progressive involvement

Advent 2 ::: Matthew 3: 1-12

In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, ²“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” ³This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’” ⁴Now John wore clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. ⁵Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, ⁶and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

⁷But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ⁸Bear fruit worthy of repentance. ⁹Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. ¹⁰Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ¹¹“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. ¹²His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Translation:  But in those days, John the Baptist comes near, proclaiming in the wilderness of Judea, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, for this is the one spoken of through the Isaiah the prophet when he said, 'A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, makes his paths straight.'" 

But John himself had his garment of camel hair and a leather girdle around his loins and his food was locusts and wild honey.  Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 

But when he saw many of the pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism, he said to them, "You children of snakes, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?  Produce fruit, therefore, worthy of repentance. and do not think to say in yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father,' for I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.  But now the ax is laid to the root of the trees.  Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is being cut down and is being thrown into fire."

I indeed baptize you in water into repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than me, whose shoes I am not adequate to carry.  He will baptize you in Holy Spirit and fire, whose winnowing shovel (is) in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his threshing floor and will gather together his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Background and situation:  Our lection has its' source in Mark.  Matthew 3:1-6 is parallel to Mark 1:2-6, vss. 11-12 are parallel to Mark 1:7-8.  Matthew makes several changes to Mark.  The most striking change is that Matthew puts Jesus' Markan speech (Mark 1: 15), or at least part of it, into the mouth of John the Baptist:  "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." 

Secondly, though Mark says he is quoting Isaiah in Mark 1:2, he is actually quoting both Malachi and Isaiah.  (The portion in Mark that reads "I am sending my messenger" is from Malachi 3: 1).  The punctilious Matthew removes the Malachi portion of the quotation. 

Third, and most tellingly, Matthew removes Mark's description of John's baptism--"a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"--and says simply that John baptized people who also confessed their sins.  For Matthew, forgiveness of sins comes only through Jesus.  Forgiveness is through the eucharist (26:28), and not from John's baptism. 

Fourth, Matthew adds that not only did people go to John from Jerusalem and Judea, but also "the region along the Jordan" as well.  For Matthew, John's appeal is extended northward, even to Samaria, perhaps even to Galilee.

That "region along the Jordan":  One wonders at Matthew's insertion of the phrase "region along the Jordan."  Then we remember:  The Jordan is the place where Joshua and the Israelites crossed into the Promised Land over 1000 years prior.  Is Matthew recalling the Canaanite resistance to this encroachment? 

Matthew will explicitly use the word "Canaanite" in the story of the "Canaanite woman" in 15: 21-28.  Mark has "syrophoenician woman" which Matthew deliberately changed to "Canaanite," a word that had not been used for centuries. 

In doing so, Matthew is using a word associated with an ancient enemy of Israel.  Is his inclusion of the "region along the Jordan" a signal that the "kingdom of heaven" includes even Canaanites and--gasp!--the Samaritans who currently live in that region?

Matthew's view of John the baptist:  John is presented as a prophetic figure, dressed like Elijah (2 Kings 1: 8), an association that Matthew will repeat in 11:14 and 17: 11-13.  That he ate a diet of "locusts and wild honey" means that he received his sustenance directly from God as did the Hebrews when they wandered in the wilderness after the Exodus.

3:7:  But when he saw many of the pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism, he said to them, "You children of snakes, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?  Produce fruit, therefore, worthy of repentance. and do not think to say in yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father,' for I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." 

With verse 7, Matthew switches from Mark to Q as his primary source.  Luke is word-for-word the same, except that, in Luke, John addresses "the multitudes," while in Matthew, John addresses the "pharisees and Sadducees."  In Luke, John's "shape up" message is for everybody.  In Matthew, it's focused on the religious leadership.  

Matthew lumps them together, but actually pharisees and Sadducees had some considerable points of conflict.  They had differences of class, theology, and politics.  In regard to class, the Sadducees lived high on the hog in fancy digs in Jerusalem.  The pharisees were more modest in their lifestyle.  The Sadducees admired Hellenistic culture;  the pharisees did not.

In theology, Sadducees believed in a narrow definition of Torah, only that which was actually written in the five books of Moses.  The pharisees believed that God had also given an "oral law" to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  The Sadducees also did not believe in a general resurrection of the dead, while the pharisees did. 

Politically, the Sadducees constituted about two-thirds of the Jerusalem ruling council in the time of Jesus, while the pharisees made up one-third.  Later, the Sadducees would be decimated when the Temple was destroyed and were no more.  After AD 70, the pharisees were the new "establishment," and re-wrote the history of the Sanhedrin to show that they were really in charge all along.

As for Matthew's purposes, note that this is the first appearance of pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew's gospel.  They will be his primary opponents throughout Matthew, and they enter the story as paired together.  Historically, as noted, there were several prickly points of contention between pharisees and Sadducees.  They will be united, however, in their opposition of Jesus.

In true John the Baptist fashion, he lets them have it.  With his customary diplomacy, John calls them "children of snakes," the first-century equivalent of a cussing out.  They are claiming special privilege because they "have Abraham as (their) father."  They are, in other words, Chosen People through their hereditary connection to Abraham. 

In the "kingdom of heaven," all claims to special status are subverted.  The "kingdom of heaven," which is to come "on earth" (6:10), is about loving of enemies (6: 44)--Canaanites!?--which is how people become "children of (their) Father in heaven" (6:45). 

Claiming special status as Chosen People based on one's lineage through Abraham is countered with being a child of God, which claims no special status, and is marked by love towards outsiders.  This clash between hereditary privilege and the equality of all in the "kingdom of heaven" is a central conflict in the synoptic gospels, and is expanded upon even further in the fourth gospel.

There is no such thing as a "chosen people."  Lineage doesn't mean squat.  No one is more "special" than another, none more favored than another, none more privileged, none smarter, none holier.  There is no "master race."

John the Baptist tells the pharisees and Sadducees to "bear fruit worthy of repentance."  "Fruit" is an important image in the New Testament, and particularly in Matthew.  It means to show forth signs of a changed life, one that now works toward the purposes of God.  To paraphrase, John tells the religious leadership:  "Show that you've really changed (metanoias) by acting differently in the world."  Conversely:  "If you don't, you're going into the fire."

John the Lesser:

I indeed baptize you in water into repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than me, whose shoes I am not adequate to carry.  He will baptize you in Holy Spirit and fire, whose winnowing shovel (is) in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his threshing floor and will gather together his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

The very early church was careful to make clear that John was subordinate to Jesus.  In his time, John appears to have been well-known throughout the region.  Herod Antipas, the local king in Galilee, knew of him and eventually killed him, after which the crowds, and even Herod, confused Jesus with John the Baptist come back from the dead.   

This may have been a sensitive point in the early church.  That Jesus was baptized by John is attested by all four gospel writers.  One notes, however, that the actual baptism is narrated in the passive voice in Mark and Matthew, that Luke is unclear about who actually baptized Jesus, and the fourth gospel does not mention the actual baptism at all.

The early church had to deal with the fact that Jesus entered into public ministry as something of a follower of the Baptist.  The gospel writers always affirm a connection between John and Jesus, provided it is understood that John is the lesser figure.

There were, of course, a number of similarities between the two.  Both were preachers, both preached repentance, both were mavericks, both were connected with wilderness.  Where John is a stationary figure located in the wilderness, however, Jesus travels throughout the region.  People come to John, in other words, while Jesus goes to the people.

The "winnowing-fork" of verse 12 should be translated as "winnowing shovel" (ptuon).  The verse is not about separating out the wheat from the chaff, as it commonly supposed, but rather "shoveling" up the wheat and the chaff together.  Thus far, John has the ministry of Jesus exactly right.  Jesus will gather both the wheat and the chaff.

Where he gets it wrong is in saying that Jesus will save the wheat and burn up the chaff.  That is not what Jesus would do, and here is where Jesus advances beyond John.  This appears to confuse John, and later, in chapter 11, he will wonder if Jesus is really the one to come.  Jesus responds with the very definition of "fruit": 

‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: ⁵the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.⁶And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’

Maybe it's a good cop/bad cop kind of thing that reflects a tension that runs all through Matthew's gospel.  Matthew, more than any other gospel, is concerned about "righteousness"-- repentance, right action, justice, bearing fruit--and the punishment that awaits those who don't get it or do it. 

At the same time, Matthew undermines that same position as often as he affirms it.  As one example, only Matthew tells the story of the Laborers in the Vineyard with its radical vision of universal equality.

John represents one side of the argument, the punishment that awaits those who don't get it right.  This is a judgment that Matthew calls us to take seriously.  This judgment, however, is countered--and exceeded--by the ministry of Jesus wherein the unloveable are loved, the outcasts accepted, and sinners party with God. 

Image:  Jesus meets John, Malaika Favorite

In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, ²“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” ³This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’” ⁴Now John wore clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. ⁵Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, ⁶and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

⁷But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ⁸Bear fruit worthy of repentance. ⁹Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. ¹⁰Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ¹¹“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. ¹²His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Translation:  But in those days, John the Baptist comes near, proclaiming in the wilderness of Judea, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, for this is the one spoken of through the Isaiah the prophet when he said, 'A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, makes his paths straight.'" 

But John himself had his garment of camel hair and a leather girdle around his loins and his food was locusts and wild honey.  Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 

But when he saw many of the pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism, he said to them, "You children of snakes, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?  Produce fruit, therefore, worthy of repentance. and do not think to say in yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father,' for I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.  But now the ax is laid to the root of the trees.  Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is being cut down and is being thrown into fire."

I indeed baptize you in water into repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than me, whose shoes I am not adequate to carry.  He will baptize you in Holy Spirit and fire, whose winnowing shovel (is) in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his threshing floor and will gather together his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Background and situation:  Our lection has its' source in Mark.  Matthew 3:1-6 is parallel to Mark 1:2-6, vss. 11-12 are parallel to Mark 1:7-8.  Matthew makes several changes to Mark.  The most striking change is that Matthew puts Jesus' Markan speech (Mark 1: 15), or at least part of it, into the mouth of John the Baptist:  "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." 

Secondly, though Mark says he is quoting Isaiah in Mark 1:2, he is actually quoting both Malachi and Isaiah.  (The portion in Mark that reads "I am sending my messenger" is from Malachi 3: 1).  The punctilious Matthew removes the Malachi portion of the quotation. 

Third, and most tellingly, Matthew removes Mark's description of John's baptism--"a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"--and says simply that John baptized people who also confessed their sins.  For Matthew, forgiveness of sins comes only through Jesus.  Forgiveness is through the eucharist (26:28), and not from John's baptism. 

Fourth, Matthew adds that not only did people go to John from Jerusalem and Judea, but also "the region along the Jordan" as well.  For Matthew, John's appeal is extended northward, even to Samaria, perhaps even to Galilee.

That "region along the Jordan":  One wonders at Matthew's insertion of the phrase "region along the Jordan."  Then we remember:  The Jordan is the place where Joshua and the Israelites crossed into the Promised Land over 1000 years prior.  Is Matthew recalling the Canaanite resistance to this encroachment? 

Matthew will explicitly use the word "Canaanite" in the story of the "Canaanite woman" in 15: 21-28.  Mark has "syrophoenician woman" which Matthew deliberately changed to "Canaanite," a word that had not been used for centuries. 

