremiah are specifically named.  Jesus had obviously attracted a lot of attention and people were searching for ways to think of him.  To whom can we compare the extraordinary Jesus of Nazareth?  He is like John the Baptist or Elijah! 

The mention of John the Baptist is quite clear.  His name is preceded by the Greek word men which means "truly" or "certainly," hence my translation:  "Certainly John the Baptist."  (In 14: 2, Herod Antipas--Philip's brother--had said that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead.)

This again underlines Jesus' continuity with the ministry of John the Baptist, this despite the fact that the actual message of Jesus was quite different from, though not necessarily in conflict with, the message of John. 

In political terms, one suspects that Jesus was an early follower of John's, but branched off at some point, drawing some supporters away from John--Andrew, for example.  Then, when John was killed, many of his followers moved to Jesus.  (Some of John's supporters continued in John's name.  To this day, there is a group called the Mandeans, located now in southern Iraq, who trace their "religious lineage" to John the Baptist.)   

Elijah was the classic prophet, and, like Jesus, was from northern Israel.  Elijah is also an eschatological figure.  In fact, the very last two verses of the Old Testament, Malachi 4: 5-6, say:  "Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes."

Matthew adds "Jeremiah."  (Jeremiah is not mentioned in Mark or Luke.)  The inclusion of the "suffering prophet" makes sense.  Jeremiah and Jesus have some important connections.  Both opposed the religious and political establishment of their day, and both suffered for it.

Jesus says, "OK, that's the talk at the filling station and the grocery store, but what do you think?"  Peter answers, "You are the Christ."  For a more complete identification of Jesus as "son of man" and "messiah (xristos)," Matthew adds to Mark, "the son of the living God."  

The phrase "living God" asserts God as the source of life and the Life Principle itself.  (See Hosea 1:10:  "...in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people’, it shall be said to them, ‘Children of the living God.’")  

Peter's "confession" is not the first.  The disciples had proclaimed Jesus as "son of God" when Jesus stilled the storm, and saved Peter from a dose in the drink.  Then, all the disciples had said, "Truly, you are the son of God" (14:33).  Peter's "confession" is the first, however, to be made by a named individual in Matthew.  

"Blessed" Peter:  In the first use of makarioi since the beatitudes, Jesus calls Peter "blessed."  (Don't get too excited.  He calls him "satan" in just a few verses.)  Jesus also identifies him as "Simon, son of Jonah."  In the fourth gospel, however, Simon is called "son of John."  Perhaps bariona (son of Jonah) is a variant of ioannes (John). 

More likely, in my view, is the use of "Jonah" as an image of resurrection.  As Jonah was three days in the whale, so Jesus would be three days in the earth (12:40).  To call Simon Peter the "son of Jonah" was another way of calling him a "son of the resurrection."  It is with eyes informed by God's power that Peter is able to make his confession.  Jesus says as much when he says that "flesh and blood" has not informed Peter, but rather direct revelation from God.

On this basis, Jesus gives Peter another name and title, that of "Petros," or "rock."  This recalls Old Testament figures, such as Abram and Jacob, who were likewise given new names.  As God can give new names, so can Jesus.  This is yet another way that Matthew affirms Jesus' equality with God.

"Petros," incidentally, was not used as a person's name in those days.  It was simply the word for "rock"--in this case, not so much a name but a title.  "You are rock, and on this rock, I will build my church."

Roman Catholics say that Jesus means to confer primacy upon Peter.  They then go from that to saying that Peter was the first Pope, and that all subsequent Popes are "Peter" as well--all of them "vicars of Christ" on earth, as Jesus himself said.  

Protestants counter that Jesus was not referring to Peter the man, but rather to Peter's "confession."  That "confession"--not Peter himself--is the "rock" upon which the church is built.

As to Matthew's intent, I agree with the Catholics.  The plain sense of the passage is that "rock" refers to Peter, not his supposed "confession."  Frankly, you'd have to go through some serious mental paroxysms to make "rock" refer to Peter's words and not himself. 

On the other hand, the primary source, Mark, has nothing about Peter being a "rock."  Considering Mark's view of the disciples as a whole, and Peter in particular, such an assertion would be laughable.  All the disciples are clueless in Mark's gospel, and Peter is the most clueless of all. 

Verses 17-20 appear only in Matthew.  Matthew clearly added it in.  Why?  My view:  The church to which and for which Matthew was writing felt threatened on two fronts:  the rise of gentile Christianity (Paul), and the increasing friction between Christians and Jews.  

Jewish/Christian conflict was minimal prior to the Roman-Jewish War.  Then, most Christians were Jews.  After the war, however, each side tended to blame the other and relations began to break apart.  

This was especially true in the north of Israel where many refugees from the war settled, and local pharisees took the lead in organizing their communities.  It was in this region, and during this time, that followers of Jesus were kicked out of synagogues.  (Matthew's church is likely in this region, and these evictions began to happen during the time of his writing.  One notices that Matthew had nothing good to say about pharisees.)     

Matthew may be promoting Peter because Peter was associated with what you might call "the Jewish wing of Christianity."  As leader of the disciples, and thoroughly Jewish, Peter might have had special appeal for Matthew's Jewish Christian community.  (Moreover, Peter, Jesus' right-hand man, is more than a match for Paul.)

There were several major factions within the early catholic church--the gentile Christians associated with the ministry of Paul, the community of the Beloved Disciple, the "Jewish Christians," another "dissident" faction represented by the community around "Mark," and the "head office" in Jerusalem.  (That's for starters.  Several other groups, some now considered heretical--the ebionites and the proto-gnostics, for example--also considered themselves followers of Jesus.)

There was some friction in all of this.  This is not to say that these factions were enemies of each other.  That would be too strong.  In the fourth gospel, the Beloved Disciple, for example, has some things to say about Peter, but never is there a sense that relationship had been broken between the two.  Mark is likewise quite critical of Peter, but nevertheless always recognizes Peter as the leader of the disciples--(not that that's particularly a good thing, in Mark's view).

The "gates of Hades":  The word ekklesia--"church"--literally means "the called-out gathering."  It recalls the worshipping community at Mount Zion at the end of time.  Precisely because it is an end-times image, and because Jesus identifies the church as "my church," death has no power over it.  "Church" assumes resurrection.

"Hades" was the Greek god of the underworld.  It sometimes translates the Hebrew word sheol, which was a vague and shadowy place that was the abode of the dead.  In general Biblical usage, it refers to the grave, or even hell.  In Greek mythology, Hades, along with Zeus and Poseidon, claimed to rule the cosmos.

Jesus isolates Hades in the underworld, however, and asserts that its "gates" will not prevail against the church.  We often take this to mean that the assaults of hell cannot doom the church.  Gates, however, are a stationary image.  They do not attack;  they defend.  Pardon the martial language, but, in the power of the resurrection, the church does not defend against hell, but rather attacks and defeats it.

The reference to "keys" recalls Isaiah 22:  "...and I will place on his shoulder (Eliakim, in this case) the key of the house of David."  Binding and loosing also recalls Isaiah:  "...he shall open, and none shall shut;  he shall shut, and none shall open (22:22)." 

John Meier says that "binding and loosing," seen in the context of rabbinic sources, means the authority to decide between what is permissable and not permissable, or also even to include or exclude people from the community.  It may indeed have been Matthew's agenda to devolve that authority onto Peter. 

The "messianic secret":  Why would Jesus tell people not to say anything about him?  Why the so-called "messianic secret"? 

It could have been what we call "reverse psychology," i.e. tell people not to something, and they'll fall all over themselves to try to do it.  This is indicated by Mark 7:36: "Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it."  

Another reason may be that, as of yet, we only know part of the story.  We have heard authoritative teaching from Jesus--the Sermon on the Mount!--and have been told of his miracles and majestic power.  We have not yet been through his death and resurrection.  Then, his authority and ministry will be affirmed and ratified by God himself in the most powerful way possible.  (Indeed, Matthew says he will have "all authority".)  Until then, better not to say anything at all than to tell only half the story. 

Yet another possibility is that Jesus was opposed by the various authorities of the day, and just maybe he didn't want them to know what he was doing or where he was going.

Image:  St. Peter the Aleut, Fr. Ray Bucko  

Pentecost 11 ::: Matthew 15: 1-28

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ²‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.’³He answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴For God said, “Honour your father and your mother,” and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.”⁵But you say that whoever tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God”, then that person need not honour the father.  ⁶So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. ⁷You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: 
⁸“This people honours me with their lips,
   but their hearts are far from me; 
⁹in vain do they worship me,
   teaching human precepts as doctrines.” ’

Translation:  Then pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus, saying, "In this, why do your disciples go by the side of the instruction of the elders, for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." But he answered them saying, "And in this, why do you go by the side of the commandment of God because of your instruction of elders, for God said, 'Honor the father and the mother' and 'The one speaking evil of father and mother will die completely.'  But you say that whoever says to the father and the mother, 'A gift from me by which you might have been assisted,' that person will not honor his father;  you have rendered void the word of God because of the instruction of your elders.  Hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied beautifully about you, saying, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  In vain they worship me, teaching precepts of men.'"

Background and situation:  The context for understanding the story of the Canaanite woman's encounter with Jesus is contained in the first twenty verses of the text.  In this section, Jesus counters a pharisaic argument, goes them one better, then abrogates all food laws, the major barrier to inclusion of gentiles.  With exquisite timing, the (gentile) Canaanite woman then bursts upon the scene.

The original source is Mark (7: 1-12), though, as John Meier puts it, "Matthew abbreviates, adds to, and inverts the Markan text."  That's because Matthew has similar priorities, but takes a somewhat different tack to advance his argument.

Rabbinical argumentation:  Chapter 15 begins with an investigative team which has been sent out from the head office in Jerusalem to look into the "transgressing"--parabainousin--of the oral law.  An "oral law" is a law not contained in the scriptures themselves but rather one that was formulated by the early pharisees.  The particular one mentioned here stipulated that hands should be washed before eating in order for people to purify themselves from any object they might have touched that was unclean.

The pharisees, incidentally, claimed that, in addition to the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, God had also given an "oral law" to Moses, an "oral law" which only they, the pharisees, knew. 

In true rabbinical style, Jesus counters their argument by accusing them of "transgressing"--same word--not merely oral tradition, but the very "commandment of God".  These pharisees are not breaching some "oral law" of the pharisees' own definition, but breaking a commandment of God, a commandment recognized by every faction within Judaism as being part of the "ten words," what we call the "ten commandments."  

The specific commandment Jesus has in mind is the injunction to honor father and mother.  Jesus then refers to the practice of someone dedicating property to the temple, and thus withdrawing it from 'secular' use."  This would have the effect of not letting your parents benefit from its value.  (The Greek phrase is difficult, but it means something like:  "A gift from me (to God) by which you (the parents) might have been assisted.")

It is a deft argument.  Who would not put the needs of their parents above the financial needs of the already rich Temple?  Moreover, it puts the pharisees on the side of the argument that must have made them uncomfortable.  The pharisees, too, were critical of certain practices of the Temple.  Jesus' rejoinder has manuevered them onto the same side as the Sadducees and the wealthy families of Jerusalem.

This is yet another variation on a common theme of Jesus, namely:  That ritual and religious actions are, or should be, over-ruled by compassion and mercy.  In this case, the compassion and mercy is on behalf of one's own parents.  

Matthew ups the ante from Mark.  Mark says that the commandment about honoring parents comes from Moses, but Matthew says the pharisees, by making mere oral traditions more important than the law of God, have "voided" the word of God in scripture. 

Then, Jesus launches into a rousing condemnation of the pharisees--"hypocrites," he called them, and topped it off by citing the prophet Isaiah about the nature of hypocrisy, which is saying one thing while their heart, their understanding of reality, is in a different place.  Their worship means nothing--mere "vanity"--because they teach human traditions.  Matthew has found the pharisees wanting both in terms of law and prophets.

Preparing the way for inclusion of gentiles:  

10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, ‘Listen and understand: ¹¹it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.’ ¹²Then the disciples approached and said to him, ‘Do you know that the Pharisees took offence when they heard what you said?’ ¹³He answered, ‘Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. ¹⁴Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind.  And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.’ ¹⁵But Peter said to him, ‘Explain this parable to us.’ ¹⁶Then he said, ‘Are you also still without understanding? ¹⁷Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? ¹⁸But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. ¹⁹For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. ²⁰These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.’

Translation:  And he called the crowd to him and said to them, "Hear and comprehend:  It is not what goes into the mouth that renders a person unclean, but what comes out of a mouth that renders unclean."  Then, drawing near, the disciples said to him, "Do you know that the pharisees, hearing the word, were scandalized?"  But he answered, saying, "Every plant which my father in heaven has not planted will be uprooted.  Forgive them.  The blind ones are leaders of the blind.  If a blind one might lead another blind one, both will fall into a pit."  But Peter answered him saying, "Explain to us this parable."  But he said, "And you do not have understanding?  Do you not perceive that all that goes into the mouth proceeds into the belly and is cast out into the toilet?  But the things that come out of the mouth come forth from the heart and this makes the man unclean.  For out the heart comes evil intentions, murder, adultery, illicit sex, theft, false witness, slander.  These are what defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

At this point, Jesus summons the crowds, saying, "Hear, and bring this together in your minds:  Not food going in, but evil coming out is what defiles a person."  Defilement meant being unfit for fellowship with God and his people.  Only evil can do this, Jesus says, and certainly not food. 

The disciples came to Jesus and told him that the pharisees had totally freaked when they heard what Jesus had just said.  One senses worry on the part of the disciples.  After all, Jesus has just said that what you eat doesn't matter. The pharisees would have been stunned at the very idea.  The disciples themselves must have considered this exceedingly dangerous territory upon which to tread.  They report that the pharisees are "scandalized."  

The pharisees were indeed "scandalized" because they immediately, and correctly, understood what Jesus had done.  Not only had Jesus undermined the necessity of washing hands as mere oral tradition, which, from their perspective, was bad enough, but he seemed to use that as a swingboard for something far more sweeping, the setting aside of all the food laws. 

The food laws, unlike oral tradition, were actually in scripture.  Not only that, the food laws were among the most central aspects of Judaism. 

This was a necessary step, however, because the food laws created an absolute barrier to contact with gentiles.  In order to reach out to gentiles, something would have to be done about the food laws, so Jesus cancelled them out entirely.  Having done this, the stage is now set for outreach to gentiles.

In response to the worry of the pharisees (and disciples), Jesus, cryptically, tells the disciples not to worry too much because what God plants will last, and what God doesn't plant will be uprooted. The church at the time of Matthew's writing (c. AD 80) would have understood this to mean that the church, the community of Jesus, was the planting of God, but pharisaic rabbinical Judaism--the tradition that won the power struggle in Judaism after the fall of the Temple in AD 70--was not the planting of God.

But don't worry about it too much, Jesus says.  In fact, "forgive them."  (The NRSV translates aphete as "let them go," which is probably about right, but I'm of the view that aphete ought to be translated as "forgive" where possible.)  Let them go.  Forgive them.  They are merely the blind leading the blind.

Peter wants an explanation.  Matthew changes Mark again here.  Where Mark says the disciples ask the question, Matthew makes it Peter, which is consistent with the generally prominent role played by Peter throughout Matthew's gospel. 

Jesus focuses on the mouth.  What goes in the mouth proceeds on through the body.  What comes out of a mouth comes from the heart and proceeds out into the world where it does evil.  (Jesus appears to anticipate Freud's formulation of the id by about 1800 years.)

The sins Jesus ticks off basically follow the order of the Ten Commandments, except that illicit sex and lying both get mentioned twice.  These are real problems and real offenses, says Jesus, not like something as insignificant as whether or not you washed your hands.

Inclusion of the gentiles:

21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. ²²Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’²³But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ ²⁴He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ ²⁵But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ ²⁶He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ ²⁷She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ ²⁸Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly.

Translation:  And leaving that place, Jesus went back to the region of Tyre and Sidon.  And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came forth (and) cried out, saying, "Have mercy for me, Lord, Son of David, my daughter is possessed by a bad demon."  But he did not answer her a word.  And his disciples came requesting him, saying, "Send her away for she cries out after us."  He answered, saying, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  But she came and knelt to him, saying, "Lord, help me."  He answered saying, "It is not excellent to take the bread of children and throw to the dogs."  But she said, "Yes, Lord, and for the dogs eat from the crumbs, the ones falling from the table of their lords."  Then Jesus answered and said to her, "Woman, your faith is great.  Let it happen for you as you desire."  And her daughter was healed from that hour.

Having cleared the way for contact with gentiles by removing the largest barrier toward their inclusion, Jesus went to gentile territory.  Tyre and Sidon were both ancient phoenician ports.  After Alexander's conquest, c. 332 BC, Tyre became a predominantly Greek city.

"Behold!" says Matthew.  A woman seems to burst on the scene, crying out the correct liturgical words:  Kyrie eleison, "Lord, have mercy on me."  She even tops it off with "Son of David," an acknowledgement that she recognizes Jesus as Jewish, perhaps even the Jewish messiah.

Mark has "syrophoenician" woman, which Matthew changes to "Canaanite."  The Canaanites were the ones living in the land of Israel when Joshua led the Hebrews into what, for them, was the Promised Land.  For the temerity of resisting this intrusion, the Canaanites became bitter enemies of the Hebrews.

But that had been long before.  Several centuries had passed since the Canaanite-Hebrew struggles.  The word "Canaanite" had long fallen out of general use.  Matthew deliberately resurrects that word in order to underline the outsider status of the woman--not only is she a woman, not only a foreigner, not only unclean, but an ancient enemy besides!

Jesus did not answer her a word--nothing, zip, nada.  (In the honor/shame culture of that time, acknowledging the woman would also acknowledge that she had some kind of claim on you.)  The disciples are often troubled by these kinds of interruptions and their default position always seems to be to get rid of the interruption.  Naturally, they want to send the woman away.

Jesus responds with a statement that sounds formulaic:  "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  It reads like a formal statement of self-understanding.  The woman replies with a plea from the heart.  She falls to her knees and begs, "Lord, help me!"

Jesus is not yet moved.  Jews of the day often referred to gentiles as dogs, and Jesus does so here.  "It is not good--kalos--to take the bread of children and throw it to the dogs."  Ouch! 

In his version of this story, Mark says, "Let the children be fed first," which implies that maybe, just maybe, there might be some bread for others.  Matthew drops this introductory sentence, which makes Jesus' remark come across even harsher than in Mark.

The woman, however, will not be dismissed so easily.  "Yes, Lord," she says, appearing to agree with Jesus.  She even appears to grant the primacy of Israel.  Then, however, she moves beyond that to turn Jesus' analogy in her own direction.  Let's go with that table image, she says.  Eventually, some crumbs are going to fall to the floor.  We'll take those.

Jesus responds.  For the first time, he is now said to be speaking directly "to her".  He says, "Woman, great is your faith."  This is the only time in Matthew's gospel where anyone's faith is termed "great."  The disciples (read:  the church) are quite regularly informed that they are people of "little faith."  But the Canaanite, the ancient enemy, the foreigner, the woman--her faith is megale, "great."  Her daughter was healed "from that hour." 

It is the only time in scripture that Jesus loses an argument, and he loses it to a woman who was a triple loser herself--woman, foreigner, and ancient enemy.

Image:  Young Canaanite Woman, Abdel Rahman Al Muzain, 1979.

Pentecost 10 ::: Matthew 14: 22-33

Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.²³And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, ²⁴but by this time the boat, battered by the waves, was far from the land, for the wind was against them. ²⁵And early in the morning he came walking towards them on the lake. ²⁶But when the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified, saying, ‘It is a ghost!’ And they cried out in fear. ²⁷But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’

Translation:  "And immediately, he compeled the disciples to cast into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side while he dismissed the crowds.  Dismissing the crowds, he went up into the mountain and by himself to pray.  When evening happened, he was alone there.  But now, the boat was many stadia away from the land, tortured by the waves, for they were against the wind.  But at the fourth watch of the night, he came to them walking on the sea.  But the disciples, seeing him walking on the sea, were troubled, saying, 'It is a ghost!' and they cried out from fear.  But immediately, Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'Take heart, I am.  Do not be afraid.'"

Background and situation:  We are in "book four" of Matthew's gospel, a section which is concerned with church and controversy.  (The book of Matthew has five sections, modeled on the five books of Torah.  Throughout Matthew, Jesus is presented as the "new Moses," an authoritative teacher.)

Book four began with the death of John the Baptist (14:1-13), which was followed by the first feeding story in Matthew (14:14-21).  Our lection follows.  Mark is the source for Matthew 14: 22-27--the parallel is Mark 6: 45-50.  The remainder of the passage is unique to Matthew. 

Several Peter stories, which appear nowhere else in the four gospels, are contained in this section.  This seems curious:  In Mark's gospel, the disciples, and especially Peter, never do anything right.  In Matthew's gospel, which generally follows Mark quite closely, Peter looks a lot better. 

In fact, it is in "book four" of Matthew that Peter is acclaimed the "rock" and given "the keys to the kingdom."  In the leadership struggles of the early church, it appears that Matthew has done an about-face from his primary source, Mark, and is promoting a pro-Petrine point of view.

This would make sense for Matthew's agenda.  Matthew is writing from a Jewish Christian point of view, a view that, by AD 80, was becoming increasingly endangered.  (Indeed, Jewish Christianity would eventually die out.)  Peter is both Jewish and the leader of Jesus' disciples, which makes him a good candidate to represent Matthew's Jewish-Christian perspective.

How Jesus responds to the death of John the Baptist in Matthew:  Note the stunning turn of events that has taken place in only 21 verses:  John the Baptist has been killed.  His head winds up on a silver platter at an extravagant banquet held by Herod Antipas.  

The people turn to Jesus for leadership (14: 13-21).  Jesus likewise hosts an extravagant banquet, though a much different one that that provided by Herod--his for the many, Herod's for the few; his of love, Herod's of violence.

The feeding of the many is a paradigm for the new life offered by Jesus, one that is in marked contrast with the old ways of Herod.  The feeding also helps to establish Jesus' authority in the wake of John's death.  

In this week's lection, Jesus compels the disciples to get into the boat and go ahead to "the other side."  Jesus then goes to a mountain, by himself, to pray.  Jesus apparently stayed on the mountain through the night and into the early morning.

Keeping that context in mind, note that three things are mentioned twice in our short lection of 11 verses:  (1) dismissing the crowds, (2) praying on the mountain, and (3) walking on the sea.

Dismissing the crowds is an act of authority.  Not just anybody had standing to do so.  That the dismissal of the crowds is mentioned twice is a way of underlining the authority of Jesus.  He tells them what to do, and they do as he says.  

Mountains are a place of special revelation in Matthew's gospel.  That Jesus is said to be there twice adds to his mystique as a spiritual leader--he is close to God.  The mention of mountains also accentuates the particular difficulty of operating in the wake of the death of the Baptist.  Jesus needed time away, time to think and pray.  In Matthew's gospel, Jesus is said to be in prayer only here and at Gethsemene (26: 36-44), occasions both fraught with special dangers.

Likewise, the phrase "walking on the sea" is mentioned twice.  This recalls Psalm 77: 19:  "Your way was through the sea, your path, through the mighty waters; yet your footprints were unseen."  Jesus appears "lordly" and in charge.  Indeed, in the verses immediately following our lection, one could be healed merely by touching the fringe of his coat (14:36).    

Allegory of the church:  In this highly symbolic story, the disciples are out in the boat when a storm comes up, and they are "tortured"--basanizominon--by the waves.  

The boat is a symbol of the church.  Navis is where we get our word for both "nave"--the sanctuary of a church--and "navy."  To this day, many church sanctuaries are built in the shape of upside-down boats, particularly in traditions where seafaring has been a prominent feature of life.

The boat of the church faces difficulty from evil, which is represented by the tormented sea in the middle of the night.  The church was "sailing against the wind."

If Matthew was writing AD 80-85, which is the general consensus, that may have been how Matthew saw the situation facing the church at that time.  The land was trying to recover from the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  In AD 80, the church was still rather small and fragile, facing threats both internal and external.  Feeling adrift in the "waters of chaos" would make sense for a nascent movement in that situation.

The image of the restless sea, buffeted by winds and rain, was a rich one in ancient Israel.  The Book of Genesis tells of chaos in the beginning of creation--the creation was "without form and void."  Genesis describes the act of creation as God bringing order out of watery chaos.

Ancient Israel had a primordial fear of these "waters of chaos."  They feared that this chaos might again engulf the world and undo the order that God had imposed upon creation.  (It was important, then, to help God keep the "waters of chaos" in check, which one could do by living according to Torah.)

During the "fourth watch," which was from 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.--the deepest part of the night, in other words--Jesus came walking on the sea toward the beleaguered church.  

The disciples were "agitated"--etaraxthesan, or "troubled," "disturbed"--and they believe they're seeing a ghost--Fantasma estin!  They "screamed because of fear."  It is at this point, when fear in the face of difficulty threatens to overtake the church, that Jesus lets them know that it is him.  Tharseite--"Take heart," or perhaps "Have courage," Jesus says.

Why should they "take heart"?  Because, Jesus says, "Ego eimi"--"I am," which is the Greek version of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, YHWH, which is the divine name of God (Ex 3: 14).  The Lord God took control of the "waters of chaos."  By walking on the water, Jesus likewise demonstrates his power over the forces of nature.  The power of Jesus is the same as God's power.  Therefore, church:  "Do not be afraid."

Peter walks on water too, sort of: 

28 Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ ²⁹He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came towards Jesus. ³⁰But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’ ³¹Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’ ³²When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. ³³And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’

Translation:  "But Peter answered him, saying, 'Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water."   But he said, 'Come.'  And going down from the boat, Peter walked upon the water and he came to Jesus.   Seeing the mighty wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, 'Lord, save me.'  And immediately, Jesus stretched forth the hand, taking hold of him, and saying to him, 'You little faith, why did you doubt?'  And when they went up into the boat, the wind ceased.  The ones in the boat worshipped him, saying, 'Truly, you are son of God.'"

To this point, Matthew has been following Mark (6: 45-50).  Now, he switches to his own source, generally called "Special Matthew," i.e. the stories only Matthew tells. 

Peter addresses Jesus as "Lord"--kyrie.  Score one for Peter.  He gets the title right.  Peter wants to be able to do what Jesus does, and he asks to be commanded to do it.  Jesus says simply, "Come."  Peter climbs down out of the boat, and the text straight-forwardly says that Peter did indeed walk on the water.

Even then, however, it is not the same as what Jesus had done.  Peter walks on water--udata--while Jesus walks on the sea--thalassan.  Matthew is being careful to put Peter at least at one remove from what Jesus himself is capable of doing.

Then, in a poetic and insightful phrase, Peter "sees"--blepone--"the mighty wind."  He didn't feel it;  he saw it.  "Seeing" means that he understands the situation.  The church is buffeted by the mighty winds of internal and external opposition.

Peter succumbs to fear, and starts to sink.  He cries out to Jesus.  This has universal application.  In the face of the real difficulties of following Jesus, the Christian becomes afraid, begins to be engulfed, and cries out to Jesus for help.  (See also 8:23-27, also a story of a storm on the lake, where, likewise, the disciples cry out, "Lord, save us.")  

Immediately, Jesus "stretched forth the hand," which is reminiscent of YHWH in Psalm 18: 16--"He reached down from on high, he took me; he drew me out of mighty waters"--and Psalm 144: 7:  "Stretch out your hand from on high; set me free and rescue me from the mighty waters."

Jesus then "takes hold" of Peter, and, while still out on the sea, calls Peter a "person of little faith," one who becomes fearful in the face of crisis.  In Matthew's gospel, the disciples are referred to as being "people of little faith" five times.   

Compare that with the story of the Canaanite woman in the next chapter (15: 21-28).  Matthew resurrects the word "Canaanite"--the word had not been used for hundreds of years.  Matthew wants to associate the foreign woman as being an ancient enemy of Israel. 

Yet, by the end of the story, Jesus calls her faith "great."  What a contrast between the "great" faith of the foreign woman and the "little" faith of the church!

When Jesus and Peter get back into the boat, the wind ceased.  All is safe when Jesus is present with his church in times of difficulty.  The disciples worshipped and said, "Truly, you are son of God."

Pentecost 9 ::: Matthew 14: 13-21

Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns.¹⁴When he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them and cured their sick.

Translation:  "Hearing, Jesus withdrew from that place in a boat into a deserted place by himself, and hearing, the crowd followed him on foot from the towns.  And going out, he saw a large crowd and was moved with compassion for them and healed their illnesses."

Background and situation:  Matthew organized his book into five major sections.  His agenda is to present Jesus as the New Moses (who is also greater than Moses).  If Moses had five books, so would Jesus.  

Book Three of Matthew's gospel had centered on teaching and parables (13: 1-53).  Book Four, the major theme of which is Jesus' formal expression of his coming passion, opened with Jesus' difficulties at Nazareth (13:54-58), and the death of John the Baptist (14: 1-12).

Our text opens with "when Jesus heard this."  "This" refers to the death of John the Baptist, assassinated by Herod Antipas, the ruler of the Galilee region, and the son of Herod the (so-called) Great.  On hearing the news, Jesus withdrew to a "deserted place"--eiremos--somewhere on the lake.  He needed to ponder his next moves in light of this new and disturbing information.

The original source is Mark--see Mark 6: 30-42.  

Jesus takes center stage:  The crowd, also "hearing," made their decision immediately.  In the wake of the death of the popular leader, John, the people rally to Jesus. 

Jesus was moved by their plight--"he had compassion for them."  The word translated as "compassion" is esplagxnisthe, a word indicating great depth of feeling, an exceptionally strong form of compassion.  Jesus' compassion issues in healings--he "cured their sick."  In the new reign of God, healings break out.

Matthew's source is Mark, but Matthew makes a few changes to Mark.  Mark, like Matthew, has two feeding stories.  The first, Mark 6, is about the incorporation of Jews into the New Community.  The second feeding story, Mark 8, is about the incorporation of gentiles into the New Community.   

Matthew's agenda is different.  Matthew's first feeding story takes place on the shores of a lake.  The second is on a mountain.  Both groups fed were, apparently, predominantly Jewish.  Galilee had a mix of Jews and gentiles, as well as a mix of different strains within Judaism.

Matthew makes a few other changes.  Mark has the disciples get in the boat with Jesus.  In Matthew, Jesus goes off by himself.  He is set apart.  Matthew leaves out Mark's comment that the crowds were like "sheep without a shepherd."  Matthew has already used that line (9: 36).  Instead of teaching them, as in Mark, Jesus heals diseases.

Incidentally, there is a bit of a play on words here.  "Hearing" about John, Jesus went off by himself in a boat--ploio--while the crowds, also "hearing," followed him on foot--paxe.  Also, they followed him on foot from the towns. 

Jesus spent very little time in cities.  His connection was nearly entirely with people in towns and villages.  Why?  Were cities dangerous?

Get your food from the store:

¹⁵When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a deserted place, and the hour is now late; send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ ¹⁶Jesus said to them, ‘They need not go away; you give them something to eat.’ ¹⁷They replied, ‘We have nothing here but five loaves and two fish.’ ¹⁸And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’ ¹⁹Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. ²⁰And all ate and were filled; and they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. ²¹And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Translation:  "When it became evening, the disciples came to him and said, 'This is a deserted place and the hour is now passing by.  Release the crowds so that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.'  Jesus said to them, 'They do not need to go away.  You give to them to eat.'  But they said to him, 'We have nothing here except five loaves and two fish.'  He said to them, 'Carry them here to me.'  And he ordered the crowds to lay down upon the green grass.  Taking the five loaves and two fish, he looked up into heaven, he blessed, he broke, he gave the loaves to the disciples, and these the disciples to the crowds.  And all ate and were satisfied.  And they took up what was left over, twelve baskets full.  And the ones who ate were about five thousand men and women and children."

The disciples can't help themselves, and unwittingly reveal that they think in terms of the old paradigm.  They go to Jesus and say the crowds are here, it's late, and we don't have food.  Let the people go participate in the regular market system to get food for themselves.  The word agorasosin means something like "hang out at the marketplace and do business there."  The disciples encourage "business as usual."  They want to participate in the system.

Jesus says explicitly, "They do not need--ou xreian exousin--to go away.  In fact, you--you disciples--give them something to eat."  The disciples have five loaves and two fish, which might have been just enough to feed about 13 people.  It was customary for people to carry a ration of food with them, and this was probably about the daily ration for the disciples and Jesus. 

A "deserted place" with "green grass":  Jesus wants the loaves and fish to be brought to him, then ordered the people to lie down on the green grass--xortou, a word associated with grazing and food.  They were in a "deserted place"--eiremos, which is also translated as "wilderness," or even "desert."  Where did the "green grass" come from?  It's a sign of the new reign of God.  In God's kingdom, the desert becomes a place that can sustain life.

The people sit down.  Matthew changes Mark on this point.  Where Mark has them sitting down in ranks of 50's and 100's, like the Hebrews of old in the wilderness, or perhaps like a military formation, Matthew says nothing like this. 

One wonders, too, what happened to the fish?  In Mark, the fish are also "divided among them all," but at the point of giving the food to the disciples, Matthew mentions only bread, perhaps an underlining of the eucharistic association of the meal.

The scene obviously recalls the eucharist.  Jesus "looked up to heaven," a move which is still done by some priests, even though the actual language of the eucharist (1 Cor 11) does not include it.  Then, "he blessed, he broke, he gave the loaves to the disciples."  This is eucharistic language.

One feast compared with another:  This "good eucharist" follows what what you might call a "negative eucharist"--Herod's "black mass." 

Herod Antipas threw a great party--a sumptuous feast, no doubt, although Matthew does not mention the meal itself.  The only thing mentioned as being on a platter was the head of John the Baptist.  Herod's feast is for the few, the big shots and the rich, and is accompanied by violence.

Jesus' feast is egalitarian, for "the crowds."  It is preceded by compassion, not followed by violence.  It is not a sumptuous feast, but "all ate and were filled."  Moreover, the feast is faciliated by the active role of the disciples.  They are the ones who actually give the bread to the crowds.

The other issue relates to the food itself.  A good chunk of the law of Moses had to do with food.  You had to know where the food came from and what was in it.  You can do that by actually being in the kitchen preparing, or watching it being prepared, or you can trust the host to make sure that the food is appropriate. 

The people receiving food from Jesus, by way of the disciples, had no way of knowing if they should really eat it.  Yet, Matthew gives no hint that the crowd had any reservations.  Though not stated directly, their trust in Jesus is implicit.

Secondly, there's no way that 5000 men--and another few thousand women and children (not mentioned in Mark)--would sit down and eat dinner with just anybody.  Total strangers provided this food, which was handed to the disciples, who handed it off to yet others.  Who knows how many other hands touched it before it came to you?  Who knows what those hands had touched before they touched the bread?  Eat impure food, and you would be impure too.

Yet, at Jesus' meal, all these considerations are apparently tossed overboard.  They ate the bread, with each other, in the company of each other, without regard to status, wealth, or the alleged "purity" of their compatriots.  There was enough left over to fill 12 fairly large baskets--one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Image:  Dan Erlander

 

Pentecost 8 ::: Matthew 13: 31-33, 44-52

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; ³²it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.’

He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.’

 Translation:  Another parable he placed before them saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard that someone took and sowed in his field.  It is the smallest of all the seeds of the field, the smallest certainly of all the seeds, but when it is grown it is greatest of all vegetables and becomes a tree so that the birds of the heavens come and live in its branches.'  Another parable he spoke to them, 'The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and mixed in with three gallons of flour until it was mixed whole.'"

Background and situation:  This is the third reading in a row from chapter 13, a chapter of parables.  Parables included in this lection are the parable of the mustard seed, the leaven, the treasure in the field, the pearl, the net, and the throwing out of treasure.  The parables highlight Jesus' role as teacher, a very important theme in Matthew's gospel.  

Matthew's source for the parable of the mustard seed was Mark (4:30-32), though Matthew gets "tree" from Q.  The parable of the leaven appears to come from Q--see the parallel in Luke 13:20-21.  (The gospel of Thomas also includes both parables.)  Similarly, Matthew 13: 44-52 appears in Matthew only, among the canonical gospels, but also appears in Thomas.

The word for "parable" is parabole--literally, "thrown alongside."  Parables are stories "thrown alongside" life, you might say, which prompt comparisons and contrasts between the two.  Paul Tillich had his "method of correlation" which called for points of contact and comparison between the faith and the world.  Parables do something like that.

The parables of Jesus sometimes feature hyperbole, as in the parable of the mustard seed.  A mustard seed is small, but it is not the smallest of all the seeds.  First, it grows into a laxanon, which means either "garden herb" or "vegetable."  Laxanon refers to a plant that was planted on purpose. 

Matthew adds the "tree" to the original version of the story we have in Mark.  Some think that perhaps Matthew didn't think a garden vegetable, as Mark has it, was a grand enough comparison for the kingdom of heaven.  What Matthew is really doing, however, is making a hyperlink to Daniel 4: 10-22, particularly verses 11-12, which use a tree as an image for the great kingdom of God which is visible to all and for all:

¹¹The tree grew great and strong,
   its top reached to heaven,
   and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. 
¹²Its foliage was beautiful,
   its fruit abundant,
   and it provided food for all.
The animals of the field found shade under it,
   the birds of the air nested in its branches,
   and from it all living beings were fed.

Likewise, see Ezekiel 17: 22-23 where the Lord God takes a sprig "from the lofty top of a cedar" and will plant it on the "mountain height of Israel" where it will produce fruit and become a "noble cedar":  

Under it every kind of bird will live;
   in the shade of its branches will nest
   winged creatures of every kind. 

Universality and "weakness":  Two primary themes abound in only a few verses--universality and "weakness."  Both the tree and the field are universal images.  The field is the world, and the tree "provided food for all" (Dan 4).  This universality has an anti-triumphal twist, however.  The seed itself, the agent of this universal mission, is small and hidden in the ground.  It does its work mysteriously and out-of-sight. 

This is a statement of how God runs the whole universe.  It is through suffering, weakness, and vulnerability that God is present with us and saves us.  This has been true from the beginning of creation.  God runs the universe through the paradoxical nature of the "theology of the cross":  reigning through "weakness," becoming empty for the benefit of others, bringing life out of vulnerability and death.

This prepares us for the stunning parable of the leaven.  The first surprise is that the God-figure is a woman.  The second surprise is the amount of flour--"three gallons," a great amount, enough to make over 100 pounds of bread. 

The third surprise is the image of the leaven, which was used primarily as a negative image in first century Israel.  Leaven was often compared to corruption.  A little bit of corruption, for example, could quickly contaminate everyone, or "one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel"--that sort of thing.

But perhaps this is not so surprising.  Jesus was never much interested in being the "purest of the pure."  Maybe he liked the image of leaven precisely because it was reminiscent of those down and out, like criminals and prostitutes, who were the special focus of Jesus' attention and the first recipients of his message.

The baker-woman God "hides" the yeast in the loaf--score a point (again) for mystery.  Consider how that yeast works:  It disappears into the loaf, suffuses it entirely, and puffs up little pockets of carbon dioxide--(not unlike the breath of God to Adam or the carbon dioxide-rich breath of Jesus to the church).  The leaven becomes so thoroughly a part of the loaf that it can no longer be detected, yet it completely animates the whole.  Score another point (again) for universality.

Think of it as an image of creation.  The kingdom of God is integrally part of the creation of the cosmos.  It was worked in in the very beginning and has never been separate from it.  (So much for Jesus as an alien space-invader who drops in to a foreign planet to set everything right and leave.  The Word was never absent from the world, and is still present in, with, and under all that is.)

Buying the farm:  

‘The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.  ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; ⁴⁶on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.

Translation:  "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field which someone found and hid, and from his joy he goes and sells all as much as he has and he buys that field.  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a person on a journey seeking fine pearls, and finding one valuable pearl, he goes and sells all, as much as he has, and buys it."

The owner of the field has hidden a treasure--not uncommon in those days--and someone else has found it.  The treasure has been there awhile, but it has been hidden--kekrymmeno.  This is to say that the gospel is mysterious.  Recognized or not, it has been there in the field--agro--all along. 

Unlike the seed scattered all over the place and the leaven which is worked through the whole loaf, this treasure only appears in one place in the field.  The one who finds it, however, buys the whole field.  The treasure is in the world, and gives the world its value.  Score another point for universality. 

In the pearl parable, the one seeking is an emporo, which could mean merchant, but also could mean a person on a journey, or both.  He seeks "fine pearls"--in the ancient world, pearls were of great value, sometimes considered to be worth more than gold.  (The word for "pearl," incidentally, is margaritas.) 