In doing so, Matthew is using a word associated with an ancient enemy of Israel.  Is his inclusion of the "region along the Jordan" a signal that the "kingdom of heaven" includes even Canaanites and--gasp!--the Samaritans who currently live in that region?

Matthew's view of John the baptist:  John is presented as a prophetic figure, dressed like Elijah (2 Kings 1: 8), an association that Matthew will repeat in 11:14 and 17: 11-13.  That he ate a diet of "locusts and wild honey" means that he received his sustenance directly from God as did the Hebrews when they wandered in the wilderness after the Exodus.

3:7:  But when he saw many of the pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism, he said to them, "You children of snakes, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?  Produce fruit, therefore, worthy of repentance. and do not think to say in yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father,' for I say to you that out of these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." 

With verse 7, Matthew switches from Mark to Q as his primary source.  Luke is word-for-word the same, except that, in Luke, John addresses "the multitudes," while in Matthew, John addresses the "pharisees and Sadducees."  In Luke, John's "shape up" message is for everybody.  In Matthew, it's focused on the religious leadership.  

Matthew lumps them together, but actually pharisees and Sadducees had some considerable points of conflict.  They had differences of class, theology, and politics.  In regard to class, the Sadducees lived high on the hog in fancy digs in Jerusalem.  The pharisees were more modest in their lifestyle.  The Sadducees admired Hellenistic culture;  the pharisees did not.

In theology, Sadducees believed in a narrow definition of Torah, only that which was actually written in the five books of Moses.  The pharisees believed that God had also given an "oral law" to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  The Sadducees also did not believe in a general resurrection of the dead, while the pharisees did. 

Politically, the Sadducees constituted about two-thirds of the Jerusalem ruling council in the time of Jesus, while the pharisees made up one-third.  Later, the Sadducees would be decimated when the Temple was destroyed and were no more.  After AD 70, the pharisees were the new "establishment," and re-wrote the history of the Sanhedrin to show that they were really in charge all along.

As for Matthew's purposes, note that this is the first appearance of pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew's gospel.  They will be his primary opponents throughout Matthew, and they enter the story as paired together.  Historically, as noted, there were several prickly points of contention between pharisees and Sadducees.  They will be united, however, in their opposition of Jesus.

In true John the Baptist fashion, he lets them have it.  With his customary diplomacy, John calls them "children of snakes," the first-century equivalent of a cussing out.  They are claiming special privilege because they "have Abraham as (their) father."  They are, in other words, Chosen People through their hereditary connection to Abraham. 

In the "kingdom of heaven," all claims to special status are subverted.  The "kingdom of heaven," which is to come "on earth" (6:10), is about loving of enemies (6: 44)--Canaanites!?--which is how people become "children of (their) Father in heaven" (6:45). 

Claiming special status as Chosen People based on one's lineage through Abraham is countered with being a child of God, which claims no special status, and is marked by love towards outsiders.  This clash between hereditary privilege and the equality of all in the "kingdom of heaven" is a central conflict in the synoptic gospels, and is expanded upon even further in the fourth gospel.

There is no such thing as a "chosen people."  Lineage doesn't mean squat.  No one is more "special" than another, none more favored than another, none more privileged, none smarter, none holier.  There is no "master race."

John the Baptist tells the pharisees and Sadducees to "bear fruit worthy of repentance."  "Fruit" is an important image in the New Testament, and particularly in Matthew.  It means to show forth signs of a changed life, one that now works toward the purposes of God.  To paraphrase, John tells the religious leadership:  "Show that you've really changed (metanoias) by acting differently in the world."  Conversely:  "If you don't, you're going into the fire."

John the Lesser:

I indeed baptize you in water into repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than me, whose shoes I am not adequate to carry.  He will baptize you in Holy Spirit and fire, whose winnowing shovel (is) in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his threshing floor and will gather together his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

The very early church was careful to make clear that John was subordinate to Jesus.  In his time, John appears to have been well-known throughout the region.  Herod Antipas, the local king in Galilee, knew of him and eventually killed him, after which the crowds, and even Herod, confused Jesus with John the Baptist come back from the dead.   

This may have been a sensitive point in the early church.  That Jesus was baptized by John is attested by all four gospel writers.  One notes, however, that the actual baptism is narrated in the passive voice in Mark and Matthew, that Luke is unclear about who actually baptized Jesus, and the fourth gospel does not mention the actual baptism at all.

The early church had to deal with the fact that Jesus entered into public ministry as something of a follower of the Baptist.  The gospel writers always affirm a connection between John and Jesus, provided it is understood that John is the lesser figure.

There were, of course, a number of similarities between the two.  Both were preachers, both preached repentance, both were mavericks, both were connected with wilderness.  Where John is a stationary figure located in the wilderness, however, Jesus travels throughout the region.  People come to John, in other words, while Jesus goes to the people.

The "winnowing-fork" of verse 12 should be translated as "winnowing shovel" (ptuon).  The verse is not about separating out the wheat from the chaff, as it commonly supposed, but rather "shoveling" up the wheat and the chaff together.  Thus far, John has the ministry of Jesus exactly right.  Jesus will gather both the wheat and the chaff.

Where he gets it wrong is in saying that Jesus will save the wheat and burn up the chaff.  That is not what Jesus would do, and here is where Jesus advances beyond John.  This appears to confuse John, and later, in chapter 11, he will wonder if Jesus is really the one to come.  Jesus responds with the very definition of "fruit": 

‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: ⁵the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.⁶And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’

Maybe it's a good cop/bad cop kind of thing that reflects a tension that runs all through Matthew's gospel.  Matthew, more than any other gospel, is concerned about "righteousness"-- repentance, right action, justice, bearing fruit--and the punishment that awaits those who don't get it or do it. 

At the same time, Matthew undermines that same position as often as he affirms it.  As one example, only Matthew tells the story of the Laborers in the Vineyard with its radical vision of universal equality.

John represents one side of the argument, the punishment that awaits those who don't get it right.  This is a judgment that Matthew calls us to take seriously.  This judgment, however, is countered--and exceeded--by the ministry of Jesus wherein the unloveable are loved, the outcasts accepted, and sinners party with God. 

Image:  Jesus meets John, Malaika Favorite

Advent 1 ::: Matthew 24: 36-44

³⁶“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³⁷For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, ³⁹and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. ⁴¹Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. ⁴²Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. ⁴³But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁴Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.

Translation:  "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not the angels of heaven, not the Son, but the Father alone, for just as the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Humanity, for as it was in those days before the deluge, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until that day Noah entered into the ark and they did not know until the deluge came and raised all, and so will be the coming of the Son of Humanity.  Then two will be in the field;  one is taken near, and one is being released--two grinding at the millstone; one is taken near, and one is being released.  Watch therefore, for you do not know what kind of day your Lord is coming.  But know this, that if the master of the house had known what watch the thief is coming, he would have watched and would not have permitted his house to be broken up.  For this reason, you also must become ready, for you do not know what hour the Son of Humanity is coming."

Background and situation:  Matthew 24; 36 has a parallel in Mark 13: 32.  Matthew 24: 37-39 is parallel in Luke 17: 26-27 and 24: 40-44 is parallel with Luke 17:34-40.  The text is part of what is called the Olivet discourse.

These texts are not about trying to get a leg up on the so-called "second coming."  They are about how to live as a followers of Jesus in the midst of chaos, and the challenge of living as faithful people in cataclysmic situations.  (The Greek word, translated in NRSV as "flood" in verses 38 and 39 is kataklusmou--indeed, cataclysm.) 

Matthew is writing around AD 80.  Christianity was still small and fragile.  In the time of Matthew, there were, perhaps, a few thousand people in the whole world who would have identified themselves as followers of Jesus.  Further, both Jews and Christians were just beginning to recover from the devastation inflicted by the Roman-Jewish war, AD 66-70.

Matthew faced the additional difficulty of leading a community of Jewish Christians at a time when the gentile faction of Christianity was gaining ascendency, and also at a time when relations between Jews and Christians as a whole had begun to sour.  (Indeed, Matthew's project would fail.  The Jewish wing of Christianity died out not long after Matthew.)

Cataclysm:  People knew all about "cataclysm."  They lived in "cataclysm" every day.  So do we.  We are deluged with dire predictions, our imaginations stoked with images of disaster, and our minds inundated with this-or-that appeal to save ourselves from this-or-that catastrophe.

That's not even the worst of it.  People live daily in situations of "quiet apocalypse"--domestic violence, job loss, disease, addictions.  The unravelling of the world spoken about in apocalyptic texts matches the unravelling that people feel in their own lives.  Moreover, no one is immune.  Even that exceedingly rare person who has managed to skate through life without much (seeming) difficulty faces an apocalypse at the end. 

Unfortunately, the most common interpretations of these apocalyptic texts range from utterly bogus rapture theology to the more benign, but also wrong-headed, speculations about Jesus' second coming.  For some reason, in opposition to repeated scriptural injunctions to the contrary, we can't stop fussing about "when will this be, and what will be the sign of (his) coming." 

"The rapture," as seminary professor Barbara Rossing says, "is a racket."  There is no such thing as the rapture.  Nor is popular "second coming theology" much better.  It basically says that Jesus wasn't here, then he was, then he left, but he's coming back. 

That makes Jesus an outsider to his own world!  He's not really a part of the world, but only drops in from time to time to straighten things out--basically, a gnostic view.  (The phrase "second coming" never appears in the New Testament.)

"Concerning that day and hour":  The most plausible interpretation of verse 36--"concerning that day and hour no one knows"--is that, in Matthew's world, there were people who not only wanted to predict the future, but claimed to be able to do it. 

Earlier in chapter 24, the disciples had asked Jesus when all these things would happen and "what will be the sign of your coming?"  In response, Jesus said that "many will come" and proclaim themselves the Messiah (24:4-5).  "They will lead many astray."  In verse 36, Jesus not only undermines (again) this kind of prophetic speculation, but underlines it with a three-fold negative--no one, not angels, not the son.  This is an emphatic three-fold rejection. 

"Only the Father" knows.  Note that Jesus does not use the phrase "God Almighty," or some such superlative honorific, but rather "Father," the same "Our Father" to whom we pray in the Lord's Prayer (6:9).  In his use of the word "Father," Matthew underlines God's loving care for his world, even in the face of "cataclysm."

...for as it was in those days before the deluge, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until that day Noah entered into the ark and they did not know until the deluge came and raised all, and so will be the coming of the Son of Humanity.  Then two will be in the field;  one is taken near, and one is being released--two grinding at the millstone; one is taken near, and one is being released.

Matthew is recalling the image of Daniel 7:13 when Daniel saw "one like a son of humanity, coming with the clouds of heaven."  The Greek word parousia--"coming"--is formed from para and ousia--literally:  "being alongside."  This coming will be mysterious, sudden, personal.  The "second coming" of Christ is any time when he is present in the midst of our own apocalypses.  

The two men in the field are gender-balanced by two women grinding meal.  In each case, one is "taken"--paralambano--and the other "released"--aphiami.  "Taken" versus "released."  At first glance, it's hard to know which one is the better condition. 

Paralambano--"taken"--has the sense of being "taken in" to something--presumably, though not necessarily, a "good" thing.  Its' counter-part, aphiami, can also be a positive or negative condition.  It can mean "sent away" or even "divorced," but it can also mean "forgiven" or "released."

The clear over-all sense of verses 37-41 is that life seems to be going on as normal.  In the case of Noah, there were warnings of cataclysm, but they were ignored, and people went about their daily business.  They "knew nothing" until they were all swept away.  

Indeed, "knowing"--or better, not knowing--is a prominent sub-theme in this text.  There are six references to knowledge in these eight verses, employing three different Greek words--oida, ginosko, and dokeo.  ("Only the Father" truly "knows.") 

The phrase translated as "swept away" in NRSV is heren apantas.  It could mean "swept them all away," but the normal translation of that phrase would be "all were raised" or "all were taken up."  Will the "flood" of Christ sweep "all" away into him?

Watch therefore, for you do not know what kind of day your Lord is coming.  But know this, that if the master of the house had known what watch the thief is coming, he would have watched and would not have permitted his house to be broken up.  For this reason, you also must become ready, for you do not know what hour the Son of Humanity is coming. 

The little word poios appears in verse 42.  It means what kind of day more than which one.  You won't be able to find the day on the calendar.  To all outward appearances, it will be a day like any other. 

Not only do you not know the day--and don't believe anyone who says they do--but "your Lord" is coming.  From verse 36, know that you are in the care of your loving Father.  From verse 42, know that "your Lord" is the one in charge.

The Holy Thief:  The thief image shows up also in Paul--"the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" (1 Th 5:2)  On the one hand, Jesus seems to be encouraging watchfulness.  Guard your house, and don't let the thief in.  On the other hand, it's not going to make much difference, since "you do not know what hour the Son of Humanity is coming."

He's not going to come with trumpets blaring, in other words.  If he did that, we'd protect ourselves.  He's going to come when he's least expected, when our guard is down, and he's going to come quietly, with stealth and subtlety. 

You can try to put up some kind of defense, and you undoubtedly will, but it won't make any difference.  He going to get in.  He doesn't want your HD TV or your credit cards.  He wants you.  What's more, he's going to get you.

Image:  Christ the Pantocrator, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Denver, CO. 

³⁶“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³⁷For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, ³⁹and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. ⁴¹Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. ⁴²Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. ⁴³But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁴Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.

Translation:  "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not the angels of heaven, not the Son, but the Father alone, for just as the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Humanity, for as it was in those days before the deluge, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until that day Noah entered into the ark and they did not know until the deluge came and raised all, and so will be the coming of the Son of Humanity.  Then two will be in the field;  one is taken near, and one is being released--two grinding at the millstone; one is taken near, and one is being released.  Watch therefore, for you do not know what kind of day your Lord is coming.  But know this, that if the master of the house had known what watch the thief is coming, he would have watched and would not have permitted his house to be broken up.  For this reason, you also must become ready, for you do not know what hour the Son of Humanity is coming."

Background and situation:  Matthew 24; 36 has a parallel in Mark 13: 32.  Matthew 24: 37-39 is parallel in Luke 17: 26-27 and 24: 40-44 is parallel with Luke 17:34-40.  The text is part of what is called the Olivet discourse.

These texts are not about trying to get a leg up on the so-called "second coming."  They are about how to live as a followers of Jesus in the midst of chaos, and the challenge of living as faithful people in cataclysmic situations.  (The Greek word, translated in NRSV as "flood" in verses 38 and 39 is kataklusmou--indeed, cataclysm.) 

Matthew is writing around AD 80.  Christianity was still small and fragile.  In the time of Matthew, there were, perhaps, a few thousand people in the whole world who would have identified themselves as followers of Jesus.  Further, both Jews and Christians were just beginning to recover from the devastation inflicted by the Roman-Jewish war, AD 66-70.

Matthew faced the additional difficulty of leading a community of Jewish Christians at a time when the gentile faction of Christianity was gaining ascendency, and also at a time when relations between Jews and Christians as a whole had begun to sour.  (Indeed, Matthew's project would fail.  The Jewish wing of Christianity died out not long after Matthew.)

Cataclysm:  People knew all about "cataclysm."  They lived in "cataclysm" every day.  So do we.  We are deluged with dire predictions, our imaginations stoked with images of disaster, and our minds inundated with this-or-that appeal to save ourselves from this-or-that catastrophe.

That's not even the worst of it.  People live daily in situations of "quiet apocalypse"--domestic violence, job loss, disease, addictions.  The unravelling of the world spoken about in apocalyptic texts matches the unravelling that people feel in their own lives.  Moreover, no one is immune.  Even that exceedingly rare person who has managed to skate through life without much (seeming) difficulty faces an apocalypse at the end. 

Unfortunately, the most common interpretations of these apocalyptic texts range from utterly bogus rapture theology to the more benign, but also wrong-headed, speculations about Jesus' second coming.  For some reason, in opposition to repeated scriptural injunctions to the contrary, we can't stop fussing about "when will this be, and what will be the sign of (his) coming." 

"The rapture," as seminary professor Barbara Rossing says, "is a racket."  There is no such thing as the rapture.  Nor is popular "second coming theology" much better.  It basically says that Jesus wasn't here, then he was, then he left, but he's coming back. 

That makes Jesus an outsider to his own world!  He's not really a part of the world, but only drops in from time to time to straighten things out--basically, a gnostic view.  (The phrase "second coming" never appears in the New Testament.)

"Concerning that day and hour":  The most plausible interpretation of verse 36--"concerning that day and hour no one knows"--is that, in Matthew's world, there were people who not only wanted to predict the future, but claimed to be able to do it. 

Earlier in chapter 24, the disciples had asked Jesus when all these things would happen and "what will be the sign of your coming?"  In response, Jesus said that "many will come" and proclaim themselves the Messiah (24:4-5).  "They will lead many astray."  In verse 36, Jesus not only undermines (again) this kind of prophetic speculation, but underlines it with a three-fold negative--no one, not angels, not the son.  This is an emphatic three-fold rejection. 

"Only the Father" knows.  Note that Jesus does not use the phrase "God Almighty," or some such superlative honorific, but rather "Father," the same "Our Father" to whom we pray in the Lord's Prayer (6:9).  In his use of the word "Father," Matthew underlines God's loving care for his world, even in the face of "cataclysm."

...for as it was in those days before the deluge, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until that day Noah entered into the ark and they did not know until the deluge came and raised all, and so will be the coming of the Son of Humanity.  Then two will be in the field;  one is taken near, and one is being released--two grinding at the millstone; one is taken near, and one is being released.

Matthew is recalling the image of Daniel 7:13 when Daniel saw "one like a son of humanity, coming with the clouds of heaven."  The Greek word parousia--"coming"--is formed from para and ousia--literally:  "being alongside."  This coming will be mysterious, sudden, personal.  The "second coming" of Christ is any time when he is present in the midst of our own apocalypses.  

The two men in the field are gender-balanced by two women grinding meal.  In each case, one is "taken"--paralambano--and the other "released"--aphiami.  "Taken" versus "released."  At first glance, it's hard to know which one is the better condition. 

Paralambano--"taken"--has the sense of being "taken in" to something--presumably, though not necessarily, a "good" thing.  Its' counter-part, aphiami, can also be a positive or negative condition.  It can mean "sent away" or even "divorced," but it can also mean "forgiven" or "released."

The clear over-all sense of verses 37-41 is that life seems to be going on as normal.  In the case of Noah, there were warnings of cataclysm, but they were ignored, and people went about their daily business.  They "knew nothing" until they were all swept away.  

Indeed, "knowing"--or better, not knowing--is a prominent sub-theme in this text.  There are six references to knowledge in these eight verses, employing three different Greek words--oida, ginosko, and dokeo.  ("Only the Father" truly "knows.") 

The phrase translated as "swept away" in NRSV is heren apantas.  It could mean "swept them all away," but the normal translation of that phrase would be "all were raised" or "all were taken up."  Will the "flood" of Christ sweep "all" away into him?

Watch therefore, for you do not know what kind of day your Lord is coming.  But know this, that if the master of the house had known what watch the thief is coming, he would have watched and would not have permitted his house to be broken up.  For this reason, you also must become ready, for you do not know what hour the Son of Humanity is coming. 

The little word poios appears in verse 42.  It means what kind of day more than which one.  You won't be able to find the day on the calendar.  To all outward appearances, it will be a day like any other. 

Not only do you not know the day--and don't believe anyone who says they do--but "your Lord" is coming.  From verse 36, know that you are in the care of your loving Father.  From verse 42, know that "your Lord" is the one in charge.

The Holy Thief:  The thief image shows up also in Paul--"the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" (1 Th 5:2)  On the one hand, Jesus seems to be encouraging watchfulness.  Guard your house, and don't let the thief in.  On the other hand, it's not going to make much difference, since "you do not know what hour the Son of Humanity is coming."

He's not going to come with trumpets blaring, in other words.  If he did that, we'd protect ourselves.  He's going to come when he's least expected, when our guard is down, and he's going to come quietly, with stealth and subtlety. 

You can try to put up some kind of defense, and you undoubtedly will, but it won't make any difference.  He going to get in.  He doesn't want your HD TV or your credit cards.  He wants you.  What's more, he's going to get you.

Image:  Christ the Pantocrator, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Denver, CO. 

Christ the King Sunday ::: Luke 23: 33-43

³³When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. ³⁴Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots to divide his clothing. ³⁵And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!”³⁶The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, ³⁷and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” ³⁸There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”³⁹One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” ⁴⁰But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” ⁴²Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” ⁴³He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Translation:  And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.  Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing."  And they cast lots to divide his clothing.  And the people stood, seeing. 

But the rulers were deriding, saying, "He saved others.  Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen."  And the soldiers also mocked him, coming (and) offering to him common wine, and saying, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."  There was also an inscription over him, "This one (is) the king of the Jews."  And one of the hanging criminals was reviling him:  "Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us." 

But the other answered, rebuking him, saying, "Do you not fear God that you are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for what we receive (is) appropriate to what we did, but this one has done nothing out of place."  And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."  And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Background and situation:  The basic source is Mark--see Mark 15: 22-32 and also Matthew 27: 39-44--to which Luke has introduced some new elements.  Important texts to hold in thought are Luke 4: 3-12, 6: 28, 9: 35, Psalm 22, Psalm 69: 21, Isaiah 53: 12, Acts 2: 36, 3: 17. 

Among the changes Luke makes to Mark is the use of kakourgo rather than lestai to describe the "criminals."  The meanings of kakourgo include "criminals," "malefactors," or even "evil-doers."  Lestai, on the other hand, refers to "robbers," "bandits," or even "revolutionaries" or "insurrectionists."

Some argue that, by switching terms from the politically-charged lestai to the broader, but less specific kakourgo, Luke "de-politicizes" Mark on this point.  Lestai, after all, could refer to political prisoners, while kakourgo would not.  This, however, seems unlikely since Luke doesn't shy away from political statements anywhere else in his gospel. 

More likely, Luke is explicitly associating Jesus with criminals.  Luke likes to present Jesus as on the same level as the people.  In chapter 6, for example, Luke changes the venue for Jesus' "beatitude speech" from Matthew's lofty mountain to a "level place," which is where the common people live and work. 

Here, Jesus is presented as being on the same level as "criminals"--Isaiah 53: 12:  "And he was numbered with the lawless" (which is referenced directly in 22:37).  Not only is Jesus with the criminals, but Luke is reminding us also that Jesus himself is being treated as a criminal.