These two parables accent joy and commitment.  At finding the treasure, or the pearl, the person sells everything--literally, "all as much as he has"--and buys it, "costing not less than everything," as T.S. Eliot put it.  Each one goes all in.

We will all die, of course.  We will all, some day, give everything we have.  Christ demands our whole life, and, in every single case, that is exactly what Christ will get.  Put another way, we will all, some day, "buy the farm," which is why it's good to know that the treasure of the death and resurrection of Jesus is right there with us and has been all along. 

The sagane: 

 47 ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; ⁴⁸when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. ⁴⁹So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous ⁵⁰and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Translation:  "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a large fishing net that was thrown into the sea and out of all nations gathered together, which, when it was full, was drawn up upon the beach, and sitting down, they gathered together the excellent into a container, but the rotten, they threw out.  The gathering up into forever will happen in this way.  The angels will go out and separate the evil out of the midst of the just and will throw them into the furnace of fire.  There, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

The word sagane occurs only once in the New Testament, right here.  Usually, a "net" is either amphiblestron or diktyon, but Matthew goes with sagane, where, incidentally, we get our word "seine." 

This type of net is pulled through the water and takes in everything it can.  Just like Christ himself, the "seine" gathers up everything in its path, including not only fish, but turtles, seaweed, old bottles, and trash.  It gathers "out of all nations"--ek pantos genous.

Christ died and rose not just for white married heterosexual SUV-driving suburbanites, in other words, but for blacks, gays, urbanites, farmers, grumpy old Uncle Edgar, and those who no habla Ingles.  Even more, the mysterious kingdom of heaven is drawing all creation--not just people, but cats, dogs, turtles, and old bottles.

When the net was hauled onto the shore, they sat down and "gathered up" the "good" into a container.  The word translated as "good" is kala, which is not strictly a word relating to morality.  It also means "beautiful," "excellent," "magnificent."  Sapros, on the other hand, refers not only to "bad," but also means "rotten," "putrid," "corrupt."

You might wonder if the passage is less about morality--good and bad--and more about usefulness.  We are not given a criterion by which the fishermen decide to throw some items out and keep others.  Presumably, they threw out dead fish and old bottles, unless, of course, they had a use for the old bottle, in which case they would keep it.

The fishermen didn't haul in the net until "it was full," which is both a universal and an eschatological image.  Note, too, that the fishermen don't make the absolute final judgment.  The angels make a sudden appearance and arrange for the final disposition of the evil--ponerou--and the just--dikaiown. 

It is not for the fishermen, or for us, to determine ultimately what is useful or not, or even "evil" and "righteous."  That distinction is made only at the end of time--sunteleia aionow--by those creatures, angels, who are directly in the service of the kingdom.

Telos is a major word in the New Testament.  It means "end" or "goal." Sun is a prefix meaning "together."  Therefore, sunteleia means "end together."  Coupled with aionos--"forever," or "eternal"--the phrase means "the consummation of the universe," the bringing together of everything in the whole history of the world.

Throwing out new and old:

51 ‘Have you understood all this?’ They answered, ‘Yes.’⁵²And he said to them, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.’ ⁵³When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place.

Translation:  "'Have you brought all this together?'  They answered, 'Yes."  And he said to them, "Through this, every scribe who has been trained in the kingdom of heaven is like a human householder who threw out of his treasure new and old.'  And it happened that when Jesus brought to a close these parables, he departed that place."

Unlike in Mark, where the disciples never get anything right, Matthew says that the disciples answered "yes" when Jesus asked if they had "brought all this together"--sunekate tauta panta.  For Matthew, the way of the kingdom can be taught and apprehended.

Jesus describes the disciples as "scribes," which is not normally a compliment in Matthew's gospel, except that these scribes have been "trained--matheteutheis--in the kingdom of heaven."  Mathete is also the word for "disciple."  They have been "disciplined" in the way.

The final parable is of the householder who threw out--ekballei--out of his treasure--ek tou thesaurou--both new and old.  The householder did not bring out.  He threw out.  He threw out both the new and the old. 

Some commentators opt for a more pious interpretation.  The householder brought out the new, which was the gospel, but kept the old too--the law and prophets, for example. 

Maybe so, but the text itself does not say that.  In fact, quite the contrary.  It appears not that the householder "brought out," as if to use, the "new and old."  Rather, the householder threw out both new and old in order to get rid of both.

Kaina--"new"--refers to something newly made that is different from what had gone before and not yet used.  Palaia--"old"--means having existed a long time and is now worn-out and obsolete.  

Could one say that Jesus encourages his disciples, the ones taught and trained by him in the way of the kingdom, to get rid of the old and the obsolete as well as ideas which Matthew might have considered "new-fangled"?  Disciplined and trained, the disciples can be trusted to make this determination.

Image:  Parable of the leaven, James Janknegt

 

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; ³²it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.’

He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.’

 Translation:  Another parable he placed before them saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard that someone took and sowed in his field.  It is the smallest of all the seeds of the field, the smallest certainly of all the seeds, but when it is grown it is greatest of all vegetables and becomes a tree so that the birds of the heavens come and live in its branches.'  Another parable he spoke to them, 'The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and mixed in with three gallons of flour until it was mixed whole.'"

Background and situation:  This is the third reading in a row from chapter 13, a chapter of parables.  Parables included in this lection are the parable of the mustard seed, the leaven, the treasure in the field, the pearl, the net, and the throwing out of treasure.  The parables highlight Jesus' role as teacher, a very important theme in Matthew's gospel.  

Matthew's source for the parable of the mustard seed was Mark (4:30-32), though Matthew gets "tree" from Q.  The parable of the leaven appears to come from Q--see the parallel in Luke 13:20-21.  (The gospel of Thomas also includes both parables.)  Similarly, Matthew 13: 44-52 appears in Matthew only, among the canonical gospels, but also appears in Thomas.

The word for "parable" is parabole--literally, "thrown alongside."  Parables are stories "thrown alongside" life, you might say, which prompt comparisons and contrasts between the two.  Paul Tillich had his "method of correlation" which called for points of contact and comparison between the faith and the world.  Parables do something like that.

The parables of Jesus sometimes feature hyperbole, as in the parable of the mustard seed.  A mustard seed is small, but it is not the smallest of all the seeds.  First, it grows into a laxanon, which means either "garden herb" or "vegetable."  Laxanon refers to a plant that was planted on purpose. 

Matthew adds the "tree" to the original version of the story we have in Mark.  Some think that perhaps Matthew didn't think a garden vegetable, as Mark has it, was a grand enough comparison for the kingdom of heaven.  What Matthew is really doing, however, is making a hyperlink to Daniel 4: 10-22, particularly verses 11-12, which use a tree as an image for the great kingdom of God which is visible to all and for all:

¹¹The tree grew great and strong,
   its top reached to heaven,
   and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. 
¹²Its foliage was beautiful,
   its fruit abundant,
   and it provided food for all.
The animals of the field found shade under it,
   the birds of the air nested in its branches,
   and from it all living beings were fed.

Likewise, see Ezekiel 17: 22-23 where the Lord God takes a sprig "from the lofty top of a cedar" and will plant it on the "mountain height of Israel" where it will produce fruit and become a "noble cedar":  

Under it every kind of bird will live;
   in the shade of its branches will nest
   winged creatures of every kind. 

Universality and "weakness":  Two primary themes abound in only a few verses--universality and "weakness."  Both the tree and the field are universal images.  The field is the world, and the tree "provided food for all" (Dan 4).  This universality has an anti-triumphal twist, however.  The seed itself, the agent of this universal mission, is small and hidden in the ground.  It does its work mysteriously and out-of-sight. 

This is a statement of how God runs the whole universe.  It is through suffering, weakness, and vulnerability that God is present with us and saves us.  This has been true from the beginning of creation.  God runs the universe through the paradoxical nature of the "theology of the cross":  reigning through "weakness," becoming empty for the benefit of others, bringing life out of vulnerability and death.

This prepares us for the stunning parable of the leaven.  The first surprise is that the God-figure is a woman.  The second surprise is the amount of flour--"three gallons," a great amount, enough to make over 100 pounds of bread. 

The third surprise is the image of the leaven, which was used primarily as a negative image in first century Israel.  Leaven was often compared to corruption.  A little bit of corruption, for example, could quickly contaminate everyone, or "one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel"--that sort of thing.

But perhaps this is not so surprising.  Jesus was never much interested in being the "purest of the pure."  Maybe he liked the image of leaven precisely because it was reminiscent of those down and out, like criminals and prostitutes, who were the special focus of Jesus' attention and the first recipients of his message.

The baker-woman God "hides" the yeast in the loaf--score a point (again) for mystery.  Consider how that yeast works:  It disappears into the loaf, suffuses it entirely, and puffs up little pockets of carbon dioxide--(not unlike the breath of God to Adam or the carbon dioxide-rich breath of Jesus to the church).  The leaven becomes so thoroughly a part of the loaf that it can no longer be detected, yet it completely animates the whole.  Score another point (again) for universality.

Think of it as an image of creation.  The kingdom of God is integrally part of the creation of the cosmos.  It was worked in in the very beginning and has never been separate from it.  (So much for Jesus as an alien space-invader who drops in to a foreign planet to set everything right and leave.  The Word was never absent from the world, and is still present in, with, and under all that is.)

Buying the farm:  

‘The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.  ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; ⁴⁶on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.

Translation:  "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field which someone found and hid, and from his joy he goes and sells all as much as he has and he buys that field.  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a person on a journey seeking fine pearls, and finding one valuable pearl, he goes and sells all, as much as he has, and buys it."

The owner of the field has hidden a treasure--not uncommon in those days--and someone else has found it.  The treasure has been there awhile, but it has been hidden--kekrymmeno.  This is to say that the gospel is mysterious.  Recognized or not, it has been there in the field--agro--all along. 

Unlike the seed scattered all over the place and the leaven which is worked through the whole loaf, this treasure only appears in one place in the field.  The one who finds it, however, buys the whole field.  The treasure is in the world, and gives the world its value.  Score another point for universality. 

In the pearl parable, the one seeking is an emporo, which could mean merchant, but also could mean a person on a journey, or both.  He seeks "fine pearls"--in the ancient world, pearls were of great value, sometimes considered to be worth more than gold.  (The word for "pearl," incidentally, is margaritas.) 

These two parables accent joy and commitment.  At finding the treasure, or the pearl, the person sells everything--literally, "all as much as he has"--and buys it, "costing not less than everything," as T.S. Eliot put it.  Each one goes all in.

We will all die, of course.  We will all, some day, give everything we have.  Christ demands our whole life, and, in every single case, that is exactly what Christ will get.  Put another way, we will all, some day, "buy the farm," which is why it's good to know that the treasure of the death and resurrection of Jesus is right there with us and has been all along. 

The sagane: 

 47 ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; ⁴⁸when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. ⁴⁹So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous ⁵⁰and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Translation:  "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a large fishing net that was thrown into the sea and out of all nations gathered together, which, when it was full, was drawn up upon the beach, and sitting down, they gathered together the excellent into a container, but the rotten, they threw out.  The gathering up into forever will happen in this way.  The angels will go out and separate the evil out of the midst of the just and will throw them into the furnace of fire.  There, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

The word sagane occurs only once in the New Testament, right here.  Usually, a "net" is either amphiblestron or diktyon, but Matthew goes with sagane, where, incidentally, we get our word "seine." 

This type of net is pulled through the water and takes in everything it can.  Just like Christ himself, the "seine" gathers up everything in its path, including not only fish, but turtles, seaweed, old bottles, and trash.  It gathers "out of all nations"--ek pantos genous.

Christ died and rose not just for white married heterosexual SUV-driving suburbanites, in other words, but for blacks, gays, urbanites, farmers, grumpy old Uncle Edgar, and those who no habla Ingles.  Even more, the mysterious kingdom of heaven is drawing all creation--not just people, but cats, dogs, turtles, and old bottles.

When the net was hauled onto the shore, they sat down and "gathered up" the "good" into a container.  The word translated as "good" is kala, which is not strictly a word relating to morality.  It also means "beautiful," "excellent," "magnificent."  Sapros, on the other hand, refers not only to "bad," but also means "rotten," "putrid," "corrupt."

You might wonder if the passage is less about morality--good and bad--and more about usefulness.  We are not given a criterion by which the fishermen decide to throw some items out and keep others.  Presumably, they threw out dead fish and old bottles, unless, of course, they had a use for the old bottle, in which case they would keep it.

The fishermen didn't haul in the net until "it was full," which is both a universal and an eschatological image.  Note, too, that the fishermen don't make the absolute final judgment.  The angels make a sudden appearance and arrange for the final disposition of the evil--ponerou--and the just--dikaiown. 

It is not for the fishermen, or for us, to determine ultimately what is useful or not, or even "evil" and "righteous."  That distinction is made only at the end of time--sunteleia aionow--by those creatures, angels, who are directly in the service of the kingdom.

Telos is a major word in the New Testament.  It means "end" or "goal." Sun is a prefix meaning "together."  Therefore, sunteleia means "end together."  Coupled with aionos--"forever," or "eternal"--the phrase means "the consummation of the universe," the bringing together of everything in the whole history of the world.

Throwing out new and old:

51 ‘Have you understood all this?’ They answered, ‘Yes.’⁵²And he said to them, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.’ ⁵³When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place.

Translation:  "'Have you brought all this together?'  They answered, 'Yes."  And he said to them, "Through this, every scribe who has been trained in the kingdom of heaven is like a human householder who threw out of his treasure new and old.'  And it happened that when Jesus brought to a close these parables, he departed that place."

Unlike in Mark, where the disciples never get anything right, Matthew says that the disciples answered "yes" when Jesus asked if they had "brought all this together"--sunekate tauta panta.  For Matthew, the way of the kingdom can be taught and apprehended.

Jesus describes the disciples as "scribes," which is not normally a compliment in Matthew's gospel, except that these scribes have been "trained--matheteutheis--in the kingdom of heaven."  Mathete is also the word for "disciple."  They have been "disciplined" in the way.

The final parable is of the householder who threw out--ekballei--out of his treasure--ek tou thesaurou--both new and old.  The householder did not bring out.  He threw out.  He threw out both the new and the old. 

Some commentators opt for a more pious interpretation.  The householder brought out the new, which was the gospel, but kept the old too--the law and prophets, for example. 

Maybe so, but the text itself does not say that.  In fact, quite the contrary.  It appears not that the householder "brought out," as if to use, the "new and old."  Rather, the householder threw out both new and old in order to get rid of both.

Kaina--"new"--refers to something newly made that is different from what had gone before and not yet used.  Palaia--"old"--means having existed a long time and is now worn-out and obsolete.  

Could one say that Jesus encourages his disciples, the ones taught and trained by him in the way of the kingdom, to get rid of the old and the obsolete as well as ideas which Matthew might have considered "new-fangled"?  Disciplined and trained, the disciples can be trusted to make this determination.

Image:  Parable of the leaven, James Janknegt

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; ³²it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.’

He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.’

 Translation:  Another parable he placed before them saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard that someone took and sowed in his field.  It is the smallest of all the seeds of the field, the smallest certainly of all the seeds, but when it is grown it is greatest of all vegetables and becomes a tree so that the birds of the heavens come and live in its branches.'  Another parable he spoke to them, 'The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and mixed in with three gallons of flour until it was mixed whole.'"

Background and situation:  This is the third reading in a row from chapter 13, a chapter of parables.  Parables included in this lection are the parable of the mustard seed, the leaven, the treasure in the field, the pearl, the net, and the throwing out of treasure.  The parables highlight Jesus' role as teacher, a very important theme in Matthew's gospel.  

Matthew's source for the parable of the mustard seed was Mark (4:30-32), though Matthew gets "tree" from Q.  The parable of the leaven appears to come from Q--see the parallel in Luke 13:20-21.  (The gospel of Thomas also includes both parables.)  Similarly, Matthew 13: 44-52 appears in Matthew only, among the canonical gospels, but also appears in Thomas.

The word for "parable" is parabole--literally, "thrown alongside."  Parables are stories "thrown alongside" life, you might say, which prompt comparisons and contrasts between the two.  Paul Tillich had his "method of correlation" which called for points of contact and comparison between the faith and the world.  Parables do something like that.

The parables of Jesus sometimes feature hyperbole, as in the parable of the mustard seed.  A mustard seed is small, but it is not the smallest of all the seeds.  First, it grows into a laxanon, which means either "garden herb" or "vegetable."  Laxanon refers to a plant that was planted on purpose. 

Matthew adds the "tree" to the original version of the story we have in Mark.  Some think that perhaps Matthew didn't think a garden vegetable, as Mark has it, was a grand enough comparison for the kingdom of heaven.  What Matthew is really doing, however, is making a hyperlink to Daniel 4: 10-22, particularly verses 11-12, which use a tree as an image for the great kingdom of God which is visible to all and for all:

¹¹The tree grew great and strong,
   its top reached to heaven,
   and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. 
¹²Its foliage was beautiful,
   its fruit abundant,
   and it provided food for all.
The animals of the field found shade under it,
   the birds of the air nested in its branches,
   and from it all living beings were fed.

Likewise, see Ezekiel 17: 22-23 where the Lord God takes a sprig "from the lofty top of a cedar" and will plant it on the "mountain height of Israel" where it will produce fruit and become a "noble cedar":  

Under it every kind of bird will live;
   in the shade of its branches will nest
   winged creatures of every kind. 

Universality and "weakness":  Two primary themes abound in only a few verses--universality and "weakness."  Both the tree and the field are universal images.  The field is the world, and the tree "provided food for all" (Dan 4).  This universality has an anti-triumphal twist, however.  The seed itself, the agent of this universal mission, is small and hidden in the ground.  It does its work mysteriously and out-of-sight. 

This is a statement of how God runs the whole universe.  It is through suffering, weakness, and vulnerability that God is present with us and saves us.  This has been true from the beginning of creation.  God runs the universe through the paradoxical nature of the "theology of the cross":  reigning through "weakness," becoming empty for the benefit of others, bringing life out of vulnerability and death.

This prepares us for the stunning parable of the leaven.  The first surprise is that the God-figure is a woman.  The second surprise is the amount of flour--"three gallons," a great amount, enough to make over 100 pounds of bread. 

The third surprise is the image of the leaven, which was used primarily as a negative image in first century Israel.  Leaven was often compared to corruption.  A little bit of corruption, for example, could quickly contaminate everyone, or "one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel"--that sort of thing.

But perhaps this is not so surprising.  Jesus was never much interested in being the "purest of the pure."  Maybe he liked the image of leaven precisely because it was reminiscent of those down and out, like criminals and prostitutes, who were the special focus of Jesus' attention and the first recipients of his message.

The baker-woman God "hides" the yeast in the loaf--score a point (again) for mystery.  Consider how that yeast works:  It disappears into the loaf, suffuses it entirely, and puffs up little pockets of carbon dioxide--(not unlike the breath of God to Adam or the carbon dioxide-rich breath of Jesus to the church).  The leaven becomes so thoroughly a part of the loaf that it can no longer be detected, yet it completely animates the whole.  Score another point (again) for universality.

Think of it as an image of creation.  The kingdom of God is integrally part of the creation of the cosmos.  It was worked in in the very beginning and has never been separate from it.  (So much for Jesus as an alien space-invader who drops in to a foreign planet to set everything right and leave.  The Word was never absent from the world, and is still present in, with, and under all that is.)

Buying the farm:  

‘The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.  ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; ⁴⁶on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.

Translation:  "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field which someone found and hid, and from his joy he goes and sells all as much as he has and he buys that field.  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a person on a journey seeking fine pearls, and finding one valuable pearl, he goes and sells all, as much as he has, and buys it."

The owner of the field has hidden a treasure--not uncommon in those days--and someone else has found it.  The treasure has been there awhile, but it has been hidden--kekrymmeno.  This is to say that the gospel is mysterious.  Recognized or not, it has been there in the field--agro--all along. 

Unlike the seed scattered all over the place and the leaven which is worked through the whole loaf, this treasure only appears in one place in the field.  The one who finds it, however, buys the whole field.  The treasure is in the world, and gives the world its value.  Score another point for universality. 

In the pearl parable, the one seeking is an emporo, which could mean merchant, but also could mean a person on a journey, or both.  He seeks "fine pearls"--in the ancient world, pearls were of great value, sometimes considered to be worth more than gold.  (The word for "pearl," incidentally, is margaritas.) 

These two parables accent joy and commitment.  At finding the treasure, or the pearl, the person sells everything--literally, "all as much as he has"--and buys it, "costing not less than everything," as T.S. Eliot put it.  Each one goes all in.

We will all die, of course.  We will all, some day, give everything we have.  Christ demands our whole life, and, in every single case, that is exactly what Christ will get.  Put another way, we will all, some day, "buy the farm," which is why it's good to know that the treasure of the death and resurrection of Jesus is right there with us and has been all along. 

The sagane: 

 47 ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; ⁴⁸when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. ⁴⁹So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous ⁵⁰and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Translation:  "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a large fishing net that was thrown into the sea and out of all nations gathered together, which, when it was full, was drawn up upon the beach, and sitting down, they gathered together the excellent into a container, but the rotten, they threw out.  The gathering up into forever will happen in this way.  The angels will go out and separate the evil out of the midst of the just and will throw them into the furnace of fire.  There, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

The word sagane occurs only once in the New Testament, right here.  Usually, a "net" is either amphiblestron or diktyon, but Matthew goes with sagane, where, incidentally, we get our word "seine." 

This type of net is pulled through the water and takes in everything it can.  Just like Christ himself, the "seine" gathers up everything in its path, including not only fish, but turtles, seaweed, old bottles, and trash.  It gathers "out of all nations"--ek pantos genous.

Christ died and rose not just for white married heterosexual SUV-driving suburbanites, in other words, but for blacks, gays, urbanites, farmers, grumpy old Uncle Edgar, and those who no habla Ingles.  Even more, the mysterious kingdom of heaven is drawing all creation--not just people, but cats, dogs, turtles, and old bottles.

When the net was hauled onto the shore, they sat down and "gathered up" the "good" into a container.  The word translated as "good" is kala, which is not strictly a word relating to morality.  It also means "beautiful," "excellent," "magnificent."  Sapros, on the other hand, refers not only to "bad," but also means "rotten," "putrid," "corrupt."

You might wonder if the passage is less about morality--good and bad--and more about usefulness.  We are not given a criterion by which the fishermen decide to throw some items out and keep others.  Presumably, they threw out dead fish and old bottles, unless, of course, they had a use for the old bottle, in which case they would keep it.

The fishermen didn't haul in the net until "it was full," which is both a universal and an eschatological image.  Note, too, that the fishermen don't make the absolute final judgment.  The angels make a sudden appearance and arrange for the final disposition of the evil--ponerou--and the just--dikaiown. 

It is not for the fishermen, or for us, to determine ultimately what is useful or not, or even "evil" and "righteous."  That distinction is made only at the end of time--sunteleia aionow--by those creatures, angels, who are directly in the service of the kingdom.

Telos is a major word in the New Testament.  It means "end" or "goal." Sun is a prefix meaning "together."  Therefore, sunteleia means "end together."  Coupled with aionos--"forever," or "eternal"--the phrase means "the consummation of the universe," the bringing together of everything in the whole history of the world.

Throwing out new and old:

51 ‘Have you understood all this?’ They answered, ‘Yes.’⁵²And he said to them, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.’ ⁵³When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place.

Translation:  "'Have you brought all this together?'  They answered, 'Yes."  And he said to them, "Through this, every scribe who has been trained in the kingdom of heaven is like a human householder who threw out of his treasure new and old.'  And it happened that when Jesus brought to a close these parables, he departed that place."

Unlike in Mark, where the disciples never get anything right, Matthew says that the disciples answered "yes" when Jesus asked if they had "brought all this together"--sunekate tauta panta.  For Matthew, the way of the kingdom can be taught and apprehended.

Jesus describes the disciples as "scribes," which is not normally a compliment in Matthew's gospel, except that these scribes have been "trained--matheteutheis--in the kingdom of heaven."  Mathete is also the word for "disciple."  They have been "disciplined" in the way.

The final parable is of the householder who threw out--ekballei--out of his treasure--ek tou thesaurou--both new and old.  The householder did not bring out.  He threw out.  He threw out both the new and the old. 

Some commentators opt for a more pious interpretation.  The householder brought out the new, which was the gospel, but kept the old too--the law and prophets, for example. 

Maybe so, but the text itself does not say that.  In fact, quite the contrary.  It appears not that the householder "brought out," as if to use, the "new and old."  Rather, the householder threw out both new and old in order to get rid of both.

Kaina--"new"--refers to something newly made that is different from what had gone before and not yet used.  Palaia--"old"--means having existed a long time and is now worn-out and obsolete.  

Could one say that Jesus encourages his disciples, the ones taught and trained by him in the way of the kingdom, to get rid of the old and the obsolete as well as ideas which Matthew might have considered "new-fangled"?  Disciplined and trained, the disciples can be trusted to make this determination.

Image:  Parable of the leaven, James Janknegt

Pentecost 7 ::: Matthew 13: 24-30, 36-43

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; ²⁵but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. ²⁶So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. ²⁷And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” ²⁸He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” ²⁹But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. ³⁰Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’

Translation:  He placed before them another parable, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a human being who sowed good seed in his field, but while the people slept, his enemy came and he sowed tares in the midst of the wheat and he left.  But when the blade sprouted and made fruit, then was made manifest the tares also.  But the servants of the householder came (and) said to him, "Lord, did you not sow good seed into your field?  Why, then, does it have tares?"  But he was saying to them, "A human enemy did this."  But they say to him, "Do you wish us to go that we might gather it?"  But he says, "No, lest when you gather the tares, you might pluck up the wheat along with them.  Leave both to grow together until the harvest, and, in the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers, 'Gather first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Background and situation:  The parable of the weeds, otherwise known as the parable of the wheat and the tares, follows immediately after the parable of the sower (13: 1-23).  It appears to come from a source other than either Mark or Q.  The only parallel is in the Gospel of Thomas (57).

Chapter 13 of Matthew is made up of a string of parables, many, like this one, introduced by alle, "another."  This tends to give the section a cohesive quality, and again accentuates Jesus in the role of teacher, an important theme in Matthew.

The enemy sows "air heads":  Jesus starts off by saying that the kingdom of heaven was like a person who sowed good seed in a field, but "while the people slept, his enemy came."

The enemy sowed zizania--otherwise known as tares, darnel, cockle, or, technically, lolium temulentum.  It's a weed that, especially in its early stages, looks like wheat, but instead of producing edible grain, produces only bitter-tasting seeds.  (So the exegetes say.  Anybody raised on a farm would recognize it immediately.) 

At maturity, the weight of the grain in the wheat bends the heads down.  Since there's not much of anything in the heads of darnel, the plant continues to stand straight.  Darnel is, thusly, a plant of "air heads."  It looks pretty good, in other words, but there's nothing there.

This also explains why it was only after the plants grew up and produced fruit that the weeds "appeared."  The word is ephane, which comes from the word for "light," and is in the passive voice.  "Brought to light" would be a good translation.  

The fruit of the "good seed" revealed the hollowness of the bad seed.  The fruit of the good seed illuminated the failure of the weeds to produce fruit.

Resisting evil:  The word sperma appears forty times in the New Testament.  Usually, this means not the seed itself, but the offspring of the seed.  This sense of the word should be kept in mind.  Indeed, in verse 38, Jesus will identify the good seed--the kalon sperma--as the "children of the kingdom."

Jesus identifies the enemy as exthros anthropos--a "hostile human being."  In other words, the enemy is a created being, not a divine being.  (Later, Jesus will identify the enemy as the devil or diabolos.)  Whoever it is, it's not on par with God.  The scriptures can get pretty fuzzy about the original of evil, but the power of evil or the devil is never placed on the same level as the power of God. 

The slaves of the householder, those closest to the actual operation of the farm, are the first to consider taking action against the weeds.  "Do you desire for us to go and gather (the weeds)?"  Do you want us to respond to this initiative from the hostile enemy?  How are we to fight back?

Jesus' response:  Do nothing!  "No, lest when you gather the tares, you might pluck up the wheat along with them."  In your zeal to root out the enemy, you're quite likely to tear up the whole field.

Then Jesus says that "in time of harvest," he will instruct the reapers to gather the weeds in bundles to be burned.  The word translated as "time" is kairos, which means "God's time." 

In other words, God will deal with the problem of evil.  There will be an eschatological solution to the problem of evil, but that is God's work and not ours.  Evil will be checked, but not by human beings.

This is exactly what moral crusaders do not want to hear.  They're on a mission, after all, to root out evil and get people to straighten up.  Such people are dangerous.  They're quite liable, in one of their moralistic crusades, to go into the field and start tearing up the whole dang farm.  In their zeal, they are, unwittingly, and rather cluelessly, willing to rip out the good along with the bad. 

Which is why I like to say that good people trying to do good can do more real damage than bad people doing bad.  Bad people doing bad results in individual acts of criminality.  Good people trying to do good can result in doctrinal rigidity, inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, and concentration camps.

Forgive them:  Notice that Jesus flatly says "no" to the idea of tearing out weeds.  Then he says, "Forgive them to grow together until the harvest."  The word is aphete.  It may be translated as "permit," "allow," or "let"--NRSV has "leave" here--but the most frequent meaning of aphete is "forgive." 

The word occurs 156 times in the New Testament.  About a third of them are regularly translated as "forgive," and probably more should be.  Evil is to be dealt with by human beings through letting it be, permitting it, forgiving it.

It will be dealt with ultimately through the purifying fire.  The purifying fire may not be the most pleasant of Biblical images, but it is certainly a dramatic one.  The prophet Malachi spoke of none being able to stand at the day of the Lord's coming "for he is like a refiner's fire (3:2)."  The apostle Paul talks of revealing a builder's work through fire.  Anything not built on Christ gets burned up (1 Cor 3: 12-15).  The whole concept of purgatory grew out of the idea of the purifying fire.

We all have our "weed side"--that part of us which may look good, but doesn't produce fruit.  This part will be burned away, leaving only that which is built on Christ.  Don't worry.  In God's time of harvest, this will be seen and experienced as a good thing.  After all, the one who judges us--the one who sends the purifying fire--is really the one who loves us the most.

Our propensity to judge others will be burned away.  Our sucking up to hierarchical authority will be burned away.  Our subversion of God's kingdom through gender inequality will be burned away.  Our trying to see ourselves as better than others will be burned away.  Our moralistic fervor will be burned away.  Our self-righteous attempt at self-inflation will be burned away.  Praise God!

"The just ones will shine forth":   

 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’ ³⁷He answered, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; ³⁸the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, ³⁹and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁰Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, ⁴²and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears^*listen!

Translation:  Then he left the crowds and went into the house, and his disciples came to him, saying, "Make clear to us the parable of the tares of the field."  But he answered (and) said, "The one who sowed the good seed is the son of humanity, and the field is the universe.  But the good seed, these are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one.  But the enemy who sowed these is the devil, and the harvest is the gathering together of the eternal, and the reapers are angels.  As, therefore, the tares are being gathered to be burned of fire, so it will be in the gathering together of the eternal.  The son of humanity will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all the stumbling-blocks and the ones doing lawlessness, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Then the just ones will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their father.  The one having ears, let that one hear."

Jesus left the crowds and went into the house, which, incidentally, may have been his own residence in Capernaum.  In the house, the disciples want an explanation for the "parable of the weeds," which shows, right there, that they didn't get it.

In the parable of the sower which precedes this one (13: 1-23), God is clearly the sower, and God sows the Word (Christ) everywhere.  In this parable, Jesus is the sower, and he is sowing "good seed."  This good seed is the children of the kingdom (13:38).  They produce fruit.  (Matthew emphasizes producing fruit.  Karpos (fruit) appears 19 times in Matthew.)  

Notice that the "good seed" is never threatened in the parable.  No matter how many weeds are planted in the field, no doubt whatsoever is expressed about the good seeds' ability to germinate and prosper.  In fact, it was the very produce of the "good seed" that illuminated the failure of the weeds in the first place.

Jesus is generating disciples who produce fruit.  He calls them "children of the kingdom" who live out the ways of the kingdom--open table fellowship, gender equality, non-hierarchical living, inherent worth of every human being, and opposition to oppression. 

Those who don't follow this way of the kingdom are instead pressed by the weeds of hardship and difficulty.  They suffer the weight of hierarchy, scarcity, tribalism.

God will deal with evil:  Then Jesus amps up the language.  The opponent is now, finally, identified as diabolos--the devil (13:38).  The harvest is clearly eschatological.  Sunteleia aionos means something like "the bringing together of everything forever," or "consummation eternal."  "The reapers are angels"--again, an eschatological reference. 

The son of man will send angels and they will "gather out of the kingdom" all the skandala (impediments that cause someone to stumble) and anomian (lawlessness).  These will all be thrown into the furnace of fire.

Again, this is "purifying fire" imagery, along the lines of Hebrews 12: 29:  "Indeed, our God is a consuming fire."  Whatever is not of God will be burned up--not now, not in chronological time, but in the kairos, in God's time, at the consummation of the universe. 

Then, having eliminated our skandala and lawlessness, "the just ones will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of my father."  (NRSV translates dikaioi as "righteous," but "just ones" seems more appropriate in this context.)  These just ones "will shine out" (eklampo)--they will have impact--illuminating the world with the ways of the kingdom.

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; ²⁵but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. ²⁶So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. ²⁷And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” ²⁸He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” ²⁹But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. ³⁰Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’

Translation:  He placed before them another parable, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a human being who sowed good seed in his field, but while the people slept, his enemy came and he sowed tares in the midst of the wheat and he left.  But when the blade sprouted and made fruit, then was made manifest the tares also.  But the servants of the householder came (and) said to him, "Lord, did you not sow good seed into your field?  Why, then, does it have tares?"  But he was saying to them, "A human enemy did this."  But they say to him, "Do you wish us to go that we might gather it?"  But he says, "No, lest when you gather the tares, you might pluck up the wheat along with them.  Leave both to grow together until the harvest, and, in the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers, 'Gather first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Background and situation:  The parable of the weeds, otherwise known as the parable of the wheat and the tares, follows immediately after the parable of the sower (13: 1-23).  It appears to come from a source other than either Mark or Q.  The only parallel is in the Gospel of Thomas (57).

Chapter 13 of Matthew is made up of a string of parables, many, like this one, introduced by alle, "another."  This tends to give the section a cohesive quality, and again accentuates Jesus in the role of teacher, an important theme in Matthew.

The enemy sows "air heads":  Jesus starts off by saying that the kingdom of heaven was like a person who sowed good seed in a field, but "while the people slept, his enemy came."

The enemy sowed zizania--otherwise known as tares, darnel, cockle, or, technically, lolium temulentum.  It's a weed that, especially in its early stages, looks like wheat, but instead of producing edible grain, produces only bitter-tasting seeds.  (So the exegetes say.  Anybody raised on a farm would recognize it immediately.) 

At maturity, the weight of the grain in the wheat bends the heads down.  Since there's not much of anything in the heads of darnel, the plant continues to stand straight.  Darnel is, thusly, a plant of "air heads."  It looks pretty good, in other words, but there's nothing there.

This also explains why it was only after the plants grew up and produced fruit that the weeds "appeared."  The word is ephane, which comes from the word for "light," and is in the passive voice.  "Brought to light" would be a good translation.  

The fruit of the "good seed" revealed the hollowness of the bad seed.  The fruit of the good seed illuminated the failure of the weeds to produce fruit.

Resisting evil:  The word sperma appears forty times in the New Testament.  Usually, this means not the seed itself, but the offspring of the seed.  This sense of the word should be kept in mind.  Indeed, in verse 38, Jesus will identify the good seed--the kalon sperma--as the "children of the kingdom."

Jesus identifies the enemy as exthros anthropos--a "hostile human being."  In other words, the enemy is a created being, not a divine being.  (Later, Jesus will identify the enemy as the devil or diabolos.)  Whoever it is, it's not on par with God.  The scriptures can get pretty fuzzy about the original of evil, but the power of evil or the devil is never placed on the same level as the power of God. 

The slaves of the householder, those closest to the actual operation of the farm, are the first to consider taking action against the weeds.  "Do you desire for us to go and gather (the weeds)?"  Do you want us to respond to this initiative from the hostile enemy?  How are we to fight back?

Jesus' response:  Do nothing!  "No, lest when you gather the tares, you might pluck up the wheat along with them."  In your zeal to root out the enemy, you're quite likely to tear up the whole field.

Then Jesus says that "in time of harvest," he will instruct the reapers to gather the weeds in bundles to be burned.  The word translated as "time" is kairos, which means "God's time." 

In other words, God will deal with the problem of evil.  There will be an eschatological solution to the problem of evil, but that is God's work and not ours.  Evil will be checked, but not by human beings.

This is exactly what moral crusaders do not want to hear.  They're on a mission, after all, to root out evil and get people to straighten up.  Such people are dangerous.  They're quite liable, in one of their moralistic crusades, to go into the field and start tearing up the whole dang farm.  In their zeal, they are, unwittingly, and rather cluelessly, willing to rip out the good along with the bad. 

Which is why I like to say that good people trying to do good can do more real damage than bad people doing bad.  Bad people doing bad results in individual acts of criminality.  Good people trying to do good can result in doctrinal rigidity, inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, and concentration camps.

Forgive them:  Notice that Jesus flatly says "no" to the idea of tearing out weeds.  Then he says, "Forgive them to grow together until the harvest."  The word is aphete.  It may be translated as "permit," "allow," or "let"--NRSV has "leave" here--but the most frequent meaning of aphete is "forgive." 

The word occurs 156 times in the New Testament.  About a third of them are regularly translated as "forgive," and probably more should be.  Evil is to be dealt with by human beings through letting it be, permitting it, forgiving it.

It will be dealt with ultimately through the purifying fire.  The purifying fire may not be the most pleasant of Biblical images, but it is certainly a dramatic one.  The prophet Malachi spoke of none being able to stand at the day of the Lord's coming "for he is like a refiner's fire (3:2)."  The apostle Paul talks of revealing a builder's work through fire.  Anything not built on Christ gets burned up (1 Cor 3: 12-15).  The whole concept of purgatory grew out of the idea of the purifying fire.

We all have our "weed side"--that part of us which may look good, but doesn't produce fruit.  This part will be burned away, leaving only that which is built on Christ.  Don't worry.  In God's time of harvest, this will be seen and experienced as a good thing.  After all, the one who judges us--the one who sends the purifying fire--is really the one who loves us the most.

Our propensity to judge others will be burned away.  Our sucking up to hierarchical authority will be burned away.  Our subversion of God's kingdom through gender inequality will be burned away.  Our trying to see ourselves as better than others will be burned away.  Our moralistic fervor will be burned away.  Our self-righteous attempt at self-inflation will be burned away.  Praise God!

"The just ones will shine forth":   

 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’ ³⁷He answered, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; ³⁸the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, ³⁹and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁰Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, ⁴²and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears^*listen!

Translation:  Then he left the crowds and went into the house, and his disciples came to him, saying, "Make clear to us the parable of the tares of the field."  But he answered (and) said, "The one who sowed the good seed is the son of humanity, and the field is the universe.  But the good seed, these are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one.  But the enemy who sowed these is the devil, and the harvest is the gathering together of the eternal, and the reapers are angels.  As, therefore, the tares are being gathered to be burned of fire, so it will be in the gathering together of the eternal.  The son of humanity will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all the stumbling-blocks and the ones doing lawlessness, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Then the just ones will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their father.  The one having ears, let that one hear."

Jesus left the crowds and went into the house, which, incidentally, may have been his own residence in Capernaum.  In the house, the disciples want an explanation for the "parable of the weeds," which shows, right there, that they didn't get it.

In the parable of the sower which precedes this one (13: 1-23), God is clearly the sower, and God sows the Word (Christ) everywhere.  In this parable, Jesus is the sower, and he is sowing "good seed."  This good seed is the children of the kingdom (13:38).  They produce fruit.  (Matthew emphasizes producing fruit.  Karpos (fruit) appears 19 times in Matthew.)  

Notice that the "good seed" is never threatened in the parable.  No matter how many weeds are planted in the field, no doubt whatsoever is expressed about the good seeds' ability to germinate and prosper.  In fact, it was the very produce of the "good seed" that illuminated the failure of the weeds in the first place.

Jesus is generating disciples who produce fruit.  He calls them "children of the kingdom" who live out the ways of the kingdom--open table fellowship, gender equality, non-hierarchical living, inherent worth of every human being, and opposition to oppression. 

Those who don't follow this way of the kingdom are instead pressed by the weeds of hardship and difficulty.  They suffer the weight of hierarchy, scarcity, tribalism.

God will deal with evil:  Then Jesus amps up the language.  The opponent is now, finally, identified as diabolos--the devil (13:38).  The harvest is clearly eschatological.  Sunteleia aionos means something like "the bringing together of everything forever," or "consummation eternal."  "The reapers are angels"--again, an eschatological reference. 

The son of man will send angels and they will "gather out of the kingdom" all the skandala (impediments that cause someone to stumble) and anomian (lawlessness).  These will all be thrown into the furnace of fire.

Again, this is "purifying fire" imagery, along the lines of Hebrews 12: 29:  "Indeed, our God is a consuming fire."  Whatever is not of God will be burned up--not now, not in chronological time, but in the kairos, in God's time, at the consummation of the universe. 

Then, having eliminated our skandala and lawlessness, "the just ones will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of my father."  (NRSV translates dikaioi as "righteous," but "just ones" seems more appropriate in this context.)  These just ones "will shine out" (eklampo)--they will have impact--illuminating the world with the ways of the kingdom.

Pentecost 6 ::: Matthew 13: 1-9, 18-23

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the lake. ²Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach. ³And he told them many things in parables, saying: ‘Listen! A sower went out to sow. ⁴And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. ⁵Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. ⁶But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. ⁷Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. ⁸Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. ⁹Let anyone with ears listen!’

Translation:  On that day, Jesus went out of the house (and) was sitting alongside the sea, and great crowds were gathered together to him so that he entered into a ship to sit down and all the people stood upon the shore.  And he spoke much to them in parables, saying, "Behold!  The sowing one went out to sow.  And as he sowed, some indeed fell beside the way, and the birds came to eat them.  But others fell upon stony places where they were not having much soil, and immediately they sprung up because they did not have depth of soil.  But when the sun rose, they were scorched and, because they did not have a root, they were withered.  But others fell among the thorns, and the thorns climbed up and choked them.  But others fell upon the good earth, and they were giving fruit, some indeed a hundredfold, but some sixty, but some thirty.  The one having ears, let that one hear."

Background and situation:  Father Robert Capon says that the parable of the sower is the touchstone of all the parables.  He notes its primacy of place in all three synoptics.  Even the gnostic Gospel of Thomas includes the parable of the sower. 

In Matthew, the parable of the sower is the first of a string of parables that follow one after another in chapter 13.  The parable of the sower sets the stage for all the parables that follow.

The lection begins with Jesus leaving the house.  He "goes out" to the sea just as the sower would soon "go out" to sow.  This would apparently be his own house, and the same one where he had just refused entrance to his own relatives (12: 46-48). 

At the sea, "great crowds" flock around Jesus.  The word is sunago, and means that the people "gathered together" around Jesus.  He is at the center of the people.  This is not surprising.  Jesus had significant support in the region of the Sea of Galilee.  The people loved Jesus and thrilled to his message.  He is presented as a "man of the people." 

Then, he gets into a boat.  The stated reason is that Jesus needs a place to sit.  He needs to sit in order to assume the posture of a teacher.  This gives Jesus a bit of distance from the crowd which continues to stand on the beach.  Matthew has moved Jesus from being "man of the people" to being "authoritative teacher." 

What a deft piece of political theater.  Jesus is sitting in a fishing boat, which is, quite literally, on the sea.  In a sense, Jesus is speaking to and for all the people who try to make a living from the Sea of Galilee.  (It's not for nothing that fishermen were some of Jesus' first supporters.)  

Jesus may have had a home at Capernaum, perhaps the most important harbor city on the entire Sea of Galilee, which also made it an important communications center for the region.  He also traveled to many other towns and villages that lie on the sea, including Magdala, home of Mary Magdalene, his frequent companion.

The parable:  Jesus told them "many things in parables," and starts off with:  "Behold!  The sowing one went forth to sow." 

In the sowing, some seeds fell "alongside the way"--para ton hodon--and the birds came and ate them.  (NRSV has "on the path," but para means "alongside" and hodon is a technical term for "way," which, in turn, means the practices of the kingdom of heaven.)  These seeds fell just off the path. 

Other seeds fell on rocky ground where "they were not having much soil"--opou ouk eixen gas pollen. "And immediately, they sprang up because they did not have depth of earth."  When the sun rose, these were "scorched."  Other seeds fell upon the thorns, and the thorns rose up and "choked" them.  

Still other seeds fell upon the "good earth."  These gave fruit in abundance, in some cases a "hundredfold," but some sixty, and others thirty.  "The one having ears, let that one hear."

The interpretation of the parable:

 ‘Hear then the parable of the sower. ¹⁹When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. ²⁰As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; ²¹yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away.^* 22As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. ²³But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.’

Translation:  You, therefore, hear the parable of the sower.  When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.  This is the one sown alongside the way.  But the one sown upon rocky places, this is the one hearing the word, and immediately receives it with joy.  But he does not have a root in himself, but is for a season, but when tribulation or persecution happen on account of the word, immediately he is offended.  But the one sown into the thorns, this is the one hearing the word, and the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth together choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.  But the one sown upon good earth, this is the one hearing the word and he understands, who also bears fruit and does, some indeed a hundredfold, but some sixty, but some thirty.

In the intervening verses, 10-17, Jesus tells the disciples that they get to hear "the secrets of the kingdom of heaven," but others do not.  Jesus says that he speaks in parables, but no one understands. 

This suggests that, far from being easy to understand, the parables are so contrarian that they are difficult to hear.  The reason Jesus so often encouraged people with ears to hear is because what he was saying was so counter-intuitive, so formed by an alternative paradigm, that people were having a hard time comprehending what he was saying.  

In verse 18, Jesus calls the story "the parable of the sower."  This alone is instructive.  It means that this is a parable about God, and not about us.  It's the parable of the sower, and not the parable of the four kinds of soil.  It's about what God does, in other words, and not our feeble efforts at putting God's word into action.  

The common evangelical view of the parable is that the sower is Jesus, and he was going around throwing out "the word."  We want to prepare ourselves to be really good soil so that when Jesus throws "the word" on us, we--splendid people that we are--can put it into action and (finally) make it into something.

This is completely wrong-headed for the very basic reason that the sower is not Jesus.  God is the sower, and God sows the Word--logon, Christ--absolutely everywhere.  Jesus is not the sower, but the seed sown.  (As the fourth gospel puts it, "The Word became flesh.") 

The four types of soil are meant to signify all conditions of life.  Jesus has already been sown everywhere in the world, in good soil and bad, among rocks and among thorns.  This sowing of the word into the entire world, and into all conditions of life, has already been done without any participation on our part whatsoever.

The story would have been shocking to many who heard it.  There were many--in those days, and in ours--who most certainly did not think God had sown the seed of the word everywhere in the world.  God had absolutely done no such thing.  God had sown the word only in America, or in the Roman Catholic church, or only among those who adhere to something called protestant theology. 

In Jesus' own time and place, many would have been shocked by this parable.  As in our own time, many then believed that God had not sown the seed everywhere.  God had sown the word only in Israel.  There's nothing special about Israel in Jesus' story, and that would have caused some major grinding of teeth in some people.

Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about a seed.  For people expecting a triumphal messiah who enters the fray with force, the seed is a weak image.  Seeds are tiny.  They fall into the ground and get covered over.  They "die" into the earth. 

It is precisely then, when they are out of sight, that they begin to do the real work of a seed.  The message of the story is that the seed--the Word--sown into the world doesn't look like all that much.  It can be hard, or even impossible to find.  It does its work out-of-sight, mysteriously.  Capon, Parables of the Kingdom:

Once again, this is not our idea of how a respectable divine operation ought to be run...Given our druthers, our pet illustration of the kingdom would probably be a giant nail--driven into the world, appropriately enough, but a giant hammer in the hand of a giant God.  Something noisy and noticeable.  But a seed?  Oh come now.

You'll notice, too, that the seed has already been sown.  It is not about to be sown.  It's already in there, and it's doing what it does without waiting for us to do something to put it into effect.  We don't add to the seed of the Word being sown, or complete it, or kick it into gear.  

Not only has it been done, it works.  In every case, the seed, which is the word, springs up, even in rocky soil and even among thorns.  The word--the sown seed, which is Christ--never fails.

But the birds, you say?  What about the birds who snatch up the seed and carry it away? 

So what?  That seed is still going to land somewhere.  We had a tree on our farm that was in the oddest place.  It was in a ditch, and there wasn't another tree, in any direction, for a least half a mile.  (This was Kansas, keep in mind, where trees can be few and far between.  When we have one, we tend to form a personal relationship with it.)

I once asked my dad how in the world that tree ever got there?  His one word answer?  "Birds."  Birds may snatch up the seed, but they're just going to distribute it somewhere else, where, again, the seed which is the word will do its work.

Aren't the birds equated with "the evil one" in verse 19?  The word is ponerou.  If Matthew had intended the devil, he probably would have used diabolos.    "Hardships" or "troubles" would be possible translations.  I have rendered it "the wicked one."

The logos:  The word logos appears six times from 13:18-23.  The logos, which is Christ, has already been sown into the world.  God has done this mysteriously--the work of a seed takes place out of sight.  And God has done this paradoxically--the seed is a "weak" image, not a triumphal power display, which would have been business-as-usual.

Significant traditions within the church, however, have typically said just the opposite.  They have said that, really, the world wasn't quite saved yet.  It was only potentially saved.  In order to get it really saved, we needed to do something to kick the Word into gear. 

We needed to repent, or confess our sins, or get "born again," or cry our eyes out over something-or-other, or sacrifice a goat, or wear pink on Thursdays--or whatever!  It's always something.  We need to make ourselves into good soil so that the Word can really work!

Wrong.  The four types of soil reflect the human condition which all of us share.  They are a statement of reality, meant to cover the bases of existence.  We fail to understand.  We all live our lives in the context of pain and trouble.  We all endure "rocks" and lack "root" in the face of oppression.  We all live amid the "thorns," which are the "cares of eternity," and "the deceit of riches."  This "chokes" us--and doesn't it?  Isn't that an accurate description of our reality?

But we also have capacity.  The "beautiful earth"--ten kalen gen--is also part of our reality.  We don't put the Word into action--Christ has already saved the world--but the Word prospers in some conditions more than others.  In "beautiful earth," it "bears fruit" in the world. 

In Matthew's theology, "bearing fruit" means living out the kingdom of heaven.  This has nothing to do with piety, nothing to do with outward sanctimony, nothing to do with syrupy pronouncements, nothing to do with vague decisions, nothing to do even with worship.  

"Bearing fruit" means "following on the way," which means imitating Jesus, and doing what he did.  With Jesus as our model of what the kingdom of heaven looks like, "bearing fruit" means actually doing what Jesus himself teaches and does in the gospel of Matthew, which is:  gender equality, open table fellowship, non-heirarchical living, embracing the human dignity of all, resistance to oppression, and resistance to religious corruption.  "Bearing fruit" is that program lived out in every day life.

Image:  The sower, Van Gogh 

 

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the lake. ²Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach. ³And he told them many things in parables, saying: ‘Listen! A sower went out to sow. ⁴And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. ⁵Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. ⁶But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. ⁷Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. ⁸Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. ⁹Let anyone with ears listen!’

Translation:  On that day, Jesus went out of the house (and) was sitting alongside the sea, and great crowds were gathered together to him so that he entered into a ship to sit down and all the people stood upon the shore.  And he spoke much to them in parables, saying, "Behold!  The sowing one went out to sow.  And as he sowed, some indeed fell beside the way, and the birds came to eat them.  But others fell upon stony places where they were not having much soil, and immediately they sprung up because they did not have depth of soil.  But when the sun rose, they were scorched and, because they did not have a root, they were withered.  But others fell among the thorns, and the thorns climbed up and choked them.  But others fell upon the good earth, and they were giving fruit, some indeed a hundredfold, but some sixty, but some thirty.  The one having ears, let that one hear."

Background and situation:  Father Robert Capon says that the parable of the sower is the touchstone of all the parables.  He notes its primacy of place in all three synoptics.  Even the gnostic Gospel of Thomas includes the parable of the sower. 

In Matthew, the parable of the sower is the first of a string of parables that follow one after another in chapter 13.  The parable of the sower sets the stage for all the parables that follow.

The lection begins with Jesus leaving the house.  He "goes out" to the sea just as the sower would soon "go out" to sow.  This would apparently be his own house, and the same one where he had just refused entrance to his own relatives (12: 46-48). 

At the sea, "great crowds" flock around Jesus.  The word is sunago, and means that the people "gathered together" around Jesus.  He is at the center of the people.  This is not surprising.  Jesus had significant support in the region of the Sea of Galilee.  The people loved Jesus and thrilled to his message.  He is presented as a "man of the people." 

Then, he gets into a boat.  The stated reason is that Jesus needs a place to sit.  He needs to sit in order to assume the posture of a teacher.  This gives Jesus a bit of distance from the crowd which continues to stand on the beach.  Matthew has moved Jesus from being "man of the people" to being "authoritative teacher." 

What a deft piece of political theater.  Jesus is sitting in a fishing boat, which is, quite literally, on the sea.  In a sense, Jesus is speaking to and for all the people who try to make a living from the Sea of Galilee.  (It's not for nothing that fishermen were some of Jesus' first supporters.)  

Jesus may have had a home at Capernaum, perhaps the most important harbor city on the entire Sea of Galilee, which also made it an important communications center for the region.  He also traveled to many other towns and villages that lie on the sea, including Magdala, home of Mary Magdalene, his frequent companion.

The parable:  Jesus told them "many things in parables," and starts off with:  "Behold!  The sowing one went forth to sow." 

In the sowing, some seeds fell "alongside the way"--para ton hodon--and the birds came and ate them.  (NRSV has "on the path," but para means "alongside" and hodon is a technical term for "way," which, in turn, means the practices of the kingdom of heaven.)  These seeds fell just off the path. 

Other seeds fell on rocky ground where "they were not having much soil"--opou ouk eixen gas pollen. "And immediately, they sprang up because they did not have depth of earth."  When the sun rose, these were "scorched."  Other seeds fell upon the thorns, and the thorns rose up and "choked" them.  

Still other seeds fell upon the "good earth."  These gave fruit in abundance, in some cases a "hundredfold," but some sixty, and others thirty.  "The one having ears, let that one hear."

The interpretation of the parable:

 ‘Hear then the parable of the sower. ¹⁹When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. ²⁰As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; ²¹yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away.^* 22As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. ²³But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.’

Translation:  You, therefore, hear the parable of the sower.  When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.  This is the one sown alongside the way.  But the one sown upon rocky places, this is the one hearing the word, and immediately receives it with joy.  But he does not have a root in himself, but is for a season, but when tribulation or persecution happen on account of the word, immediately he is offended.  But the one sown into the thorns, this is the one hearing the word, and the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth together choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.  But the one sown upon good earth, this is the one hearing the word and he understands, who also bears fruit and does, some indeed a hundredfold, but some sixty, but some thirty.

In the intervening verses, 10-17, Jesus tells the disciples that they get to hear "the secrets of the kingdom of heaven," but others do not.  Jesus says that he speaks in parables, but no one understands. 

This suggests that, far from being easy to understand, the parables are so contrarian that they are difficult to hear.  The reason Jesus so often encouraged people with ears to hear is because what he was saying was so counter-intuitive, so formed by an alternative paradigm, that people were having a hard time comprehending what he was saying.  

In verse 18, Jesus calls the story "the parable of the sower."  This alone is instructive.  It means that this is a parable about God, and not about us.  It's the parable of the sower, and not the parable of the four kinds of soil.  It's about what God does, in other words, and not our feeble efforts at putting God's word into action.  

The common evangelical view of the parable is that the sower is Jesus, and he was going around throwing out "the word."  We want to prepare ourselves to be really good soil so that when Jesus throws "the word" on us, we--splendid people that we are--can put it into action and (finally) make it into something.

This is completely wrong-headed for the very basic reason that the sower is not Jesus.  God is the sower, and God sows the Word--logon, Christ--absolutely everywhere.  Jesus is not the sower, but the seed sown.  (As the fourth gospel puts it, "The Word became flesh.") 

The four types of soil are meant to signify all conditions of life.  Jesus has already been sown everywhere in the world, in good soil and bad, among rocks and among thorns.  This sowing of the word into the entire world, and into all conditions of life, has already been done without any participation on our part whatsoever.

The story would have been shocking to many who heard it.  There were many--in those days, and in ours--who most certainly did not think God had sown the seed of the word everywhere in the world.  God had absolutely done no such thing.  God had sown the word only in America, or in the Roman Catholic church, or only among those who adhere to something called protestant theology. 

In Jesus' own time and place, many would have been shocked by this parable.  As in our own time, many then believed that God had not sown the seed everywhere.  God had sown the word only in Israel.  There's nothing special about Israel in Jesus' story, and that would have caused some major grinding of teeth in some people.

Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about a seed.  For people expecting a triumphal messiah who enters the fray with force, the seed is a weak image.  Seeds are tiny.  They fall into the ground and get covered over.  They "die" into the earth. 

It is precisely then, when they are out of sight, that they begin to do the real work of a seed.  The message of the story is that the seed--the Word--sown into the world doesn't look like all that much.  It can be hard, or even impossible to find.  It does its work out-of-sight, mysteriously.  Capon, Parables of the Kingdom:

Once again, this is not our idea of how a respectable divine operation ought to be run...Given our druthers, our pet illustration of the kingdom would probably be a giant nail--driven into the world, appropriately enough, but a giant hammer in the hand of a giant God.  Something noisy and noticeable.  But a seed?  Oh come now.

You'll notice, too, that the seed has already been sown.  It is not about to be sown.  It's already in there, and it's doing what it does without waiting for us to do something to put it into effect.  We don't add to the seed of the Word being sown, or complete it, or kick it into gear.  

Not only has it been done, it works.  In every case, the seed, which is the word, springs up, even in rocky soil and even among thorns.  The word--the sown seed, which is Christ--never fails.

But the birds, you say?  What about the birds who snatch up the seed and carry it away? 

So what?  That seed is still going to land somewhere.  We had a tree on our farm that was in the oddest place.  It was in a ditch, and there wasn't another tree, in any direction, for a least half a mile.  (This was Kansas, keep in mind, where trees can be few and far between.  When we have one, we tend to form a personal relationship with it.)

I once asked my dad how in the world that tree ever got there?  His one word answer?  "Birds."  Birds may snatch up the seed, but they're just going to distribute it somewhere else, where, again, the seed which is the word will do its work.

Aren't the birds equated with "the evil one" in verse 19?  The word is ponerou.  If Matthew had intended the devil, he probably would have used diabolos.    "Hardships" or "troubles" would be possible translations.  I have rendered it "the wicked one."

The logos:  The word logos appears six times from 13:18-23.  The logos, which is Christ, has already been sown into the world.  God has done this mysteriously--the work of a seed takes place out of sight.  And God has done this paradoxically--the seed is a "weak" image, not a triumphal power display, which would have been business-as-usual.

Significant traditions within the church, however, have typically said just the opposite.  They have said that, really, the world wasn't quite saved yet.  It was only potentially saved.  In order to get it really saved, we needed to do something to kick the Word into gear. 

We needed to repent, or confess our sins, or get "born again," or cry our eyes out over something-or-other, or sacrifice a goat, or wear pink on Thursdays--or whatever!  It's always something.  We need to make ourselves into good soil so that the Word can really work!

Wrong.  The four types of soil reflect the human condition which all of us share.  They are a statement of reality, meant to cover the bases of existence.  We fail to understand.  We all live our lives in the context of pain and trouble.  We all endure "rocks" and lack "root" in the face of oppression.  We all live amid the "thorns," which are the "cares of eternity," and "the deceit of riches."  This "chokes" us--and doesn't it?  Isn't that an accurate description of our reality?

But we also have capacity.  The "beautiful earth"--ten kalen gen--is also part of our reality.  We don't put the Word into action--Christ has already saved the world--but the Word prospers in some conditions more than others.  In "beautiful earth," it "bears fruit" in the world. 

In Matthew's theology, "bearing fruit" means living out the kingdom of heaven.  This has nothing to do with piety, nothing to do with outward sanctimony, nothing to do with syrupy pronouncements, nothing to do with vague decisions, nothing to do even with worship.  

"Bearing fruit" means "following on the way," which means imitating Jesus, and doing what he did.  With Jesus as our model of what the kingdom of heaven looks like, "bearing fruit" means actually doing what Jesus himself teaches and does in the gospel of Matthew, which is:  gender equality, open table fellowship, non-heirarchical living, embracing the human dignity of all, resistance to oppression, and resistance to religious corruption.  "Bearing fruit" is that program lived out in every day life.

Image:  The sower, Van Gogh 

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the lake. ²Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach. ³And he told them many things in parables, saying: ‘Listen! A sower went out to sow. ⁴And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. ⁵Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. ⁶But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. ⁷Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. ⁸Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. ⁹Let anyone with ears listen!’

Translation:  On that day, Jesus went out of the house (and) was sitting alongside the sea, and great crowds were gathered together to him so that he entered into a ship to sit down and all the people stood upon the shore.  And he spoke much to them in parables, saying, "Behold!  The sowing one went out to sow.  And as he sowed, some indeed fell beside the way, and the birds came to eat them.  But others fell upon stony places where they were not having much soil, and immediately they sprung up because they did not have depth of soil.  But when the sun rose, they were scorched and, because they did not have a root, they were withered.  But others fell among the thorns, and the thorns climbed up and choked them.  But others fell upon the good earth, and they were giving fruit, some indeed a hundredfold, but some sixty, but some thirty.  The one having ears, let that one hear."

Background and situation:  Father Robert Capon says that the parable of the sower is the touchstone of all the parables.  He notes its primacy of place in all three synoptics.  Even the gnostic Gospel of Thomas includes the parable of the sower. 

In Matthew, the parable of the sower is the first of a string of parables that follow one after another in chapter 13.  The parable of the sower sets the stage for all the parables that follow.

The lection begins with Jesus leaving the house.  He "goes out" to the sea just as the sower would soon "go out" to sow.  This would apparently be his own house, and the same one where he had just refused entrance to his own relatives (12: 46-48). 

At the sea, "great crowds" flock around Jesus.  The word is sunago, and means that the people "gathered together" around Jesus.  He is at the center of the people.  This is not surprising.  Jesus had significant support in the region of the Sea of Galilee.  The people loved Jesus and thrilled to his message.  He is presented as a "man of the people." 

Then, he gets into a boat.  The stated reason is that Jesus needs a place to sit.  He needs to sit in order to assume the posture of a teacher.  This gives Jesus a bit of distance from the crowd which continues to stand on the beach.  Matthew has moved Jesus from being "man of the people" to being "authoritative teacher." 

What a deft piece of political theater.  Jesus is sitting in a fishing boat, which is, quite literally, on the sea.  In a sense, Jesus is speaking to and for all the people who try to make a living from the Sea of Galilee.  (It's not for nothing that fishermen were some of Jesus' first supporters.)  

Jesus may have had a home at Capernaum, perhaps the most important harbor city on the entire Sea of Galilee, which also made it an important communications center for the region.  He also traveled to many other towns and villages that lie on the sea, including Magdala, home of Mary Magdalene, his frequent companion.

The parable:  Jesus told them "many things in parables," and starts off with:  "Behold!  The sowing one went forth to sow." 

In the sowing, some seeds fell "alongside the way"--para ton hodon--and the birds came and ate them.  (NRSV has "on the path," but para means "alongside" and hodon is a technical term for "way," which, in turn, means the practices of the kingdom of heaven.)  These seeds fell just off the path. 

Other seeds fell on rocky ground where "they were not having much soil"--opou ouk eixen gas pollen. "And immediately, they sprang up because they did not have depth of earth."  When the sun rose, these were "scorched."  Other seeds fell upon the thorns, and the thorns rose up and "choked" them.  

Still other seeds fell upon the "good earth."  These gave fruit in abundance, in some cases a "hundredfold," but some sixty, and others thirty.  "The one having ears, let that one hear."

The interpretation of the parable:

 ‘Hear then the parable of the sower. ¹⁹When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. ²⁰As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; ²¹yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away.^* 22As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. ²³But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.’

Translation:  You, therefore, hear the parable of the sower.  When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.  This is the one sown alongside the way.  But the one sown upon rocky places, this is the one hearing the word, and immediately receives it with joy.  But he does not have a root in himself, but is for a season, but when tribulation or persecution happen on account of the word, immediately he is offended.  But the one sown into the thorns, this is the one hearing the word, and the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth together choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.  But the one sown upon good earth, this is the one hearing the word and he understands, who also bears fruit and does, some indeed a hundredfold, but some sixty, but some thirty.

In the intervening verses, 10-17, Jesus tells the disciples that they get to hear "the secrets of the kingdom of heaven," but others do not.  Jesus says that he speaks in parables, but no one understands. 

This suggests that, far from being easy to understand, the parables are so contrarian that they are difficult to hear.  The reason Jesus so often encouraged people with ears to hear is because what he was saying was so counter-intuitive, so formed by an alternative paradigm, that people were having a hard time comprehending what he was saying.  

In verse 18, Jesus calls the story "the parable of the sower."  This alone is instructive.  It means that this is a parable about God, and not about us.  It's the parable of the sower, and not the parable of the four kinds of soil.  It's about what God does, in other words, and not our feeble efforts at putting God's word into action.  

The common evangelical view of the parable is that the sower is Jesus, and he was going around throwing out "the word."  We want to prepare ourselves to be really good soil so that when Jesus throws "the word" on us, we--splendid people that we are--can put it into action and (finally) make it into something.

This is completely wrong-headed for the very basic reason that the sower is not Jesus.  God is the sower, and God sows the Word--logon, Christ--absolutely everywhere.  Jesus is not the sower, but the seed sown.  (As the fourth gospel puts it, "The Word became flesh.") 

The four types of soil are meant to signify all conditions of life.  Jesus has already been sown everywhere in the world, in good soil and bad, among rocks and among thorns.  This sowing of the word into the entire world, and into all conditions of life, has already been done without any participation on our part whatsoever.

The story would have been shocking to many who heard it.  There were many--in those days, and in ours--who most certainly did not think God had sown the seed of the word everywhere in the world.  God had absolutely done no such thing.  God had sown the word only in America, or in the Roman Catholic church, or only among those who adhere to something called protestant theology. 

In Jesus' own time and place, many would have been shocked by this parable.  As in our own time, many then believed that God had not sown the seed everywhere.  God had sown the word only in Israel.  There's nothing special about Israel in Jesus' story, and that would have caused some major grinding of teeth in some people.

Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about a seed.  For people expecting a triumphal messiah who enters the fray with force, the seed is a weak image.  Seeds are tiny.  They fall into the ground and get covered over.  They "die" into the earth. 

It is precisely then, when they are out of sight, that they begin to do the real work of a seed.  The message of the story is that the seed--the Word--sown into the world doesn't look like all that much.  It can be hard, or even impossible to find.  It does its work out-of-sight, mysteriously.  Capon, Parables of the Kingdom:

Once again, this is not our idea of how a respectable divine operation ought to be run...Given our druthers, our pet illustration of the kingdom would probably be a giant nail--driven into the world, appropriately enough, but a giant hammer in the hand of a giant God.  Something noisy and noticeable.  But a seed?  Oh come now.

You'll notice, too, that the seed has already been sown.  It is not about to be sown.  It's already in there, and it's doing what it does without waiting for us to do something to put it into effect.  We don't add to the seed of the Word being sown, or complete it, or kick it into gear.  

Not only has it been done, it works.  In every case, the seed, which is the word, springs up, even in rocky soil and even among thorns.  The word--the sown seed, which is Christ--never fails.

But the birds, you say?  What about the birds who snatch up the seed and carry it away? 

So what?  That seed is still going to land somewhere.  We had a tree on our farm that was in the oddest place.  It was in a ditch, and there wasn't another tree, in any direction, for a least half a mile.  (This was Kansas, keep in mind, where trees can be few and far between.  When we have one, we tend to form a personal relationship with it.)

I once asked my dad how in the world that tree ever got there?  His one word answer?  "Birds."  Birds may snatch up the seed, but they're just going to distribute it somewhere else, where, again, the seed which is the word will do its work.

Aren't the birds equated with "the evil one" in verse 19?  The word is ponerou.  If Matthew had intended the devil, he probably would have used diabolos.    "Hardships" or "troubles" would be possible translations.  I have rendered it "the wicked one."

The logos:  The word logos appears six times from 13:18-23.  The logos, which is Christ, has already been sown into the world.  God has done this mysteriously--the work of a seed takes place out of sight.  And God has done this paradoxically--the seed is a "weak" image, not a triumphal power display, which would have been business-as-usual.

Significant traditions within the church, however, have typically said just the opposite.  They have said that, really, the world wasn't quite saved yet.  It was only potentially saved.  In order to get it really saved, we needed to do something to kick the Word into gear. 

We needed to repent, or confess our sins, or get "born again," or cry our eyes out over something-or-other, or sacrifice a goat, or wear pink on Thursdays--or whatever!  It's always something.  We need to make ourselves into good soil so that the Word can really work!

Wrong.  The four types of soil reflect the human condition which all of us share.  They are a statement of reality, meant to cover the bases of existence.  We fail to understand.  We all live our lives in the context of pain and trouble.  We all endure "rocks" and lack "root" in the face of oppression.  We all live amid the "thorns," which are the "cares of eternity," and "the deceit of riches."  This "chokes" us--and doesn't it?  Isn't that an accurate description of our reality?

But we also have capacity.  The "beautiful earth"--ten kalen gen--is also part of our reality.  We don't put the Word into action--Christ has already saved the world--but the Word prospers in some conditions more than others.  In "beautiful earth," it "bears fruit" in the world. 

In Matthew's theology, "bearing fruit" means living out the kingdom of heaven.  This has nothing to do with piety, nothing to do with outward sanctimony, nothing to do with syrupy pronouncements, nothing to do with vague decisions, nothing to do even with worship.  

"Bearing fruit" means "following on the way," which means imitating Jesus, and doing what he did.  With Jesus as our model of what the kingdom of heaven looks like, "bearing fruit" means actually doing what Jesus himself teaches and does in the gospel of Matthew, which is:  gender equality, open table fellowship, non-heirarchical living, embracing the human dignity of all, resistance to oppression, and resistance to religious corruption.  "Bearing fruit" is that program lived out in every day life.

Image:  The sower, Van Gogh 

Pentecost 5 ::: Matthew 11: 16-19, 25-30

‘But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market-places and calling to one another, 
¹⁷“We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
   we wailed, and you did not mourn.” 
¹⁸For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, “He has a demon”; ¹⁹the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.’

Translation:  "But to what will I compare this generation?  It is like children sitting in the marketplaces who call out to the others, saying, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance.  We wailed and you did not lament.'  For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.'  The son of humanity came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a glutinous person and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'  And wisdom has been justified from her deeds."

Background and situation:  The section is mostly Q.  See the parallel in Luke (7: 31-35, 10: 21-22).  The closing words--"come unto me..."--have a partial parallel in the Gospel of Thomas (90).  

The lection is part of the third major section of Matthew's gospel, the main theme of which is opposition to Jesus and the struggle between faith and doubt.  

The section begins with the doubts of John the Baptist (11:2), followed by Jesus' response to John and then a paean to John, one which contains a swipe at the Temple bureaucracy.  John was not one to waltz around in fancy robes, said Jesus, but we certainly know the ones who do (11:8).

At the time Matthew was written, the "Jesus movement" was still quite fragile and far from unified.  They were still small in number, and had various frictions, both within the church and outside it. 

They worried about defections from their movement, and not without reason.  "Falling away" from the church is not a new phenomenon.  What's more, the people were still recovering from a particularly bloody war.  Into that situation, Matthew tells us of the "Jesus movement," which, though popular and with widespread support in Galilee, nevertheless had its share of problems. 

Children call to "the others":  Jesus compares "this generation" to children.  Most commentators seem to read verse 17 as children squabbling with each other.  The children are portrayed as engaged in a mindless back-and-forth.  They respond neither to the harsh message of John nor the gracious message of Jesus.

One's interpretation depends on how you read eterois--"the other ones."  The children "call out to the other ones," which could mean the other children, in which case the children are portrayed as bickering and out-of-sync with each other.  No matter what we did, says one group to the other, you wouldn't go along.  We tried being joyous, and that didn't grab you.  Then, we tried being funereal, and that didn't grab you either.

Or, one might also read the verse as children calling to "the others," who could be anyone other than children, i.e. their elders, the people who really run things.  In that case, the children seem to have some life in them, both joy and sorrow, but can't get any reaction from the people in charge, who are portrayed as out-of-touch and lifeless.  This latter interpretation seems to make more sense.

Damned if you, and damned if you don't:  Rather than respond to the real life and needs of the people, the elders condemn the peoples' leaders.  John the baptizer came as an ascetic.  Yet, his opponents called him a "demon."  Jesus came "eating and drinking" but that didn't suit his opponents either so they attacked him personally as well, calling him a "glutton and a wino." 

This is typical of the approach the powers-that-be often use to manipulate public opinion.  When someone criticizes you, attack them personally.  Assault their character.  Drag their name through the mud.  Accuse them of insufficient piety--"demon"--or some variation of libertinism--"glutton and wino."  Ad hominem attacks are nothing new, it seems.  If you can't engage your opponents' arguments, then attack them personally.  It's the oldest trick in the book.

This is a common failing on all sides.  When the orthodox church felt pressure from gnostic groups in the second and third centuries, they quite often accused their gnostic opponents of being sexually perverse.  Yet, there is no evidence, from gnostic sources, of anything of the kind.  If anything, the gnostics were ascetics, not libertines.  (In other words, some of the early church fathers lied about the gnostics.)

Wisdom issues in deeds:  "And wisdom has been justified--edikaiothe--from her works."  In Proverbs 8, wisdom is associated with the works of God.  Wisdom labored side-by-side with God in the creation of the universe.  "The Lord created me (wisdom) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago...I was beside him like a master worker."  (Prov 8) 

Matthew is associating the works of Jesus with the wisdom of God.  The works of Jesus we have seen in Matthew's gospel--gender equality, open table fellowship, non-violent resistance to Rome, critique of heirarchy--demonstrate God's true wisdom in action in the world. 

Matthew is concerned about the real.  Do words issue in deeds?  Do words actually make a difference?  Where does the rubber actually hit the road, and how can you tell?  

Consider, for example, how Matthew tells a true prophet from a false one.  Matthew says you can tell by their "fruit," by what they do and what they produce (7: 15).  True prophets produce good fruit, and false prophets don't.  "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."  (7:18)

In today's lection, God's wisdom, which created the world, is justified by Jesus' actual "works" in the world.  His works are a fulfillment of wisdom's (and thus God's) intention in creation.

The Father's gracious purpose: 

At that time Jesus said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; ²⁶yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. ²⁷All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

28 ‘Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. ²⁹Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’

Translation:  In that time, Jesus answered (and) said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to children.  Yes, Father, for in this manner gracious purpose happened before you.  All things have been delivered over to me by my father.  And no one knows the Son except the Father, (and) no one knows the Father except the Son and to whomever the Son might wish to reveal."

"Come to me, all the ones who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart and you will find rest for your lives, for my yoke is lovingkindness and my burden is light."

The intervening verses--20-24, not included in the lection--express condemnation toward cities which opposed the Jesus movement, specifically Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum.  

In the face of this opposition, however, we have a kairotic moment.  "At that time," Matthew says.  The word for time here is kairos, which means special time, the important moment, the time of God.  In this moment of special revelation, in this kairotic moment, Jesus speaks.

He begins with thanks.  The word is exomologoumai, which means:  "I thank you."  One notes that exomologoumai is composed of ex, plus homo, plus logos--literally, "out of the same word."  It has a sense of celebration and joyous affirmation. 

It is also in the middle voice, which means that subject and object are in relationship to each other and affect each other.  Jesus says, essentially, "I give and am being given joyous affirmation of the Father, the Lord of heaven and earth."

"For you have hidden these things from the wise--sofown--and intelligent, and revealed--apocalypto--them to children."  True wisdom, as we have seen, issues in following the way of Jesus.  This way has been "hidden" from those who are "wise and intelligent," but "revealed" to the insigificant. 

This was true, of course, in the historical ministry of Jesus.  He was leading a non-violent peasant-based movement--a "childrens' crusade," after a certain manner of speaking--and he was opposed by the rich and powerful.  It is also apparently true for the community of Matthew in AD 80.  It is still a peasant-based movement.

Verse 26:  "...for in this manner gracious purpose happened before you..."  In hiding things from the wise and revealing them to children, God's eudokia happened.  Eudokia is formed from the prefix eu--"good"--and doxa, which means "glory"--hence, "good-glory." 

Eudokia means a freely chosen desire that issues in a good design.  It may be translated as "good pleasure," or "well-pleased."  NRSV translates it as "gracious will."  Eudokia definitely does have the sense of "graciousness" to it, but "will" sounds too stern and juridical.  The word is gentler than that.  It has a sense of delight and pleasure to it.  I have "gracious purpose." 

The sentence opens with an affirmation to God--"Yes, Father".  The word "Father," while not a complete innovation from Jesus--(Isaiah had used the word)--nevertheless underlines the close relationship of God to the "children."  It is God's "gracious purpose" to reveal the ways of the kingdom to the children, i.e. the lowly.  This is yet another affirmation of what, today, we call "preferential option for the poor."

Despite the opposition they face, the sense of Jesus' speech is joyous.  "All things have been delivered over to me by my Father," he says.  The "Lord of heaven and earth" has delivered over "all"--panta, everything, the entire universe and everything in it--to Jesus. 

Jesus then goes on to say that "no one knows the son except the father, and no one knows the father except the son."  The word "know" is ginosko, which means intimate knowledge.  This kind of exalted, mystical "knowing" is reminiscent of the fourth gospel.  (Was the author of the fourth gospel acquainted with the author of Matthew?) 

This close identification of son and father comes to human beings by revelation--"to whomever the son reveals."  As in the fourth gospel, the intimate knowledge between Father and Son is not exclusive to the Father and the Son, but may also be shared with the children.  From that position, Jesus issues his appeal:

"Come to me":  The closing two verses are unique to Matthew, though there is a passage that is vaguely similar in Sirach (51: 26-27).  As noted above, there is a partial parallel in Thomas, verse 90. 

Most of our translations over-spiritualize this passage, in my humble opinion.  Jesus is specifically addressing those who are over-worked and carrying a heavy load.  In first century Israel, that group consisted of poor people in a condition of political and religious oppression. 

He encourages them to take up his "yoke."  "Yoke" was a common image for Torah and the Mosaic Law.  Instead of Torah, however, we are encouraged to take up Jesus' yoke and "learn" from him.  (The word is mathete, from which comes the word for "disciple."  Matthew continues his emphasis on Jesus as teacher by the exhortation to "learn from him.")  

The "yoke" of Jesus is to learn his Way and follow it.  In marked contrast to earthly rulers, both political and religious, Jesus is "meek and lowly of heart."

NRSV has "and you will find rest for your souls."  That sounds too pious and too passive for the words anapausin tais psuxais humown. Anapausin, which appears also in verse 28, means not only rest, but sabbath rest, the kind of rest that puts a person on the road to recovery.  It has a sense not only of rest, but also refreshment.

Also, psuxais refers to the essence of a person's life.  It is more than "soul," which, in any case, calls to mind images more related to Greek philosophy than Christian theology, which was almost surely not Matthew's intent.  Frankly, I like my translation better:  "...and you will find rest for your lives..."  Following the Way of Jesus--open table fellowship, etc.--will set you on a path of true life.

"For my yoke is lovingkindness."  The word is xrestos--"goodness, benevolence, pleasant, worthy, loving, kind," or, even better, "active benevolence in spite of ingratitude."  "Easy" is OK, but, given the richness and importance of the word in this context, I'm going with "lovingkindness."

This truly wonderful text should not be pietized into worship of Jesus as if he were some kind of idol.  It thoroughly intends to encourage people along the Way of Jesus, to "learn" that Way and follow it, from which will come a truer and better life. 

Egalitarian living is "lighter" than hierarchical living.  Living in light of the freedom and dignity of every person, and especially the poor, is not a "burden" but is, in fact, the way of true rest and true refreshment. 

Image:  19th century, "Learn from me."     

 

‘But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market-places and calling to one another, 
¹⁷“We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
   we wailed, and you did not mourn.” 
¹⁸For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, “He has a demon”; ¹⁹the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.’

Translation:  "But to what will I compare this generation?  It is like children sitting in the marketplaces who call out to the others, saying, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance.  We wailed and you did not lament.'  For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.'  The son of humanity came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a glutinous person and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'  And wisdom has been justified from her deeds."

Background and situation:  The section is mostly Q.  See the parallel in Luke (7: 31-35, 10: 21-22).  The closing words--"come unto me..."--have a partial parallel in the Gospel of Thomas (90).  