Father, forgive them:  The "Father, forgive them" passage is not present in several of the earliest documents, though is included in Codex Sinaiticus, a number of other early documents, and referenced by some early church fathers.  It should be included because of early attestation, and because it fits so well with one of the strongest over-arching themes in Luke, i.e. forgiveness.

Secondly, it should be included because it balances Jesus' other prayer from the cross in 23:46--"Father, into your hands, I commend my spirit."  In both prayers, Jesus prays to his "Father."  In the first, right after he is crucified, he makes an appeal on behalf of those who persecute him, as he had encouraged in Luke 6: 28--"pray for those who abuse you."  In the second, just before his death, he expresses his solidarity with God. 

The passage, along with several others, is instructive for those living in Luke's community.  In AD 85, the time of Luke's writing, people who are hauled before "kings and governors," like Jesus was, are to respond as Jesus did.  Stand your ground! (23:9)  Testify! (21:13)  Forgive!  (23:34)  Luke's most telling example would be Stephen who will make the same plea for forgiveness of enemies as Jesus did (Acts 7: 60).   

The "they" to which Jesus refers likely does not (yet) refer to Roman soldiers, since, to this point, no Roman soldiers have been mentioned.  It likely refers to the Temple-based Judean leadership.  In Acts 2, Luke refers to "Judean leaders, those who were crucifying and mocking him" (v. 36).  Still later in Acts, Luke will say that the leadership acted in ignorance (3:17), i.e. did not know what they were doing.

The role of Psalm 22:  Luke follows Mark with "and they cast lots to divide his clothing," which is a reference to Psalm 22:18.  The early Christians understood the death of Jesus in light of Psalm 22, which is the lament of a righteous person who is abused by the people even as he calls out to God. 

The scoffing and mockery of vss. 35-36 recalls Psalm 22: 6-7:  "But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads."

Mockery and derision is a frequent tactic of the powerful to besmirch someone's character.  The irritant is brought to heel through derision and character assassination.  As Mahatma Gandhi put it, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

There is one major difference, however, between Luke 23 and Psalm 22.  In the Psalm, the sufferer is "despised by the people."  That is not so in Luke.  "The people stood, seeing," says Luke.  (Mark says that "those who passed by derided him" (Mark 15:29).  Luke leaves this out.)  In Luke, the crowds do not join in the mockery.  Luke always has Jesus maintain solidarity with the common people.

Mockery:

But the rulers were deriding, saying, "He saved others.  Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen."  And the soldiers also mocked him, coming (and) offering to him common wine, and saying, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."  There was also an inscription over him, "This one (is) the king of the Jews."  And one of the hanging criminals was reviling him:  "Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us." 

The mockers include, in this order:  (Judean) leaders, (Roman) soldiers, and one criminal.  The titles for Jesus in this section are "Christ of God, his chosen one," uttered by the Judean leaders, then "King of the Jews" (twice), uttered by Roman soldiers, then one of the criminals with simply "Christ."  The religious authorities and the criminal use a religious title which is framed around the soldiers' use of a political one.

All three urge Jesus to "save himself."  Indeed, Jesus as been presented throughout Luke as the Messiah and a bringer of salvation (1:69, 2:11--"a Savior, the Messiah," 2:30--"for mine eyes have seen your salvation").  The Judean leaders mock Jesus by saying that he can't even save himself, let alone anybody else.  Jesus, however, is acting consistent with his beliefs such as those expressed earlier in Luke (9:24):  "Those who save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life...will save it."

The Roman soldiers mock Jesus with a political title which actually belonged to Herod Antipas, who was Herod the Great's son, Jesus' arch enemy, and Pilate's buddy (23:12).  Herod, not Jesus, was "King of the Jews," at least according to the prevailing political reality of the day. 

This is the irony of the inscription on the cross.  Crucifixion was the punishment dished out to slaves and political agitators.  You aspire to leadership among the people?  You aspire to change the political order?  Take a look at your friend, Jesus.  "This is the King of the Jews."  See what happens to people who challenge the political leadership?

It was the devil who first challenged Jesus with the words "if you are the son of God" (Luke 4: 3, 9).  An identical or similar phrase is used four times from 22:67 to 23:39.  In the first, the whole host of the religious authority--"the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together" (22:67)--say, "If you are the Christ, tell us."  Then, the "leaders" use the phrase (23:35), then "soldiers" (23:37), and, finally, it is "one of the criminals" (23:39):  "Are you not the Christ?" 

The Hoosier poet, James Whitcomb Riley, once said that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, one may reasonably conclude that the object is a duck.  In Luke's gospel, if someone uses the words of the devil, and acts out the deeds of the devil, one may reasonably conclude they are in cahoots with the devil.  All these mockers--religious leaders, soldiers, criminals--are doing the devil's work.

The offering of "sour wine" (oxos) is an additional detail of derision.  Oxos was not sour so much as it was cheap.  It was poorer-quality wine which had been watered down, and was a common drink for soldiers and for common people. 

Jesus is not offended by drinking "common wine".  In fact, given the choice between a $1500 bottle of Margaux 1982 and a cup of oxos, Jesus would probably have preferred the oxos.  Nevertheless, the soldiers meant the offering to be satirical, as if to say, "Get a load of Mr. King drinking the rot-gut."

The other criminal:

But the other answered, rebuking him, saying, "Do you not fear God that you are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for what we receive (is) appropriate to what we did, but this one has done nothing out of place."  And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."  And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." 

The other criminal--the "good" one--comes to Jesus' defense, saying that he and the other criminal are getting what they deserve--"and we indeed justly"--but Jesus has done nothing atopon, i.e. unfitting, inappropriate, or out of place.  The criminal vouches for Jesus' innocence, as indeed Pontius Pilate himself also had previously (23:4).

This criminal gets it right.  All appearances to the contrary, Jesus really is "Christ" and "King," truly does have power to save, and there really is a kingdom.  It is interesting that it is this condemned criminal who gets what so many others, including Jesus' own disciples, did not.

This criminal addresses Jesus by simply stating his name, "Jesus," without any other laudatory or satirical titles--no "king of the Jews," no "Christ," no "son of God," just "Jesus."  This is an allusion--again, and however subtle--to Jesus as Savior.  (The word "Jesus" is really "Yeshua," or "Joshua," which means "he will save.")  It's as if the criminal were saying that it is not through his titles that Jesus works, but through his person.

Jesus does "save" someone in this story--the criminal.  "Today, you will be with me in paradise."  The word paradeiso is Persian in origin and refers to a garden or park.  In the period just prior to Jesus, paradeiso was a special place in Sheol for the "righteous dead."  In the intertestamental literature, the "righteous dead" were those who had taken up arms against Judah's oppressors and who were crushed for their efforts. 

By the time of Jesus, there is reference in Jewish writings of the period indicating that the Messiah would open these gates of Paradise and free these freedom fighters.  Thus, paradeiso is an eschatological image associated with the work of the Christ.  Today, Jesus and the criminal will be with the "righteous dead" in Paradise.  In just a few days, the gates of Paradise will be broken open.

Image:  Christ the Pantocrator, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Denver, CO. 

 

³³When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. ³⁴Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots to divide his clothing. ³⁵And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!”³⁶The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, ³⁷and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” ³⁸There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”³⁹One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” ⁴⁰But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” ⁴²Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” ⁴³He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Translation:  And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.  Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing."  And they cast lots to divide his clothing.  And the people stood, seeing. 

But the rulers were deriding, saying, "He saved others.  Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen."  And the soldiers also mocked him, coming (and) offering to him common wine, and saying, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."  There was also an inscription over him, "This one (is) the king of the Jews."  And one of the hanging criminals was reviling him:  "Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us." 

But the other answered, rebuking him, saying, "Do you not fear God that you are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for what we receive (is) appropriate to what we did, but this one has done nothing out of place."  And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."  And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Background and situation:  The basic source is Mark--see Mark 15: 22-32 and also Matthew 27: 39-44--to which Luke has introduced some new elements.  Important texts to hold in thought are Luke 4: 3-12, 6: 28, 9: 35, Psalm 22, Psalm 69: 21, Isaiah 53: 12, Acts 2: 36, 3: 17. 

Among the changes Luke makes to Mark is the use of kakourgo rather than lestai to describe the "criminals."  The meanings of kakourgo include "criminals," "malefactors," or even "evil-doers."  Lestai, on the other hand, refers to "robbers," "bandits," or even "revolutionaries" or "insurrectionists."

Some argue that, by switching terms from the politically-charged lestai to the broader, but less specific kakourgo, Luke "de-politicizes" Mark on this point.  Lestai, after all, could refer to political prisoners, while kakourgo would not.  This, however, seems unlikely since Luke doesn't shy away from political statements anywhere else in his gospel. 

More likely, Luke is explicitly associating Jesus with criminals.  Luke likes to present Jesus as on the same level as the people.  In chapter 6, for example, Luke changes the venue for Jesus' "beatitude speech" from Matthew's lofty mountain to a "level place," which is where the common people live and work. 

Here, Jesus is presented as being on the same level as "criminals"--Isaiah 53: 12:  "And he was numbered with the lawless" (which is referenced directly in 22:37).  Not only is Jesus with the criminals, but Luke is reminding us also that Jesus himself is being treated as a criminal.

Father, forgive them:  The "Father, forgive them" passage is not present in several of the earliest documents, though is included in Codex Sinaiticus, a number of other early documents, and referenced by some early church fathers.  It should be included because of early attestation, and because it fits so well with one of the strongest over-arching themes in Luke, i.e. forgiveness.

Secondly, it should be included because it balances Jesus' other prayer from the cross in 23:46--"Father, into your hands, I commend my spirit."  In both prayers, Jesus prays to his "Father."  In the first, right after he is crucified, he makes an appeal on behalf of those who persecute him, as he had encouraged in Luke 6: 28--"pray for those who abuse you."  In the second, just before his death, he expresses his solidarity with God. 

The passage, along with several others, is instructive for those living in Luke's community.  In AD 85, the time of Luke's writing, people who are hauled before "kings and governors," like Jesus was, are to respond as Jesus did.  Stand your ground! (23:9)  Testify! (21:13)  Forgive!  (23:34)  Luke's most telling example would be Stephen who will make the same plea for forgiveness of enemies as Jesus did (Acts 7: 60).   

The "they" to which Jesus refers likely does not (yet) refer to Roman soldiers, since, to this point, no Roman soldiers have been mentioned.  It likely refers to the Temple-based Judean leadership.  In Acts 2, Luke refers to "Judean leaders, those who were crucifying and mocking him" (v. 36).  Still later in Acts, Luke will say that the leadership acted in ignorance (3:17), i.e. did not know what they were doing.

The role of Psalm 22:  Luke follows Mark with "and they cast lots to divide his clothing," which is a reference to Psalm 22:18.  The early Christians understood the death of Jesus in light of Psalm 22, which is the lament of a righteous person who is abused by the people even as he calls out to God. 

The scoffing and mockery of vss. 35-36 recalls Psalm 22: 6-7:  "But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads."

Mockery and derision is a frequent tactic of the powerful to besmirch someone's character.  The irritant is brought to heel through derision and character assassination.  As Mahatma Gandhi put it, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

There is one major difference, however, between Luke 23 and Psalm 22.  In the Psalm, the sufferer is "despised by the people."  That is not so in Luke.  "The people stood, seeing," says Luke.  (Mark says that "those who passed by derided him" (Mark 15:29).  Luke leaves this out.)  In Luke, the crowds do not join in the mockery.  Luke always has Jesus maintain solidarity with the common people.