The lection is part of the third major section of Matthew's gospel, the main theme of which is opposition to Jesus and the struggle between faith and doubt.  

The section begins with the doubts of John the Baptist (11:2), followed by Jesus' response to John and then a paean to John, one which contains a swipe at the Temple bureaucracy.  John was not one to waltz around in fancy robes, said Jesus, but we certainly know the ones who do (11:8).

At the time Matthew was written, the "Jesus movement" was still quite fragile and far from unified.  They were still small in number, and had various frictions, both within the church and outside it. 

They worried about defections from their movement, and not without reason.  "Falling away" from the church is not a new phenomenon.  What's more, the people were still recovering from a particularly bloody war.  Into that situation, Matthew tells us of the "Jesus movement," which, though popular and with widespread support in Galilee, nevertheless had its share of problems. 

Children call to "the others":  Jesus compares "this generation" to children.  Most commentators seem to read verse 17 as children squabbling with each other.  The children are portrayed as engaged in a mindless back-and-forth.  They respond neither to the harsh message of John nor the gracious message of Jesus.

One's interpretation depends on how you read eterois--"the other ones."  The children "call out to the other ones," which could mean the other children, in which case the children are portrayed as bickering and out-of-sync with each other.  No matter what we did, says one group to the other, you wouldn't go along.  We tried being joyous, and that didn't grab you.  Then, we tried being funereal, and that didn't grab you either.

Or, one might also read the verse as children calling to "the others," who could be anyone other than children, i.e. their elders, the people who really run things.  In that case, the children seem to have some life in them, both joy and sorrow, but can't get any reaction from the people in charge, who are portrayed as out-of-touch and lifeless.  This latter interpretation seems to make more sense.

Damned if you, and damned if you don't:  Rather than respond to the real life and needs of the people, the elders condemn the peoples' leaders.  John the baptizer came as an ascetic.  Yet, his opponents called him a "demon."  Jesus came "eating and drinking" but that didn't suit his opponents either so they attacked him personally as well, calling him a "glutton and a wino." 

This is typical of the approach the powers-that-be often use to manipulate public opinion.  When someone criticizes you, attack them personally.  Assault their character.  Drag their name through the mud.  Accuse them of insufficient piety--"demon"--or some variation of libertinism--"glutton and wino."  Ad hominem attacks are nothing new, it seems.  If you can't engage your opponents' arguments, then attack them personally.  It's the oldest trick in the book.

This is a common failing on all sides.  When the orthodox church felt pressure from gnostic groups in the second and third centuries, they quite often accused their gnostic opponents of being sexually perverse.  Yet, there is no evidence, from gnostic sources, of anything of the kind.  If anything, the gnostics were ascetics, not libertines.  (In other words, some of the early church fathers lied about the gnostics.)

Wisdom issues in deeds:  "And wisdom has been justified--edikaiothe--from her works."  In Proverbs 8, wisdom is associated with the works of God.  Wisdom labored side-by-side with God in the creation of the universe.  "The Lord created me (wisdom) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago...I was beside him like a master worker."  (Prov 8) 

Matthew is associating the works of Jesus with the wisdom of God.  The works of Jesus we have seen in Matthew's gospel--gender equality, open table fellowship, non-violent resistance to Rome, critique of heirarchy--demonstrate God's true wisdom in action in the world. 

Matthew is concerned about the real.  Do words issue in deeds?  Do words actually make a difference?  Where does the rubber actually hit the road, and how can you tell?  

Consider, for example, how Matthew tells a true prophet from a false one.  Matthew says you can tell by their "fruit," by what they do and what they produce (7: 15).  True prophets produce good fruit, and false prophets don't.  "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."  (7:18)

In today's lection, God's wisdom, which created the world, is justified by Jesus' actual "works" in the world.  His works are a fulfillment of wisdom's (and thus God's) intention in creation.

The Father's gracious purpose: 

At that time Jesus said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; ²⁶yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. ²⁷All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

28 ‘Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. ²⁹Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’

Translation:  In that time, Jesus answered (and) said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to children.  Yes, Father, for in this manner gracious purpose happened before you.  All things have been delivered over to me by my father.  And no one knows the Son except the Father, (and) no one knows the Father except the Son and to whomever the Son might wish to reveal."

"Come to me, all the ones who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart and you will find rest for your lives, for my yoke is lovingkindness and my burden is light."

The intervening verses--20-24, not included in the lection--express condemnation toward cities which opposed the Jesus movement, specifically Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum.  

In the face of this opposition, however, we have a kairotic moment.  "At that time," Matthew says.  The word for time here is kairos, which means special time, the important moment, the time of God.  In this moment of special revelation, in this kairotic moment, Jesus speaks.

He begins with thanks.  The word is exomologoumai, which means:  "I thank you."  One notes that exomologoumai is composed of ex, plus homo, plus logos--literally, "out of the same word."  It has a sense of celebration and joyous affirmation. 

It is also in the middle voice, which means that subject and object are in relationship to each other and affect each other.  Jesus says, essentially, "I give and am being given joyous affirmation of the Father, the Lord of heaven and earth."

"For you have hidden these things from the wise--sofown--and intelligent, and revealed--apocalypto--them to children."  True wisdom, as we have seen, issues in following the way of Jesus.  This way has been "hidden" from those who are "wise and intelligent," but "revealed" to the insigificant. 

This was true, of course, in the historical ministry of Jesus.  He was leading a non-violent peasant-based movement--a "childrens' crusade," after a certain manner of speaking--and he was opposed by the rich and powerful.  It is also apparently true for the community of Matthew in AD 80.  It is still a peasant-based movement.

Verse 26:  "...for in this manner gracious purpose happened before you..."  In hiding things from the wise and revealing them to children, God's eudokia happened.  Eudokia is formed from the prefix eu--"good"--and doxa, which means "glory"--hence, "good-glory." 

Eudokia means a freely chosen desire that issues in a good design.  It may be translated as "good pleasure," or "well-pleased."  NRSV translates it as "gracious will."  Eudokia definitely does have the sense of "graciousness" to it, but "will" sounds too stern and juridical.  The word is gentler than that.  It has a sense of delight and pleasure to it.  I have "gracious purpose." 

The sentence opens with an affirmation to God--"Yes, Father".  The word "Father," while not a complete innovation from Jesus--(Isaiah had used the word)--nevertheless underlines the close relationship of God to the "children."  It is God's "gracious purpose" to reveal the ways of the kingdom to the children, i.e. the lowly.  This is yet another affirmation of what, today, we call "preferential option for the poor."

Despite the opposition they face, the sense of Jesus' speech is joyous.  "All things have been delivered over to me by my Father," he says.  The "Lord of heaven and earth" has delivered over "all"--panta, everything, the entire universe and everything in it--to Jesus. 

Jesus then goes on to say that "no one knows the son except the father, and no one knows the father except the son."  The word "know" is ginosko, which means intimate knowledge.  This kind of exalted, mystical "knowing" is reminiscent of the fourth gospel.  (Was the author of the fourth gospel acquainted with the author of Matthew?) 

This close identification of son and father comes to human beings by revelation--"to whomever the son reveals."  As in the fourth gospel, the intimate knowledge between Father and Son is not exclusive to the Father and the Son, but may also be shared with the children.  From that position, Jesus issues his appeal:

"Come to me":  The closing two verses are unique to Matthew, though there is a passage that is vaguely similar in Sirach (51: 26-27).  As noted above, there is a partial parallel in Thomas, verse 90. 

Most of our translations over-spiritualize this passage, in my humble opinion.  Jesus is specifically addressing those who are over-worked and carrying a heavy load.  In first century Israel, that group consisted of poor people in a condition of political and religious oppression. 

He encourages them to take up his "yoke."  "Yoke" was a common image for Torah and the Mosaic Law.  Instead of Torah, however, we are encouraged to take up Jesus' yoke and "learn" from him.  (The word is mathete, from which comes the word for "disciple."  Matthew continues his emphasis on Jesus as teacher by the exhortation to "learn from him.")  

The "yoke" of Jesus is to learn his Way and follow it.  In marked contrast to earthly rulers, both political and religious, Jesus is "meek and lowly of heart."

NRSV has "and you will find rest for your souls."  That sounds too pious and too passive for the words anapausin tais psuxais humown. Anapausin, which appears also in verse 28, means not only rest, but sabbath rest, the kind of rest that puts a person on the road to recovery.  It has a sense not only of rest, but also refreshment.

Also, psuxais refers to the essence of a person's life.  It is more than "soul," which, in any case, calls to mind images more related to Greek philosophy than Christian theology, which was almost surely not Matthew's intent.  Frankly, I like my translation better:  "...and you will find rest for your lives..."  Following the Way of Jesus--open table fellowship, etc.--will set you on a path of true life.

"For my yoke is lovingkindness."  The word is xrestos--"goodness, benevolence, pleasant, worthy, loving, kind," or, even better, "active benevolence in spite of ingratitude."  "Easy" is OK, but, given the richness and importance of the word in this context, I'm going with "lovingkindness."

This truly wonderful text should not be pietized into worship of Jesus as if he were some kind of idol.  It thoroughly intends to encourage people along the Way of Jesus, to "learn" that Way and follow it, from which will come a truer and better life. 

Egalitarian living is "lighter" than hierarchical living.  Living in light of the freedom and dignity of every person, and especially the poor, is not a "burden" but is, in fact, the way of true rest and true refreshment. 

Image:  19th century, "Learn from me."     

Pentecost 4 ::: Matthew 10: 40-42

⁴⁰“Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. ⁴¹Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; ⁴²and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.”

Translation:  The one receiving you receives me and the one receiving me receives the one who sent me.  The one receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward.  And the one who receives justice in the name of a just person will receive a reward of justice.  And whoever might give a drink of cool water alone to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, truly I say to you, that one might surely not destroy his reward.

Background:  Matthew was writing around AD 80-85, which means that Matthew is literature from the post-war period.  It follows the devastation of the Roman-Jewish War of AD 66-70 when blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed. 

Matthew is at a few years remove from Mark, his primary source.  (Mark wrote during or just after the devastation.)  While Matthew's over-all "mood" is not as dark as Mark's, it is clear that Matthew's church saw themselves as fragile, vulnerable, and under threat.

Most of chapter 10 consists of sayings from Q which Matthew uses to argue that followers of Jesus may expect to meet the same resistance met by Jesus.  The final three verses of this section--those included in our lection--appear to be not Q.  10:40 is quite similar to John 13:20, 10:41 is found only in Matthew, and 10:42 has a near parallel in Mark 9:41.

The immediate situation:  Chapter 10 begins Book Two of Matthew's gospel, the focus of which is mission.  It begins with Jesus calling the Twelve, giving them authority, and naming them.  They are sent to do the same things Jesus had been doing--"Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons" (10:8)--everything Jesus had been doing, with the exception of teaching.  

More than any other gospel, Matthew values Jesus as Teacher.  The disciples have begun their period of instruction under Jesus, but they're just getting started.  They don't know near enough yet in order for them to be able to teach others.  Only in chapter 28, when the entire gospel is completed, do the disciples finally get the go-ahead to teach others.  Only then are they enjoined to "teach all that I have commanded."  (28:16)  As for now, eighteen chapters yet remain in Matthew's gospel and Jesus has much more to teach.

Then follows frank acknowledgement of the trials and difficulties of their mission.  They may be handed over to councils, flogged, and turned in to the secular authorities (10:17-18).  There may be family disruptions, persecution, hatred, even death.  (10:19-23).  They may expect, in short, the very same treatment meted out to Jesus.  (10:24).

Nevertheless, they are repeatedly encouraged not to be afraid--three times in the section from 10:26-31.  They are assured that nothing will happen that is not known to the Father, who is, Jesus pointedly states, also "your Father" (10:29).  He assures the disciples that God cares even about small animals and surely cares about them as well.

Then, the mood darkens once again.  The Jesus movement will inspire opposition--not peace, but a sword!  Again, families will be disrupted.  Jesus quotes from Micah 7:6--"for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;  your enemies are members of your own household."

Jesus is not advocating violence, of course.  He is a bringer of peace, and his disciples are to be "peacemakers" (5:9).  It was also true, however, that, especially in the period in which Matthew was writing, there was considerable division within families due to the Christian faith.  (Some Jesus followers were kicked out of synagogues in the region of Galilee/Syria in the period after the Roman-Jewish war.)

Then, for the first time in Matthew's gospel, the cross is mentioned.  "Whoever does not take hold of his cross and follow after me is not..."--and here it gets tricky.  The word is axios, and it seems to me that the best expression for it here would be "tried and found wanting."  It means "like," "befitting," or "congruent."  The sense is "measuring up."  (I'm avoiding the use of the word "worthy" here, which NRSV has, because we tend to think of that word in terms of moral judgment.) 

"Tried and found wanting" seems to be the sense that Matthew intends.  Jesus has set an example of suffering for the cause.  Disciples are not greater than their master and such a fate may come to any follower.  Followers should continue to expound the Way of Jesus, and follow it.  If they do not, then they are not at the level of their master.  (Matthew was no Lutheran.)

Our three verses:  Three specific ministries are mentioned, followed by a surprise fourth.  First, apostles.  People who receive the disciples receive Jesus and, in so doing, also receive the Father.  John Meier likens this to the figure of the shaliah, who is a messenger with power to act for his sender.  "The shaliah of a man is as the man himself."  Apostles are like that.

Prophets are then acknowledged--"the one receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward."  Considering that many prophets ended up out of public favor, to say the very least, this "reward" may be a mixed blessing.  Prophets are respected and honored only in retrospect.

Third, the "just" are mentioned, and justice is promised to those who honor them.  

It should not be surprising that apostles, prophets, and the just would be lauded.  Matthew, however, is building to an even greater concern, that of concern for "these little ones"--tone mikrone toutone.    

And whoever might give a drink of cool water alone to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, truly I say to you, that one might surely not destroy his reward.

This is the first reference to "little ones" in Matthew's gospel.  Here, it probably refers to the Twelve themselves.  They are just beginning in mission.  They are just beginning to be taught.  They are, at present, "little ones."  

Later, in chapter 18, the ones who are "little ones" now will be teaching other "little ones."  Jesus will tell the Twelve that "little ones" should not face "stumbling blocks" (18:6), should not be "despised" (18:10), and should not be lost (18:14).  In both cases, "little ones" appears to refer to new followers of Jesus.  By chapter 25, however, the idea of "little ones" will be expanded to include anyone seen to be "small" by worldly standards.

The smallest act of help to these "little ones" is noted.  Here, it refers to the slightest assistance for the Twelve.  In chapter 25, at the separation of the sheep and the goats, even the smallest act of help for social outcasts will be seen to have cosmic import.

⁴⁰“Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. ⁴¹Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; ⁴²and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.”

Translation:  The one receiving you receives me and the one receiving me receives the one who sent me.  The one receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward.  And the one who receives justice in the name of a just person will receive a reward of justice.  And whoever might give a drink of cool water alone to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, truly I say to you, that one might surely not destroy his reward.

Background:  Matthew was writing around AD 80-85, which means that Matthew is literature from the post-war period.  It follows the devastation of the Roman-Jewish War of AD 66-70 when blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed. 

Matthew is at a few years remove from Mark, his primary source.  (Mark wrote during or just after the devastation.)  While Matthew's over-all "mood" is not as dark as Mark's, it is clear that Matthew's church saw themselves as fragile, vulnerable, and under threat.

Most of chapter 10 consists of sayings from Q which Matthew uses to argue that followers of Jesus may expect to meet the same resistance met by Jesus.  The final three verses of this section--those included in our lection--appear to be not Q.  10:40 is quite similar to John 13:20, 10:41 is found only in Matthew, and 10:42 has a near parallel in Mark 9:41.

The immediate situation:  Chapter 10 begins Book Two of Matthew's gospel, the focus of which is mission.  It begins with Jesus calling the Twelve, giving them authority, and naming them.  They are sent to do the same things Jesus had been doing--"Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons" (10:8)--everything Jesus had been doing, with the exception of teaching.  

More than any other gospel, Matthew values Jesus as Teacher.  The disciples have begun their period of instruction under Jesus, but they're just getting started.  They don't know near enough yet in order for them to be able to teach others.  Only in chapter 28, when the entire gospel is completed, do the disciples finally get the go-ahead to teach others.  Only then are they enjoined to "teach all that I have commanded."  (28:16)  As for now, eighteen chapters yet remain in Matthew's gospel and Jesus has much more to teach.

Then follows frank acknowledgement of the trials and difficulties of their mission.  They may be handed over to councils, flogged, and turned in to the secular authorities (10:17-18).  There may be family disruptions, persecution, hatred, even death.  (10:19-23).  They may expect, in short, the very same treatment meted out to Jesus.  (10:24).

Nevertheless, they are repeatedly encouraged not to be afraid--three times in the section from 10:26-31.  They are assured that nothing will happen that is not known to the Father, who is, Jesus pointedly states, also "your Father" (10:29).  He assures the disciples that God cares even about small animals and surely cares about them as well.

Then, the mood darkens once again.  The Jesus movement will inspire opposition--not peace, but a sword!  Again, families will be disrupted.  Jesus quotes from Micah 7:6--"for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;  your enemies are members of your own household."

Jesus is not advocating violence, of course.  He is a bringer of peace, and his disciples are to be "peacemakers" (5:9).  It was also true, however, that, especially in the period in which Matthew was writing, there was considerable division within families due to the Christian faith.  (Some Jesus followers were kicked out of synagogues in the region of Galilee/Syria in the period after the Roman-Jewish war.)

Then, for the first time in Matthew's gospel, the cross is mentioned.  "Whoever does not take hold of his cross and follow after me is not..."--and here it gets tricky.  The word is axios, and it seems to me that the best expression for it here would be "tried and found wanting."  It means "like," "befitting," or "congruent."  The sense is "measuring up."  (I'm avoiding the use of the word "worthy" here, which NRSV has, because we tend to think of that word in terms of moral judgment.) 

"Tried and found wanting" seems to be the sense that Matthew intends.  Jesus has set an example of suffering for the cause.  Disciples are not greater than their master and such a fate may come to any follower.  Followers should continue to expound the Way of Jesus, and follow it.  If they do not, then they are not at the level of their master.  (Matthew was no Lutheran.)

Our three verses:  Three specific ministries are mentioned, followed by a surprise fourth.  First, apostles.  People who receive the disciples receive Jesus and, in so doing, also receive the Father.  John Meier likens this to the figure of the shaliah, who is a messenger with power to act for his sender.  "The shaliah of a man is as the man himself."  Apostles are like that.

Prophets are then acknowledged--"the one receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward."  Considering that many prophets ended up out of public favor, to say the very least, this "reward" may be a mixed blessing.  Prophets are respected and honored only in retrospect.

Third, the "just" are mentioned, and justice is promised to those who honor them.  

It should not be surprising that apostles, prophets, and the just would be lauded.  Matthew, however, is building to an even greater concern, that of concern for "these little ones"--tone mikrone toutone.    

And whoever might give a drink of cool water alone to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, truly I say to you, that one might surely not destroy his reward.

This is the first reference to "little ones" in Matthew's gospel.  Here, it probably refers to the Twelve themselves.  They are just beginning in mission.  They are just beginning to be taught.  They are, at present, "little ones."  

Later, in chapter 18, the ones who are "little ones" now will be teaching other "little ones."  Jesus will tell the Twelve that "little ones" should not face "stumbling blocks" (18:6), should not be "despised" (18:10), and should not be lost (18:14).  In both cases, "little ones" appears to refer to new followers of Jesus.  By chapter 25, however, the idea of "little ones" will be expanded to include anyone seen to be "small" by worldly standards.

The smallest act of help to these "little ones" is noted.  Here, it refers to the slightest assistance for the Twelve.  In chapter 25, at the separation of the sheep and the goats, even the smallest act of help for social outcasts will be seen to have cosmic import.

Pentecost 3 ::: Matthew 10: 24-39

‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; ²⁵it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!

Translation:  A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his lord.  Enough for the disciple that that one may become like his teacher, and the slave like his lord.  If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more the ones of his household?

Background and situation:  The book of Matthew has five major sections, each one featuring an extended teaching by Jesus.  (These five teaching sections mirror the five books of Moses.)  The Sermon on the Mount is the first major speech;  the discourse on missionary activity in chapter 10 is the second.

At the beginning of chapter 10, Jesus gave the twelve disciples authority over unclean spirits.  The disciples are then named, and sent out.  Verses 5-23 have to do with mission strategy and facing opposition.  

Versions of some of the verses in this text appear in Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas.  The section from 10:26-33 has a parallel in Luke 12:2-10;  10:34-36 has a parallel in Thomas.  Verse 39 has a parallel in Mark, Luke, and John.

Slave not above his master:  Our lection this week begins with two proverbial sayings, the purpose of which seems to be to inform the disciples that followers of Jesus should not expect different treatment than what Jesus himself received.  Jesus faced persecution, and, therefore, it should not be surprising that his followers will face persecution as well. 

Matthew was writing around AD 80-85, which means that this is post-war literature.  It follows the devastation of the Roman-Jewish War of AD 66-70 when blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed.

During and after the war, significant numbers of Jerusalem residents fled to the northern regions (Galilee, Syria) in order to escape the siege of Jerusalem.  In the north, pharisees tended to dominate and took the lead in organizing and settling these war-time refugees.  With the Temple now destroyed, the local synagogue and local rabbis became the focal point of Jewish life.

Matthew was trying to hold together a Jewish-Christian community in a situation that was extremely difficult.  Paul's mission to the gentiles was having a discernible impact on fledgling Christianity, and Jewish Christianity was steadily losing ground within the Christian movement.  

Moreover, the split between Jews and followers of Jesus had reached a tipping point in the late first century, and tensions between the (now) two groups had grown difficult.  It was during this time that followers of Jesus were being exiled from the synagogues in northern Israel.

The dynamics of first century religious development are complex.  The view that Christianity emerged out of Judaism is considered simplistic today.  Rather, the first century produced several religious sparks--Jesus followers, pharisees, zealots, and many others.  It wasn't that Christianity emerged from Judaism, but rather that both Christianity and pharisee-influenced rabbinical Judaism were two new strains that emerged out of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the fall of the heretofore dominant wing of Judaism, the Sadducees.

Matthew is writing at a few years remove from Mark, who wrote during or just after the devastation in Jerusalem.  While Matthew's over-all mood is not as dark as Mark's, it is clear that Matthew's church saw themselves as fragile, vulnerable, under threat, and beset with difficulties.  If Jesus himself has been accused of being a demon--"they have called the master of the house Beelzebul"--then this charge is likely to be levelled also at Jesus' followers.  

Incidentally, Beelzebul is a Hebrew word that means "lord of lofty abode."  Beelzebul was an ancient Canaanite deity.  (Sometimes, Jews changed the word to Beelzebub, which was considered a slam.)

John Meier says that the phrase related "master of the household" and "Beelzebul", is a pun in Aramaic.  If so, that would add a touch of light-heartedness to a very serious condition, and that could well have been Matthew's intent. 

Matthew's message seems to be:  The situation is quite serious.  There are persecutions.  People are hauled before magistrates.  One's life may in danger.  Nevertheless, there is, ultimately, nothing to fear.  Therefore, be bold!

No fear:

26 ‘So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. ²⁷What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops. ²⁸Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.^* 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by your Father. ³⁰And even the hairs of your head are all counted. ³¹So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Translation:  Therefore, do not fear them, for there is nothing that has been covered which will not be revealed, and a secret which will not be known.  What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light, and what you hear into the ear, proclaim upon the housetops.  And do not fear the ones killing the body, but are not able to kill a life.  But fear more the one able to destroy both life and body in gehenna.  Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?  And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.  But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  Fear not therefore.  You are of more value than many sparrows.

The disciples of Jesus are encouraged not to fear three times in five verses.  This is a message for people who feel themselves under seige. 

Yet, despite their difficulties, their movement cannot be stopped, Jesus tells them.  Even if you go to prison, even if you are oppressed, the message will be revealed and "become known"--ginosko, known in the most intimate way.

Jesus continues to speak to his beleaguered community--"what I say to you" is in the present tense--even if "in the dark."  This would indicate a community that must speak in whispers to each other, under threat of real violence from those who can "kill the body."  Nevertheless, keep spreading the message--"tell in the light."

Do not be afraid of the Romans, but do be afraid of the devil because the devil has the power to destroy both body and "life"--psyche.  Literally:  "Fear much more the one having power to destroy body and life in Gehenna."  ("Gehenna" was a burning trash heap in the valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem.)  

The one who is able to "destroy both body and life"--the devil--means that the struggle of Matthew's community should fundamentally be seen as spiritual.  Yes, they were enduring political and social oppression.  Yes, they were under the boot of Rome.  Nevertheless, these earthly powers are doing the devil's work. 

Then, the discourse turns more positive.  Sparrows were the cheapest edible birds.  Two of them could be bought for an assariou, which is one-tenth of a drachma, or one-sixteenth of a denarius.  Yet, "not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." 

The verb is in the future tense--"will fall"--indicating that these sparrows are alive at present, but even when they die, they will not be "without"--aneu, apart from--your father."  Matthew reminds his readers of God's providential care of all creation, including them.  Again, the exhortation is not to be afraid because--Matthew wryly notes--you are of more value than many sparrows.  Therefore, be bold!

Not peace, but a sword:

32 ‘Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; ³³but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.

Translation:  Therefore, all who will confess me before human beings, I also will confess in that one before my Father, the one in the heavens.  But whoever might deny me before human beings, I also will deny that one before my Father, the one in the heavens.

If Jesus' followers "acknowledge" him--omologesai, literally "speak the same word"--in front of others, then Jesus will do the same on behalf of them "before my Father in heaven."  Note that "your Father" has now become "my Father."  This hints at Jesus' son-ship, and indicates that it is precisely through his son-ship that his followers also become sons and daughters.

Yet, with the olive branch, there is also a threat: Those who "might deny" Jesus--a middle subjunctive--"will be denied" by Jesus to his Father.  As John Meier notes:  "Failure to witness before the earthly tribunal will mean disgrace before the heavenly tribunal, where Jesus will disown the weak disciple as not being truly his brother and therefore not truly a son of the Father."

34 ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 
³⁵For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 
³⁶and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. 
³⁷Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Translation:  Do not assume that I came to throw peace upon the earth.  I came not to throw peace, but a sword, for I came to divide a person from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and enemies of a person of one's own household.  The one loving father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and the one loving son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

"Do not assume that I came to throw peace upon the earth.  I came not to throw peace, but a sword."  (The verb balein implies a stronger action than "bring."  "Throw" or "cast" would be better.)

Matthew ratchets up the tension a notch from the parallel in Luke.  In Luke, Jesus is said to bring "division."  Matthew adds color and force by referring not to "division" but to "a sword," and, moreover, one that is about ready to strike.  

Jesus is quoting from Micah 7:6--"for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;  your enemies are members of your own household."

Jesus is not advocating violence, of course.  He is a bringer of peace, and his disciples are to be "peacemakers" (5:9).  It was also true, however, that, especially in the period in which Matthew was writing, there was considerable division within families due to the Christian faith.  Will Willimon likes to refer to letters from Roman families that talk of their concern because their son--Celsus, let's say--has run off to join some outfit called the Christians.

Called to the future:  Note also the generational pattern of the division.  In each case of comparison, it is the younger generation which is at odds with the older generation.  This is hardly unusual.  In the history of the world, generational perspectives are quite often different and in conflict.

What is surprising is that Jesus offers no palliative for this situation.  Indeed, he makes it worse.  Jesus has come to sever the ties between a man and his father, and a woman and her mother.  (The word is dixasai, which means to "divide" or "cleave in two.")

Jesus was never much on "family values," the way we understand them today.  One's earthly family is not particularly important since Jesus will go on to say, in chapter 12, that one's true family is the new community of Jesus.

The message of Jesus is about being formed by the future.  The kingdom of heaven is coming, a kingdom in which all relationships will be equal, not hierarchical, as in a family.  Traditional power relationships will be upended, including that of the family where father and mother stand "higher" than son or daughter.  ("The first shall be last, and the last first.") 

To be dominated by one's family, on the other hand, is to be dominated by the past.  Indeed, considering that a person's DNA goes back hundreds of thousands of years, we are--in a manner of speaking--in "bondage" to our family and in "bondage" to our past in quite literal ways.  The deference we show to father and mother is, partly, the homage we pay to our past.

To the one who had said he wanted to bury his father before he could follow Jesus, Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their own dead" (8: 22).  Jesus would not let people be dominated by their past.  They are to step out from their past, with its hierarchical power relationships and its "bondage" to tradition.  These are "old wineskins" and not able to hold the "new wine" (9:17).  To love one's family "more than me" is to be in love with the past, with one's progenitors.  To "love son or daughter"--your own gene pool--"more than me" is also to love the past.

³⁸and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

Translation:  And whoever does not take up their cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.  The ones finding his life will destroy it, and the one losing his life because of me will find it.

Literally:  "and whoever does not take hold of his cross and follow after me is not..."--and here it gets tricky.  The word is axios.  It means "like," "befitting," or "congruent."  The sense of the word here seems to be "tried and found wanting."  The sense is one of "measuring up." 

Most translations of axios wind up with "worthy", which is appropriate, though one should avoid the sense of moral judgment that typically accompanies it.  "Worthy" here does not mean moral worth, but rather "foxhold worth," i.e. hanging in the movement despite tough times. "Tried and found wanting" seems to be the sense that Matthew intends. 

Jesus has set an example of suffering for the cause.  Disciples are not greater than their master and difficult situations may come to any follower.  In spite of the difficulty, followers should continue to expound the Way of Jesus, and follow it.  If they do not, then they are not at the level of their master. 

Verse 38 is, incidentally, the first use of the word "cross" in Matthew's gospel.  The phrase is ton stauron autou--literally, "the cross of him."  It is not entirely clear to whom the "him" refers.  It could mean to take up the cross of Jesus, and this has often been a typical interpretation. 

Or, it could mean the disciple taking up "their own cross."  We might think of "taking up his cross" as referring to taking up the burdens faced in the follower's own life.  In either case, in the context of first century Christianity, taking up the cross could, indeed, mean the cross of Jesus. 

More broadly, in whatever time we live, taking up the cross means living according to the way taught by Jesus no matter what one's condition or circumstance.  For our time today, following Jesus may not mean being executed on a cross.  It may mean trying to live as a Christian in the context of wealth and privilege.  Conversely, what does it mean to live as a Christian in the context of mental illness, or disability, or militarism? 

Image:  His eye is on the sparrow, quilt made by Judy Hand Pitts.

 

‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; ²⁵it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!

Translation:  A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his lord.  Enough for the disciple that that one may become like his teacher, and the slave like his lord.  If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more the ones of his household?

Background and situation:  The book of Matthew has five major sections, each one featuring an extended teaching by Jesus.  (These five teaching sections mirror the five books of Moses.)  The Sermon on the Mount is the first major speech;  the discourse on missionary activity in chapter 10 is the second.

At the beginning of chapter 10, Jesus gave the twelve disciples authority over unclean spirits.  The disciples are then named, and sent out.  Verses 5-23 have to do with mission strategy and facing opposition.  

Versions of some of the verses in this text appear in Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas.  The section from 10:26-33 has a parallel in Luke 12:2-10;  10:34-36 has a parallel in Thomas.  Verse 39 has a parallel in Mark, Luke, and John.

Slave not above his master:  Our lection this week begins with two proverbial sayings, the purpose of which seems to be to inform the disciples that followers of Jesus should not expect different treatment than what Jesus himself received.  Jesus faced persecution, and, therefore, it should not be surprising that his followers will face persecution as well. 

Matthew was writing around AD 80-85, which means that this is post-war literature.  It follows the devastation of the Roman-Jewish War of AD 66-70 when blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed.

During and after the war, significant numbers of Jerusalem residents fled to the northern regions (Galilee, Syria) in order to escape the siege of Jerusalem.  In the north, pharisees tended to dominate and took the lead in organizing and settling these war-time refugees.  With the Temple now destroyed, the local synagogue and local rabbis became the focal point of Jewish life.

Matthew was trying to hold together a Jewish-Christian community in a situation that was extremely difficult.  Paul's mission to the gentiles was having a discernible impact on fledgling Christianity, and Jewish Christianity was steadily losing ground within the Christian movement.  

Moreover, the split between Jews and followers of Jesus had reached a tipping point in the late first century, and tensions between the (now) two groups had grown difficult.  It was during this time that followers of Jesus were being exiled from the synagogues in northern Israel.

The dynamics of first century religious development are complex.  The view that Christianity emerged out of Judaism is considered simplistic today.  Rather, the first century produced several religious sparks--Jesus followers, pharisees, zealots, and many others.  It wasn't that Christianity emerged from Judaism, but rather that both Christianity and pharisee-influenced rabbinical Judaism were two new strains that emerged out of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the fall of the heretofore dominant wing of Judaism, the Sadducees.

Matthew is writing at a few years remove from Mark, who wrote during or just after the devastation in Jerusalem.  While Matthew's over-all mood is not as dark as Mark's, it is clear that Matthew's church saw themselves as fragile, vulnerable, under threat, and beset with difficulties.  If Jesus himself has been accused of being a demon--"they have called the master of the house Beelzebul"--then this charge is likely to be levelled also at Jesus' followers.  

Incidentally, Beelzebul is a Hebrew word that means "lord of lofty abode."  Beelzebul was an ancient Canaanite deity.  (Sometimes, Jews changed the word to Beelzebub, which was considered a slam.)

John Meier says that the phrase related "master of the household" and "Beelzebul", is a pun in Aramaic.  If so, that would add a touch of light-heartedness to a very serious condition, and that could well have been Matthew's intent. 

Matthew's message seems to be:  The situation is quite serious.  There are persecutions.  People are hauled before magistrates.  One's life may in danger.  Nevertheless, there is, ultimately, nothing to fear.  Therefore, be bold!

No fear:

26 ‘So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. ²⁷What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops. ²⁸Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.^* 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by your Father. ³⁰And even the hairs of your head are all counted. ³¹So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Translation:  Therefore, do not fear them, for there is nothing that has been covered which will not be revealed, and a secret which will not be known.  What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light, and what you hear into the ear, proclaim upon the housetops.  And do not fear the ones killing the body, but are not able to kill a life.  But fear more the one able to destroy both life and body in gehenna.  Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?  And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.  But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  Fear not therefore.  You are of more value than many sparrows.

The disciples of Jesus are encouraged not to fear three times in five verses.  This is a message for people who feel themselves under seige. 

Yet, despite their difficulties, their movement cannot be stopped, Jesus tells them.  Even if you go to prison, even if you are oppressed, the message will be revealed and "become known"--ginosko, known in the most intimate way.

Jesus continues to speak to his beleaguered community--"what I say to you" is in the present tense--even if "in the dark."  This would indicate a community that must speak in whispers to each other, under threat of real violence from those who can "kill the body."  Nevertheless, keep spreading the message--"tell in the light."

Do not be afraid of the Romans, but do be afraid of the devil because the devil has the power to destroy both body and "life"--psyche.  Literally:  "Fear much more the one having power to destroy body and life in Gehenna."  ("Gehenna" was a burning trash heap in the valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem.)  

The one who is able to "destroy both body and life"--the devil--means that the struggle of Matthew's community should fundamentally be seen as spiritual.  Yes, they were enduring political and social oppression.  Yes, they were under the boot of Rome.  Nevertheless, these earthly powers are doing the devil's work. 

Then, the discourse turns more positive.  Sparrows were the cheapest edible birds.  Two of them could be bought for an assariou, which is one-tenth of a drachma, or one-sixteenth of a denarius.  Yet, "not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." 

The verb is in the future tense--"will fall"--indicating that these sparrows are alive at present, but even when they die, they will not be "without"--aneu, apart from--your father."  Matthew reminds his readers of God's providential care of all creation, including them.  Again, the exhortation is not to be afraid because--Matthew wryly notes--you are of more value than many sparrows.  Therefore, be bold!

Not peace, but a sword:

32 ‘Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; ³³but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.

Translation:  Therefore, all who will confess me before human beings, I also will confess in that one before my Father, the one in the heavens.  But whoever might deny me before human beings, I also will deny that one before my Father, the one in the heavens.

If Jesus' followers "acknowledge" him--omologesai, literally "speak the same word"--in front of others, then Jesus will do the same on behalf of them "before my Father in heaven."  Note that "your Father" has now become "my Father."  This hints at Jesus' son-ship, and indicates that it is precisely through his son-ship that his followers also become sons and daughters.

Yet, with the olive branch, there is also a threat: Those who "might deny" Jesus--a middle subjunctive--"will be denied" by Jesus to his Father.  As John Meier notes:  "Failure to witness before the earthly tribunal will mean disgrace before the heavenly tribunal, where Jesus will disown the weak disciple as not being truly his brother and therefore not truly a son of the Father."

34 ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 
³⁵For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 
³⁶and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. 
³⁷Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Translation:  Do not assume that I came to throw peace upon the earth.  I came not to throw peace, but a sword, for I came to divide a person from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and enemies of a person of one's own household.  The one loving father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and the one loving son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

"Do not assume that I came to throw peace upon the earth.  I came not to throw peace, but a sword."  (The verb balein implies a stronger action than "bring."  "Throw" or "cast" would be better.)

Matthew ratchets up the tension a notch from the parallel in Luke.  In Luke, Jesus is said to bring "division."  Matthew adds color and force by referring not to "division" but to "a sword," and, moreover, one that is about ready to strike.  

Jesus is quoting from Micah 7:6--"for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;  your enemies are members of your own household."

Jesus is not advocating violence, of course.  He is a bringer of peace, and his disciples are to be "peacemakers" (5:9).  It was also true, however, that, especially in the period in which Matthew was writing, there was considerable division within families due to the Christian faith.  Will Willimon likes to refer to letters from Roman families that talk of their concern because their son--Celsus, let's say--has run off to join some outfit called the Christians.

Called to the future:  Note also the generational pattern of the division.  In each case of comparison, it is the younger generation which is at odds with the older generation.  This is hardly unusual.  In the history of the world, generational perspectives are quite often different and in conflict.

What is surprising is that Jesus offers no palliative for this situation.  Indeed, he makes it worse.  Jesus has come to sever the ties between a man and his father, and a woman and her mother.  (The word is dixasai, which means to "divide" or "cleave in two.")

Jesus was never much on "family values," the way we understand them today.  One's earthly family is not particularly important since Jesus will go on to say, in chapter 12, that one's true family is the new community of Jesus.

The message of Jesus is about being formed by the future.  The kingdom of heaven is coming, a kingdom in which all relationships will be equal, not hierarchical, as in a family.  Traditional power relationships will be upended, including that of the family where father and mother stand "higher" than son or daughter.  ("The first shall be last, and the last first.") 

To be dominated by one's family, on the other hand, is to be dominated by the past.  Indeed, considering that a person's DNA goes back hundreds of thousands of years, we are--in a manner of speaking--in "bondage" to our family and in "bondage" to our past in quite literal ways.  The deference we show to father and mother is, partly, the homage we pay to our past.

To the one who had said he wanted to bury his father before he could follow Jesus, Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their own dead" (8: 22).  Jesus would not let people be dominated by their past.  They are to step out from their past, with its hierarchical power relationships and its "bondage" to tradition.  These are "old wineskins" and not able to hold the "new wine" (9:17).  To love one's family "more than me" is to be in love with the past, with one's progenitors.  To "love son or daughter"--your own gene pool--"more than me" is also to love the past.

³⁸and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

Translation:  And whoever does not take up their cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.  The ones finding his life will destroy it, and the one losing his life because of me will find it.

Literally:  "and whoever does not take hold of his cross and follow after me is not..."--and here it gets tricky.  The word is axios.  It means "like," "befitting," or "congruent."  The sense of the word here seems to be "tried and found wanting."  The sense is one of "measuring up." 

Most translations of axios wind up with "worthy", which is appropriate, though one should avoid the sense of moral judgment that typically accompanies it.  "Worthy" here does not mean moral worth, but rather "foxhold worth," i.e. hanging in the movement despite tough times. "Tried and found wanting" seems to be the sense that Matthew intends. 

Jesus has set an example of suffering for the cause.  Disciples are not greater than their master and difficult situations may come to any follower.  In spite of the difficulty, followers should continue to expound the Way of Jesus, and follow it.  If they do not, then they are not at the level of their master. 

Verse 38 is, incidentally, the first use of the word "cross" in Matthew's gospel.  The phrase is ton stauron autou--literally, "the cross of him."  It is not entirely clear to whom the "him" refers.  It could mean to take up the cross of Jesus, and this has often been a typical interpretation. 

Or, it could mean the disciple taking up "their own cross."  We might think of "taking up his cross" as referring to taking up the burdens faced in the follower's own life.  In either case, in the context of first century Christianity, taking up the cross could, indeed, mean the cross of Jesus. 

More broadly, in whatever time we live, taking up the cross means living according to the way taught by Jesus no matter what one's condition or circumstance.  For our time today, following Jesus may not mean being executed on a cross.  It may mean trying to live as a Christian in the context of wealth and privilege.  Conversely, what does it mean to live as a Christian in the context of mental illness, or disability, or militarism? 

Image:  His eye is on the sparrow, quilt made by Judy Hand Pitts.

 

Pentecost 2 ::: Matthew 9:35 - 10:8

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. ³⁶When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. ³⁷Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; ³⁸therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.’

Translation:  And Jesus was going about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease.  And seeing the crowds, he was moved with compassion for them because they were distressed and cast away, like sheep without a shepherd.  Then he said to his disciples, 'The harvest is indeed plentiful, but the workmen are few.  Therefore, pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest that he might send workmen into the harvest."

Background and situation:  The opening verse is pure gospel, and recalls what Jesus had done at the end of chapter 4, right before the Sermon on the Mount:  "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among the people." (4:23)  This is gospel, and it sets the stage for the Sermon on the Mount which follows.

In 9:35, which begins our reading this week, Jesus does exactly what he had done in 4:23:  "And Jesus was going about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease." 

Matthew has five "books" in his gospel, reflecting the five books of Moses.  Each book is introduced by a speech by Jesus.  In the first book, the speech is the famous Sermon on the Mount.  The second "book" of Matthew's gospel begins at 10:1, and introduces a new section, the theme of which is mission and its difficulties.  As in 4:23, the proclamation of the gospel in 9:35 precedes the next speech and provides the "hinge" from one section to the next.

The primary source for this passage is Mark, but Matthew takes Mark and goes in a different direction.  In Mark 6:6, Jesus goes through villages.  Matthew changes this to "cities and villages".  Why?  Because Mark's purpose is to portray Jesus as being plotted against, mainly by people in cities, which is why Jesus spends most of his time in the countryside and in villages.  In Mark, Jesus is under threat, and a victim.  This is less so in Matthew. 

"Sheep without a shepherd":  The phrase "sheep without a shepherd" is an ancient one.  See Numbers 27:17 as one example.  Mark uses the phrase to introduce his first feeding story (6:34).  Matthew, on the other hand, accents Jesus' emotional reaction to the condition of the sheep.  "He was moved with the deepest compassion."  

The word is esplagnisthe, an exceptionally strong statement.  The word is associated with the bowels, for heaven's sake.  Jesus was moved to the depths of his being by the "skinned" or "mangled" condition--eskulmenoi--of the people, who are also being "thrown down" (ripto).  ("Harrassed and helpless," as the NRSV puts it, seems a bit more tame than is indicated by these strong words of oppression.)

What the people need is a mission!  There may be a play on words here.  In verse 35, Jesus is "healing every disease."  The word translated as "healing" is therapeuon--which is, incidentally, where we get our word "therapy." 

In verse 37, "the harvest is plentiful."  The word for "harvest" is therismos.  The similarity in the sound of the two words therapeuon and therismos leads one  to the thought that the "harvest"--the "gathering in"--is associated with healing.  The harvest will indeed be therapeutic.  Even more, the mission to participate in that harvest is likewise "healing." 

The twelve apostles:

Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness. ²These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; ³Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; ⁴Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

Translation:  And having called to him his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every sickness.  And of the twelve apostles, the names are these:  first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, the tax-collector,  James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

After Jesus mentions prayer that "the Lord of the harvest will send laborers," he calls his twelve disciples and gives them "authority"--exousian, also "power, ability, strength"--to do the very mission he has already been doing, casting out unclean spirits and healing disease and sickness.  (Matthew adds healing, which is absent in the Markan parallel, 6:7.) 

In this preparation for mission, Matthew, for the first time, introduces "the twelve."  In actual history, Jesus had a lot more disciples than just twelve.  In other places, 70 are mentioned.  In yet other places (Luke 8), his women disciples are mentioned.  Many people followed Jesus.  We forget:  Jesus was a tribune of the people.  He was popular.  Thousands rallied to him.

"The twelve" is a metaphorical device, meant to recall the twelve tribes of Israel.  These new "twelve" represent the renewal of Israel in the light of God's Christ.  Matthew follows Mark in calling them "apostles."  The word literally means "one sent." 

At the time of Matthew's writing, "apostle" had two meanings.  The first is Pauline.  An apostle is one who has seen Jesus and preaches the gospel.  Another use of the word "apostle" was to refer to an envoy from the churches.  Says John Meier: 

Matthew reflects the usage of the church late in the first century, when a desire to legitimate the authentic tradition of the church against false teachers led to an emphasis on the original guardians of the tradition and their official successors.

To put is slightly different than Meier, Matthew wants to assert the apostolic authority of the Jerusalem church, which is headed by Peter (and James).  This appears to be a concern of Matthew especially.  Peter is looked upon with greater favor in Matthew than in any of the other gospels.  For Matthew, Peter is the "rock" upon whom Jesus builds his church (16:18). 

In accenting the role of Peter, Matthew is lifting up the role of the "head office" of the church in Jerusalem.  It is from there, undoubtedly, that "apostles" would be sent to promote "apostolic teaching" in other early Christian communities, or so Matthew thinks.

Matthew gets his list of "the twelve" from Mark (3: 13-19).  Matthew changes Mark to say that Peter is "first"--protos--which is another reflection of Peter's special position in Matthew, as is Matthew's placement of Andrew, Peter's brother, in second place.  Matthew drops Mark's designation of James and John as "sons of thunder."  Matthew also adds "tax collector" to the name of the disciple Matthew.

Cananaean may reflect an Aramaic word for "zealot" (Meier).  The zealots were first century terrorists who believed in violent action against the Roman occupation.  They appear to have had their beginning in the revolt against the tax census which was called by Cyrenius (Quirinius) in 6 AD. 

Notice that the list of disciples contains a startling juxtaposition.  It includes both a Roman lackey--the tax collector Matthew--and a Roman enemy, Simon the zealot.  The new community of Jesus is broad.  It is able to contain both these disparate people. 

Judas is mentioned last, as per usual.  Whenever Judas' name appears anywhere in the New Testament, there is a disparaging comment appended to his name.  Here, as in Mark, it's "who betrayed him." 

The identity of Judas is still being debated today.  I find intriguing the possibility that his name, "Judas Iscariot," may refer to his hometown--"Judas, from Kerioth."  "Kerioth" was in Judea.  If this is the case, then Judas would be the only member of "the twelve" who was a Judean.  Was Judas a traitor--a Judean spy--all along?

To the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for now:

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, ⁶but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ⁷As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near.”  ⁸Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Translation:  These twelve Jesus sent forth, having instructed them, saying, 'Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not enter into any town of the Samaritans.  Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  Go and proclaim, saying that 'the kingdom of the heavens has come near.'  Heal the weak ones, raise dead ones, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.  You have taken freely.  Give freely."

"Do not go in the way of the nations (gentiles), and do not go into a city of Samaritans, but go, rather, to the destroyed (lost, ruined) sheep of the house of Israel."  We are beginning chapter 10.  At this point, Matthew understands Jesus' mission to be only in Galilee and to the "destroyed" sheep there.

Matthew presents that, at this point, Jesus saw himself as sent only to oppressed Jews living in Galilee.  That mission will expand rather dramatically following Jesus encounter with the Canaanite woman in chapter 15.  After he loses an argument with a foreign woman--and one associated with Israel's ancient enemy--Jesus appears to expand his own mission beyond Israel.  When Matthew closes his gospel, that mission is expanded to "all nations" (28:19).

Matthew also seems to reacting against the situation in Galilee at the time of his writing, c. AD 80.  During and after the Roman-Jewish war, many refugees fled from the south to the north.  It appears Matthew had some difficulty with the pharisees who took it upon themselves to organize these folks into synagogues.  (Even though Matthew refers to "their synagogues," there is a fair chance that there were no synagogues in Galilee in AD 30, but there were synagogues at the time of Matthew's writing, synagogues which had been organized by pharisees.  Matthew took a dim view of them--see chapter 23.)

"Go and proclaim, saying that 'the kingdom of the heavens has come near.'  Heal the weak ones, raise dead ones, cleanse lepers--(the word is katharizete, where we get our word "catharsis")--cast out demons.  You have taken freely.  Give freely."

Again, "the twelve" are to reflect the ministry of Jesus himself.  Matthew is especially keen on identifying the mission of the church with what Jesus himself did.  Note especially "heal the weak," which is usually translated "cure the sick."  The word is therapeuete again, which means not only "heal" but also "serve."  The word normally translated as "sick" is asthenountas, which, in my view, has a broader definition than "sick."  It means "weak" or "feeble" or "lacking strength."  (The word is used in psychiatry today to refer to weakness and torpor.)  "Serve the weak" would be a perfectly good translation, and one that is thoroughly consistent with Jesus' mission.

That is what the church is to be about--serving the weak, healing the sick, cleansing the unclean.  It is to be about bringing others into the practice of the kingdom, wherein all people are treated with respect and dignity, all tables are open, all people are lifted up, and all are called to higher purpose. 

Funny.  How did we ever get the idea that the mission of the church was to get people to "convert" to something called "protestant theology" whereby they could be "saved"?

Image:  Christ healing the blind man, El Greco

 

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. ³⁶When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. ³⁷Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; ³⁸therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.’

Translation:  And Jesus was going about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease.  And seeing the crowds, he was moved with compassion for them because they were distressed and cast away, like sheep without a shepherd.  Then he said to his disciples, 'The harvest is indeed plentiful, but the workmen are few.  Therefore, pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest that he might send workmen into the harvest."

Background and situation:  The opening verse is pure gospel, and recalls what Jesus had done at the end of chapter 4, right before the Sermon on the Mount:  "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among the people." (4:23)  This is gospel, and it sets the stage for the Sermon on the Mount which follows.

In 9:35, which begins our reading this week, Jesus does exactly what he had done in 4:23:  "And Jesus was going about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease." 

Matthew has five "books" in his gospel, reflecting the five books of Moses.  Each book is introduced by a speech by Jesus.  In the first book, the speech is the famous Sermon on the Mount.  The second "book" of Matthew's gospel begins at 10:1, and introduces a new section, the theme of which is mission and its difficulties.  As in 4:23, the proclamation of the gospel in 9:35 precedes the next speech and provides the "hinge" from one section to the next.

The primary source for this passage is Mark, but Matthew takes Mark and goes in a different direction.  In Mark 6:6, Jesus goes through villages.  Matthew changes this to "cities and villages".  Why?  Because Mark's purpose is to portray Jesus as being plotted against, mainly by people in cities, which is why Jesus spends most of his time in the countryside and in villages.  In Mark, Jesus is under threat, and a victim.  This is less so in Matthew. 

"Sheep without a shepherd":  The phrase "sheep without a shepherd" is an ancient one.  See Numbers 27:17 as one example.  Mark uses the phrase to introduce his first feeding story (6:34).  Matthew, on the other hand, accents Jesus' emotional reaction to the condition of the sheep.  "He was moved with the deepest compassion."  

The word is esplagnisthe, an exceptionally strong statement.  The word is associated with the bowels, for heaven's sake.  Jesus was moved to the depths of his being by the "skinned" or "mangled" condition--eskulmenoi--of the people, who are also being "thrown down" (ripto).  ("Harrassed and helpless," as the NRSV puts it, seems a bit more tame than is indicated by these strong words of oppression.)

What the people need is a mission!  There may be a play on words here.  In verse 35, Jesus is "healing every disease."  The word translated as "healing" is therapeuon--which is, incidentally, where we get our word "therapy." 

In verse 37, "the harvest is plentiful."  The word for "harvest" is therismos.  The similarity in the sound of the two words therapeuon and therismos leads one  to the thought that the "harvest"--the "gathering in"--is associated with healing.  The harvest will indeed be therapeutic.  Even more, the mission to participate in that harvest is likewise "healing." 

The twelve apostles:

Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness. ²These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; ³Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; ⁴Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

Translation:  And having called to him his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every sickness.  And of the twelve apostles, the names are these:  first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, the tax-collector,  James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

After Jesus mentions prayer that "the Lord of the harvest will send laborers," he calls his twelve disciples and gives them "authority"--exousian, also "power, ability, strength"--to do the very mission he has already been doing, casting out unclean spirits and healing disease and sickness.  (Matthew adds healing, which is absent in the Markan parallel, 6:7.) 

In this preparation for mission, Matthew, for the first time, introduces "the twelve."  In actual history, Jesus had a lot more disciples than just twelve.  In other places, 70 are mentioned.  In yet other places (Luke 8), his women disciples are mentioned.  Many people followed Jesus.  We forget:  Jesus was a tribune of the people.  He was popular.  Thousands rallied to him.

"The twelve" is a metaphorical device, meant to recall the twelve tribes of Israel.  These new "twelve" represent the renewal of Israel in the light of God's Christ.  Matthew follows Mark in calling them "apostles."  The word literally means "one sent." 

At the time of Matthew's writing, "apostle" had two meanings.  The first is Pauline.  An apostle is one who has seen Jesus and preaches the gospel.  Another use of the word "apostle" was to refer to an envoy from the churches.  Says John Meier: 

Matthew reflects the usage of the church late in the first century, when a desire to legitimate the authentic tradition of the church against false teachers led to an emphasis on the original guardians of the tradition and their official successors.

To put is slightly different than Meier, Matthew wants to assert the apostolic authority of the Jerusalem church, which is headed by Peter (and James).  This appears to be a concern of Matthew especially.  Peter is looked upon with greater favor in Matthew than in any of the other gospels.  For Matthew, Peter is the "rock" upon whom Jesus builds his church (16:18). 

In accenting the role of Peter, Matthew is lifting up the role of the "head office" of the church in Jerusalem.  It is from there, undoubtedly, that "apostles" would be sent to promote "apostolic teaching" in other early Christian communities, or so Matthew thinks.

Matthew gets his list of "the twelve" from Mark (3: 13-19).  Matthew changes Mark to say that Peter is "first"--protos--which is another reflection of Peter's special position in Matthew, as is Matthew's placement of Andrew, Peter's brother, in second place.  Matthew drops Mark's designation of James and John as "sons of thunder."  Matthew also adds "tax collector" to the name of the disciple Matthew.

Cananaean may reflect an Aramaic word for "zealot" (Meier).  The zealots were first century terrorists who believed in violent action against the Roman occupation.  They appear to have had their beginning in the revolt against the tax census which was called by Cyrenius (Quirinius) in 6 AD. 

Notice that the list of disciples contains a startling juxtaposition.  It includes both a Roman lackey--the tax collector Matthew--and a Roman enemy, Simon the zealot.  The new community of Jesus is broad.  It is able to contain both these disparate people. 

Judas is mentioned last, as per usual.  Whenever Judas' name appears anywhere in the New Testament, there is a disparaging comment appended to his name.  Here, as in Mark, it's "who betrayed him." 

The identity of Judas is still being debated today.  I find intriguing the possibility that his name, "Judas Iscariot," may refer to his hometown--"Judas, from Kerioth."  "Kerioth" was in Judea.  If this is the case, then Judas would be the only member of "the twelve" who was a Judean.  Was Judas a traitor--a Judean spy--all along?

To the lost sheep of the house of Israel, for now:

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, ⁶but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ⁷As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near.”  ⁸Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Translation:  These twelve Jesus sent forth, having instructed them, saying, 'Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not enter into any town of the Samaritans.  Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  Go and proclaim, saying that 'the kingdom of the heavens has come near.'  Heal the weak ones, raise dead ones, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.  You have taken freely.  Give freely."

"Do not go in the way of the nations (gentiles), and do not go into a city of Samaritans, but go, rather, to the destroyed (lost, ruined) sheep of the house of Israel."  We are beginning chapter 10.  At this point, Matthew understands Jesus' mission to be only in Galilee and to the "destroyed" sheep there.

Matthew presents that, at this point, Jesus saw himself as sent only to oppressed Jews living in Galilee.  That mission will expand rather dramatically following Jesus encounter with the Canaanite woman in chapter 15.  After he loses an argument with a foreign woman--and one associated with Israel's ancient enemy--Jesus appears to expand his own mission beyond Israel.  When Matthew closes his gospel, that mission is expanded to "all nations" (28:19).

Matthew also seems to reacting against the situation in Galilee at the time of his writing, c. AD 80.  During and after the Roman-Jewish war, many refugees fled from the south to the north.  It appears Matthew had some difficulty with the pharisees who took it upon themselves to organize these folks into synagogues.  (Even though Matthew refers to "their synagogues," there is a fair chance that there were no synagogues in Galilee in AD 30, but there were synagogues at the time of Matthew's writing, synagogues which had been organized by pharisees.  Matthew took a dim view of them--see chapter 23.)

"Go and proclaim, saying that 'the kingdom of the heavens has come near.'  Heal the weak ones, raise dead ones, cleanse lepers--(the word is katharizete, where we get our word "catharsis")--cast out demons.  You have taken freely.  Give freely."

Again, "the twelve" are to reflect the ministry of Jesus himself.  Matthew is especially keen on identifying the mission of the church with what Jesus himself did.  Note especially "heal the weak," which is usually translated "cure the sick."  The word is therapeuete again, which means not only "heal" but also "serve."  The word normally translated as "sick" is asthenountas, which, in my view, has a broader definition than "sick."  It means "weak" or "feeble" or "lacking strength."  (The word is used in psychiatry today to refer to weakness and torpor.)  "Serve the weak" would be a perfectly good translation, and one that is thoroughly consistent with Jesus' mission.

That is what the church is to be about--serving the weak, healing the sick, cleansing the unclean.  It is to be about bringing others into the practice of the kingdom, wherein all people are treated with respect and dignity, all tables are open, all people are lifted up, and all are called to higher purpose. 

Funny.  How did we ever get the idea that the mission of the church was to get people to "convert" to something called "protestant theology" whereby they could be "saved"?

Image:  Christ healing the blind man, El Greco

The Holy Trinity ::: Matthew 28: 16-20

¹⁶Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. ¹⁷When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Translation:   And the eleven disciples journeyed into the Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus had directed them.  And seeing him, they worshiped, but they doubted.  And Jesus came (and) spoke to them, saying, "All power has been given to me in heaven and upon the earth.  As you have gone, therefore, teach all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to keep all as I commanded you.  And behold! I am with you all the days until the consummation of the eternal." 

Background and situation:  These are the closing words of Matthew's gospel.  As is characteristic for Matthew's gospel, Jesus is again presented as Moses-like, yet greater-than Moses.  Like Moses, he speaks on a mountain and gives commandments.  As greater-than Moses, he now commands "all authority."

The Holy Trinity:  This is the gospel reading for Holy Trinity Sunday, the only day of the church year said to be dedicated specifically to a doctrinal position. 

In reality, of course, all church holidays are about some aspect of doctrine.  Christmas, for example, is not at all the "birthday of Jesus," but a holy day of the church dedicated to the incarnation, a doctrinal teaching which counters the heresies of gnosticism and docetism.

The lection is likely chosen because of its reference to "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  The saying is anachronistic for the time of Jesus, who, bereft of expensive seminary education, would likely have been thoroughly mystified by something called "trinitarian theology."

The trinity has been perhaps the most controversial and most mysterious of Christian teachings.  As is well known, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible, although you can see hints of trinitarianism beginning to develop, like Matthew's mention of the trinitarian name in today's lection, for example, and certain passages of Paul, such as "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you (2 Cor 13: 14)." 

You can easily see the difficulty for first century Jews such as Matthew.  Jews are monotheists.  In fact, at the time of Jesus, Jews were the first and only monotheists in the world.  "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," said the shema. 

Yet, the earliest Christians, all of them Jews, believed that, somehow, they had encountered God in Jesus of Nazareth.  How could one express that, and still be a monotheist? 

The most challenging theological treatises--over the years, and to this day--have been on the trinity.  It took St. Augustine 15 volumes to describe the trinity.  Here are his seven summary statements:  The Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  The Son is not the Father.  The Father is not the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is not the Son.  There is only one God.  (Impenetrable, yes, and convoluted, but what can one expect?  The subject is God, after all.)

While I'm no better at understanding the trinity than anyone else, and much less so than many, I find the teaching attractive for these reasons: 

(1)  The trinity's central teaching about God is that God, in God's interior life, is essentially relational.  This is a far cry from the radical monad of Greek philosophy who exists up high in the stratosphere somewhere, disconnected from any one or any thing. 

The trinity understands that relationships within God are dynamic.  They move.  The early theologians used the word perichoresis, which literally means "dancing around."  (We get our word "choreography" from choresis.)   This ever-vital, ever-moving, ever-interweaving of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential.  It is an aspect of God's very being.  

No member of the trinity is superior to any other, which means that the interior life of God is not hierarchical.  Here's a helpful exercise:  Try re-arranging the "persons" of the trinity.  Since all "persons" of the trinity are equal, it doesn't make any difference which one is mentioned first.  In fact, in order to at least allude to the anti-heirarchical nature of perichoresis, we should mix them up.  How about opening worship in the name of the Spirit, Son, and Father?

Our actual practice is always to say "Father, Son, and Spirit" in that order.  The Father is always mentioned first, in the pre-eminent position, one "higher" than the Son or Spirit.  Our actual practice supports a hierarchical view of God when the actual trinitarian theology of perichoresis subverts hierarchy! 

(2)  The trinity is radically egalitarian, and embraces all of human experience.  It is precisely the human man Jesus who is the Second Person of the Trinity.  Through Jesus--not the souped-up, supernatural Jesus, but the human Jesus--the entirety of human experience is embraced and taken into the life of God.  Just as God is relationship within God's own self, God relentlessly reaches out and into all human life to reconcile and restore human being's broken relationship with God.  This is good.

(3)  The trinity makes good sense of the cross.  When Jesus died on the cross, he then descended into hell--into the realm of nothingness, absence, and annihilation.  He descended into the "opposite of God."  Where God is presence and relationship, hell is absence and loneliness--"where nothing connects with nothing," as someone has put it. 

According to trinitarian theology of the cross, the Holy Spirit breaches the gap between the "Father in Heaven" and the "Son in Hell."  The Holy Spirit is the bond of love that unites them even across this greatest of all chasms.

(4)  Putting Jesus in the trinity subverts the Emperor as a "son of God."  Throughout history, many rulers claimed to be sired by something supernatural.  Shortly before the time of Jesus, Julius Caesar was said to be "the divine Julius" after his assassination.  A new comet was a sign of his joining the panoply of gods.  After him, his adopted son, Caesar Augustus, claimed to be divi filius (son of a god), proudly stamping his status on coins and distributing them throughout the empire.

Christianity might have been legalized by Constantine in AD 313, but the early Christians were nevertheless suspicious of the government.  It hadn't been that long since they had been victims of persecution (c. AD 280-300).  If Jesus is merely a son of God, how would he be any different from Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus?  He needed to be in the trinity, equal to God, or risk being lost in the shuffle of the various other (far lesser and often self-appointed) gods.

That's on the one hand.  Here are some reasons not to like the trinity:  

(1)  It was a doctrine imposed.  It was declared the only acceptable Christian doctrine of God by the Emperor Theodosius in AD 380, rubber-stamped by the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, and all opposing views were banned and suppressed.  This hardly seems very Christian.  

What's worse, it had to keep being imposed.  Christianity's biggest problem, ever since Constantine, is that it was implemented from the top down.  The nobility converted in order to get God on their side, and they then converted the peasants.  (One encouraging sign today is the "emergent church," which is bottom-up.)

(2)  The Emperor's trinitarianism had the effect of kicking Jesus upstairs into an object to be worshipped rather than followed.  The historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, had a disturbing tendency to side with people the Emperor liked to push around, and the Emperor certainly didn't want people following that example.

Kicking Jesus upstairs has the unfortunate effect of subverting the doctrine of the incarnation.  It removes Jesus from the realities of human life and tries to re-locate him in the airy and ethereal.  

In effect, most modern day Christian worship assumes a view of Jesus with exalted divinity and a severely truncated humanity.  That is docetism, pure and simple, the idea that Jesus only seemed to be a human being, but wasn't really.  Thus, the "orthodox" position on the trinity tends to subvert the "orthodox" position on the two natures of Jesus.   

The New Community:  Matthew describes two communities in the closing chapter of his gospel.  In the five verses preceding our lection, he mentions the community of guard, priests, elders, and soldiers--a community headed by the governor. 

When Jesus is not in his tomb on Easter Sunday morning, the priests, after conferring with representatives of the ruling families of Jerusalem, bribe the soldiers to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by his supporters.  In return, they offer to cover the soldiers' butt when the governor finds out that Jesus' body is missing.  The community described in verses 11-15 is a community based in greed and lies.

Immediately following we are told of another community, the new community of Jesus.  As he had told them to do, they are going to Galilee.  They are, however, only eleven in number, and not twelve.  One of the twelve, Judas, has committed suicide.  Even the new community has suffered loss and betrayal.  Yet, in spite of their "brokenness," the new community is obedient to Jesus' instruction to go to Galilee. 

In Galilee, they meet Jesus on "the mountain where Jesus had directed them."  It is not at all surprising that Matthew would have Jesus meet the disciples on a mountain.  Mountains as a place of special revelation are quite common in Matthew.  

We don't know which mountain.  Matthew says nothing further about it, and no prior reference says anything about this mountain, or its specific locale.  In any case, that is not the point.  The point is that the disciples followed Jesus' direction.  He "directed" them.  They went.

Doubt:  Verse 17:  "And seeing him, they worshipped but they doubted."  All four gospels deal with the subject of doubt, though they each do it in a different way. 

This is Matthew's way:  The disciples have followed Jesus' direction without yet seeing him.  As a result of following his direction, they have come to a place of special revelation where they do "see" him.  They respond with worship, even in the face of their own doubt.  Doubt is frankly acknowledged.  Says Matthew:  Let the church be instructed.  Jesus is followed and worshipped in spite of doubt.

Jesus then "came" to them.  He does not remain distant from his community, but approaches and comes to them.  This is reminiscent of the Transfiguration--another mountaintop experience--when Jesus "touched" Peter, James and John (17: 7).

Final teaching:  Unlike the other three gospels, Matthew makes no mention of Jesus' physicality, or his wounds, or any special post-resurrection abilities.  Matthew is the gospel that places emphasis on the teaching of Jesus, and so, here, Jesus only speaks. 

He announces his universal and cosmic authority--"all power in heaven and upon the earth."  "Therefore"--precisely because of his universal authority--he can compell a universal mission, a mission to "all nations."  Indeed, the word "all" appears four times in these five verses--"all authority," "all nations," "all I have commanded," "all the days"--a striking expression of universality.

The text is often called "the great commission," an expression which appears nowhere in scripture.  (We do have, however, a "greatest commandment" in Matthew, and also a second greatest commandment, love for God and love for neighbor (22:35-40).) 

The disciples are told to "go"--poreuomai, which is passive, and carries the sense of "being led forward on a journey," a journey to make disciples of "all the nations"--ethne, "peoples."

The new community is to baptize "them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  Matthew did not invent this formula.  He likely took it from the liturgy of the early church.  Some baptisms in the early church were "in the name of Jesus"--Acts 2:38, 10:48.

The saying continues with one final instruction:  "teaching them to observe as much as I have commanded you."  More than any other gospel, Matthew emphasizes Jesus' role as teacher.  Jesus inaugural speech, in Matthew, is nothing less than the Sermon on the Mount, and that was only the beginning!  Everything Jesus has taught to the disciples is to be taught throughout the new community.

The final "emanuel":  Kai idou--And behold!  "I am with you"--ego meta humon eimi.  Note how "with you" is sandwiched between ego and eimi.  (Ego eimi is the "divine name," the Greek version of YHWH, the name of God.)

At Jesus' birth, Matthew had proclaimed that Jesus is "emanuel"--God with us.  Now, in Jesus' final proclamation to his disciples in Matthew, he asserts the divine name--"I am!"--but, this time, "with you" is placed within the divine name itself!  

In the way Matthew has grammatically constructed the sentence, the new community of those who follow Jesus are within the very life of God.  God with us indeed!  (It's a plural "you" incidentally, i.e. the whole catholic flock is held within God, and not just your own splendid self.)

"I am with you all the days until the sunteleias tou aionos."  Suntelaias combines the words sun with telos.  Sun means "together," telos means "the goal."  The sense of the word is a "gathering up into the goal," rather reminiscent of St. Iraneus who spoke of the anakephalaiososthai ta panta--the "summing up of all things into the head."  Thus ends Matthew's gospel.

Matthew tells of two communities.  One is based in the Temple, influenced by the ruling families of Jerusalem, headed by the governor.  This community is about power, greed, payoffs, deception, and lies. 

The new community is headed by Jesus, not the governor.  It follows his teaching as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, not the corrupt practices of the Temple, or the oppressive practices of the Roman occupation.  This new community is for "all peoples," not merely the political and economic elite.

Image:  "The Holy Trinity," El Greco

 

¹⁶Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. ¹⁷When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Translation:   And the eleven disciples journeyed into the Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus had directed them.  And seeing him, they worshiped, but they doubted.  And Jesus came (and) spoke to them, saying, "All power has been given to me in heaven and upon the earth.  As you have gone, therefore, teach all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to keep all as I commanded you.  And behold! I am with you all the days until the consummation of the eternal." 

Background and situation:  These are the closing words of Matthew's gospel.  As is characteristic for Matthew's gospel, Jesus is again presented as Moses-like, yet greater-than Moses.  Like Moses, he speaks on a mountain and gives commandments.  As greater-than Moses, he now commands "all authority."

The Holy Trinity:  This is the gospel reading for Holy Trinity Sunday, the only day of the church year said to be dedicated specifically to a doctrinal position. 

In reality, of course, all church holidays are about some aspect of doctrine.  Christmas, for example, is not at all the "birthday of Jesus," but a holy day of the church dedicated to the incarnation, a doctrinal teaching which counters the heresies of gnosticism and docetism.

The lection is likely chosen because of its reference to "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  The saying is anachronistic for the time of Jesus, who, bereft of expensive seminary education, would likely have been thoroughly mystified by something called "trinitarian theology."

The trinity has been perhaps the most controversial and most mysterious of Christian teachings.  As is well known, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible, although you can see hints of trinitarianism beginning to develop, like Matthew's mention of the trinitarian name in today's lection, for example, and certain passages of Paul, such as "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you (2 Cor 13: 14)." 

You can easily see the difficulty for first century Jews such as Matthew.  Jews are monotheists.  In fact, at the time of Jesus, Jews were the first and only monotheists in the world.  "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," said the shema. 

Yet, the earliest Christians, all of them Jews, believed that, somehow, they had encountered God in Jesus of Nazareth.  How could one express that, and still be a monotheist? 

The most challenging theological treatises--over the years, and to this day--have been on the trinity.  It took St. Augustine 15 volumes to describe the trinity.  Here are his seven summary statements:  The Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  The Son is not the Father.  The Father is not the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is not the Son.  There is only one God.  (Impenetrable, yes, and convoluted, but what can one expect?  The subject is God, after all.)

While I'm no better at understanding the trinity than anyone else, and much less so than many, I find the teaching attractive for these reasons: 

(1)  The trinity's central teaching about God is that God, in God's interior life, is essentially relational.  This is a far cry from the radical monad of Greek philosophy who exists up high in the stratosphere somewhere, disconnected from any one or any thing. 

The trinity understands that relationships within God are dynamic.  They move.  The early theologians used the word perichoresis, which literally means "dancing around."  (We get our word "choreography" from choresis.)   This ever-vital, ever-moving, ever-interweaving of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential.  It is an aspect of God's very being.  

No member of the trinity is superior to any other, which means that the interior life of God is not hierarchical.  Here's a helpful exercise:  Try re-arranging the "persons" of the trinity.  Since all "persons" of the trinity are equal, it doesn't make any difference which one is mentioned first.  In fact, in order to at least allude to the anti-heirarchical nature of perichoresis, we should mix them up.  How about opening worship in the name of the Spirit, Son, and Father?

Our actual practice is always to say "Father, Son, and Spirit" in that order.  The Father is always mentioned first, in the pre-eminent position, one "higher" than the Son or Spirit.  Our actual practice supports a hierarchical view of God when the actual trinitarian theology of perichoresis subverts hierarchy! 

(2)  The trinity is radically egalitarian, and embraces all of human experience.  It is precisely the human man Jesus who is the Second Person of the Trinity.  Through Jesus--not the souped-up, supernatural Jesus, but the human Jesus--the entirety of human experience is embraced and taken into the life of God.  Just as God is relationship within God's own self, God relentlessly reaches out and into all human life to reconcile and restore human being's broken relationship with God.  This is good.

(3)  The trinity makes good sense of the cross.  When Jesus died on the cross, he then descended into hell--into the realm of nothingness, absence, and annihilation.  He descended into the "opposite of God."  Where God is presence and relationship, hell is absence and loneliness--"where nothing connects with nothing," as someone has put it. 

According to trinitarian theology of the cross, the Holy Spirit breaches the gap between the "Father in Heaven" and the "Son in Hell."  The Holy Spirit is the bond of love that unites them even across this greatest of all chasms.

(4)  Putting Jesus in the trinity subverts the Emperor as a "son of God."  Throughout history, many rulers claimed to be sired by something supernatural.  Shortly before the time of Jesus, Julius Caesar was said to be "the divine Julius" after his assassination.  A new comet was a sign of his joining the panoply of gods.  After him, his adopted son, Caesar Augustus, claimed to be divi filius (son of a god), proudly stamping his status on coins and distributing them throughout the empire.

Christianity might have been legalized by Constantine in AD 313, but the early Christians were nevertheless suspicious of the government.  It hadn't been that long since they had been victims of persecution (c. AD 280-300).  If Jesus is merely a son of God, how would he be any different from Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus?  He needed to be in the trinity, equal to God, or risk being lost in the shuffle of the various other (far lesser and often self-appointed) gods.

That's on the one hand.  Here are some reasons not to like the trinity:  

(1)  It was a doctrine imposed.  It was declared the only acceptable Christian doctrine of God by the Emperor Theodosius in AD 380, rubber-stamped by the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, and all opposing views were banned and suppressed.  This hardly seems very Christian.  

What's worse, it had to keep being imposed.  Christianity's biggest problem, ever since Constantine, is that it was implemented from the top down.  The nobility converted in order to get God on their side, and they then converted the peasants.  (One encouraging sign today is the "emergent church," which is bottom-up.)

(2)  The Emperor's trinitarianism had the effect of kicking Jesus upstairs into an object to be worshipped rather than followed.  The historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, had a disturbing tendency to side with people the Emperor liked to push around, and the Emperor certainly didn't want people following that example.

Kicking Jesus upstairs has the unfortunate effect of subverting the doctrine of the incarnation.  It removes Jesus from the realities of human life and tries to re-locate him in the airy and ethereal.  

In effect, most modern day Christian worship assumes a view of Jesus with exalted divinity and a severely truncated humanity.  That is docetism, pure and simple, the idea that Jesus only seemed to be a human being, but wasn't really.  Thus, the "orthodox" position on the trinity tends to subvert the "orthodox" position on the two natures of Jesus.   

The New Community:  Matthew describes two communities in the closing chapter of his gospel.  In the five verses preceding our lection, he mentions the community of guard, priests, elders, and soldiers--a community headed by the governor. 

When Jesus is not in his tomb on Easter Sunday morning, the priests, after conferring with representatives of the ruling families of Jerusalem, bribe the soldiers to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by his supporters.  In return, they offer to cover the soldiers' butt when the governor finds out that Jesus' body is missing.  The community described in verses 11-15 is a community based in greed and lies.

Immediately following we are told of another community, the new community of Jesus.  As he had told them to do, they are going to Galilee.  They are, however, only eleven in number, and not twelve.  One of the twelve, Judas, has committed suicide.  Even the new community has suffered loss and betrayal.  Yet, in spite of their "brokenness," the new community is obedient to Jesus' instruction to go to Galilee. 

In Galilee, they meet Jesus on "the mountain where Jesus had directed them."  It is not at all surprising that Matthew would have Jesus meet the disciples on a mountain.  Mountains as a place of special revelation are quite common in Matthew.  

We don't know which mountain.  Matthew says nothing further about it, and no prior reference says anything about this mountain, or its specific locale.  In any case, that is not the point.  The point is that the disciples followed Jesus' direction.  He "directed" them.  They went.

Doubt:  Verse 17:  "And seeing him, they worshipped but they doubted."  All four gospels deal with the subject of doubt, though they each do it in a different way. 

This is Matthew's way:  The disciples have followed Jesus' direction without yet seeing him.  As a result of following his direction, they have come to a place of special revelation where they do "see" him.  They respond with worship, even in the face of their own doubt.  Doubt is frankly acknowledged.  Says Matthew:  Let the church be instructed.  Jesus is followed and worshipped in spite of doubt.

Jesus then "came" to them.  He does not remain distant from his community, but approaches and comes to them.  This is reminiscent of the Transfiguration--another mountaintop experience--when Jesus "touched" Peter, James and John (17: 7).

Final teaching:  Unlike the other three gospels, Matthew makes no mention of Jesus' physicality, or his wounds, or any special post-resurrection abilities.  Matthew is the gospel that places emphasis on the teaching of Jesus, and so, here, Jesus only speaks. 

He announces his universal and cosmic authority--"all power in heaven and upon the earth."  "Therefore"--precisely because of his universal authority--he can compell a universal mission, a mission to "all nations."  Indeed, the word "all" appears four times in these five verses--"all authority," "all nations," "all I have commanded," "all the days"--a striking expression of universality.

The text is often called "the great commission," an expression which appears nowhere in scripture.  (We do have, however, a "greatest commandment" in Matthew, and also a second greatest commandment, love for God and love for neighbor (22:35-40).) 

The disciples are told to "go"--poreuomai, which is passive, and carries the sense of "being led forward on a journey," a journey to make disciples of "all the nations"--ethne, "peoples."

The new community is to baptize "them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  Matthew did not invent this formula.  He likely took it from the liturgy of the early church.  Some baptisms in the early church were "in the name of Jesus"--Acts 2:38, 10:48.

The saying continues with one final instruction:  "teaching them to observe as much as I have commanded you."  More than any other gospel, Matthew emphasizes Jesus' role as teacher.  Jesus inaugural speech, in Matthew, is nothing less than the Sermon on the Mount, and that was only the beginning!  Everything Jesus has taught to the disciples is to be taught throughout the new community.

The final "emanuel":  Kai idou--And behold!  "I am with you"--ego meta humon eimi.  Note how "with you" is sandwiched between ego and eimi.  (Ego eimi is the "divine name," the Greek version of YHWH, the name of God.)

At Jesus' birth, Matthew had proclaimed that Jesus is "emanuel"--God with us.  Now, in Jesus' final proclamation to his disciples in Matthew, he asserts the divine name--"I am!"--but, this time, "with you" is placed within the divine name itself!  

In the way Matthew has grammatically constructed the sentence, the new community of those who follow Jesus are within the very life of God.  God with us indeed!  (It's a plural "you" incidentally, i.e. the whole catholic flock is held within God, and not just your own splendid self.)

"I am with you all the days until the sunteleias tou aionos."  Suntelaias combines the words sun with telos.  Sun means "together," telos means "the goal."  The sense of the word is a "gathering up into the goal," rather reminiscent of St. Iraneus who spoke of the anakephalaiososthai ta panta--the "summing up of all things into the head."  Thus ends Matthew's gospel.

Matthew tells of two communities.  One is based in the Temple, influenced by the ruling families of Jerusalem, headed by the governor.  This community is about power, greed, payoffs, deception, and lies. 

The new community is headed by Jesus, not the governor.  It follows his teaching as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, not the corrupt practices of the Temple, or the oppressive practices of the Roman occupation.  This new community is for "all peoples," not merely the political and economic elite.

Image:  "The Holy Trinity," El Greco

¹⁶Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. ¹⁷When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Translation:   And the eleven disciples journeyed into the Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus had directed them.  And seeing him, they worshiped, but they doubted.  And Jesus came (and) spoke to them, saying, "All power has been given to me in heaven and upon the earth.  As you have gone, therefore, teach all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to keep all as I commanded you.  And behold! I am with you all the days until the consummation of the eternal." 

Background and situation:  These are the closing words of Matthew's gospel.  As is characteristic for Matthew's gospel, Jesus is again presented as Moses-like, yet greater-than Moses.  Like Moses, he speaks on a mountain and gives commandments.  As greater-than Moses, he now commands "all authority."

The Holy Trinity:  This is the gospel reading for Holy Trinity Sunday, the only day of the church year said to be dedicated specifically to a doctrinal position. 