Mockery:

But the rulers were deriding, saying, "He saved others.  Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen."  And the soldiers also mocked him, coming (and) offering to him common wine, and saying, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."  There was also an inscription over him, "This one (is) the king of the Jews."  And one of the hanging criminals was reviling him:  "Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us." 

The mockers include, in this order:  (Judean) leaders, (Roman) soldiers, and one criminal.  The titles for Jesus in this section are "Christ of God, his chosen one," uttered by the Judean leaders, then "King of the Jews" (twice), uttered by Roman soldiers, then one of the criminals with simply "Christ."  The religious authorities and the criminal use a religious title which is framed around the soldiers' use of a political one.

All three urge Jesus to "save himself."  Indeed, Jesus as been presented throughout Luke as the Messiah and a bringer of salvation (1:69, 2:11--"a Savior, the Messiah," 2:30--"for mine eyes have seen your salvation").  The Judean leaders mock Jesus by saying that he can't even save himself, let alone anybody else.  Jesus, however, is acting consistent with his beliefs such as those expressed earlier in Luke (9:24):  "Those who save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life...will save it."

The Roman soldiers mock Jesus with a political title which actually belonged to Herod Antipas, who was Herod the Great's son, Jesus' arch enemy, and Pilate's buddy (23:12).  Herod, not Jesus, was "King of the Jews," at least according to the prevailing political reality of the day. 

This is the irony of the inscription on the cross.  Crucifixion was the punishment dished out to slaves and political agitators.  You aspire to leadership among the people?  You aspire to change the political order?  Take a look at your friend, Jesus.  "This is the King of the Jews."  See what happens to people who challenge the political leadership?

It was the devil who first challenged Jesus with the words "if you are the son of God" (Luke 4: 3, 9).  An identical or similar phrase is used four times from 22:67 to 23:39.  In the first, the whole host of the religious authority--"the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together" (22:67)--say, "If you are the Christ, tell us."  Then, the "leaders" use the phrase (23:35), then "soldiers" (23:37), and, finally, it is "one of the criminals" (23:39):  "Are you not the Christ?" 

The Hoosier poet, James Whitcomb Riley, once said that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, one may reasonably conclude that the object is a duck.  In Luke's gospel, if someone uses the words of the devil, and acts out the deeds of the devil, one may reasonably conclude they are in cahoots with the devil.  All these mockers--religious leaders, soldiers, criminals--are doing the devil's work.

The offering of "sour wine" (oxos) is an additional detail of derision.  Oxos was not sour so much as it was cheap.  It was poorer-quality wine which had been watered down, and was a common drink for soldiers and for common people. 

Jesus is not offended by drinking "common wine".  In fact, given the choice between a $1500 bottle of Margaux 1982 and a cup of oxos, Jesus would probably have preferred the oxos.  Nevertheless, the soldiers meant the offering to be satirical, as if to say, "Get a load of Mr. King drinking the rot-gut."

The other criminal:

But the other answered, rebuking him, saying, "Do you not fear God that you are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for what we receive (is) appropriate to what we did, but this one has done nothing out of place."  And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."  And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." 

The other criminal--the "good" one--comes to Jesus' defense, saying that he and the other criminal are getting what they deserve--"and we indeed justly"--but Jesus has done nothing atopon, i.e. unfitting, inappropriate, or out of place.  The criminal vouches for Jesus' innocence, as indeed Pontius Pilate himself also had previously (23:4).

This criminal gets it right.  All appearances to the contrary, Jesus really is "Christ" and "King," truly does have power to save, and there really is a kingdom.  It is interesting that it is this condemned criminal who gets what so many others, including Jesus' own disciples, did not.

This criminal addresses Jesus by simply stating his name, "Jesus," without any other laudatory or satirical titles--no "king of the Jews," no "Christ," no "son of God," just "Jesus."  This is an allusion--again, and however subtle--to Jesus as Savior.  (The word "Jesus" is really "Yeshua," or "Joshua," which means "he will save.")  It's as if the criminal were saying that it is not through his titles that Jesus works, but through his person.

Jesus does "save" someone in this story--the criminal.  "Today, you will be with me in paradise."  The word paradeiso is Persian in origin and refers to a garden or park.  In the period just prior to Jesus, paradeiso was a special place in Sheol for the "righteous dead."  In the intertestamental literature, the "righteous dead" were those who had taken up arms against Judah's oppressors and who were crushed for their efforts. 

By the time of Jesus, there is reference in Jewish writings of the period indicating that the Messiah would open these gates of Paradise and free these freedom fighters.  Thus, paradeiso is an eschatological image associated with the work of the Christ.  Today, Jesus and the criminal will be with the "righteous dead" in Paradise.  In just a few days, the gates of Paradise will be broken open.

Image:  Christ the Pantocrator, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Denver, CO. 

³³When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. ³⁴Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots to divide his clothing. ³⁵And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!”³⁶The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, ³⁷and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” ³⁸There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”³⁹One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” ⁴⁰But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” ⁴²Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” ⁴³He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Translation:  And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.  Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing."  And they cast lots to divide his clothing.  And the people stood, seeing. 

But the rulers were deriding, saying, "He saved others.  Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen."  And the soldiers also mocked him, coming (and) offering to him common wine, and saying, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."  There was also an inscription over him, "This one (is) the king of the Jews."  And one of the hanging criminals was reviling him:  "Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us." 

But the other answered, rebuking him, saying, "Do you not fear God that you are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for what we receive (is) appropriate to what we did, but this one has done nothing out of place."  And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."  And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Background and situation:  The basic source is Mark--see Mark 15: 22-32 and also Matthew 27: 39-44--to which Luke has introduced some new elements.  Important texts to hold in thought are Luke 4: 3-12, 6: 28, 9: 35, Psalm 22, Psalm 69: 21, Isaiah 53: 12, Acts 2: 36, 3: 17. 

Among the changes Luke makes to Mark is the use of kakourgo rather than lestai to describe the "criminals."  The meanings of kakourgo include "criminals," "malefactors," or even "evil-doers."  Lestai, on the other hand, refers to "robbers," "bandits," or even "revolutionaries" or "insurrectionists."

Some argue that, by switching terms from the politically-charged lestai to the broader, but less specific kakourgo, Luke "de-politicizes" Mark on this point.  Lestai, after all, could refer to political prisoners, while kakourgo would not.  This, however, seems unlikely since Luke doesn't shy away from political statements anywhere else in his gospel. 

More likely, Luke is explicitly associating Jesus with criminals.  Luke likes to present Jesus as on the same level as the people.  In chapter 6, for example, Luke changes the venue for Jesus' "beatitude speech" from Matthew's lofty mountain to a "level place," which is where the common people live and work. 

Here, Jesus is presented as being on the same level as "criminals"--Isaiah 53: 12:  "And he was numbered with the lawless" (which is referenced directly in 22:37).  Not only is Jesus with the criminals, but Luke is reminding us also that Jesus himself is being treated as a criminal.

Father, forgive them:  The "Father, forgive them" passage is not present in several of the earliest documents, though is included in Codex Sinaiticus, a number of other early documents, and referenced by some early church fathers.  It should be included because of early attestation, and because it fits so well with one of the strongest over-arching themes in Luke, i.e. forgiveness.

Secondly, it should be included because it balances Jesus' other prayer from the cross in 23:46--"Father, into your hands, I commend my spirit."  In both prayers, Jesus prays to his "Father."  In the first, right after he is crucified, he makes an appeal on behalf of those who persecute him, as he had encouraged in Luke 6: 28--"pray for those who abuse you."  In the second, just before his death, he expresses his solidarity with God. 

The passage, along with several others, is instructive for those living in Luke's community.  In AD 85, the time of Luke's writing, people who are hauled before "kings and governors," like Jesus was, are to respond as Jesus did.  Stand your ground! (23:9)  Testify! (21:13)  Forgive!  (23:34)  Luke's most telling example would be Stephen who will make the same plea for forgiveness of enemies as Jesus did (Acts 7: 60).   

The "they" to which Jesus refers likely does not (yet) refer to Roman soldiers, since, to this point, no Roman soldiers have been mentioned.  It likely refers to the Temple-based Judean leadership.  In Acts 2, Luke refers to "Judean leaders, those who were crucifying and mocking him" (v. 36).  Still later in Acts, Luke will say that the leadership acted in ignorance (3:17), i.e. did not know what they were doing.

The role of Psalm 22:  Luke follows Mark with "and they cast lots to divide his clothing," which is a reference to Psalm 22:18.  The early Christians understood the death of Jesus in light of Psalm 22, which is the lament of a righteous person who is abused by the people even as he calls out to God. 

The scoffing and mockery of vss. 35-36 recalls Psalm 22: 6-7:  "But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads."

Mockery and derision is a frequent tactic of the powerful to besmirch someone's character.  The irritant is brought to heel through derision and character assassination.  As Mahatma Gandhi put it, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

There is one major difference, however, between Luke 23 and Psalm 22.  In the Psalm, the sufferer is "despised by the people."  That is not so in Luke.  "The people stood, seeing," says Luke.  (Mark says that "those who passed by derided him" (Mark 15:29).  Luke leaves this out.)  In Luke, the crowds do not join in the mockery.  Luke always has Jesus maintain solidarity with the common people.

Mockery:

But the rulers were deriding, saying, "He saved others.  Let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen."  And the soldiers also mocked him, coming (and) offering to him common wine, and saying, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."  There was also an inscription over him, "This one (is) the king of the Jews."  And one of the hanging criminals was reviling him:  "Are you not the Christ?  Save yourself and us." 

The mockers include, in this order:  (Judean) leaders, (Roman) soldiers, and one criminal.  The titles for Jesus in this section are "Christ of God, his chosen one," uttered by the Judean leaders, then "King of the Jews" (twice), uttered by Roman soldiers, then one of the criminals with simply "Christ."  The religious authorities and the criminal use a religious title which is framed around the soldiers' use of a political one.

All three urge Jesus to "save himself."  Indeed, Jesus as been presented throughout Luke as the Messiah and a bringer of salvation (1:69, 2:11--"a Savior, the Messiah," 2:30--"for mine eyes have seen your salvation").  The Judean leaders mock Jesus by saying that he can't even save himself, let alone anybody else.  Jesus, however, is acting consistent with his beliefs such as those expressed earlier in Luke (9:24):  "Those who save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life...will save it."

The Roman soldiers mock Jesus with a political title which actually belonged to Herod Antipas, who was Herod the Great's son, Jesus' arch enemy, and Pilate's buddy (23:12).  Herod, not Jesus, was "King of the Jews," at least according to the prevailing political reality of the day. 

This is the irony of the inscription on the cross.  Crucifixion was the punishment dished out to slaves and political agitators.  You aspire to leadership among the people?  You aspire to change the political order?  Take a look at your friend, Jesus.  "This is the King of the Jews."  See what happens to people who challenge the political leadership?

It was the devil who first challenged Jesus with the words "if you are the son of God" (Luke 4: 3, 9).  An identical or similar phrase is used four times from 22:67 to 23:39.  In the first, the whole host of the religious authority--"the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together" (22:67)--say, "If you are the Christ, tell us."  Then, the "leaders" use the phrase (23:35), then "soldiers" (23:37), and, finally, it is "one of the criminals" (23:39):  "Are you not the Christ?" 