In reality, of course, all church holidays are about some aspect of doctrine.  Christmas, for example, is not at all the "birthday of Jesus," but a holy day of the church dedicated to the incarnation, a doctrinal teaching which counters the heresies of gnosticism and docetism.

The lection is likely chosen because of its reference to "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  The saying is anachronistic for the time of Jesus, who, bereft of expensive seminary education, would likely have been thoroughly mystified by something called "trinitarian theology."

The trinity has been perhaps the most controversial and most mysterious of Christian teachings.  As is well known, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible, although you can see hints of trinitarianism beginning to develop, like Matthew's mention of the trinitarian name in today's lection, for example, and certain passages of Paul, such as "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you (2 Cor 13: 14)." 

You can easily see the difficulty for first century Jews such as Matthew.  Jews are monotheists.  In fact, at the time of Jesus, Jews were the first and only monotheists in the world.  "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," said the shema. 

Yet, the earliest Christians, all of them Jews, believed that, somehow, they had encountered God in Jesus of Nazareth.  How could one express that, and still be a monotheist? 

The most challenging theological treatises--over the years, and to this day--have been on the trinity.  It took St. Augustine 15 volumes to describe the trinity.  Here are his seven summary statements:  The Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  The Son is not the Father.  The Father is not the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is not the Son.  There is only one God.  (Impenetrable, yes, and convoluted, but what can one expect?  The subject is God, after all.)

While I'm no better at understanding the trinity than anyone else, and much less so than many, I find the teaching attractive for these reasons: 

(1)  The trinity's central teaching about God is that God, in God's interior life, is essentially relational.  This is a far cry from the radical monad of Greek philosophy who exists up high in the stratosphere somewhere, disconnected from any one or any thing. 

The trinity understands that relationships within God are dynamic.  They move.  The early theologians used the word perichoresis, which literally means "dancing around."  (We get our word "choreography" from choresis.)   This ever-vital, ever-moving, ever-interweaving of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential.  It is an aspect of God's very being.  

No member of the trinity is superior to any other, which means that the interior life of God is not hierarchical.  Here's a helpful exercise:  Try re-arranging the "persons" of the trinity.  Since all "persons" of the trinity are equal, it doesn't make any difference which one is mentioned first.  In fact, in order to at least allude to the anti-heirarchical nature of perichoresis, we should mix them up.  How about opening worship in the name of the Spirit, Son, and Father?

Our actual practice is always to say "Father, Son, and Spirit" in that order.  The Father is always mentioned first, in the pre-eminent position, one "higher" than the Son or Spirit.  Our actual practice supports a hierarchical view of God when the actual trinitarian theology of perichoresis subverts hierarchy! 

(2)  The trinity is radically egalitarian, and embraces all of human experience.  It is precisely the human man Jesus who is the Second Person of the Trinity.  Through Jesus--not the souped-up, supernatural Jesus, but the human Jesus--the entirety of human experience is embraced and taken into the life of God.  Just as God is relationship within God's own self, God relentlessly reaches out and into all human life to reconcile and restore human being's broken relationship with God.  This is good.

(3)  The trinity makes good sense of the cross.  When Jesus died on the cross, he then descended into hell--into the realm of nothingness, absence, and annihilation.  He descended into the "opposite of God."  Where God is presence and relationship, hell is absence and loneliness--"where nothing connects with nothing," as someone has put it. 

According to trinitarian theology of the cross, the Holy Spirit breaches the gap between the "Father in Heaven" and the "Son in Hell."  The Holy Spirit is the bond of love that unites them even across this greatest of all chasms.

(4)  Putting Jesus in the trinity subverts the Emperor as a "son of God."  Throughout history, many rulers claimed to be sired by something supernatural.  Shortly before the time of Jesus, Julius Caesar was said to be "the divine Julius" after his assassination.  A new comet was a sign of his joining the panoply of gods.  After him, his adopted son, Caesar Augustus, claimed to be divi filius (son of a god), proudly stamping his status on coins and distributing them throughout the empire.

Christianity might have been legalized by Constantine in AD 313, but the early Christians were nevertheless suspicious of the government.  It hadn't been that long since they had been victims of persecution (c. AD 280-300).  If Jesus is merely a son of God, how would he be any different from Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus?  He needed to be in the trinity, equal to God, or risk being lost in the shuffle of the various other (far lesser and often self-appointed) gods.

That's on the one hand.  Here are some reasons not to like the trinity:  

(1)  It was a doctrine imposed.  It was declared the only acceptable Christian doctrine of God by the Emperor Theodosius in AD 380, rubber-stamped by the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, and all opposing views were banned and suppressed.  This hardly seems very Christian.  

What's worse, it had to keep being imposed.  Christianity's biggest problem, ever since Constantine, is that it was implemented from the top down.  The nobility converted in order to get God on their side, and they then converted the peasants.  (One encouraging sign today is the "emergent church," which is bottom-up.)

(2)  The Emperor's trinitarianism had the effect of kicking Jesus upstairs into an object to be worshipped rather than followed.  The historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, had a disturbing tendency to side with people the Emperor liked to push around, and the Emperor certainly didn't want people following that example.

Kicking Jesus upstairs has the unfortunate effect of subverting the doctrine of the incarnation.  It removes Jesus from the realities of human life and tries to re-locate him in the airy and ethereal.  

In effect, most modern day Christian worship assumes a view of Jesus with exalted divinity and a severely truncated humanity.  That is docetism, pure and simple, the idea that Jesus only seemed to be a human being, but wasn't really.  Thus, the "orthodox" position on the trinity tends to subvert the "orthodox" position on the two natures of Jesus.   

The New Community:  Matthew describes two communities in the closing chapter of his gospel.  In the five verses preceding our lection, he mentions the community of guard, priests, elders, and soldiers--a community headed by the governor. 

When Jesus is not in his tomb on Easter Sunday morning, the priests, after conferring with representatives of the ruling families of Jerusalem, bribe the soldiers to say that Jesus' body had been stolen by his supporters.  In return, they offer to cover the soldiers' butt when the governor finds out that Jesus' body is missing.  The community described in verses 11-15 is a community based in greed and lies.

Immediately following we are told of another community, the new community of Jesus.  As he had told them to do, they are going to Galilee.  They are, however, only eleven in number, and not twelve.  One of the twelve, Judas, has committed suicide.  Even the new community has suffered loss and betrayal.  Yet, in spite of their "brokenness," the new community is obedient to Jesus' instruction to go to Galilee. 

In Galilee, they meet Jesus on "the mountain where Jesus had directed them."  It is not at all surprising that Matthew would have Jesus meet the disciples on a mountain.  Mountains as a place of special revelation are quite common in Matthew.  

We don't know which mountain.  Matthew says nothing further about it, and no prior reference says anything about this mountain, or its specific locale.  In any case, that is not the point.  The point is that the disciples followed Jesus' direction.  He "directed" them.  They went.

Doubt:  Verse 17:  "And seeing him, they worshipped but they doubted."  All four gospels deal with the subject of doubt, though they each do it in a different way. 

This is Matthew's way:  The disciples have followed Jesus' direction without yet seeing him.  As a result of following his direction, they have come to a place of special revelation where they do "see" him.  They respond with worship, even in the face of their own doubt.  Doubt is frankly acknowledged.  Says Matthew:  Let the church be instructed.  Jesus is followed and worshipped in spite of doubt.

Jesus then "came" to them.  He does not remain distant from his community, but approaches and comes to them.  This is reminiscent of the Transfiguration--another mountaintop experience--when Jesus "touched" Peter, James and John (17: 7).

Final teaching:  Unlike the other three gospels, Matthew makes no mention of Jesus' physicality, or his wounds, or any special post-resurrection abilities.  Matthew is the gospel that places emphasis on the teaching of Jesus, and so, here, Jesus only speaks. 

He announces his universal and cosmic authority--"all power in heaven and upon the earth."  "Therefore"--precisely because of his universal authority--he can compell a universal mission, a mission to "all nations."  Indeed, the word "all" appears four times in these five verses--"all authority," "all nations," "all I have commanded," "all the days"--a striking expression of universality.

The text is often called "the great commission," an expression which appears nowhere in scripture.  (We do have, however, a "greatest commandment" in Matthew, and also a second greatest commandment, love for God and love for neighbor (22:35-40).) 

The disciples are told to "go"--poreuomai, which is passive, and carries the sense of "being led forward on a journey," a journey to make disciples of "all the nations"--ethne, "peoples."

The new community is to baptize "them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  Matthew did not invent this formula.  He likely took it from the liturgy of the early church.  Some baptisms in the early church were "in the name of Jesus"--Acts 2:38, 10:48.

The saying continues with one final instruction:  "teaching them to observe as much as I have commanded you."  More than any other gospel, Matthew emphasizes Jesus' role as teacher.  Jesus inaugural speech, in Matthew, is nothing less than the Sermon on the Mount, and that was only the beginning!  Everything Jesus has taught to the disciples is to be taught throughout the new community.

The final "emanuel":  Kai idou--And behold!  "I am with you"--ego meta humon eimi.  Note how "with you" is sandwiched between ego and eimi.  (Ego eimi is the "divine name," the Greek version of YHWH, the name of God.)

At Jesus' birth, Matthew had proclaimed that Jesus is "emanuel"--God with us.  Now, in Jesus' final proclamation to his disciples in Matthew, he asserts the divine name--"I am!"--but, this time, "with you" is placed within the divine name itself!  

In the way Matthew has grammatically constructed the sentence, the new community of those who follow Jesus are within the very life of God.  God with us indeed!  (It's a plural "you" incidentally, i.e. the whole catholic flock is held within God, and not just your own splendid self.)

"I am with you all the days until the sunteleias tou aionos."  Suntelaias combines the words sun with telos.  Sun means "together," telos means "the goal."  The sense of the word is a "gathering up into the goal," rather reminiscent of St. Iraneus who spoke of the anakephalaiososthai ta panta--the "summing up of all things into the head."  Thus ends Matthew's gospel.

Matthew tells of two communities.  One is based in the Temple, influenced by the ruling families of Jerusalem, headed by the governor.  This community is about power, greed, payoffs, deception, and lies. 

The new community is headed by Jesus, not the governor.  It follows his teaching as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, not the corrupt practices of the Temple, or the oppressive practices of the Roman occupation.  This new community is for "all peoples," not merely the political and economic elite.

Image:  "The Holy Trinity," El Greco

Day of Pentecost ::: John 20: 19-23

When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Judeans, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ ²⁰After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. ²¹Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’²²When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

Translation:  Therefore, being evening of that day, the first of sabbath, the doors having been shut where the disciples were because of the fear of the Judeans, Jesus came and stood in the midst and he said to them, "Peace to you."  And when he said this, he showed to them the hands and the side.  Then, the disciples rejoiced, seeing the Lord.   Then, Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you.  Just as the Father has sent me, so I send you."  And when he had said this, he breathed and said to them, "Receive the holy spirit.  If you release the sins of any, they have been released to them, and if you might hold (the sins) of any, they have been held."

Background and situation:  It is the evening of Easter.  The doors "had been shut" by the disciples because of their fear of the Judeans (ioudaioi).  Fear of the Judeans would not be unreasonable, considering that Jesus had just been crushed by Judean forces. 

To recap from other posts on the fourth gospel, the fourth gospel is an argument between a Galilean and a Judean worldview.  The Judean worldview, in a nutshell, is the view from the top, i.e. the Temple leadership and their allies, the ruling families of Jerusalem, and, in turn, their allies, the Romans.  The Judean position is marked by division and barriers--rich vs. poor, Jew vs. Samaritan, insider vs. outsider.

The New Creation:  Our lection is Pentecost according to the Fourth Gospel.  The Lukan account in Acts has become so associated as the Pentecost story that the fourth gospel's view is often given short shrift.  The fourth gospel also speaks of the coming of the Spirit, though in a much different way than in Luke.  In the fourth gospel, there is no amorphous wind or forty day waiting period, and the Spirit comes directly from the breath of Jesus on the day of the New Creation.

The fourth gospel speaks of "signs" which are presented in order to encourage faith in Jesus (20: 30-31).  The various "signs," and their numbering, are open to interpretation, but N.T. Wright arranges them thus:

• 1.  Wedding at Cana (2: 1-11)
• 2.  The official's son (4: 46-54)
• 3.  The paralyzed man at the pool (5: 2-9)
• 4.  Multiplication of loaves (6: 1-14)
• 5.  The man born blind (9: 1-7)
• 6.  Raising of Lazarus (11: 1-44)
• 7.  Crucifixion (19: 1-37)
• 8.  Resurrection (20: 1-29)

In first century number symbolism, seven (7) was commonly thought to be the number of completion and wholeness--the "number of God," says Eugene Peterson.  The first seven "signs" therefore, taken together, give us a "complete" picture of Jesus.  He is the one who brings life in abundance, healing for outsiders, true sight, then raises the dead, and dies for the love of the world.  The resurrection is the 8th sign--the sign of the "new creation."

The fourth sign, incidentally, since it is equidistant from both the first and the last sign, is sometimes considered the "central point."  The fourth gospel's "central point" is the abundant life and power of Jesus, which is represented by the feeding of the 5000.

The Peace of Christ:  In spite of the locked doors, Jesus "came and stood in the midst" and said "peace to you."  Previously, Jesus had spoken of "peace" in 14: 27 and 16: 33--both times as an antidote to fear.  "My peace I leave with you," Jesus says in 14: 27.  Therefore, do not let your hearts be afraid.  In 16:33, Jesus says that he has said "these things" to the disciples so that they may have peace.  Therefore, "take courage;  I have conquered the world." 

Jesus displays his wounds, now healed and glorified.  This establishes continuity between the historical person Jesus, and the resurrected Jesus.  Though he is different in some ways, such as the ability to appear at will, he is also in continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known historically.  In fact, he is recognized not on the basis of his over-all appearance, but precisely on the basis of his wounds.

If Paul is correct that we will have a body like his glorified body (Ph 3: 21), then, even in our glorified body, we will also be our historical selves.  We will be the same people whose personality was formed in this world--we will be us--but now all of us, including our psychology, will be healed and transformed just as Jesus' wounds were healed and transformed.

The reference to Jesus' hands also reminds readers that God "had given all things into his hands" (3: 35).  The disciples are safe.  They are in good hands, you might say. 

The reference to his side refers to the spear of the Roman soldier after the death of Jesus, from which had flowed both blood and water.  The water reminds us of the "living water" spoken of in the dialog with the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter four.  Moreover, "blood and water" are reminiscent of birth.  The "blood and water" flowing from the side of Jesus gives birth to the New Community.

The disciples rejoice at "seeing the Lord."  This is reminiscent of the witness of Mary Magdalene who had said, "I have seen the Lord."  Jesus says again, "Peace to you."  The two statements of peace frame the action of Jesus in showing his hands and side.  It is on this basis, his wounds, that peace is won.

The Breath of Life:  Jesus shifts immediately to mission--"As the Father has sent me, so I send you."  Then, "he breathed on them."  The disciples are given power from the divine breath.  The Greek word translated as "breathed" is emphusao.  It is the same word the Septuagint uses in Genesis 2: 7:  "And the Lord God...breathed into (Adam's) nostrils the breath of life." 

The fourth gospel's use of emphusao is the only use of this word in the entire New Testament.  Clearly, the author of the fourth gospel is equating the breath of Jesus with the breath of God.  Where the Lord God breathed life into a human being, the Lord Jesus breathes life into his church.  This underlines the fourth gospel's view that Jesus is the "new creation," and is yet another of the fourth gospel's many references to the book of Genesis.

For the fourth gospel, the method of atonement is precisely through re-creation.  Jesus dies on the cross, which is, paradoxically, the hour of glory.  He is placed in a tomb, the place of death, and also the place of new creation coming forth from the earth.  His appearance as a gardener (20:15) reminds readers of the original garden of Genesis, now re-created through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

"If you release the sins of any, they are released," says Jesus, and "if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."  This is not a parallel for a similar saying in Matthew.  There is nothing here about eternal "binding and loosing." 

Rather, the New Community is to be characterized by the forgiveness, the "release," of sins.  Conversely, if sins are not forgiven, they are "retained" within the community, thereby threatening the community's life.

 

Image:  Resurrection, Ivan Filichev

When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Judeans, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ ²⁰After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. ²¹Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’²²When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

Translation:  Therefore, being evening of that day, the first of sabbath, the doors having been shut where the disciples were because of the fear of the Judeans, Jesus came and stood in the midst and he said to them, "Peace to you."  And when he said this, he showed to them the hands and the side.  Then, the disciples rejoiced, seeing the Lord.   Then, Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you.  Just as the Father has sent me, so I send you."  And when he had said this, he breathed and said to them, "Receive the holy spirit.  If you release the sins of any, they have been released to them, and if you might hold (the sins) of any, they have been held."

Background and situation:  It is the evening of Easter.  The doors "had been shut" by the disciples because of their fear of the Judeans (ioudaioi).  Fear of the Judeans would not be unreasonable, considering that Jesus had just been crushed by Judean forces. 

To recap from other posts on the fourth gospel, the fourth gospel is an argument between a Galilean and a Judean worldview.  The Judean worldview, in a nutshell, is the view from the top, i.e. the Temple leadership and their allies, the ruling families of Jerusalem, and, in turn, their allies, the Romans.  The Judean position is marked by division and barriers--rich vs. poor, Jew vs. Samaritan, insider vs. outsider.

The New Creation:  Our lection is Pentecost according to the Fourth Gospel.  The Lukan account in Acts has become so associated as the Pentecost story that the fourth gospel's view is often given short shrift.  The fourth gospel also speaks of the coming of the Spirit, though in a much different way than in Luke.  In the fourth gospel, there is no amorphous wind or forty day waiting period, and the Spirit comes directly from the breath of Jesus on the day of the New Creation.

The fourth gospel speaks of "signs" which are presented in order to encourage faith in Jesus (20: 30-31).  The various "signs," and their numbering, are open to interpretation, but N.T. Wright arranges them thus:

• 1.  Wedding at Cana (2: 1-11)
• 2.  The official's son (4: 46-54)
• 3.  The paralyzed man at the pool (5: 2-9)
• 4.  Multiplication of loaves (6: 1-14)
• 5.  The man born blind (9: 1-7)
• 6.  Raising of Lazarus (11: 1-44)
• 7.  Crucifixion (19: 1-37)
• 8.  Resurrection (20: 1-29)

In first century number symbolism, seven (7) was commonly thought to be the number of completion and wholeness--the "number of God," says Eugene Peterson.  The first seven "signs" therefore, taken together, give us a "complete" picture of Jesus.  He is the one who brings life in abundance, healing for outsiders, true sight, then raises the dead, and dies for the love of the world.  The resurrection is the 8th sign--the sign of the "new creation."

The fourth sign, incidentally, since it is equidistant from both the first and the last sign, is sometimes considered the "central point."  The fourth gospel's "central point" is the abundant life and power of Jesus, which is represented by the feeding of the 5000.

The Peace of Christ:  In spite of the locked doors, Jesus "came and stood in the midst" and said "peace to you."  Previously, Jesus had spoken of "peace" in 14: 27 and 16: 33--both times as an antidote to fear.  "My peace I leave with you," Jesus says in 14: 27.  Therefore, do not let your hearts be afraid.  In 16:33, Jesus says that he has said "these things" to the disciples so that they may have peace.  Therefore, "take courage;  I have conquered the world." 

Jesus displays his wounds, now healed and glorified.  This establishes continuity between the historical person Jesus, and the resurrected Jesus.  Though he is different in some ways, such as the ability to appear at will, he is also in continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known historically.  In fact, he is recognized not on the basis of his over-all appearance, but precisely on the basis of his wounds.

If Paul is correct that we will have a body like his glorified body (Ph 3: 21), then, even in our glorified body, we will also be our historical selves.  We will be the same people whose personality was formed in this world--we will be us--but now all of us, including our psychology, will be healed and transformed just as Jesus' wounds were healed and transformed.

The reference to Jesus' hands also reminds readers that God "had given all things into his hands" (3: 35).  The disciples are safe.  They are in good hands, you might say. 

The reference to his side refers to the spear of the Roman soldier after the death of Jesus, from which had flowed both blood and water.  The water reminds us of the "living water" spoken of in the dialog with the Samaritan woman at the well in chapter four.  Moreover, "blood and water" are reminiscent of birth.  The "blood and water" flowing from the side of Jesus gives birth to the New Community.

The disciples rejoice at "seeing the Lord."  This is reminiscent of the witness of Mary Magdalene who had said, "I have seen the Lord."  Jesus says again, "Peace to you."  The two statements of peace frame the action of Jesus in showing his hands and side.  It is on this basis, his wounds, that peace is won.

The Breath of Life:  Jesus shifts immediately to mission--"As the Father has sent me, so I send you."  Then, "he breathed on them."  The disciples are given power from the divine breath.  The Greek word translated as "breathed" is emphusao.  It is the same word the Septuagint uses in Genesis 2: 7:  "And the Lord God...breathed into (Adam's) nostrils the breath of life." 

The fourth gospel's use of emphusao is the only use of this word in the entire New Testament.  Clearly, the author of the fourth gospel is equating the breath of Jesus with the breath of God.  Where the Lord God breathed life into a human being, the Lord Jesus breathes life into his church.  This underlines the fourth gospel's view that Jesus is the "new creation," and is yet another of the fourth gospel's many references to the book of Genesis.

For the fourth gospel, the method of atonement is precisely through re-creation.  Jesus dies on the cross, which is, paradoxically, the hour of glory.  He is placed in a tomb, the place of death, and also the place of new creation coming forth from the earth.  His appearance as a gardener (20:15) reminds readers of the original garden of Genesis, now re-created through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

"If you release the sins of any, they are released," says Jesus, and "if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."  This is not a parallel for a similar saying in Matthew.  There is nothing here about eternal "binding and loosing." 

Rather, the New Community is to be characterized by the forgiveness, the "release," of sins.  Conversely, if sins are not forgiven, they are "retained" within the community, thereby threatening the community's life.

 

Image:  Resurrection, Ivan Filichev

Easter 7 ::: John 17: 1-11

After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, ²since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ³And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. ⁴I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. ⁵So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

6 ‘I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. ⁷Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; ⁸for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. ⁹I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours.¹⁰All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. ¹¹And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

Translation:  Jesus spoke these things, and lifted up his eyes into heaven (and) he said, "Father, the hour has come.  Glorify your son so that the son may glorify you.  As you have given to him power over all flesh, so anyone who has been given to him, he will give to them eternal life.  And this is eternal life:  that they might know you, the only true God, and whom you sent, Jesus Christ.  I glorified you upon the earth.  I brought to completion the work which you have given me to do.  And now, Father, glorify you me, alongside yourself the glory which I am having alongside you before the universe came to be.

I made known your name to the ones whom you gave me out of the world.  They were yours and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.  Now they have known that all things, however many, you have given me are alongside of you, for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them, and they know truly that I came out alongside of you, and they have 'faithed' that you sent me.  I am asking concerning them--not concerning the universe am I asking--but concerning the ones you gave me because they are yours.  And all mine are yours and yours mine, and I am glorified in them.  And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I also am coming to you.  Holy Father, take care of them in your name that you have given me so that they may be one, just as we."

Background and situation:  The text begins the "high priestly prayer" section of the "farewell discourses" of Jesus in the fourth gospel.  He lifts up his eyes and speaks directly to God the Father.  He speaks of the fateful "hour," which, in the fourth gospel, refers to his crucifixion.  The fourth gospel has been pointing to Jesus' "hour" ever since chapter two when he said to his mother, "Woman...my hour has not yet come."

But now the "hour" is come--present tense.  The "hour" is not the resurrection--not yet--but the cross.  In the cross, the Son will be "glorified" and will "glorify" the Father.  The word is doxa, which means to make radiant and clothe with splendor.  The way of the cross, the downward descent into nothingness and annihilation, is proclaimed the path of true glory.

Eternal life:  It is through the cross that all will be drawn to Jesus--^"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (12:32)--which is why Jesus can now say that he has "power over all flesh." (17:2)  

Power for what?  To give anyone who has been given to Jesus "eternal life."  "Eternal life" is here defined in an interesting and unusual way:  Eternal life is knowing God and knowing Jesus.

Greek has two words for "life", bios and zoe.  Bios refers to living organisms.  The word here is zoe, which means true life, life at its core.  The word for "know" is ginosko, which means intimate, even mystical, knowledge.  

This intimate knowledge which brings "life eternal" comes by revelation, not reason--it is gift, not acquisition.  It is being "born from above" (3:7) and is, you might say, a tap into the Life Source itself. 

Telos:  Jesus has "brought to completion the work."  The word translated as ""brought to completion" is a form of telos, a very rich word in the New Testament.  It has the sense not only of finishing, but also "bringing to the goal." 

Jesus' last word in the fourth gospel, proclaimed from the cross, is a form of telos, tetelestai, which means, "it has been accomplished," or "it has been completed," or "it has been brought to the goal."  In the second century, Iraneus would speak of the anakephalaiososthai ta panta--the "summing up of all things into the head."  In the mid-20th century, Teilhard de Chardin spoke of the "omega point" toward which the cosmos was heading.

Making known the name of God:  Jesus has "made known" the name of God throughout the fourth gospel.  God's name, revealed to Moses, is YHWH.  It was probably pronounced "YAH-weh," though pronunciation is uncertain since the early Hebrews didn't actually speak the word out loud.   

I'm told that YHWH contains within it every conjugation of the verb "to be."  "I am who I am," or "I will be who I will be"--and every other variation as well.  When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek--the version known as the Septuagint--the YHWH of the Old Testament was rendered into Greek as ego eimi, an emphatic form of "I am."

Jesus says "ego eimi" all over the fourth gospel--45 times, in fact.  "I am the door," Jesus says.  "I am the good shepherd."  "I am the bread of life."  "I am the resurrection and the life."  "I am the light of the world."  "I am the true vine."  "I am the way, the truth, and the life." 

In the ancient world, accessibility to a "name" meant accessibility to the power behind that name.  In so openly expressing himself as "I am," the fourth gospel is saying that the power of God is made accessible to the people through Jesus himself.  (Moreover, in calling God "Father," Jesus is saying that our relationship with God is like the intimacy of a parent.  God is rarely spoken of as "Father" in the Old Testament.)

Rare and high praise for the disciples:  Somewhat surprisingly, the disciples are said to have "kept" God's Word" (logos).  They "know"--ginosko again--and, what's more, they "have received," "truly knew," and "faithed." 

This is high praise indeed since "knowing" in an intimate and mystical way, receiving Christ, and "faithing" in Christ are three of the major themes and exhortations in the fourth gospel.  Jesus is even "glorifed in them." 

The fourth gospel understands "them" as both the Johannine community, and, more broadly, the children of God.  The community of the children of God "knows" Jesus in an interior and mystical way.  They live out the teachings of Jesus through "faithing"--following in radical trust--which is made manifest in an open community that reaches across all worldly barriers.  Through them, Jesus himself is glorified--indeed, "made radiant."

"That they may be one":  Today's lection contains the phrase off-cited in the ecumenical movement--"that they may be one."  In recent years, some say the ecumenical movement has flagged, and its energy has dissipated.  If so, it's because the ecumenical movement has been so wildly successful. 

Fifty years ago, it was not difficult to find a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Baptist who thought that everyone but them was going to hell.  Today, that sort of thing is still around, but has been abandoned by the vast majority.  People today regularly visit, participate in, and join up with various traditions in the course of their lifetime.

The recent Pew Forum study on religion in America found that, more and more, people were willing to change from one tradition to another.  The study described the American religious landscape as "fluid and diverse."  “People will be surprised by the amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another – or to no religion at all,” said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum.

The people are speaking.  They obviously no longer see various doctrinal issues as "church dividing."  In fact, as the various Christians traditions engage in dialog, they are, in effect, trying to catch up with where the people already are.

Image:  Sanctuary ceiling, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Denver.

 

After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, ²since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ³And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. ⁴I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. ⁵So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

6 ‘I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. ⁷Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; ⁸for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. ⁹I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours.¹⁰All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. ¹¹And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

Translation:  Jesus spoke these things, and lifted up his eyes into heaven (and) he said, "Father, the hour has come.  Glorify your son so that the son may glorify you.  As you have given to him power over all flesh, so anyone who has been given to him, he will give to them eternal life.  And this is eternal life:  that they might know you, the only true God, and whom you sent, Jesus Christ.  I glorified you upon the earth.  I brought to completion the work which you have given me to do.  And now, Father, glorify you me, alongside yourself the glory which I am having alongside you before the universe came to be.

I made known your name to the ones whom you gave me out of the world.  They were yours and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.  Now they have known that all things, however many, you have given me are alongside of you, for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them, and they know truly that I came out alongside of you, and they have 'faithed' that you sent me.  I am asking concerning them--not concerning the universe am I asking--but concerning the ones you gave me because they are yours.  And all mine are yours and yours mine, and I am glorified in them.  And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I also am coming to you.  Holy Father, take care of them in your name that you have given me so that they may be one, just as we."

Background and situation:  The text begins the "high priestly prayer" section of the "farewell discourses" of Jesus in the fourth gospel.  He lifts up his eyes and speaks directly to God the Father.  He speaks of the fateful "hour," which, in the fourth gospel, refers to his crucifixion.  The fourth gospel has been pointing to Jesus' "hour" ever since chapter two when he said to his mother, "Woman...my hour has not yet come."

But now the "hour" is come--present tense.  The "hour" is not the resurrection--not yet--but the cross.  In the cross, the Son will be "glorified" and will "glorify" the Father.  The word is doxa, which means to make radiant and clothe with splendor.  The way of the cross, the downward descent into nothingness and annihilation, is proclaimed the path of true glory.

Eternal life:  It is through the cross that all will be drawn to Jesus--^"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (12:32)--which is why Jesus can now say that he has "power over all flesh." (17:2)  

Power for what?  To give anyone who has been given to Jesus "eternal life."  "Eternal life" is here defined in an interesting and unusual way:  Eternal life is knowing God and knowing Jesus.

Greek has two words for "life", bios and zoe.  Bios refers to living organisms.  The word here is zoe, which means true life, life at its core.  The word for "know" is ginosko, which means intimate, even mystical, knowledge.  

This intimate knowledge which brings "life eternal" comes by revelation, not reason--it is gift, not acquisition.  It is being "born from above" (3:7) and is, you might say, a tap into the Life Source itself. 

Telos:  Jesus has "brought to completion the work."  The word translated as ""brought to completion" is a form of telos, a very rich word in the New Testament.  It has the sense not only of finishing, but also "bringing to the goal." 

Jesus' last word in the fourth gospel, proclaimed from the cross, is a form of telos, tetelestai, which means, "it has been accomplished," or "it has been completed," or "it has been brought to the goal."  In the second century, Iraneus would speak of the anakephalaiososthai ta panta--the "summing up of all things into the head."  In the mid-20th century, Teilhard de Chardin spoke of the "omega point" toward which the cosmos was heading.

Making known the name of God:  Jesus has "made known" the name of God throughout the fourth gospel.  God's name, revealed to Moses, is YHWH.  It was probably pronounced "YAH-weh," though pronunciation is uncertain since the early Hebrews didn't actually speak the word out loud.   

I'm told that YHWH contains within it every conjugation of the verb "to be."  "I am who I am," or "I will be who I will be"--and every other variation as well.  When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek--the version known as the Septuagint--the YHWH of the Old Testament was rendered into Greek as ego eimi, an emphatic form of "I am."

Jesus says "ego eimi" all over the fourth gospel--45 times, in fact.  "I am the door," Jesus says.  "I am the good shepherd."  "I am the bread of life."  "I am the resurrection and the life."  "I am the light of the world."  "I am the true vine."  "I am the way, the truth, and the life." 

In the ancient world, accessibility to a "name" meant accessibility to the power behind that name.  In so openly expressing himself as "I am," the fourth gospel is saying that the power of God is made accessible to the people through Jesus himself.  (Moreover, in calling God "Father," Jesus is saying that our relationship with God is like the intimacy of a parent.  God is rarely spoken of as "Father" in the Old Testament.)

Rare and high praise for the disciples:  Somewhat surprisingly, the disciples are said to have "kept" God's Word" (logos).  They "know"--ginosko again--and, what's more, they "have received," "truly knew," and "faithed." 

This is high praise indeed since "knowing" in an intimate and mystical way, receiving Christ, and "faithing" in Christ are three of the major themes and exhortations in the fourth gospel.  Jesus is even "glorifed in them." 

The fourth gospel understands "them" as both the Johannine community, and, more broadly, the children of God.  The community of the children of God "knows" Jesus in an interior and mystical way.  They live out the teachings of Jesus through "faithing"--following in radical trust--which is made manifest in an open community that reaches across all worldly barriers.  Through them, Jesus himself is glorified--indeed, "made radiant."

"That they may be one":  Today's lection contains the phrase off-cited in the ecumenical movement--"that they may be one."  In recent years, some say the ecumenical movement has flagged, and its energy has dissipated.  If so, it's because the ecumenical movement has been so wildly successful. 

Fifty years ago, it was not difficult to find a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Baptist who thought that everyone but them was going to hell.  Today, that sort of thing is still around, but has been abandoned by the vast majority.  People today regularly visit, participate in, and join up with various traditions in the course of their lifetime.

The recent Pew Forum study on religion in America found that, more and more, people were willing to change from one tradition to another.  The study described the American religious landscape as "fluid and diverse."  “People will be surprised by the amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another – or to no religion at all,” said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum.

The people are speaking.  They obviously no longer see various doctrinal issues as "church dividing."  In fact, as the various Christians traditions engage in dialog, they are, in effect, trying to catch up with where the people already are.

Image:  Sanctuary ceiling, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Denver.

After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, ²since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ³And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. ⁴I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. ⁵So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

6 ‘I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. ⁷Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; ⁸for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. ⁹I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours.¹⁰All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. ¹¹And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

Translation:  Jesus spoke these things, and lifted up his eyes into heaven (and) he said, "Father, the hour has come.  Glorify your son so that the son may glorify you.  As you have given to him power over all flesh, so anyone who has been given to him, he will give to them eternal life.  And this is eternal life:  that they might know you, the only true God, and whom you sent, Jesus Christ.  I glorified you upon the earth.  I brought to completion the work which you have given me to do.  And now, Father, glorify you me, alongside yourself the glory which I am having alongside you before the universe came to be.

I made known your name to the ones whom you gave me out of the world.  They were yours and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.  Now they have known that all things, however many, you have given me are alongside of you, for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them, and they know truly that I came out alongside of you, and they have 'faithed' that you sent me.  I am asking concerning them--not concerning the universe am I asking--but concerning the ones you gave me because they are yours.  And all mine are yours and yours mine, and I am glorified in them.  And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I also am coming to you.  Holy Father, take care of them in your name that you have given me so that they may be one, just as we."

Background and situation:  The text begins the "high priestly prayer" section of the "farewell discourses" of Jesus in the fourth gospel.  He lifts up his eyes and speaks directly to God the Father.  He speaks of the fateful "hour," which, in the fourth gospel, refers to his crucifixion.  The fourth gospel has been pointing to Jesus' "hour" ever since chapter two when he said to his mother, "Woman...my hour has not yet come."

But now the "hour" is come--present tense.  The "hour" is not the resurrection--not yet--but the cross.  In the cross, the Son will be "glorified" and will "glorify" the Father.  The word is doxa, which means to make radiant and clothe with splendor.  The way of the cross, the downward descent into nothingness and annihilation, is proclaimed the path of true glory.

Eternal life:  It is through the cross that all will be drawn to Jesus--^"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (12:32)--which is why Jesus can now say that he has "power over all flesh." (17:2)  

Power for what?  To give anyone who has been given to Jesus "eternal life."  "Eternal life" is here defined in an interesting and unusual way:  Eternal life is knowing God and knowing Jesus.

Greek has two words for "life", bios and zoe.  Bios refers to living organisms.  The word here is zoe, which means true life, life at its core.  The word for "know" is ginosko, which means intimate, even mystical, knowledge.  

This intimate knowledge which brings "life eternal" comes by revelation, not reason--it is gift, not acquisition.  It is being "born from above" (3:7) and is, you might say, a tap into the Life Source itself. 

Telos:  Jesus has "brought to completion the work."  The word translated as ""brought to completion" is a form of telos, a very rich word in the New Testament.  It has the sense not only of finishing, but also "bringing to the goal." 

Jesus' last word in the fourth gospel, proclaimed from the cross, is a form of telos, tetelestai, which means, "it has been accomplished," or "it has been completed," or "it has been brought to the goal."  In the second century, Iraneus would speak of the anakephalaiososthai ta panta--the "summing up of all things into the head."  In the mid-20th century, Teilhard de Chardin spoke of the "omega point" toward which the cosmos was heading.

Making known the name of God:  Jesus has "made known" the name of God throughout the fourth gospel.  God's name, revealed to Moses, is YHWH.  It was probably pronounced "YAH-weh," though pronunciation is uncertain since the early Hebrews didn't actually speak the word out loud.   

I'm told that YHWH contains within it every conjugation of the verb "to be."  "I am who I am," or "I will be who I will be"--and every other variation as well.  When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek--the version known as the Septuagint--the YHWH of the Old Testament was rendered into Greek as ego eimi, an emphatic form of "I am."

Jesus says "ego eimi" all over the fourth gospel--45 times, in fact.  "I am the door," Jesus says.  "I am the good shepherd."  "I am the bread of life."  "I am the resurrection and the life."  "I am the light of the world."  "I am the true vine."  "I am the way, the truth, and the life." 

In the ancient world, accessibility to a "name" meant accessibility to the power behind that name.  In so openly expressing himself as "I am," the fourth gospel is saying that the power of God is made accessible to the people through Jesus himself.  (Moreover, in calling God "Father," Jesus is saying that our relationship with God is like the intimacy of a parent.  God is rarely spoken of as "Father" in the Old Testament.)

Rare and high praise for the disciples:  Somewhat surprisingly, the disciples are said to have "kept" God's Word" (logos).  They "know"--ginosko again--and, what's more, they "have received," "truly knew," and "faithed." 

This is high praise indeed since "knowing" in an intimate and mystical way, receiving Christ, and "faithing" in Christ are three of the major themes and exhortations in the fourth gospel.  Jesus is even "glorifed in them." 

The fourth gospel understands "them" as both the Johannine community, and, more broadly, the children of God.  The community of the children of God "knows" Jesus in an interior and mystical way.  They live out the teachings of Jesus through "faithing"--following in radical trust--which is made manifest in an open community that reaches across all worldly barriers.  Through them, Jesus himself is glorified--indeed, "made radiant."

"That they may be one":  Today's lection contains the phrase off-cited in the ecumenical movement--"that they may be one."  In recent years, some say the ecumenical movement has flagged, and its energy has dissipated.  If so, it's because the ecumenical movement has been so wildly successful. 

Fifty years ago, it was not difficult to find a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Baptist who thought that everyone but them was going to hell.  Today, that sort of thing is still around, but has been abandoned by the vast majority.  People today regularly visit, participate in, and join up with various traditions in the course of their lifetime.

The recent Pew Forum study on religion in America found that, more and more, people were willing to change from one tradition to another.  The study described the American religious landscape as "fluid and diverse."  “People will be surprised by the amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another – or to no religion at all,” said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum.

The people are speaking.  They obviously no longer see various doctrinal issues as "church dividing."  In fact, as the various Christians traditions engage in dialog, they are, in effect, trying to catch up with where the people already are.

Image:  Sanctuary ceiling, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Denver.

Easter 6 ::: John 14: 15-21

¹⁵”If you love me, you will keep my commandments. ¹⁶And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. ¹⁷This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

¹⁸”I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. ¹⁹In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. ²⁰On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. ²¹They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”

Translation:  "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another, a One-called-alongside, so that he might be with you into the eternal, the spirit of the truth, whom the world has not been able to receive because it can neither see nor know him.  You know him, because he abides alongside you and is in you.  I will not leave you orphans.  I come to you.  A little while and the world will see me no longer, but you see me.  Because I live, you will live also.  On that day, you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, I in you.  The one having my commandments, and keeping them, that one is loving me, and the one loving me will be loved by my Father.  And I will love them, and I will show forth myself to them."

Background and situation:  Last week's reading, John 14: 1-14, is the beginning of the farewell discourses in the fourth gospel.  This week's reading is the following six verses.  Last week, the emphasis was on trust in Jesus.  This week, the emphasis is on love for Jesus.  

Not surprisingly, the farewell discourses open with appeals to trust and love, both major themes of the fourth gospel.  In fact, what is rather surprising, when you think about it, is that love for Jesus is a minor theme in the New Testament, almost non-existent outside of the fourth gospel.  In the fourth gospel, however, love for Jesus is a major theme, strongly emphasized.