The Hoosier poet, James Whitcomb Riley, once said that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, one may reasonably conclude that the object is a duck.  In Luke's gospel, if someone uses the words of the devil, and acts out the deeds of the devil, one may reasonably conclude they are in cahoots with the devil.  All these mockers--religious leaders, soldiers, criminals--are doing the devil's work.

The offering of "sour wine" (oxos) is an additional detail of derision.  Oxos was not sour so much as it was cheap.  It was poorer-quality wine which had been watered down, and was a common drink for soldiers and for common people. 

Jesus is not offended by drinking "common wine".  In fact, given the choice between a $1500 bottle of Margaux 1982 and a cup of oxos, Jesus would probably have preferred the oxos.  Nevertheless, the soldiers meant the offering to be satirical, as if to say, "Get a load of Mr. King drinking the rot-gut."

The other criminal:

But the other answered, rebuking him, saying, "Do you not fear God that you are in the same condemnation, and we indeed justly, for what we receive (is) appropriate to what we did, but this one has done nothing out of place."  And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."  And he said to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." 

The other criminal--the "good" one--comes to Jesus' defense, saying that he and the other criminal are getting what they deserve--"and we indeed justly"--but Jesus has done nothing atopon, i.e. unfitting, inappropriate, or out of place.  The criminal vouches for Jesus' innocence, as indeed Pontius Pilate himself also had previously (23:4).

This criminal gets it right.  All appearances to the contrary, Jesus really is "Christ" and "King," truly does have power to save, and there really is a kingdom.  It is interesting that it is this condemned criminal who gets what so many others, including Jesus' own disciples, did not.

This criminal addresses Jesus by simply stating his name, "Jesus," without any other laudatory or satirical titles--no "king of the Jews," no "Christ," no "son of God," just "Jesus."  This is an allusion--again, and however subtle--to Jesus as Savior.  (The word "Jesus" is really "Yeshua," or "Joshua," which means "he will save.")  It's as if the criminal were saying that it is not through his titles that Jesus works, but through his person.

Jesus does "save" someone in this story--the criminal.  "Today, you will be with me in paradise."  The word paradeiso is Persian in origin and refers to a garden or park.  In the period just prior to Jesus, paradeiso was a special place in Sheol for the "righteous dead."  In the intertestamental literature, the "righteous dead" were those who had taken up arms against Judah's oppressors and who were crushed for their efforts. 

By the time of Jesus, there is reference in Jewish writings of the period indicating that the Messiah would open these gates of Paradise and free these freedom fighters.  Thus, paradeiso is an eschatological image associated with the work of the Christ.  Today, Jesus and the criminal will be with the "righteous dead" in Paradise.  In just a few days, the gates of Paradise will be broken open.

Image:  Christ the Pantocrator, Assumption of the Theotokos Greek Orthodox Cathedral, Denver, CO. 

Pentecost 23 ::: Luke 21: 5-19

⁵When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, ⁶“As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.” ⁷They asked him, “Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign that this is about to take place?” ⁸And he said, “Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them. ⁹“When you hear of wars and insurrections, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately.” ¹⁰Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; ¹¹there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and plagues; and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. ¹²“But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. ¹³This will give you an opportunity to testify. ¹⁴So make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance; ¹⁵for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict. ¹⁶You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. ¹⁷You will be hated by all because of my name. ¹⁸But not a hair of your head will perish. ¹⁹By your endurance you will gain your souls.

Translation:  And, as some were speaking concerning the temple, that it had been adorned with good stones and offerings, he said, "These things you see, days will come in which there will not be left stone upon stone, that will not be thrown down."  But they asked him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be?  And what (will be) the sign when these things shall come to be?"  And he said, "See that you might not be deceived, for many will come upon my name, saying, 'I am' and 'the time has come near.'  Do not go after them.  But when you hear of wars and disorders, do not be terrified, for it is necessary for these things to come to be first, but (they are) not immediately the end."  Then he said to them, "Nation will be raised upon nation and kingdom upon kingdom, and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places, famines and plagues.  And there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.  But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you and they will persecute, delivering you into the synagogues and prisons, leading you away to kings and governors for my name.  It will turn you into a witness.  Therefore, put in your hearts not to mediate before you defend yourselves, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to resist or contradict.  But you will be delivered over by parents and siblings and relatives and friends, they will put some of you to death.  And you will be hated ones by all because of my name, but a hair of your head may surely not be destroyed.  In your endurance, you will possess your lives."

 

Background and situation:  The original source is Mark, speaking of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Mark 13: 1-13).  Both Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark as a template for their own books.  Whole passages are word-by-word identical.  At the same time, they made changes, expanded the text, or sometimes used the text in a different way than in Mark.

Luke's changes to Mark often involve a kind of "softening."  Mark is an abrupt and sometimes disturbing book, written in a head-long, but choppy style.  Luke's writing is smoother, and he is deft at story-telling.  Mark is negative toward the Temple, and toward the disciples.  Luke is as well, but less so on both counts. 

As he does frequently throughout Luke, Jesus is shown as speaking both to disciples and to a general audience--"in the hearing of all the people" (20:45).  The time is the beginning of passion week.

Luke's adaptation of Mark:  Someone once said that Mark is a "down and in" gospel, and Luke is "an up and out" gospel.  There are signs of this difference of perspective in this Lucan adaptation of Mark's account of the destruction of Jerusalem.  Luke follows Mark closely here, but he made significant changes, even if some are quite subtle.  These impart to the passage more of a typically "up and out" Lucan perspective.

First of all, in Mark, Jesus leaves the Temple.  Symbolically, he rejects the Temple.  He had already struck at the economic and religious basis of the Temple in Mark 11, after which he proclaimed the fig tree, symbolizing the Temple, was rotten to its roots, and incapable of life.  In Mark 13: 1, he leaves the temple for the last time.

In Luke, however, Jesus does not leave the Temple.  Luke generally takes a more positive view toward the Temple than Mark does.  When Jesus was an infant, a key prophecy took place in the Temple.  When he was 12, he was "sitting among the teachers" at the Temple (2:46).  During passion week, he taught in the Temple "every day" (21:37).

Both Mark and Luke, in nearly identical language, have Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple.  One should keep in mind, however, that the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.  Luke is writing c. AD 85, about the period c. AD 30.  The text is not a prophecy, in other words, but an interpretation of history.

In any case, it would not have taken someone with supernatural predictive abilities to anticipate that the Jews would get trampled in any war with the Romans.  The makings of war had been growing for quite awhile.  The Jews truly did suffer under the Roman yoke, and there were constant rumblings of dissent and, on occasion, outright revolt. 

When King Herod died (4 BC), there were uprisings all over the country.  Roman legions from Syria had to be brought down to quell the revolt, and they were not happy when they arrived.  When Quirinius instituted his tax census in AD 6, again there was resistance, and again, Roman legions tromped through the country.  Jesus own ministry rallied the poor and disenfranchised against the "powers." 

In his own day and time, Jesus probably could see that war and violence might come, but then so could a lot of people.  It had done so already and conditions had not improved.

The Roman-Jewish War lasted from AD 66-70.  In the beginning, the rebellion was widespread.  As the Romans brought military pressure to bear in the north, however, the Jews were forced back into "Fortress Jerusalem" in AD 69. 

AD 69 was a very strange year.  Within Jerusalem, the Jewish defenders were divided.  In hopes of a ceasefire, some advocated for accommodation with the Romans.  Some of the more fanatical Jewish defenders, on the other hand, took an "apocalyptic" view.  If they could just hold on awhile longer, they thought, God would intervene and smite the offenders.

These more fanatical defenders gained the upper hand in the city, and some believe they likely put pressure on the followers of Jesus, urging them to abandon non-violence and join the struggle against the infidel Romans.  (An early legend says that many followers of Jesus left Jerusalem for Pella in modern day Jordan.)  

On the Roman side, AD 69 has been called the "year of the four Emperors."  After Nero committed suicide, the general leading the campaign against the Jews, Vespasian, returned to Rome.  (The religious fanatics at the temple probably thought Nero's suicide was an intervention from God to stall the Roman offensive, rather like Hitler supposing that FDR's death was the stroke of luck that would save him.)  

After three misfires, Vespasian eventually emerged as Emperor, the fourth of AD 69.  His son, Titus, continued the siege on Jerusalem.  (Titus would also later become Emperor.) 

Jerusalem put up a stout defense, and the Romans had a hard time subjugating the city.  When they did, it wasn't pretty.  They destroyed everything they could destroy.  Blood ran in the streets.

The roar of the flames streaming far and wide mingled with the groans of the falling victims...one would have thought that the whole city was ablaze...With the cries on the hill were blended those of the multitude in the city below, and now many who were emaciated and tongue-tied from starvation, when they beheld the sanctuary on fire, gathered strength once more for lamentations and wailing...Yet more awful than the uproar were the sufferings.  (Josephus, cited in Luke, David Tiede.)

The destruction of the Temple was utterly devastating for the people.  Some traditions associated with the Temple, such as the Sadducees, were destroyed never to rise again--(which, incidentally, resulted in the rise of rabbinical, synogogue-based Judaism). 

Luke asserts, however, that though the nations "trample" on Jerusalem, at some point this will end.  The nations will trample Jerusalem "until the times of the nations are fulfilled" (21:34).  Jerusalem is in for some difficulty, but there is also a limit to it.

But they asked him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be?  And what (will be) the sign when these things shall come to be?"  And he said, "See that you might not be deceived, for many will come upon my name, saying, 'I am' and 'the time has come near.'  Do not go after them."

This may refer to the aforementioned defenders of Jerusalem in its last days as a city.  No doubt there were some self-appointed "messiahs" floating around.  The air seems to have been thick with religious fanaticism, fertile ground for the emergence of messianic figures.  For the fanatics, the defense of Jerusalem was a "holy war."  Luke has Jesus say, as also in Mark, "Do not go after them."  Or, in other words, stay out of holy wars.

Luke subtly alters Mark here.  Instead of Jesus speaking with his disciples, as in Mark, Luke has Jesus speaking to "some" (v. 5), who are then referred to as "they" in v. 7.  Jesus speaks "privately" to the inner circle of the disciples in Mark.  In Luke, the identity of those who hear Jesus is purposefully vague.  Perhaps Luke does it in this somewhat open-ended way because he wants his readers, c. AD 85, to read themselves into the story.

But when you hear of wars and disorders, do not be terrified, for it is necessary for these things to come to be first, but (they are) not immediately the end."  Then he said to them, "Nation will be raised upon nation and kingdom upon kingdom, and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places, famines and plagues.  And there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.

Mark says, literally, "it is necessary (dei) to happen (genisthai)."  Luke says "it is necessary for these things to happen first (protone)."  Luke separates the time of war from the time of redemption just a bit, which he then underlines by saying "(they are) not immediately the end."  In other words, the destruction of the Temple, difficult though it must have been, was nevertheless not an eschatological event.

In verse 10, there is a sense of rising turmoil, which certainly would have been the case in the run-up to the Roman-Jewish war.  Also, these portents appear to have eschatological significance.  The cosmos itself--"fearful sights" and "great signs from heaven"--will be disrupted.  (Tannehill also draws attention to a citation from Josephus, JW 6, 289, who mentions a comet--"a star resembling a sword".)