Love counters fear.  The text seems designed to provide comfort for the community in the absence of Jesus, as if to say, "Don't worry.  Everything will be all right.  You will have help."  What's more, Jesus says, "I come to you."  The verb is present tense, meaning that Jesus is always a present reality.

The problem of love in the very early church:  I read the fourth gospel as a bit of a polemic against Peter.  Whenever Peter and the Beloved Disciple appear in the same scene, it seems that Peter always comes off as secondary. 

Peter needs to get the Beloved Disciple to ask Jesus a question, for example.  The Beloved Disciple can walk right into the palace, but Peter has to stay outside.  They both run to the tomb, but the Beloved Disciple gets there first.  Then, in chapter 21, Jesus almost seems to chew Peter out for not having enough love.  (Jesus speaks of agape love to Peter, unconditional love, but Peter keeps responding with philia love, affectionate friendship.)

Is that the fourth gospel's criticism of Peter?  Not enough love?  One of the major themes of the fourth gospel is love.  The word appears 57 times in fourth gospel.  In it, the two great commandments are to love God and "love one another." 

This is the sacred text of the Johannine community, a community distinct from, yet in fellowship with, the Jerusalem church.  Do they find a lack of love in the Jerusalem church?

The community is to demonstrate their love for Jesus by keeping his commandments, although he has only really given one actual commandment, which is to "love one another" (13: 34-35).  The use of the word "commandments"--plural--invites a comparison with other "commandments," such as those given to Moses.  For the fourth gospel, Jesus one commandment--"love one another"--is placed on the level of the Torah itself.

The "paraklete":  The word parakletos means "one called alongside."  It is generally translated as "advocate" or "comforter."  The word is closely related to the Hebrew hacham, which appears in Psalm 23, for example:  "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort--hacham--me."  The word parakletos itself, however, comes originally from the Greek law courts where it meant "advocate" or "lawyer."

Jesus promises "another advocate," himself apparently being the first.  The "advocate" will be "the spirit of the truth."  This is reminiscent of the worship of those who do so "in spirit and in truth" (4: 23-24).  The way the fourth gospel uses it, parakletos combines the concepts of comforter, encourager, advocate, defender. 

The "advocate" will be "remaining" with them--menei, a key, even ubiquitous, word in the fourth gospel.  Everyone--Jesus, the community, the advocate, the Father--seems to abide, dwell, and remain in, with, and under each other.  (Think sacramental theology.)

To see and know:  Jesus will not leave them bereft, like orphans.  They "will see" him, even though no one else will.  ("...the world can neither see nor know him...") 

The formula "on that day" is used throughout the Old Testament, and the fourth gospel uses it here to underline Jesus' relationship and identification with the Father.  What's more, the community's relationship with Jesus is the same as Jesus' relationship with the Father, the first such statement in the fourth gospel.

The community "knows" the advocate, and, "on that day," the community "will know" that Jesus is in the Father.  The word is ginosko. Ginosko, as previously mentioned, is knowledge through intimate experience--"mystical knowledge," you might say.  It is not so much a reasoned-based "knowing," but more revelation-based "knowing."

The fourth gospel anticipates some of the trinitarian debate that would come two or three hundred years later.  The Son is in intimate relationship with the Father, yet is distinct from the Father.  Jesus has a direct relationship with the Father, and a direct relationship with the community, though the community itself is in relationship with the Father indirectly, through Jesus.

The Father is utterly transcendent, known only through the Son.  John Sanford notes that "in Christian mystical thought...the Father is God as the uncreated One, pure Being or Existence itself who cannot be known or described in any human categories." 

The Father is beyond space and time, and, therefore, beyond description.  The eastern tradition calls this "apophatic" theology, which means that God can only be described in negatives, i.e. without name, without origin, without end.  Gregory of Nyssa: 

"There is no way of comprehending the indefinable as by a scheme of words.  For the Divine is too noble and lofty to be indicated by a name, and we have learned to honor by silence that which transcends reason and thought." (Against Eunomius, 10)

The question is:  If the Father is unknown, how can be the Father be known?  The fourth gospel asserts:  The Father can be known through the Son.  The Father cannot be known, but the Son can be known, and to know the Son is to know the Father.

There is a shift in verse 21.  Until then, Jesus had been speaking to the community--the "you's" were all plural.  In verse 21, Jesus speaks to the individual.  The NRSV continues to use "they" here, but the verse should actually be translated:  "The one having my commandments and keeping them is the one loving me.  The one loving me will be loved by my Father, and I will love that one and will manifest myself to that one."

The primary sense of the sentence is to enjoin both community and individual in loving one another and Jesus.  Secondly however, it would be a mistake to view this in an exclusive way.  Jesus is not saying that God will not love others who don't love.  The fourth gospel is underscoring, however, the reciprocity of relationship.  Those in mutual relationship with each other--those who menei together and with Jesus--will want to live out the very basis of that relationship, which is love. 

Image:  Passion, Chidi Okoye

 

¹⁵”If you love me, you will keep my commandments. ¹⁶And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. ¹⁷This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

¹⁸”I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. ¹⁹In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. ²⁰On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. ²¹They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”

Translation:  "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another, a One-called-alongside, so that he might be with you into the eternal, the spirit of the truth, whom the world has not been able to receive because it can neither see nor know him.  You know him, because he abides alongside you and is in you.  I will not leave you orphans.  I come to you.  A little while and the world will see me no longer, but you see me.  Because I live, you will live also.  On that day, you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, I in you.  The one having my commandments, and keeping them, that one is loving me, and the one loving me will be loved by my Father.  And I will love them, and I will show forth myself to them."

Background and situation:  Last week's reading, John 14: 1-14, is the beginning of the farewell discourses in the fourth gospel.  This week's reading is the following six verses.  Last week, the emphasis was on trust in Jesus.  This week, the emphasis is on love for Jesus.  

Not surprisingly, the farewell discourses open with appeals to trust and love, both major themes of the fourth gospel.  In fact, what is rather surprising, when you think about it, is that love for Jesus is a minor theme in the New Testament, almost non-existent outside of the fourth gospel.  In the fourth gospel, however, love for Jesus is a major theme, strongly emphasized.

Love counters fear.  The text seems designed to provide comfort for the community in the absence of Jesus, as if to say, "Don't worry.  Everything will be all right.  You will have help."  What's more, Jesus says, "I come to you."  The verb is present tense, meaning that Jesus is always a present reality.

The problem of love in the very early church:  I read the fourth gospel as a bit of a polemic against Peter.  Whenever Peter and the Beloved Disciple appear in the same scene, it seems that Peter always comes off as secondary. 

Peter needs to get the Beloved Disciple to ask Jesus a question, for example.  The Beloved Disciple can walk right into the palace, but Peter has to stay outside.  They both run to the tomb, but the Beloved Disciple gets there first.  Then, in chapter 21, Jesus almost seems to chew Peter out for not having enough love.  (Jesus speaks of agape love to Peter, unconditional love, but Peter keeps responding with philia love, affectionate friendship.)

Is that the fourth gospel's criticism of Peter?  Not enough love?  One of the major themes of the fourth gospel is love.  The word appears 57 times in fourth gospel.  In it, the two great commandments are to love God and "love one another." 

This is the sacred text of the Johannine community, a community distinct from, yet in fellowship with, the Jerusalem church.  Do they find a lack of love in the Jerusalem church?

The community is to demonstrate their love for Jesus by keeping his commandments, although he has only really given one actual commandment, which is to "love one another" (13: 34-35).  The use of the word "commandments"--plural--invites a comparison with other "commandments," such as those given to Moses.  For the fourth gospel, Jesus one commandment--"love one another"--is placed on the level of the Torah itself.

The "paraklete":  The word parakletos means "one called alongside."  It is generally translated as "advocate" or "comforter."  The word is closely related to the Hebrew hacham, which appears in Psalm 23, for example:  "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort--hacham--me."  The word parakletos itself, however, comes originally from the Greek law courts where it meant "advocate" or "lawyer."

Jesus promises "another advocate," himself apparently being the first.  The "advocate" will be "the spirit of the truth."  This is reminiscent of the worship of those who do so "in spirit and in truth" (4: 23-24).  The way the fourth gospel uses it, parakletos combines the concepts of comforter, encourager, advocate, defender. 

The "advocate" will be "remaining" with them--menei, a key, even ubiquitous, word in the fourth gospel.  Everyone--Jesus, the community, the advocate, the Father--seems to abide, dwell, and remain in, with, and under each other.  (Think sacramental theology.)

To see and know:  Jesus will not leave them bereft, like orphans.  They "will see" him, even though no one else will.  ("...the world can neither see nor know him...") 

The formula "on that day" is used throughout the Old Testament, and the fourth gospel uses it here to underline Jesus' relationship and identification with the Father.  What's more, the community's relationship with Jesus is the same as Jesus' relationship with the Father, the first such statement in the fourth gospel.

The community "knows" the advocate, and, "on that day," the community "will know" that Jesus is in the Father.  The word is ginosko. Ginosko, as previously mentioned, is knowledge through intimate experience--"mystical knowledge," you might say.  It is not so much a reasoned-based "knowing," but more revelation-based "knowing."

The fourth gospel anticipates some of the trinitarian debate that would come two or three hundred years later.  The Son is in intimate relationship with the Father, yet is distinct from the Father.  Jesus has a direct relationship with the Father, and a direct relationship with the community, though the community itself is in relationship with the Father indirectly, through Jesus.

The Father is utterly transcendent, known only through the Son.  John Sanford notes that "in Christian mystical thought...the Father is God as the uncreated One, pure Being or Existence itself who cannot be known or described in any human categories." 

The Father is beyond space and time, and, therefore, beyond description.  The eastern tradition calls this "apophatic" theology, which means that God can only be described in negatives, i.e. without name, without origin, without end.  Gregory of Nyssa: 

"There is no way of comprehending the indefinable as by a scheme of words.  For the Divine is too noble and lofty to be indicated by a name, and we have learned to honor by silence that which transcends reason and thought." (Against Eunomius, 10)

The question is:  If the Father is unknown, how can be the Father be known?  The fourth gospel asserts:  The Father can be known through the Son.  The Father cannot be known, but the Son can be known, and to know the Son is to know the Father.

There is a shift in verse 21.  Until then, Jesus had been speaking to the community--the "you's" were all plural.  In verse 21, Jesus speaks to the individual.  The NRSV continues to use "they" here, but the verse should actually be translated:  "The one having my commandments and keeping them is the one loving me.  The one loving me will be loved by my Father, and I will love that one and will manifest myself to that one."

The primary sense of the sentence is to enjoin both community and individual in loving one another and Jesus.  Secondly however, it would be a mistake to view this in an exclusive way.  Jesus is not saying that God will not love others who don't love.  The fourth gospel is underscoring, however, the reciprocity of relationship.  Those in mutual relationship with each other--those who menei together and with Jesus--will want to live out the very basis of that relationship, which is love. 

Image:  Passion, Chidi Okoye

¹⁵”If you love me, you will keep my commandments. ¹⁶And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. ¹⁷This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

¹⁸”I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. ¹⁹In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. ²⁰On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. ²¹They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”

Translation:  "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another, a One-called-alongside, so that he might be with you into the eternal, the spirit of the truth, whom the world has not been able to receive because it can neither see nor know him.  You know him, because he abides alongside you and is in you.  I will not leave you orphans.  I come to you.  A little while and the world will see me no longer, but you see me.  Because I live, you will live also.  On that day, you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, I in you.  The one having my commandments, and keeping them, that one is loving me, and the one loving me will be loved by my Father.  And I will love them, and I will show forth myself to them."

Background and situation:  Last week's reading, John 14: 1-14, is the beginning of the farewell discourses in the fourth gospel.  This week's reading is the following six verses.  Last week, the emphasis was on trust in Jesus.  This week, the emphasis is on love for Jesus.  

Not surprisingly, the farewell discourses open with appeals to trust and love, both major themes of the fourth gospel.  In fact, what is rather surprising, when you think about it, is that love for Jesus is a minor theme in the New Testament, almost non-existent outside of the fourth gospel.  In the fourth gospel, however, love for Jesus is a major theme, strongly emphasized.

Love counters fear.  The text seems designed to provide comfort for the community in the absence of Jesus, as if to say, "Don't worry.  Everything will be all right.  You will have help."  What's more, Jesus says, "I come to you."  The verb is present tense, meaning that Jesus is always a present reality.

The problem of love in the very early church:  I read the fourth gospel as a bit of a polemic against Peter.  Whenever Peter and the Beloved Disciple appear in the same scene, it seems that Peter always comes off as secondary. 

Peter needs to get the Beloved Disciple to ask Jesus a question, for example.  The Beloved Disciple can walk right into the palace, but Peter has to stay outside.  They both run to the tomb, but the Beloved Disciple gets there first.  Then, in chapter 21, Jesus almost seems to chew Peter out for not having enough love.  (Jesus speaks of agape love to Peter, unconditional love, but Peter keeps responding with philia love, affectionate friendship.)

Is that the fourth gospel's criticism of Peter?  Not enough love?  One of the major themes of the fourth gospel is love.  The word appears 57 times in fourth gospel.  In it, the two great commandments are to love God and "love one another." 

This is the sacred text of the Johannine community, a community distinct from, yet in fellowship with, the Jerusalem church.  Do they find a lack of love in the Jerusalem church?

The community is to demonstrate their love for Jesus by keeping his commandments, although he has only really given one actual commandment, which is to "love one another" (13: 34-35).  The use of the word "commandments"--plural--invites a comparison with other "commandments," such as those given to Moses.  For the fourth gospel, Jesus one commandment--"love one another"--is placed on the level of the Torah itself.

The "paraklete":  The word parakletos means "one called alongside."  It is generally translated as "advocate" or "comforter."  The word is closely related to the Hebrew hacham, which appears in Psalm 23, for example:  "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort--hacham--me."  The word parakletos itself, however, comes originally from the Greek law courts where it meant "advocate" or "lawyer."

Jesus promises "another advocate," himself apparently being the first.  The "advocate" will be "the spirit of the truth."  This is reminiscent of the worship of those who do so "in spirit and in truth" (4: 23-24).  The way the fourth gospel uses it, parakletos combines the concepts of comforter, encourager, advocate, defender. 

The "advocate" will be "remaining" with them--menei, a key, even ubiquitous, word in the fourth gospel.  Everyone--Jesus, the community, the advocate, the Father--seems to abide, dwell, and remain in, with, and under each other.  (Think sacramental theology.)

To see and know:  Jesus will not leave them bereft, like orphans.  They "will see" him, even though no one else will.  ("...the world can neither see nor know him...") 

The formula "on that day" is used throughout the Old Testament, and the fourth gospel uses it here to underline Jesus' relationship and identification with the Father.  What's more, the community's relationship with Jesus is the same as Jesus' relationship with the Father, the first such statement in the fourth gospel.

The community "knows" the advocate, and, "on that day," the community "will know" that Jesus is in the Father.  The word is ginosko. Ginosko, as previously mentioned, is knowledge through intimate experience--"mystical knowledge," you might say.  It is not so much a reasoned-based "knowing," but more revelation-based "knowing."

The fourth gospel anticipates some of the trinitarian debate that would come two or three hundred years later.  The Son is in intimate relationship with the Father, yet is distinct from the Father.  Jesus has a direct relationship with the Father, and a direct relationship with the community, though the community itself is in relationship with the Father indirectly, through Jesus.

The Father is utterly transcendent, known only through the Son.  John Sanford notes that "in Christian mystical thought...the Father is God as the uncreated One, pure Being or Existence itself who cannot be known or described in any human categories." 

The Father is beyond space and time, and, therefore, beyond description.  The eastern tradition calls this "apophatic" theology, which means that God can only be described in negatives, i.e. without name, without origin, without end.  Gregory of Nyssa: 

"There is no way of comprehending the indefinable as by a scheme of words.  For the Divine is too noble and lofty to be indicated by a name, and we have learned to honor by silence that which transcends reason and thought." (Against Eunomius, 10)

The question is:  If the Father is unknown, how can be the Father be known?  The fourth gospel asserts:  The Father can be known through the Son.  The Father cannot be known, but the Son can be known, and to know the Son is to know the Father.

There is a shift in verse 21.  Until then, Jesus had been speaking to the community--the "you's" were all plural.  In verse 21, Jesus speaks to the individual.  The NRSV continues to use "they" here, but the verse should actually be translated:  "The one having my commandments and keeping them is the one loving me.  The one loving me will be loved by my Father, and I will love that one and will manifest myself to that one."

The primary sense of the sentence is to enjoin both community and individual in loving one another and Jesus.  Secondly however, it would be a mistake to view this in an exclusive way.  Jesus is not saying that God will not love others who don't love.  The fourth gospel is underscoring, however, the reciprocity of relationship.  Those in mutual relationship with each other--those who menei together and with Jesus--will want to live out the very basis of that relationship, which is love. 

Image:  Passion, Chidi Okoye

Easter 5 ::: John 14: 1-14

‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. ²In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? ³And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.⁴And you know the way to the place where I am going.’^*5Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ ⁶Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.’

Translation:  "Let not your heart be troubled.  Trust into God, and trust into me.  In the house of my Father, there are many habitations, and, if not, I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go, and prepare a place for you, I come again and I will take you to myself so that, where I am, I and you might be, and you have known the way where I go."  Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you go.  How have we known the way?"  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.  From now, you know him, and you have seen."

Background and situation:  The lection is part of the Last Supper discourse in the fourth gospel.  These "farewell discourses" take up chapters 13-17, or about 20% of the book.  In this section, Jesus is addressing his disciples on the night before his crucifixion.  The section culminates in what is called the High Priestly Prayer (17:1-26).

Bad advice from Jesus:  Sports Illustrated reports that, back in 2008, the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the locker room of the defeated Memphis Tigers basketball team after their loss to Kansas in the NCAA basketball finals.  Memphis' star player, Derrick Rose, was said to be "inconsolable."  Jackson told him, "Don't look like a freshman crying.  It looks pitiful.  Smile through your tears and speak above your pain."

In our therapy-infused culture, this is considered horrible advice.  Feelings should not be "held in," but expressed openly.  Jesus must have missed that lecture.  He gives his disciples a message not unlike the one that Jesse Jackson gave to Derrick Rose.

"Do not let your heart be troubled."  Jesus urges his disciples to move beyond their anxiety and to "trust into God and trust into me."  (The word is pisteuein, more properly translated as "trust" or "faith" than as "believe."  Also, the preposition is eis, which means "into," not "in.") 

He asks his disciples to put their "troubles" in the proper perspective and to see them in light of God's power.  This is not a lot different from "smile through your tears and speak above your pain."  See your pain, or your troubles, through the light of Christ.

Troubled heart:  In the English language, as is well-known, the word "you" serves as both the second person singular and the second person plural.  Most other languages, however, have a distinct word for the second person plural. 

Most people don't realize that the vast majority of all uses of the word "you" in the Greek New Testament are plural.  To put it another way, if we read these texts as being individually addressed to us, we are mistaken.  They were not addressed to individuals, but rather to a community.

Jesus says, "Do not let your (pl.) heart be troubled."  The disciples, collectively, have a "troubled heart."  In fourth gospel, Jesus himself had also been "troubled" on three occasions.  He was "troubled" at the reaction to his raising of Lazarus (11:33), the approach of the cross (12:26), and Judas' betrayal (13:21).  Now, this emotion is ascribed also to the community itself.

"In the house of my Father, they are many habitations."  The word translated as "habitations" is monai.  In the popular imagination, this is often taken to mean that the Methodists will have a room--indeed, a mansion--and so will the Catholics and the Baptists. 

Monai actually means a temporary resting place for a traveler.  It was associated with caravans.  In those days, there would be a contingent of folks who would go ahead of the caravan to "prepare a place" so that when the caravan arrived there, the camp ground had been prepared, the water supply located, and food prepared.  The travelers in the caravan would have a place of comfort to spend the night.

Monai is less about getting some fancy digs in the hereafter, in a house separate from the people you can't stand, and more about welcome, hospitality, and community for people traveling on a journey.  

"For I go to prepare a place for you."  This sentence is reminiscent of Moses' speech in Deuteronomy 1:33 where he says that the Lord "goes before you in the way to choose a place." 

Just as Moses led the people into the Promised Land, so Jesus will lead his people to the place where he himself is going.  ("I come again and I will take you to myself so that, where I am, I and you might be.")

The way:  "And you know the way--hodon--to the place where I am going."  The concept of "the way" had been around awhile.  Moses had used the phrase "in the way" in the Deuteronomy passage.  Likewise, the Psalms refer to the Torah as "the way" (Ps 119: 29-34). 

Moreover, according to the book of Acts, the Christian faith was first known as "the way."  The word hodos, or "way," is used over 100 times in the New Testament.  Its use here, however, is the only time it appears in the fourth gospel. 

Thomas is taken aback.  "We do not know the way," he says.  When Jesus had announced, in chapter 11, that he was returning to the Jerusalem area, a place of danger, Thomas fatalistically declares that they might as well go with Jesus and "die with him" (11:16).  Thomas knew "the way" that led to death well enough, but not "the way" that leads to life.

Jesus spells it out.  "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."  Earlier in the fourth gospel, we were told that Jesus is truth (1:14), and "the resurrection and the life" (11:25).  Now, he is also "the way" itself. 

This is another ego eimi saying, which means that the most important words in this important sentence are the first two--"I am."  Ego eimi is an emphatic way of saying YHWH, God's own name, in Greek.  Lest anyone miss the point, the fourth gospel has Jesus also say, "If you know me, you will know my Father also."

Thomas had asked, "How can we know the way?"  Here, the fourth gospel uses the word oida for "know."  Oida is the kind of knowledge that you get from first-hand, physical experience.  It is the kind of knowledge that is objective and demonstrable. 

Jesus responds, "If you know me, you will know my Father also."  In this sentence, Jesus uses ginosko, which is the kind of knowledge one gets through intimate experience.  This is a kind of "mystical knowing." 

Thomas's "knowing" is of the everyday variety.  Jesus' "knowing" is the kind that comes "from above" (3:3).  This is consistent with an over-all theme of the fourth gospel, which is intimate relationship and mutual indwelling between Jesus and his followers.  

8 Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ ⁹Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? ¹⁰Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. ¹¹Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. ¹²Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. ¹³I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

Translation:  Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."  Jesus said to him, "I am with you a lengthy time and you do not know me, Philip?"  The one who has seen me has seen the Father.  How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?  Do you not trust that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father abiding in me does his works.  Trust me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  But if not, trust the works themselves.

"Truly, Truly, I say to you, the one trusting into me, the works which I am doing, that one will do also, and that one will do greater than these, for I am going to the Father.  And whatever you might ask in my name, that I will do so that the Father might be glorified in the Son.  Whatever you might ask in my name, I will do. 

Community building:  Philip says, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough--arkei--for us."  Philip had earlier worried that they would not have "enough" (arkousin) food to feed the large crowd (6:7).  In his only two utterances in the fourth gospel, Philip is portrayed as fussing that what they have is not enough.  The food had not been enough, and now Jesus is not quite enough either.

Jesus responds, "I am with you through a lengthy time--chronos--and you do not know--ginosko--me, Philip?"  The word chronos refers to earthly, chronological time.  It is distinct from kairos, which is "special time"--the in-breaking of God.  In ordinary experience, in ordinary "time," one cannot "know" Jesus in an intimate, mystical way.

Jesus tells them that his words are the same as the "Father's works."  Then, he tells them that if they cannot believe his words, they should turn to his works.  What's more, they will do even greater works than Jesus! 

What could they possibly do that would be "greater" than what Jesus has already done in the fourth gospel?  Jesus has healed the sick and raised the dead.  What can they do to top that? 

One thing remains:  They have not yet established an on-going community centered in Jesus, which follows him, and does his works.

Jesus assures the disciples that, even though "the way" may be difficult, they can call on him and he will do "whatever you ask in my name."  This is not, of course, a flinging about of Jesus' name as some kind of magic talisman in order to get what a person wants.  That is mere egocentrity.  It asks in our name, but not that of Jesus. 

To ask in Jesus' name, as Ray Brown has said, means to be in union with Jesus.  To ask in Jesus name is, as Paul put it, having the same mind that was in Christ Jesus (Philippians 2).  What would Jesus ask?  What would Jesus think?  Indeed, WWJD?

 Image:  Mary Padgelek

 

‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. ²In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? ³And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.⁴And you know the way to the place where I am going.’^*5Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ ⁶Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.’

Translation:  "Let not your heart be troubled.  Trust into God, and trust into me.  In the house of my Father, there are many habitations, and, if not, I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go, and prepare a place for you, I come again and I will take you to myself so that, where I am, I and you might be, and you have known the way where I go."  Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you go.  How have we known the way?"  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.  From now, you know him, and you have seen."

Background and situation:  The lection is part of the Last Supper discourse in the fourth gospel.  These "farewell discourses" take up chapters 13-17, or about 20% of the book.  In this section, Jesus is addressing his disciples on the night before his crucifixion.  The section culminates in what is called the High Priestly Prayer (17:1-26).

Bad advice from Jesus:  Sports Illustrated reports that, back in 2008, the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the locker room of the defeated Memphis Tigers basketball team after their loss to Kansas in the NCAA basketball finals.  Memphis' star player, Derrick Rose, was said to be "inconsolable."  Jackson told him, "Don't look like a freshman crying.  It looks pitiful.  Smile through your tears and speak above your pain."

In our therapy-infused culture, this is considered horrible advice.  Feelings should not be "held in," but expressed openly.  Jesus must have missed that lecture.  He gives his disciples a message not unlike the one that Jesse Jackson gave to Derrick Rose.

"Do not let your heart be troubled."  Jesus urges his disciples to move beyond their anxiety and to "trust into God and trust into me."  (The word is pisteuein, more properly translated as "trust" or "faith" than as "believe."  Also, the preposition is eis, which means "into," not "in.") 

He asks his disciples to put their "troubles" in the proper perspective and to see them in light of God's power.  This is not a lot different from "smile through your tears and speak above your pain."  See your pain, or your troubles, through the light of Christ.

Troubled heart:  In the English language, as is well-known, the word "you" serves as both the second person singular and the second person plural.  Most other languages, however, have a distinct word for the second person plural. 

Most people don't realize that the vast majority of all uses of the word "you" in the Greek New Testament are plural.  To put it another way, if we read these texts as being individually addressed to us, we are mistaken.  They were not addressed to individuals, but rather to a community.

Jesus says, "Do not let your (pl.) heart be troubled."  The disciples, collectively, have a "troubled heart."  In fourth gospel, Jesus himself had also been "troubled" on three occasions.  He was "troubled" at the reaction to his raising of Lazarus (11:33), the approach of the cross (12:26), and Judas' betrayal (13:21).  Now, this emotion is ascribed also to the community itself.

"In the house of my Father, they are many habitations."  The word translated as "habitations" is monai.  In the popular imagination, this is often taken to mean that the Methodists will have a room--indeed, a mansion--and so will the Catholics and the Baptists. 

Monai actually means a temporary resting place for a traveler.  It was associated with caravans.  In those days, there would be a contingent of folks who would go ahead of the caravan to "prepare a place" so that when the caravan arrived there, the camp ground had been prepared, the water supply located, and food prepared.  The travelers in the caravan would have a place of comfort to spend the night.

Monai is less about getting some fancy digs in the hereafter, in a house separate from the people you can't stand, and more about welcome, hospitality, and community for people traveling on a journey.  

"For I go to prepare a place for you."  This sentence is reminiscent of Moses' speech in Deuteronomy 1:33 where he says that the Lord "goes before you in the way to choose a place." 

Just as Moses led the people into the Promised Land, so Jesus will lead his people to the place where he himself is going.  ("I come again and I will take you to myself so that, where I am, I and you might be.")

The way:  "And you know the way--hodon--to the place where I am going."  The concept of "the way" had been around awhile.  Moses had used the phrase "in the way" in the Deuteronomy passage.  Likewise, the Psalms refer to the Torah as "the way" (Ps 119: 29-34). 

Moreover, according to the book of Acts, the Christian faith was first known as "the way."  The word hodos, or "way," is used over 100 times in the New Testament.  Its use here, however, is the only time it appears in the fourth gospel. 

Thomas is taken aback.  "We do not know the way," he says.  When Jesus had announced, in chapter 11, that he was returning to the Jerusalem area, a place of danger, Thomas fatalistically declares that they might as well go with Jesus and "die with him" (11:16).  Thomas knew "the way" that led to death well enough, but not "the way" that leads to life.

Jesus spells it out.  "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."  Earlier in the fourth gospel, we were told that Jesus is truth (1:14), and "the resurrection and the life" (11:25).  Now, he is also "the way" itself. 

This is another ego eimi saying, which means that the most important words in this important sentence are the first two--"I am."  Ego eimi is an emphatic way of saying YHWH, God's own name, in Greek.  Lest anyone miss the point, the fourth gospel has Jesus also say, "If you know me, you will know my Father also."

Thomas had asked, "How can we know the way?"  Here, the fourth gospel uses the word oida for "know."  Oida is the kind of knowledge that you get from first-hand, physical experience.  It is the kind of knowledge that is objective and demonstrable. 

Jesus responds, "If you know me, you will know my Father also."  In this sentence, Jesus uses ginosko, which is the kind of knowledge one gets through intimate experience.  This is a kind of "mystical knowing." 

Thomas's "knowing" is of the everyday variety.  Jesus' "knowing" is the kind that comes "from above" (3:3).  This is consistent with an over-all theme of the fourth gospel, which is intimate relationship and mutual indwelling between Jesus and his followers.  

8 Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ ⁹Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? ¹⁰Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. ¹¹Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. ¹²Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. ¹³I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

Translation:  Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."  Jesus said to him, "I am with you a lengthy time and you do not know me, Philip?"  The one who has seen me has seen the Father.  How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?  Do you not trust that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father abiding in me does his works.  Trust me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  But if not, trust the works themselves.

"Truly, Truly, I say to you, the one trusting into me, the works which I am doing, that one will do also, and that one will do greater than these, for I am going to the Father.  And whatever you might ask in my name, that I will do so that the Father might be glorified in the Son.  Whatever you might ask in my name, I will do. 

Community building:  Philip says, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough--arkei--for us."  Philip had earlier worried that they would not have "enough" (arkousin) food to feed the large crowd (6:7).  In his only two utterances in the fourth gospel, Philip is portrayed as fussing that what they have is not enough.  The food had not been enough, and now Jesus is not quite enough either.

Jesus responds, "I am with you through a lengthy time--chronos--and you do not know--ginosko--me, Philip?"  The word chronos refers to earthly, chronological time.  It is distinct from kairos, which is "special time"--the in-breaking of God.  In ordinary experience, in ordinary "time," one cannot "know" Jesus in an intimate, mystical way.

Jesus tells them that his words are the same as the "Father's works."  Then, he tells them that if they cannot believe his words, they should turn to his works.  What's more, they will do even greater works than Jesus! 

What could they possibly do that would be "greater" than what Jesus has already done in the fourth gospel?  Jesus has healed the sick and raised the dead.  What can they do to top that? 

One thing remains:  They have not yet established an on-going community centered in Jesus, which follows him, and does his works.

Jesus assures the disciples that, even though "the way" may be difficult, they can call on him and he will do "whatever you ask in my name."  This is not, of course, a flinging about of Jesus' name as some kind of magic talisman in order to get what a person wants.  That is mere egocentrity.  It asks in our name, but not that of Jesus. 

To ask in Jesus' name, as Ray Brown has said, means to be in union with Jesus.  To ask in Jesus name is, as Paul put it, having the same mind that was in Christ Jesus (Philippians 2).  What would Jesus ask?  What would Jesus think?  Indeed, WWJD?

 Image:  Mary Padgelek

‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. ²In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? ³And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.⁴And you know the way to the place where I am going.’^*5Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ ⁶Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.’

Translation:  "Let not your heart be troubled.  Trust into God, and trust into me.  In the house of my Father, there are many habitations, and, if not, I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go, and prepare a place for you, I come again and I will take you to myself so that, where I am, I and you might be, and you have known the way where I go."  Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you go.  How have we known the way?"  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.  From now, you know him, and you have seen."

Background and situation:  The lection is part of the Last Supper discourse in the fourth gospel.  These "farewell discourses" take up chapters 13-17, or about 20% of the book.  In this section, Jesus is addressing his disciples on the night before his crucifixion.  The section culminates in what is called the High Priestly Prayer (17:1-26).

Bad advice from Jesus:  Sports Illustrated reports that, back in 2008, the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the locker room of the defeated Memphis Tigers basketball team after their loss to Kansas in the NCAA basketball finals.  Memphis' star player, Derrick Rose, was said to be "inconsolable."  Jackson told him, "Don't look like a freshman crying.  It looks pitiful.  Smile through your tears and speak above your pain."

In our therapy-infused culture, this is considered horrible advice.  Feelings should not be "held in," but expressed openly.  Jesus must have missed that lecture.  He gives his disciples a message not unlike the one that Jesse Jackson gave to Derrick Rose.

"Do not let your heart be troubled."  Jesus urges his disciples to move beyond their anxiety and to "trust into God and trust into me."  (The word is pisteuein, more properly translated as "trust" or "faith" than as "believe."  Also, the preposition is eis, which means "into," not "in.") 

He asks his disciples to put their "troubles" in the proper perspective and to see them in light of God's power.  This is not a lot different from "smile through your tears and speak above your pain."  See your pain, or your troubles, through the light of Christ.

Troubled heart:  In the English language, as is well-known, the word "you" serves as both the second person singular and the second person plural.  Most other languages, however, have a distinct word for the second person plural. 

Most people don't realize that the vast majority of all uses of the word "you" in the Greek New Testament are plural.  To put it another way, if we read these texts as being individually addressed to us, we are mistaken.  They were not addressed to individuals, but rather to a community.

Jesus says, "Do not let your (pl.) heart be troubled."  The disciples, collectively, have a "troubled heart."  In fourth gospel, Jesus himself had also been "troubled" on three occasions.  He was "troubled" at the reaction to his raising of Lazarus (11:33), the approach of the cross (12:26), and Judas' betrayal (13:21).  Now, this emotion is ascribed also to the community itself.

"In the house of my Father, they are many habitations."  The word translated as "habitations" is monai.  In the popular imagination, this is often taken to mean that the Methodists will have a room--indeed, a mansion--and so will the Catholics and the Baptists. 

Monai actually means a temporary resting place for a traveler.  It was associated with caravans.  In those days, there would be a contingent of folks who would go ahead of the caravan to "prepare a place" so that when the caravan arrived there, the camp ground had been prepared, the water supply located, and food prepared.  The travelers in the caravan would have a place of comfort to spend the night.

Monai is less about getting some fancy digs in the hereafter, in a house separate from the people you can't stand, and more about welcome, hospitality, and community for people traveling on a journey.  

"For I go to prepare a place for you."  This sentence is reminiscent of Moses' speech in Deuteronomy 1:33 where he says that the Lord "goes before you in the way to choose a place." 

Just as Moses led the people into the Promised Land, so Jesus will lead his people to the place where he himself is going.  ("I come again and I will take you to myself so that, where I am, I and you might be.")

The way:  "And you know the way--hodon--to the place where I am going."  The concept of "the way" had been around awhile.  Moses had used the phrase "in the way" in the Deuteronomy passage.  Likewise, the Psalms refer to the Torah as "the way" (Ps 119: 29-34). 

Moreover, according to the book of Acts, the Christian faith was first known as "the way."  The word hodos, or "way," is used over 100 times in the New Testament.  Its use here, however, is the only time it appears in the fourth gospel. 

Thomas is taken aback.  "We do not know the way," he says.  When Jesus had announced, in chapter 11, that he was returning to the Jerusalem area, a place of danger, Thomas fatalistically declares that they might as well go with Jesus and "die with him" (11:16).  Thomas knew "the way" that led to death well enough, but not "the way" that leads to life.

Jesus spells it out.  "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."  Earlier in the fourth gospel, we were told that Jesus is truth (1:14), and "the resurrection and the life" (11:25).  Now, he is also "the way" itself. 

This is another ego eimi saying, which means that the most important words in this important sentence are the first two--"I am."  Ego eimi is an emphatic way of saying YHWH, God's own name, in Greek.  Lest anyone miss the point, the fourth gospel has Jesus also say, "If you know me, you will know my Father also."

Thomas had asked, "How can we know the way?"  Here, the fourth gospel uses the word oida for "know."  Oida is the kind of knowledge that you get from first-hand, physical experience.  It is the kind of knowledge that is objective and demonstrable. 

Jesus responds, "If you know me, you will know my Father also."  In this sentence, Jesus uses ginosko, which is the kind of knowledge one gets through intimate experience.  This is a kind of "mystical knowing." 

Thomas's "knowing" is of the everyday variety.  Jesus' "knowing" is the kind that comes "from above" (3:3).  This is consistent with an over-all theme of the fourth gospel, which is intimate relationship and mutual indwelling between Jesus and his followers.  

8 Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ ⁹Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? ¹⁰Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. ¹¹Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. ¹²Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. ¹³I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

Translation:  Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."  Jesus said to him, "I am with you a lengthy time and you do not know me, Philip?"  The one who has seen me has seen the Father.  How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?  Do you not trust that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father abiding in me does his works.  Trust me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  But if not, trust the works themselves.

"Truly, Truly, I say to you, the one trusting into me, the works which I am doing, that one will do also, and that one will do greater than these, for I am going to the Father.  And whatever you might ask in my name, that I will do so that the Father might be glorified in the Son.  Whatever you might ask in my name, I will do. 

Community building:  Philip says, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough--arkei--for us."  Philip had earlier worried that they would not have "enough" (arkousin) food to feed the large crowd (6:7).  In his only two utterances in the fourth gospel, Philip is portrayed as fussing that what they have is not enough.  The food had not been enough, and now Jesus is not quite enough either.

Jesus responds, "I am with you through a lengthy time--chronos--and you do not know--ginosko--me, Philip?"  The word chronos refers to earthly, chronological time.  It is distinct from kairos, which is "special time"--the in-breaking of God.  In ordinary experience, in ordinary "time," one cannot "know" Jesus in an intimate, mystical way.

Jesus tells them that his words are the same as the "Father's works."  Then, he tells them that if they cannot believe his words, they should turn to his works.  What's more, they will do even greater works than Jesus! 

What could they possibly do that would be "greater" than what Jesus has already done in the fourth gospel?  Jesus has healed the sick and raised the dead.  What can they do to top that? 

One thing remains:  They have not yet established an on-going community centered in Jesus, which follows him, and does his works.

Jesus assures the disciples that, even though "the way" may be difficult, they can call on him and he will do "whatever you ask in my name."  This is not, of course, a flinging about of Jesus' name as some kind of magic talisman in order to get what a person wants.  That is mere egocentrity.  It asks in our name, but not that of Jesus. 

To ask in Jesus' name, as Ray Brown has said, means to be in union with Jesus.  To ask in Jesus name is, as Paul put it, having the same mind that was in Christ Jesus (Philippians 2).  What would Jesus ask?  What would Jesus think?  Indeed, WWJD?

 Image:  Mary Padgelek

Easter 4 ::: John 10: 1-10

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. ²The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. ³The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. ⁵They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers.’ ⁶Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

7 So again Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. ⁸All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. ⁹I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. ¹⁰The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Translation:  "Truly, truly I say to you, the one not entering through the door into the yard of the sheep, but ascends up some other way, is a thief and a robber.  But the one entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.  To him, the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.  When he might throw out all his own, he goes before them, and his sheep follow because they have known his voice.  But they will surely not follow a stranger but will flee from him because they have not known the voice of strangers."  Jesus spoke this proverb to them, but they did not know what he was saying to them.

Then again Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.  All that came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.  I am the door.  If someone might enter through me, that one will be saved.  And that one will go in and out and find pasture.  The thief does not come except that they might steal and kill and destroy.  I came so that they might have life, and they might have abundance."

Background and situation:  Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis that young Hebrew boys of the first century would memorize the entire Torah.  They would learn by heart the complete books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  And we thought memorizing the catechism was tough! 

All Hebrew males, then, would have been able to connect Jesus' words in chapter 10 of the fourth gospel with those of the Book of Numbers, that the Lord God would appoint someone "who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in" (Num 27: 16-18).

Hebrew males who, after their initial instruction, went on to become rabbis would have memorized the entire Old Testament by the time they were 18 years old.  They would have known of the prophet Jeremiah who wrote about bad shepherds who "destroy and scatter the sheep" (Jer 23: 1).  The prophets Ezekiel, Micah, and Zechariah as well talked of the various would-be shepherds who scattered the sheep and did not feed them.

Thieves and robbers:  Jesus uses strong words--"thieves and robbers"--right off the bat.  (Kleptes--thieves--is where we get our word "kleptomanic.")  Jesus has been a critic of the economic practices of Judean Temple officials throughout the fourth gospel.  The use of the word "thieves" is consistent with this critique. 