But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you and they will persecute, delivering you into the synagogues and prisons, leading you away to kings and governors for my name.  It will turn you into a witness.  Therefore, put in your hearts not to mediate before you defend yourselves, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to resist or contradict.  But you will be delivered over by parents and siblings and relatives and friends, they will put some of you to death.  And you will be hated ones by all because of my name, but a hair of your head may surely not be destroyed.  In your endurance, you will possess your lives."

The scribes and chief priests had already tried to "lay hands on"--or seize--Jesus himself in 20:19.  The followers of Jesus may expect the same--"they will lay their hands upon you and they will persecute."   

Luke may also have in mind the situation of Christians at the time of his writing, c. AD 85.  Prior to the Roman-Jewish War, relations between Christians and Jews had been more positive.  Many Christians, for example, continued to participate in their local synagogue.  This comity changed in light of the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem.  Christians tended to blame the Jews, and vice versa, which contributed to tensions between the two groups.  

Mark, incidentally, says that followers of Jesus may be "delivered over" to synagogues.  Luke adds "prisons."  This indicates heightened tension with political authority as well as religious authority.

Followers of Jesus will be "delivered over" (paradidomai), the same word that is used, later in Luke, for the arrest of Jesus.  Christians can expect the same for themselves.  Luke is saying:  You will be "delivered over," just like Jesus was, and here's how to handle it when it happens:  Witness!  Testify!  (Will Willimon:  "We Christians have always done fairly well in prisons.") 

Don't prepare your defense, as the Roman and Greek orators do.  Mark has "for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."  Luke takes this out.  In Luke, it is Jesus himself who will instruct his people. 

This is a bit surprising for Luke, who generally takes a strong view of the Spirit.  (If someone in the New Testament is "in the power of the Spirit," you can safely bet that Luke is the author of the passage.)   This time, however, Luke says that Jesus himself will be with his people in their time of distress, with the message:  "Live by me, and not by fear." 

A little later in Luke, Jesus himself will face authorities, and again, Luke will use the example of Jesus as a way of instructing Christians on how to deal with suffering and persecution.  Stand your ground, as Jesus did.  Don't volunteer information, don't admit anything, but don't back away either.

"Not a hair of your head will perish" recalls 12:7:  "even the hairs of your head are all counted."  Hang in there, trust in God, have "endurance."  "By your endurance, you will acquire--katasesthe, the word for getting a wife!--your lives."  (I'm opposed to translating psyche as "soul," which is more of a concept of Greek philosophy than either Hebrew or Christian theology.  In the New Testament, psyche should be translated as "life.")

The text has nothing to do with predictions of the future, and any interpretation which treats it so is fatally flawed from the start.  Luke was not written primarily for 21st-century Christians anxious about the future.  It was written for a beleaguered and persecuted minority under the thumb of Rome.  How were they to deal with this situation?  Luke says to listen for Jesus, trust in Jesus, and use Jesus himself as a model.

Image:  Detail from the Arch of Titus showing the enslavement of the residents of Jerusalem.  Titus, son of the Emperor, and later to be a Roman Emperor himself, led the final assault on Jerusalem.

⁵When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, ⁶“As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.” ⁷They asked him, “Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign that this is about to take place?” ⁸And he said, “Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them. ⁹“When you hear of wars and insurrections, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately.” ¹⁰Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; ¹¹there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and plagues; and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. ¹²“But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. ¹³This will give you an opportunity to testify. ¹⁴So make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance; ¹⁵for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict. ¹⁶You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. ¹⁷You will be hated by all because of my name. ¹⁸But not a hair of your head will perish. ¹⁹By your endurance you will gain your souls.

Translation:  And, as some were speaking concerning the temple, that it had been adorned with good stones and offerings, he said, "These things you see, days will come in which there will not be left stone upon stone, that will not be thrown down."  But they asked him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be?  And what (will be) the sign when these things shall come to be?"  And he said, "See that you might not be deceived, for many will come upon my name, saying, 'I am' and 'the time has come near.'  Do not go after them.  But when you hear of wars and disorders, do not be terrified, for it is necessary for these things to come to be first, but (they are) not immediately the end."  Then he said to them, "Nation will be raised upon nation and kingdom upon kingdom, and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places, famines and plagues.  And there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.  But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you and they will persecute, delivering you into the synagogues and prisons, leading you away to kings and governors for my name.  It will turn you into a witness.  Therefore, put in your hearts not to mediate before you defend yourselves, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to resist or contradict.  But you will be delivered over by parents and siblings and relatives and friends, they will put some of you to death.  And you will be hated ones by all because of my name, but a hair of your head may surely not be destroyed.  In your endurance, you will possess your lives."

 

Background and situation:  The original source is Mark, speaking of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Mark 13: 1-13).  Both Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark as a template for their own books.  Whole passages are word-by-word identical.  At the same time, they made changes, expanded the text, or sometimes used the text in a different way than in Mark.

Luke's changes to Mark often involve a kind of "softening."  Mark is an abrupt and sometimes disturbing book, written in a head-long, but choppy style.  Luke's writing is smoother, and he is deft at story-telling.  Mark is negative toward the Temple, and toward the disciples.  Luke is as well, but less so on both counts. 

As he does frequently throughout Luke, Jesus is shown as speaking both to disciples and to a general audience--"in the hearing of all the people" (20:45).  The time is the beginning of passion week.

Luke's adaptation of Mark:  Someone once said that Mark is a "down and in" gospel, and Luke is "an up and out" gospel.  There are signs of this difference of perspective in this Lucan adaptation of Mark's account of the destruction of Jerusalem.  Luke follows Mark closely here, but he made significant changes, even if some are quite subtle.  These impart to the passage more of a typically "up and out" Lucan perspective.

First of all, in Mark, Jesus leaves the Temple.  Symbolically, he rejects the Temple.  He had already struck at the economic and religious basis of the Temple in Mark 11, after which he proclaimed the fig tree, symbolizing the Temple, was rotten to its roots, and incapable of life.  In Mark 13: 1, he leaves the temple for the last time.

In Luke, however, Jesus does not leave the Temple.  Luke generally takes a more positive view toward the Temple than Mark does.  When Jesus was an infant, a key prophecy took place in the Temple.  When he was 12, he was "sitting among the teachers" at the Temple (2:46).  During passion week, he taught in the Temple "every day" (21:37).

Both Mark and Luke, in nearly identical language, have Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple.  One should keep in mind, however, that the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.  Luke is writing c. AD 85, about the period c. AD 30.  The text is not a prophecy, in other words, but an interpretation of history.

In any case, it would not have taken someone with supernatural predictive abilities to anticipate that the Jews would get trampled in any war with the Romans.  The makings of war had been growing for quite awhile.  The Jews truly did suffer under the Roman yoke, and there were constant rumblings of dissent and, on occasion, outright revolt. 

When King Herod died (4 BC), there were uprisings all over the country.  Roman legions from Syria had to be brought down to quell the revolt, and they were not happy when they arrived.  When Quirinius instituted his tax census in AD 6, again there was resistance, and again, Roman legions tromped through the country.  Jesus own ministry rallied the poor and disenfranchised against the "powers." 

In his own day and time, Jesus probably could see that war and violence might come, but then so could a lot of people.  It had done so already and conditions had not improved.

The Roman-Jewish War lasted from AD 66-70.  In the beginning, the rebellion was widespread.  As the Romans brought military pressure to bear in the north, however, the Jews were forced back into "Fortress Jerusalem" in AD 69. 

AD 69 was a very strange year.  Within Jerusalem, the Jewish defenders were divided.  In hopes of a ceasefire, some advocated for accommodation with the Romans.  Some of the more fanatical Jewish defenders, on the other hand, took an "apocalyptic" view.  If they could just hold on awhile longer, they thought, God would intervene and smite the offenders.

These more fanatical defenders gained the upper hand in the city, and some believe they likely put pressure on the followers of Jesus, urging them to abandon non-violence and join the struggle against the infidel Romans.  (An early legend says that many followers of Jesus left Jerusalem for Pella in modern day Jordan.)  

On the Roman side, AD 69 has been called the "year of the four Emperors."  After Nero committed suicide, the general leading the campaign against the Jews, Vespasian, returned to Rome.  (The religious fanatics at the temple probably thought Nero's suicide was an intervention from God to stall the Roman offensive, rather like Hitler supposing that FDR's death was the stroke of luck that would save him.)  

After three misfires, Vespasian eventually emerged as Emperor, the fourth of AD 69.  His son, Titus, continued the siege on Jerusalem.  (Titus would also later become Emperor.) 

Jerusalem put up a stout defense, and the Romans had a hard time subjugating the city.  When they did, it wasn't pretty.  They destroyed everything they could destroy.  Blood ran in the streets.

The roar of the flames streaming far and wide mingled with the groans of the falling victims...one would have thought that the whole city was ablaze...With the cries on the hill were blended those of the multitude in the city below, and now many who were emaciated and tongue-tied from starvation, when they beheld the sanctuary on fire, gathered strength once more for lamentations and wailing...Yet more awful than the uproar were the sufferings.  (Josephus, cited in Luke, David Tiede.)

The destruction of the Temple was utterly devastating for the people.  Some traditions associated with the Temple, such as the Sadducees, were destroyed never to rise again--(which, incidentally, resulted in the rise of rabbinical, synogogue-based Judaism). 

Luke asserts, however, that though the nations "trample" on Jerusalem, at some point this will end.  The nations will trample Jerusalem "until the times of the nations are fulfilled" (21:34).  Jerusalem is in for some difficulty, but there is also a limit to it.

But they asked him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be?  And what (will be) the sign when these things shall come to be?"  And he said, "See that you might not be deceived, for many will come upon my name, saying, 'I am' and 'the time has come near.'  Do not go after them."

This may refer to the aforementioned defenders of Jerusalem in its last days as a city.  No doubt there were some self-appointed "messiahs" floating around.  The air seems to have been thick with religious fanaticism, fertile ground for the emergence of messianic figures.  For the fanatics, the defense of Jerusalem was a "holy war."  Luke has Jesus say, as also in Mark, "Do not go after them."  Or, in other words, stay out of holy wars.

Luke subtly alters Mark here.  Instead of Jesus speaking with his disciples, as in Mark, Luke has Jesus speaking to "some" (v. 5), who are then referred to as "they" in v. 7.  Jesus speaks "privately" to the inner circle of the disciples in Mark.  In Luke, the identity of those who hear Jesus is purposefully vague.  Perhaps Luke does it in this somewhat open-ended way because he wants his readers, c. AD 85, to read themselves into the story.

But when you hear of wars and disorders, do not be terrified, for it is necessary for these things to come to be first, but (they are) not immediately the end."  Then he said to them, "Nation will be raised upon nation and kingdom upon kingdom, and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places, famines and plagues.  And there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.

Mark says, literally, "it is necessary (dei) to happen (genisthai)."  Luke says "it is necessary for these things to happen first (protone)."  Luke separates the time of war from the time of redemption just a bit, which he then underlines by saying "(they are) not immediately the end."  In other words, the destruction of the Temple, difficult though it must have been, was nevertheless not an eschatological event.

In verse 10, there is a sense of rising turmoil, which certainly would have been the case in the run-up to the Roman-Jewish war.  Also, these portents appear to have eschatological significance.  The cosmos itself--"fearful sights" and "great signs from heaven"--will be disrupted.  (Tannehill also draws attention to a citation from Josephus, JW 6, 289, who mentions a comet--"a star resembling a sword".)