The word for "robber" is lestes, and refers to what, today, we would call "terrorists."  ("Revolutionary guerrillas," says Wes Howard-Brook; "guerrilla warriors," says Ray Brown.)  The combination of "thieves and robbers" suggests economic exploitation coupled with violence.

Shepherd and gate:  After this abrupt beginning, Jesus shifts to the "shepherd of the sheep" who enters through the gate.  The gatekeeper--God--opens the gate for this shepherd.  The sheep will hear the true shepherd's voice--he calls them by name, he leads them out, he goes before them, his sheep follow.

Notice the shift in direction.  The passage begins with entering the sheepfold, but now the good shepherd is leading his sheep out.  In chapter 5, Jesus had said that "all those who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out" (5: 28-9).  The sheepfold, supposedly a place of protection, is here equated with death.  At the call of his voice, Jesus leads his sheep out from death and into eternal life.

In the next chapter, Jesus will call Lazarus out of his grave--Lazare, deuro exo!  "Lazarus, come out."  In chapter 20, he will utter the name of "Mary" and she will recognize the Lord.  His sheep hear his voice!

Jesus says twice (v. 7, 9) that he himself is the gate.  That would make Jesus both the good shepherd and the gate itself.  This only makes sense if the gate is seen as his death and resurrection.  The good shepherd enters the sheepfold through the gate of death.  ("The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." 10: 11.)  On the basis of his death and resurrection, he leads his sheep out of death.  This is the way--the only way--that the gatekeeper, God the Father, approves.

The word for "stranger"--allotrion--makes its only appearance in the fourth gospel.  Along with "thieves and robbers," it is yet another negative image.  The sheep do not follow this stranger.  In fact, they run away.  The stranger is a thief and a bandit.  The stranger steals and oppresses, and is prone to violence.  Sound like any Temple officials you might know? 

Jesus appears to be speaking to the pharisees (9: 40).  Naturally, the pharisees don't understand any of this.  In the actual history of the period, the pharisees shared some of Jesus' criticisms of the Temple.  They looked for the renewal of Judaism.  They were the "liberal reformers" of their day, you might say. 

The problem is that they continue to have an investment in the system itself.  They are trying to reform a system that, in the view of the fourth gospel, cannot be reformed.  They are trying to come in "by another way" than through the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

"I am the gate," Jesus says.  This is another ego eimi saying, underlining its importance.  God the Father is the gate-keeper, the one who makes the decision about the method by which he will save his people.  He chooses death and resurrection.  Any other way--any Temple-based sacrificial system, any morality-based self-improvement system, any power-based oppressive system--has been rejected.

"I am the gate," Jesus says again (v. 9).  That gate, the crucified and risen body of Jesus, frees all his sheep from the power of death.  They will be able to "come in and go out," and will have "pasture."  The word translated as "pasture" is nome, which means all that they will need for a full and abundant life. 

Compare Micah 2:  "I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture.  It will resound with people.  With a leader to break open the path and go before them, they will break out and pass through the door, going out by it.  Their kind will pass on before them, the Lord at their head (2: 12-13)."

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy."  Of course, the thief steals.  But "kill and destroy"?  Ray Brown sees a sly reference to the sacrificial system in the word for "kill."  The word is thyo and is the same word that is used to describe the priestly sacrifice of passover lambs.  

The pharisees have already been identified with the Temple police earlier in the fourth gospel (7: 32, 45).  Stay away from the thief who kills, says Jesus to these pharisees.  What thief kills?  The Temple priests.  Thus, Brown sees the reference to "kill" as an appeal to the pharisees to break their alliance with the Temple authorities. 

The thief also wants to "destroy," which is directly contrary to God's desire to not to see anyone "perish" (3: 16).  Jesus wants not destruction, but abundant life.  "I came so that they might have life, and they might have abundance."  

The word for "abundance"--perisson--is used only twice in the fourth gospel, here and in 6: 12 where Jesus tells the disciples to gather up "the abundant fragments" left over in the fourth gospel's version of the story of the feeding of the multitude. 

Sheep as a psychological metaphor:  In the story as a whole, "sheep" are a metaphor for the people of God, and not a particularly flattering one either, as anyone familiar with sheep knows. 

Psychologically, "sheep" also refers to a primitive aspect of one's own personality, the instinctual ability to try to discern and recognize the "true voice" and distinguish it from false ones.

"Thieves and robbers" are false voices and false guides.  These false guides are many.  They are attractive to us because they offer the possibility of by-passing the hard work of discernment of the "true voice."  If we will only give our power over to them, they promise us relief from the task of mature ego development. 

"Thieves and robbers" are not only figures from outside of ourselves, they are also aspects of our own inner psychology.  This is the part of us that wants to deny difficult truth and take the easy path of satisfying our own self-centered desires.  The early church father, Origen, understood "thieves and robbers" to be everything in us that is defective because of our lack of consciousness.

Psychologically, the "gatekeeper" is the one who makes the decision about whether or not your ticket is paid.  You must go through the "gatekeeper" to get to move forward on the path to spiritual growth.  Think of various myths, legendary stories, and dreams where someone is on some kind of quest and must get past a "gatekeeper." 

In this story, the "ticket" required by the gatekeeper--the only requirement--is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Image:  I AM the good shepherd, Lee Hodges.        

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. ²The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. ³The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. ⁵They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers.’ ⁶Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

7 So again Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. ⁸All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. ⁹I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. ¹⁰The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Translation:  "Truly, truly I say to you, the one not entering through the door into the yard of the sheep, but ascends up some other way, is a thief and a robber.  But the one entering in through the door is shepherd of the sheep.  To him, the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.  When he might throw out all his own, he goes before them, and his sheep follow because they have known his voice.  But they will surely not follow a stranger but will flee from him because they have not known the voice of strangers."  Jesus spoke this proverb to them, but they did not know what he was saying to them.

Then again Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.  All that came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.  I am the door.  If someone might enter through me, that one will be saved.  And that one will go in and out and find pasture.  The thief does not come except that they might steal and kill and destroy.  I came so that they might have life, and they might have abundance."

Background and situation:  Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis that young Hebrew boys of the first century would memorize the entire Torah.  They would learn by heart the complete books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  And we thought memorizing the catechism was tough! 

All Hebrew males, then, would have been able to connect Jesus' words in chapter 10 of the fourth gospel with those of the Book of Numbers, that the Lord God would appoint someone "who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in" (Num 27: 16-18).

Hebrew males who, after their initial instruction, went on to become rabbis would have memorized the entire Old Testament by the time they were 18 years old.  They would have known of the prophet Jeremiah who wrote about bad shepherds who "destroy and scatter the sheep" (Jer 23: 1).  The prophets Ezekiel, Micah, and Zechariah as well talked of the various would-be shepherds who scattered the sheep and did not feed them.

Thieves and robbers:  Jesus uses strong words--"thieves and robbers"--right off the bat.  (Kleptes--thieves--is where we get our word "kleptomanic.")  Jesus has been a critic of the economic practices of Judean Temple officials throughout the fourth gospel.  The use of the word "thieves" is consistent with this critique. 

The word for "robber" is lestes, and refers to what, today, we would call "terrorists."  ("Revolutionary guerrillas," says Wes Howard-Brook; "guerrilla warriors," says Ray Brown.)  The combination of "thieves and robbers" suggests economic exploitation coupled with violence.

Shepherd and gate:  After this abrupt beginning, Jesus shifts to the "shepherd of the sheep" who enters through the gate.  The gatekeeper--God--opens the gate for this shepherd.  The sheep will hear the true shepherd's voice--he calls them by name, he leads them out, he goes before them, his sheep follow.

Notice the shift in direction.  The passage begins with entering the sheepfold, but now the good shepherd is leading his sheep out.  In chapter 5, Jesus had said that "all those who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out" (5: 28-9).  The sheepfold, supposedly a place of protection, is here equated with death.  At the call of his voice, Jesus leads his sheep out from death and into eternal life.

In the next chapter, Jesus will call Lazarus out of his grave--Lazare, deuro exo!  "Lazarus, come out."  In chapter 20, he will utter the name of "Mary" and she will recognize the Lord.  His sheep hear his voice!

Jesus says twice (v. 7, 9) that he himself is the gate.  That would make Jesus both the good shepherd and the gate itself.  This only makes sense if the gate is seen as his death and resurrection.  The good shepherd enters the sheepfold through the gate of death.  ("The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." 10: 11.)  On the basis of his death and resurrection, he leads his sheep out of death.  This is the way--the only way--that the gatekeeper, God the Father, approves.

The word for "stranger"--allotrion--makes its only appearance in the fourth gospel.  Along with "thieves and robbers," it is yet another negative image.  The sheep do not follow this stranger.  In fact, they run away.  The stranger is a thief and a bandit.  The stranger steals and oppresses, and is prone to violence.  Sound like any Temple officials you might know? 

Jesus appears to be speaking to the pharisees (9: 40).  Naturally, the pharisees don't understand any of this.  In the actual history of the period, the pharisees shared some of Jesus' criticisms of the Temple.  They looked for the renewal of Judaism.  They were the "liberal reformers" of their day, you might say. 

The problem is that they continue to have an investment in the system itself.  They are trying to reform a system that, in the view of the fourth gospel, cannot be reformed.  They are trying to come in "by another way" than through the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

"I am the gate," Jesus says.  This is another ego eimi saying, underlining its importance.  God the Father is the gate-keeper, the one who makes the decision about the method by which he will save his people.  He chooses death and resurrection.  Any other way--any Temple-based sacrificial system, any morality-based self-improvement system, any power-based oppressive system--has been rejected.

"I am the gate," Jesus says again (v. 9).  That gate, the crucified and risen body of Jesus, frees all his sheep from the power of death.  They will be able to "come in and go out," and will have "pasture."  The word translated as "pasture" is nome, which means all that they will need for a full and abundant life. 

Compare Micah 2:  "I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture.  It will resound with people.  With a leader to break open the path and go before them, they will break out and pass through the door, going out by it.  Their kind will pass on before them, the Lord at their head (2: 12-13)."

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy."  Of course, the thief steals.  But "kill and destroy"?  Ray Brown sees a sly reference to the sacrificial system in the word for "kill."  The word is thyo and is the same word that is used to describe the priestly sacrifice of passover lambs.  

The pharisees have already been identified with the Temple police earlier in the fourth gospel (7: 32, 45).  Stay away from the thief who kills, says Jesus to these pharisees.  What thief kills?  The Temple priests.  Thus, Brown sees the reference to "kill" as an appeal to the pharisees to break their alliance with the Temple authorities. 

The thief also wants to "destroy," which is directly contrary to God's desire to not to see anyone "perish" (3: 16).  Jesus wants not destruction, but abundant life.  "I came so that they might have life, and they might have abundance."  

The word for "abundance"--perisson--is used only twice in the fourth gospel, here and in 6: 12 where Jesus tells the disciples to gather up "the abundant fragments" left over in the fourth gospel's version of the story of the feeding of the multitude. 

Sheep as a psychological metaphor:  In the story as a whole, "sheep" are a metaphor for the people of God, and not a particularly flattering one either, as anyone familiar with sheep knows. 

Psychologically, "sheep" also refers to a primitive aspect of one's own personality, the instinctual ability to try to discern and recognize the "true voice" and distinguish it from false ones.

"Thieves and robbers" are false voices and false guides.  These false guides are many.  They are attractive to us because they offer the possibility of by-passing the hard work of discernment of the "true voice."  If we will only give our power over to them, they promise us relief from the task of mature ego development. 

"Thieves and robbers" are not only figures from outside of ourselves, they are also aspects of our own inner psychology.  This is the part of us that wants to deny difficult truth and take the easy path of satisfying our own self-centered desires.  The early church father, Origen, understood "thieves and robbers" to be everything in us that is defective because of our lack of consciousness.

Psychologically, the "gatekeeper" is the one who makes the decision about whether or not your ticket is paid.  You must go through the "gatekeeper" to get to move forward on the path to spiritual growth.  Think of various myths, legendary stories, and dreams where someone is on some kind of quest and must get past a "gatekeeper." 

In this story, the "ticket" required by the gatekeeper--the only requirement--is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Image:  I AM the good shepherd, Lee Hodges.        

Easter 3 ::: Luke 24: 13-35

Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, ¹⁴and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. ¹⁵While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, ¹⁶but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

Translation:  And behold, in that same day, two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, having threescore furlongs from Jerusalem, and they were talking to each other about all that had befallen them.  And it happened, in their talking and questioning together, Jesus himself drew near (and) was going with them, but their eyes were being held (and) they did not recognize him. 

Background and situation:  In Luke, people are often on a journey.  Luke takes seriously the great spiritual truth that we are all on a pilgrimage through life.  The Emmaus story, chapter 24, is also a journey story, and one that has certain resonances with another journey story in chapter 2. 

In chapter 2, Mary and Joseph journey away from Jerusalem and find that Jesus is not with them.  They go back to Jerusalem and search for three days.  They are tired and anxious.  When they find Jesus, he speaks of a divine imperative.  He "must be"--dei--about his father's business. 

At Emmaus, another couple journeys away from Jerusalem.  Cleopas and his companion, probably a woman, are sad and disappointed.  In this case, Jesus is with them, but unrecognized.  Jesus speaks again of divine necessity--"Was it not necessary--dei--for the Messiah to suffer these things and enter into his glory?"  In the meal, Cleopas and his friend discover that Jesus had been with them all along.

Cleopas:

¹⁷And he said to them, ‘What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?’ They stood still, looking sad.  ¹⁸Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?’¹⁹He asked them, ‘What things?’ They replied, ‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, ²⁰and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. ²¹But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.  Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place.

Translation:  And he said to them, "What are these words which you are having with each other walking?"  And they stood, sad ones.  But one named Cleopas, answered (and) said to them, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem and you do not know the things which happened in it in these days?"  And he said to them, "What?"  But they said to him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who became a prophet, strong in deed and word before God and all the people, and that the chief priests and our rulers delivered him over into a judgment of death and crucified him.  But we were hoping that he is the one about to redeem Israel.  But indeed, and with all these things, it is leading into this third day from which these things happened..."  

Who is Cleopas?  Some early traditions identify him with the Clopas referred to in fourth gospel (19: 25)--"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife) of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."  The names are not identical, but similar enough that some have suggested Clopas (whoever he was) and Cleopas (whoever he was) are the same person.

It is uncertain whether or not "his mother's sister" and "Mary of Clopas" are one person, or two different people.  (If the same person, then two sisters in the same family were named "Mary," rather like the brothers on the old "Bob Newhart Show":  "This is my brother Darrell, and this is my other brother Darrell.") 

This would be possible among first century Jews, however, where Mary--really, Miriam, the name of Moses' sister--was, by far, the most popular name for a baby girl.  Some estimate that as many as one-half of all Jewish women were named Mary in the first-century land of Israel.

The early church historian, Eusebius, identifies Clopas as the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon.  Simeon succeeded James, the Lord's brother, as leader of the Jerusalem church.  If Eusebius is right, and if Mary of Clopas was Jesus' mother's sister, this would mean Joseph's brother was married to Mary's sister.  This is somewhat unusual, though certainly possible.  (If either one were related to either Joseph or Mary, it would also mean that these two people who did not recognize Jesus were his aunt and uncle.)

One wonders too:  If Cleopas was the father of Simeon, as Eusebius says, that would mean that Cleopas was very much an "insider" in the church at the time.  Luke was written c. AD 85, precisely during the time that Simeon would have been bishop of Jerusalem.  (Simeon served from AD 63 to his death by crucifixion in c. AD 106.)

Sojourner:  Cleopas speaks of Jesus as paroikeis, which means one who dwells in an area as a sojourner.  The first identification of Jesus in this story, then, is as a stranger, or even, exile.  (The words "parish" and "parochial" both have their root in paroikeis.)  

This is a not uncommon designation for the church as a whole.  We are all sojourners, traveling through life on a spiritual journey.  The concept of "the way" is central in all four gospels.  Indeed, the earliest Christians were not called "Christians" but "followers of the way."  

Prophet:  Cleopas also identifies Jesus as being "of Nazareth," and a "prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people."  In all four of the gospels, but especially in Luke, Jesus is firmly in the prophetic tradition.  Jesus' first words in Luke are to read from the prophet Isaiah.  When Jesus raised the widow of Nain's son from the dead (7:16), the people exclaimed, "A great prophet has risen among us!"   

Luke uses the word "redeem"--lytroomai--in only three places.  One is in the Song of Zechariah (1:68), another is the prophet Anna in the Temple (2: 38).  The third instance is 24: 21--"We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel."  For Cleopas and his fellow traveler, this past hope has been disappointed.  They had not reckoned with suffering and death.

The necessity of divine suffering:

²²Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, ²³and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. ²⁴Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.’   ²⁵Then he said to them, ‘Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! ²⁶Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?’ ²⁷Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

Translation:  "...and also, certain women among us, who were at the tomb early, astonished us.  And when they did not find his body, they came to say that they had seen a vision of angels who were saying he lives.  And some of the ones with us went to the tomb and they found (it) so, like the women said, but they did not see him."  And he said to them, "Fools and slow of heart to trust upon all which the prophets spoke.  Was it not necessary (for) the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"  And beginning from Moses and from all of the prophets, he explained to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 

The tradition of the women at the tomb is recounted.  The tomb is inspected, but no one actually sees Jesus himself.  The testimony of the women generates astonishment, but not faith. 

Jesus asserts the divine necessity of his suffering.  He says, "Was it not necessary (dei) for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"  

The death and resurrection of Jesus was so contrary to peoples' expectations for the messianic figure that the gospel writers assert that Jesus' death was actually an integral part of God's purpose.  It was God's intention all along.  Later, in Acts, Luke will write that Jesus' death was the "definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (2:23).  This is a standard belief today, but one that might have been a difficult sell in the first century.    

By recounting "Moses and all the prophets," Jesus places himself firmly in line with the prophetic tradition.  First and second century readers would have understood:  Violence toward prophets is not a new thing in the history of Israel. 

One wonders also:  In emphasizing Jesus as a prophet, is Luke subtlely affirming the Hebrew credentials of Jesus as a way of lending additional political credibility to Simeon who had been elected bishop over Thebutis, a noted "judaizer"? 

Even though defeated, Thebutis apparently continued to have influence in the church.  Just prior to the Roman-Jewish War, AD 66-70, Thebutis led people away from Jerusalem to a hide-out near Pella (in modern day Jordan). 

In Luke, on the other hand, Jesus tells his followers to "remain in the city (Jerusalem)" and they did (24: 49, 52).

"Stay with us": 

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. ²⁹But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.’ So he went in to stay with them. ³⁰When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.³¹Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. ³²They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?’ ³³That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. ³⁴They were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!’³⁵Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Translation:  And they came near into the village where they were going and he made as though to go further, and they constrained him, saying, "Remain with us, for it is toward evening and now the day is nearly over, and he entered to remain together with them.  And it happened at table with them:  he took bread, and blessed, and broke, (and) he was giving to them.  And their eyes were opened, and they knew him fully, and he vanished from them.  And they said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning as he was something to us on the way, as he was opening to us the scriptures?"  And they rose up at that hour (and) they returned into Jerusalem.  They found the eleven gathered together, and those together with them, saying, "The Lord has been raised indeed, and he has been seen by Simon."  And they were making known the things on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. 

They came to the village to which they were "journeying"--eporeuonto--but Jesus intends to "journey" beyond the village.  Cleopas and his companion prevail upon Jesus to stay.  Jesus is said to be "with them" three times.  In other words, he is emphatically present.  

At table "with them," Jesus "took, blessed, broke, gave" the bread.  This is the eucharistic formula.  Nearly identical words are used in the stories of the feeding of the 5000 and the last supper. 

"Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him."  This recalls the first meal in the book of Genesis--the one where Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit.  In that case, "their eyes were opened" and they knew that they were naked.  In this instance, "their eyes were opened" and they recognized Jesus. 

To put it another way:  This meal--the eucharist--redresses an ancient problem.  The long exile of the human race--the long journey out of Eden--is over.  The new creation has begun.  This is the 8th meal in Luke's gospel--thus, the meal of "the new creation."

Even as their "eyes were opened," however, their awareness had been increasing, al beit at a pre-conscious level, during the earlier part of the story.  As they thought back on it now, their hearts had been "burning" even as Jesus "was opening" the scriptures to them on the journey. 

When they recognize Jesus, their first act is one of witness.  They return to Jerusalem and tell Jesus' disciples of what had happened "on the road"--the journey, the way--and how Jesus had been made known to them in the "breaking of bread."  Later, in Acts 2, Luke will describe the church as being a community devoted to "the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers" (2:42).

John Dominic Crossan calls the Emmaus road story "the metaphoric condensation of the first years of Christian thought and practice into one parabolic afternoon," to which he famously added, "Emmaus never happened.  Emmaus always happens." 

The story is not, in other words, primarily a description of an historical event, but rather a story that reflects the pattern of the Christian life as it is lived out by people on their journey through life.  

It is, one notes, a communal journey.  Jesus joined them "in their talking and questioning together."  The word allelone--each other--is used three times in this text, as is the phrase "with them."  This "journey together" is accompanied by the Lord.  Unbeknownst even to those who would follow him, Jesus travels by their side.  Like them, he, too, is a "stranger" and an "exile." 

Notice as well that Cleopas and his companion are allowed full expression of doubt and disappointment.  They express this frankly and openly.  Jesus redefines their understanding, calling them to see the mission of God working even through suffering and death. 

Jesus is emphatically "with them," but not bound to them.  "He walked ahead as if he were going on."  Nor is he bound to any culture or any time.  He is "with them" all along however, and seen and recognized in the "breaking of the bread."

Image:  Breaking bread at Emmaus, John Kohan.

 

Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, ¹⁴and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. ¹⁵While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, ¹⁶but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

Translation:  And behold, in that same day, two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, having threescore furlongs from Jerusalem, and they were talking to each other about all that had befallen them.  And it happened, in their talking and questioning together, Jesus himself drew near (and) was going with them, but their eyes were being held (and) they did not recognize him. 

Background and situation:  In Luke, people are often on a journey.  Luke takes seriously the great spiritual truth that we are all on a pilgrimage through life.  The Emmaus story, chapter 24, is also a journey story, and one that has certain resonances with another journey story in chapter 2. 

In chapter 2, Mary and Joseph journey away from Jerusalem and find that Jesus is not with them.  They go back to Jerusalem and search for three days.  They are tired and anxious.  When they find Jesus, he speaks of a divine imperative.  He "must be"--dei--about his father's business. 

At Emmaus, another couple journeys away from Jerusalem.  Cleopas and his companion, probably a woman, are sad and disappointed.  In this case, Jesus is with them, but unrecognized.  Jesus speaks again of divine necessity--"Was it not necessary--dei--for the Messiah to suffer these things and enter into his glory?"  In the meal, Cleopas and his friend discover that Jesus had been with them all along.

Cleopas:

¹⁷And he said to them, ‘What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?’ They stood still, looking sad.  ¹⁸Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?’¹⁹He asked them, ‘What things?’ They replied, ‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, ²⁰and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. ²¹But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.  Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place.

Translation:  And he said to them, "What are these words which you are having with each other walking?"  And they stood, sad ones.  But one named Cleopas, answered (and) said to them, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem and you do not know the things which happened in it in these days?"  And he said to them, "What?"  But they said to him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who became a prophet, strong in deed and word before God and all the people, and that the chief priests and our rulers delivered him over into a judgment of death and crucified him.  But we were hoping that he is the one about to redeem Israel.  But indeed, and with all these things, it is leading into this third day from which these things happened..."  

Who is Cleopas?  Some early traditions identify him with the Clopas referred to in fourth gospel (19: 25)--"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife) of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."  The names are not identical, but similar enough that some have suggested Clopas (whoever he was) and Cleopas (whoever he was) are the same person.

It is uncertain whether or not "his mother's sister" and "Mary of Clopas" are one person, or two different people.  (If the same person, then two sisters in the same family were named "Mary," rather like the brothers on the old "Bob Newhart Show":  "This is my brother Darrell, and this is my other brother Darrell.") 

This would be possible among first century Jews, however, where Mary--really, Miriam, the name of Moses' sister--was, by far, the most popular name for a baby girl.  Some estimate that as many as one-half of all Jewish women were named Mary in the first-century land of Israel.

The early church historian, Eusebius, identifies Clopas as the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon.  Simeon succeeded James, the Lord's brother, as leader of the Jerusalem church.  If Eusebius is right, and if Mary of Clopas was Jesus' mother's sister, this would mean Joseph's brother was married to Mary's sister.  This is somewhat unusual, though certainly possible.  (If either one were related to either Joseph or Mary, it would also mean that these two people who did not recognize Jesus were his aunt and uncle.)

One wonders too:  If Cleopas was the father of Simeon, as Eusebius says, that would mean that Cleopas was very much an "insider" in the church at the time.  Luke was written c. AD 85, precisely during the time that Simeon would have been bishop of Jerusalem.  (Simeon served from AD 63 to his death by crucifixion in c. AD 106.)

Sojourner:  Cleopas speaks of Jesus as paroikeis, which means one who dwells in an area as a sojourner.  The first identification of Jesus in this story, then, is as a stranger, or even, exile.  (The words "parish" and "parochial" both have their root in paroikeis.)  

This is a not uncommon designation for the church as a whole.  We are all sojourners, traveling through life on a spiritual journey.  The concept of "the way" is central in all four gospels.  Indeed, the earliest Christians were not called "Christians" but "followers of the way."  

Prophet:  Cleopas also identifies Jesus as being "of Nazareth," and a "prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people."  In all four of the gospels, but especially in Luke, Jesus is firmly in the prophetic tradition.  Jesus' first words in Luke are to read from the prophet Isaiah.  When Jesus raised the widow of Nain's son from the dead (7:16), the people exclaimed, "A great prophet has risen among us!"   

Luke uses the word "redeem"--lytroomai--in only three places.  One is in the Song of Zechariah (1:68), another is the prophet Anna in the Temple (2: 38).  The third instance is 24: 21--"We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel."  For Cleopas and his fellow traveler, this past hope has been disappointed.  They had not reckoned with suffering and death.

The necessity of divine suffering:

²²Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, ²³and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. ²⁴Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.’   ²⁵Then he said to them, ‘Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! ²⁶Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?’ ²⁷Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

Translation:  "...and also, certain women among us, who were at the tomb early, astonished us.  And when they did not find his body, they came to say that they had seen a vision of angels who were saying he lives.  And some of the ones with us went to the tomb and they found (it) so, like the women said, but they did not see him."  And he said to them, "Fools and slow of heart to trust upon all which the prophets spoke.  Was it not necessary (for) the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"  And beginning from Moses and from all of the prophets, he explained to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 

The tradition of the women at the tomb is recounted.  The tomb is inspected, but no one actually sees Jesus himself.  The testimony of the women generates astonishment, but not faith. 

Jesus asserts the divine necessity of his suffering.  He says, "Was it not necessary (dei) for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"  

The death and resurrection of Jesus was so contrary to peoples' expectations for the messianic figure that the gospel writers assert that Jesus' death was actually an integral part of God's purpose.  It was God's intention all along.  Later, in Acts, Luke will write that Jesus' death was the "definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (2:23).  This is a standard belief today, but one that might have been a difficult sell in the first century.    

By recounting "Moses and all the prophets," Jesus places himself firmly in line with the prophetic tradition.  First and second century readers would have understood:  Violence toward prophets is not a new thing in the history of Israel. 

One wonders also:  In emphasizing Jesus as a prophet, is Luke subtlely affirming the Hebrew credentials of Jesus as a way of lending additional political credibility to Simeon who had been elected bishop over Thebutis, a noted "judaizer"? 

Even though defeated, Thebutis apparently continued to have influence in the church.  Just prior to the Roman-Jewish War, AD 66-70, Thebutis led people away from Jerusalem to a hide-out near Pella (in modern day Jordan). 

In Luke, on the other hand, Jesus tells his followers to "remain in the city (Jerusalem)" and they did (24: 49, 52).

"Stay with us": 

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. ²⁹But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.’ So he went in to stay with them. ³⁰When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.³¹Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. ³²They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?’ ³³That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. ³⁴They were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!’³⁵Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Translation:  And they came near into the village where they were going and he made as though to go further, and they constrained him, saying, "Remain with us, for it is toward evening and now the day is nearly over, and he entered to remain together with them.  And it happened at table with them:  he took bread, and blessed, and broke, (and) he was giving to them.  And their eyes were opened, and they knew him fully, and he vanished from them.  And they said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning as he was something to us on the way, as he was opening to us the scriptures?"  And they rose up at that hour (and) they returned into Jerusalem.  They found the eleven gathered together, and those together with them, saying, "The Lord has been raised indeed, and he has been seen by Simon."  And they were making known the things on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. 

They came to the village to which they were "journeying"--eporeuonto--but Jesus intends to "journey" beyond the village.  Cleopas and his companion prevail upon Jesus to stay.  Jesus is said to be "with them" three times.  In other words, he is emphatically present.  

At table "with them," Jesus "took, blessed, broke, gave" the bread.  This is the eucharistic formula.  Nearly identical words are used in the stories of the feeding of the 5000 and the last supper. 

"Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him."  This recalls the first meal in the book of Genesis--the one where Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit.  In that case, "their eyes were opened" and they knew that they were naked.  In this instance, "their eyes were opened" and they recognized Jesus. 

To put it another way:  This meal--the eucharist--redresses an ancient problem.  The long exile of the human race--the long journey out of Eden--is over.  The new creation has begun.  This is the 8th meal in Luke's gospel--thus, the meal of "the new creation."

Even as their "eyes were opened," however, their awareness had been increasing, al beit at a pre-conscious level, during the earlier part of the story.  As they thought back on it now, their hearts had been "burning" even as Jesus "was opening" the scriptures to them on the journey. 

When they recognize Jesus, their first act is one of witness.  They return to Jerusalem and tell Jesus' disciples of what had happened "on the road"--the journey, the way--and how Jesus had been made known to them in the "breaking of bread."  Later, in Acts 2, Luke will describe the church as being a community devoted to "the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers" (2:42).

John Dominic Crossan calls the Emmaus road story "the metaphoric condensation of the first years of Christian thought and practice into one parabolic afternoon," to which he famously added, "Emmaus never happened.  Emmaus always happens." 

The story is not, in other words, primarily a description of an historical event, but rather a story that reflects the pattern of the Christian life as it is lived out by people on their journey through life.  

It is, one notes, a communal journey.  Jesus joined them "in their talking and questioning together."  The word allelone--each other--is used three times in this text, as is the phrase "with them."  This "journey together" is accompanied by the Lord.  Unbeknownst even to those who would follow him, Jesus travels by their side.  Like them, he, too, is a "stranger" and an "exile." 

Notice as well that Cleopas and his companion are allowed full expression of doubt and disappointment.  They express this frankly and openly.  Jesus redefines their understanding, calling them to see the mission of God working even through suffering and death. 

Jesus is emphatically "with them," but not bound to them.  "He walked ahead as if he were going on."  Nor is he bound to any culture or any time.  He is "with them" all along however, and seen and recognized in the "breaking of the bread."

Image:  Breaking bread at Emmaus, John Kohan.

Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, ¹⁴and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. ¹⁵While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, ¹⁶but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

Translation:  And behold, in that same day, two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, having threescore furlongs from Jerusalem, and they were talking to each other about all that had befallen them.  And it happened, in their talking and questioning together, Jesus himself drew near (and) was going with them, but their eyes were being held (and) they did not recognize him. 

Background and situation:  In Luke, people are often on a journey.  Luke takes seriously the great spiritual truth that we are all on a pilgrimage through life.  The Emmaus story, chapter 24, is also a journey story, and one that has certain resonances with another journey story in chapter 2. 

In chapter 2, Mary and Joseph journey away from Jerusalem and find that Jesus is not with them.  They go back to Jerusalem and search for three days.  They are tired and anxious.  When they find Jesus, he speaks of a divine imperative.  He "must be"--dei--about his father's business. 

At Emmaus, another couple journeys away from Jerusalem.  Cleopas and his companion, probably a woman, are sad and disappointed.  In this case, Jesus is with them, but unrecognized.  Jesus speaks again of divine necessity--"Was it not necessary--dei--for the Messiah to suffer these things and enter into his glory?"  In the meal, Cleopas and his friend discover that Jesus had been with them all along.

Cleopas:

¹⁷And he said to them, ‘What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?’ They stood still, looking sad.  ¹⁸Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?’¹⁹He asked them, ‘What things?’ They replied, ‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, ²⁰and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. ²¹But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.  Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place.

Translation:  And he said to them, "What are these words which you are having with each other walking?"  And they stood, sad ones.  But one named Cleopas, answered (and) said to them, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem and you do not know the things which happened in it in these days?"  And he said to them, "What?"  But they said to him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who became a prophet, strong in deed and word before God and all the people, and that the chief priests and our rulers delivered him over into a judgment of death and crucified him.  But we were hoping that he is the one about to redeem Israel.  But indeed, and with all these things, it is leading into this third day from which these things happened..."  

Who is Cleopas?  Some early traditions identify him with the Clopas referred to in fourth gospel (19: 25)--"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife) of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."  The names are not identical, but similar enough that some have suggested Clopas (whoever he was) and Cleopas (whoever he was) are the same person.

It is uncertain whether or not "his mother's sister" and "Mary of Clopas" are one person, or two different people.  (If the same person, then two sisters in the same family were named "Mary," rather like the brothers on the old "Bob Newhart Show":  "This is my brother Darrell, and this is my other brother Darrell.") 

This would be possible among first century Jews, however, where Mary--really, Miriam, the name of Moses' sister--was, by far, the most popular name for a baby girl.  Some estimate that as many as one-half of all Jewish women were named Mary in the first-century land of Israel.

The early church historian, Eusebius, identifies Clopas as the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon.  Simeon succeeded James, the Lord's brother, as leader of the Jerusalem church.  If Eusebius is right, and if Mary of Clopas was Jesus' mother's sister, this would mean Joseph's brother was married to Mary's sister.  This is somewhat unusual, though certainly possible.  (If either one were related to either Joseph or Mary, it would also mean that these two people who did not recognize Jesus were his aunt and uncle.)

One wonders too:  If Cleopas was the father of Simeon, as Eusebius says, that would mean that Cleopas was very much an "insider" in the church at the time.  Luke was written c. AD 85, precisely during the time that Simeon would have been bishop of Jerusalem.  (Simeon served from AD 63 to his death by crucifixion in c. AD 106.)

Sojourner:  Cleopas speaks of Jesus as paroikeis, which means one who dwells in an area as a sojourner.  The first identification of Jesus in this story, then, is as a stranger, or even, exile.  (The words "parish" and "parochial" both have their root in paroikeis.)  

This is a not uncommon designation for the church as a whole.  We are all sojourners, traveling through life on a spiritual journey.  The concept of "the way" is central in all four gospels.  Indeed, the earliest Christians were not called "Christians" but "followers of the way."  

Prophet:  Cleopas also identifies Jesus as being "of Nazareth," and a "prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people."  In all four of the gospels, but especially in Luke, Jesus is firmly in the prophetic tradition.  Jesus' first words in Luke are to read from the prophet Isaiah.  When Jesus raised the widow of Nain's son from the dead (7:16), the people exclaimed, "A great prophet has risen among us!"   

Luke uses the word "redeem"--lytroomai--in only three places.  One is in the Song of Zechariah (1:68), another is the prophet Anna in the Temple (2: 38).  The third instance is 24: 21--"We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel."  For Cleopas and his fellow traveler, this past hope has been disappointed.  They had not reckoned with suffering and death.

The necessity of divine suffering:

²²Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, ²³and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. ²⁴Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.’   ²⁵Then he said to them, ‘Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! ²⁶Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?’ ²⁷Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

Translation:  "...and also, certain women among us, who were at the tomb early, astonished us.  And when they did not find his body, they came to say that they had seen a vision of angels who were saying he lives.  And some of the ones with us went to the tomb and they found (it) so, like the women said, but they did not see him."  And he said to them, "Fools and slow of heart to trust upon all which the prophets spoke.  Was it not necessary (for) the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"  And beginning from Moses and from all of the prophets, he explained to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 

The tradition of the women at the tomb is recounted.  The tomb is inspected, but no one actually sees Jesus himself.  The testimony of the women generates astonishment, but not faith. 

Jesus asserts the divine necessity of his suffering.  He says, "Was it not necessary (dei) for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"  

The death and resurrection of Jesus was so contrary to peoples' expectations for the messianic figure that the gospel writers assert that Jesus' death was actually an integral part of God's purpose.  It was God's intention all along.  Later, in Acts, Luke will write that Jesus' death was the "definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (2:23).  This is a standard belief today, but one that might have been a difficult sell in the first century.    

By recounting "Moses and all the prophets," Jesus places himself firmly in line with the prophetic tradition.  First and second century readers would have understood:  Violence toward prophets is not a new thing in the history of Israel. 

One wonders also:  In emphasizing Jesus as a prophet, is Luke subtlely affirming the Hebrew credentials of Jesus as a way of lending additional political credibility to Simeon who had been elected bishop over Thebutis, a noted "judaizer"? 

Even though defeated, Thebutis apparently continued to have influence in the church.  Just prior to the Roman-Jewish War, AD 66-70, Thebutis led people away from Jerusalem to a hide-out near Pella (in modern day Jordan). 

In Luke, on the other hand, Jesus tells his followers to "remain in the city (Jerusalem)" and they did (24: 49, 52).

"Stay with us": 

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. ²⁹But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.’ So he went in to stay with them. ³⁰When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.³¹Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. ³²They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?’ ³³That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. ³⁴They were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!’³⁵Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Translation:  And they came near into the village where they were going and he made as though to go further, and they constrained him, saying, "Remain with us, for it is toward evening and now the day is nearly over, and he entered to remain together with them.  And it happened at table with them:  he took bread, and blessed, and broke, (and) he was giving to them.  And their eyes were opened, and they knew him fully, and he vanished from them.  And they said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning as he was something to us on the way, as he was opening to us the scriptures?"  And they rose up at that hour (and) they returned into Jerusalem.  They found the eleven gathered together, and those together with them, saying, "The Lord has been raised indeed, and he has been seen by Simon."  And they were making known the things on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. 

They came to the village to which they were "journeying"--eporeuonto--but Jesus intends to "journey" beyond the village.  Cleopas and his companion prevail upon Jesus to stay.  Jesus is said to be "with them" three times.  In other words, he is emphatically present.  

At table "with them," Jesus "took, blessed, broke, gave" the bread.  This is the eucharistic formula.  Nearly identical words are used in the stories of the feeding of the 5000 and the last supper. 

"Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him."  This recalls the first meal in the book of Genesis--the one where Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit.  In that case, "their eyes were opened" and they knew that they were naked.  In this instance, "their eyes were opened" and they recognized Jesus. 

To put it another way:  This meal--the eucharist--redresses an ancient problem.  The long exile of the human race--the long journey out of Eden--is over.  The new creation has begun.  This is the 8th meal in Luke's gospel--thus, the meal of "the new creation."

Even as their "eyes were opened," however, their awareness had been increasing, al beit at a pre-conscious level, during the earlier part of the story.  As they thought back on it now, their hearts had been "burning" even as Jesus "was opening" the scriptures to them on the journey. 

When they recognize Jesus, their first act is one of witness.  They return to Jerusalem and tell Jesus' disciples of what had happened "on the road"--the journey, the way--and how Jesus had been made known to them in the "breaking of bread."  Later, in Acts 2, Luke will describe the church as being a community devoted to "the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers" (2:42).

John Dominic Crossan calls the Emmaus road story "the metaphoric condensation of the first years of Christian thought and practice into one parabolic afternoon," to which he famously added, "Emmaus never happened.  Emmaus always happens." 

The story is not, in other words, primarily a description of an historical event, but rather a story that reflects the pattern of the Christian life as it is lived out by people on their journey through life.  

It is, one notes, a communal journey.  Jesus joined them "in their talking and questioning together."  The word allelone--each other--is used three times in this text, as is the phrase "with them."  This "journey together" is accompanied by the Lord.  Unbeknownst even to those who would follow him, Jesus travels by their side.  Like them, he, too, is a "stranger" and an "exile." 

Notice as well that Cleopas and his companion are allowed full expression of doubt and disappointment.  They express this frankly and openly.  Jesus redefines their understanding, calling them to see the mission of God working even through suffering and death. 

Jesus is emphatically "with them," but not bound to them.  "He walked ahead as if he were going on."  Nor is he bound to any culture or any time.  He is "with them" all along however, and seen and recognized in the "breaking of the bread."

Image:  Breaking bread at Emmaus, John Kohan.