But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you and they will persecute, delivering you into the synagogues and prisons, leading you away to kings and governors for my name.  It will turn you into a witness.  Therefore, put in your hearts not to mediate before you defend yourselves, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to resist or contradict.  But you will be delivered over by parents and siblings and relatives and friends, they will put some of you to death.  And you will be hated ones by all because of my name, but a hair of your head may surely not be destroyed.  In your endurance, you will possess your lives."

The scribes and chief priests had already tried to "lay hands on"--or seize--Jesus himself in 20:19.  The followers of Jesus may expect the same--"they will lay their hands upon you and they will persecute."   

Luke may also have in mind the situation of Christians at the time of his writing, c. AD 85.  Prior to the Roman-Jewish War, relations between Christians and Jews had been more positive.  Many Christians, for example, continued to participate in their local synagogue.  This comity changed in light of the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem.  Christians tended to blame the Jews, and vice versa, which contributed to tensions between the two groups.  

Mark, incidentally, says that followers of Jesus may be "delivered over" to synagogues.  Luke adds "prisons."  This indicates heightened tension with political authority as well as religious authority.

Followers of Jesus will be "delivered over" (paradidomai), the same word that is used, later in Luke, for the arrest of Jesus.  Christians can expect the same for themselves.  Luke is saying:  You will be "delivered over," just like Jesus was, and here's how to handle it when it happens:  Witness!  Testify!  (Will Willimon:  "We Christians have always done fairly well in prisons.") 

Don't prepare your defense, as the Roman and Greek orators do.  Mark has "for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."  Luke takes this out.  In Luke, it is Jesus himself who will instruct his people. 

This is a bit surprising for Luke, who generally takes a strong view of the Spirit.  (If someone in the New Testament is "in the power of the Spirit," you can safely bet that Luke is the author of the passage.)   This time, however, Luke says that Jesus himself will be with his people in their time of distress, with the message:  "Live by me, and not by fear." 

A little later in Luke, Jesus himself will face authorities, and again, Luke will use the example of Jesus as a way of instructing Christians on how to deal with suffering and persecution.  Stand your ground, as Jesus did.  Don't volunteer information, don't admit anything, but don't back away either.

"Not a hair of your head will perish" recalls 12:7:  "even the hairs of your head are all counted."  Hang in there, trust in God, have "endurance."  "By your endurance, you will acquire--katasesthe, the word for getting a wife!--your lives."  (I'm opposed to translating psyche as "soul," which is more of a concept of Greek philosophy than either Hebrew or Christian theology.  In the New Testament, psyche should be translated as "life.")

The text has nothing to do with predictions of the future, and any interpretation which treats it so is fatally flawed from the start.  Luke was not written primarily for 21st-century Christians anxious about the future.  It was written for a beleaguered and persecuted minority under the thumb of Rome.  How were they to deal with this situation?  Luke says to listen for Jesus, trust in Jesus, and use Jesus himself as a model.

Image:  Detail from the Arch of Titus showing the enslavement of the residents of Jerusalem.  Titus, son of the Emperor, and later to be a Roman Emperor himself, led the final assault on Jerusalem.

Pentecost 22 ::: Luke 20: 27-38

Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him ²⁸and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. ²⁹Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; ³⁰then the second ³¹and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. ³²Finally the woman also died. ³³In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’

Translation:  Some of the Sadducees, the ones saying there is no resurrection, came to question him, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that, if a man's brother dies, having a woman and he without children, that his brother might take the woman and raise up seed to his brother.  There were, therefore, seven brothers, and the first took a woman;  he died without children--and the second and the third took her, and, in like manner, the seven also;  and they left no children and they died, and afterward, the woman died.  Therefore, in the resurrection, whose woman of them is she?  For the seven had her a wife. 

Background and situation:  This event happens during the early part of passion week.  Jesus has entered the city of Jerusalem on a wave of public support, and, at the same time, tweaked the nose of the Roman authorities by mocking their own triumphal (military) procession. 

Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey as the crowds wave palm branches and shout "hosanna."  This is in stark contrast to the Roman triumphal procession of soldiers, horses, military standards, the clank of metal swords, and the silence of a cowed and resentful people.

After entering Jerusalem, Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the temple.  Some of Jerusalem's wealthy families had franchise agreements with their cronies in the Temple to provide moneychanging "services" for people who had to change their Roman money into Temple coin, a "service" they performed at exorbitant rates.  Jesus' attack on the moneychangers was revolutionary.  It struck at the economic power of the Temple elite and their wealthy supporters. 

Controversy stories follow.  First, the chief priests raise the issue of authority.  Who are you to challenge us?  In response, Jesus invokes John the Baptist, reminding his interrogators that they had opposed John, who continued to be a popular figure among the people.  Then, he tells the parable of the tenants in the vineyard, a particularly violent story, and one of particular poignance in light of John the Baptist's death. 

Jesus does two important things here:  (1)  He "allies" himself with the popular John in the public mind, and (2) he accuses the chief priests of having a hand in imperial violence.  Jesus is ratcheting up the pressure.

The Temple elite has not been able to do much about any of this because of Jesus' overwhelming support among the people.  They were helpless when he drove out the moneychangers because "all the people were spellbound by what they heard."  They couldn't stop Jesus because "they feared the people."  (20:19) 

Next, they try to get him on taxes.  "Should we pay taxes to Caesar or not?"  If he says "yes," he loses public support.  (People paid up to 50% of their meager income in taxes of one kind or another.)  If he says "no, don't pay taxes" he could be arrested for treason. 

Jesus dodges the question by asking for a coin, a coin with Caesar's picture plastered on it, along with designations such as "divi et rex"--"god and king."  Jesus says, basically, "If Caesar is so insecure he needs to go around plastering his picture on things, then let him have the dumb coin," or words to that effect.

Enter the sadducees--the concentrated power, you might say, of the Temple elite.  The sadducees represented both the heart of Temple power and Temple corruption.  They lived high on the hog in the Temple complex.  The Romans made sure this Temple elite had access to the "finer things of life" in exchange for their help in facilitating Roman power and control.

The sadducees were staunchly conservative in their theology.  For the sadducees, the Torah consisted of only the written text of the pentateuch.  The pharisees--the "liberals" of their day, in a certain manner of speaking--took a broader view of Torah.  For them, Torah included the oral interpretation of the written text.  Even though the pharisees and sadducees were both opponents of Jesus, they were also opponents of each other.   

The sadducees would naturally have reacted against any idea which threatened the status quo, particularly a new-fangled idea like resurrection, a concept which had probably originally filtered into northern Israel from Persia in the period 200-300 BC, and one which, moreover, was associated with justice and righteousness.  (During the Maccabean revolt, c. 160 BC, the question arose as to how God could allow good and righteous people who stood for God and God's law to die violent and horrible deaths.  What would God do about such a clear case of injustice.  Answer?  God would raise them.)

In order to undermine the idea of resurrection, the sadducees pose the question of levirate marriage, the whole idea of which was to continue the name and lineage of a man who died childless.  He could still have children after he was dead if his widow married his brother.  Their children would be considered the legal and religious heirs of their mother's first husband. 

Another "what if?" question:  "What if," ask the sadducees, "a man dies and his widow marries his brother, but then he dies, then another, then another, and the woman never has children by any of them, who would she be married to in your supposed resurrection?"  The issue is framed around children, with its relationship to lineage, and the woman as property--"whose woman will the woman be?" 

In effect, the sadducees played the "family values" card.  If we listen to you, they say, the whole structure of society would become absurd.  You are undermining the traditional family! 

Ironic aside:  In this, the Temple was following the "family values" policy of the previous Roman government headed by Caesar Augustus, who was married three times, each one of them for political reasons.  Augustus made adultery a public crime, although he himself had committed adultery with Livia, his third wife, during her previous marriage, and he continued to commit adultery with numerous other women after they were married.  Hypocrisy on the question is not a new thing.

34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; ³⁵but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. ³⁶Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

Translation:  Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and are given to marry, but the ones considered worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;  for they cannot die any more, for they are equal to angels and they are children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 

Marriage is an institution of "this age."  Marriage was instituted to deal with the problem of death.  It was a way of providing offspring who would continue a man's name and lineage into the future. 

In the resurrection from the dead, Jesus says, people will be "like angels," who do not die.  There will be no need to try to extend one's self beyond their death because there will be no death.  (Notice Jesus does not say that people will be angels.  Rather, they will be equal to angels (isangeloi) in the sense that, like angels, we will no longer die.) 

The important thing is not becoming parents, but rather children--"children of God" and therefore "children of the resurrection," which obviates the need for both offspring and marriage.  Furthermore, in the resurrection, relationships will no longer need to be guarded by exclusive bonds.

Jesus includes both men and women in this--"those who marry and are given in marriage"--which was unusual in a time where marriage had to do with male property rights.  Neither men nor women will need to marry to have an identity because their fundamental identity, which supercedes all others and casts all others into irrelevance, is the designation of "children of God, children of the resurrection."  The owning of people will be over.  All relationships will be transfigured and equalized. 

³⁷And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. ³⁸Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’

Translation:  Now that the dead are raised, and Moses showed at the bush, as he called the Lord God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob, and he is God not of the dead, but of the living, for to him all of them are living."  

Jesus invokes the story of Moses at the burning bush where God identifies himself to Moses as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."  By the time of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had all been dead for a long time, yet the Lord God refers to these patriarchs as if they were alive.  Therefore, Jesus reasons from the Torah, they are alive.  If they were still dead, God would be God of the dead, which would mean he is the God of nothing at all.

But God is a God of life, "for to him all of them are alive."  The NRSV inserts "of them," but this is missing in the Greek text, and, in my view, should not be included.  "For to him, all are alive"--a striking note of universality. 

The sadducees, however, couldn't really quibble since Jesus had made his argument on the basis of a creative use of sadducee-acknowledged Torah, Exodus 3.  This is why "they no longer dared to ask him another question." (v. 40)

Image:  The Resurrection, Monastery Icons

 

Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him ²⁸and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. ²⁹Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; ³⁰then the second ³¹and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. ³²Finally the woman also died. ³³In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’

Translation:  Some of the Sadducees, the ones saying there is no resurrection, came to question him, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that, if a man's brother dies, having a woman and he without children, that his brother might take the woman and raise up seed to his brother.  There were, therefore, seven brothers, and the first took a woman;  he died without children--and the second and the third took her, and, in like manner, the seven also;  and they left no children and they died, and afterward, the woman died.  Therefore, in the resurrection, whose woman of them is she?  For the seven had her a wife. 

Background and situation:  This event happens during the early part of passion week.  Jesus has entered the city of Jerusalem on a wave of public support, and, at the same time, tweaked the nose of the Roman authorities by mocking their own triumphal (military) procession. 

Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey as the crowds wave palm branches and shout "hosanna."  This is in stark contrast to the Roman triumphal procession of soldiers, horses, military standards, the clank of metal swords, and the silence of a cowed and resentful people.

After entering Jerusalem, Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the temple.  Some of Jerusalem's wealthy families had franchise agreements with their cronies in the Temple to provide moneychanging "services" for people who had to change their Roman money into Temple coin, a "service" they performed at exorbitant rates.  Jesus' attack on the moneychangers was revolutionary.  It struck at the economic power of the Temple elite and their wealthy supporters. 

Controversy stories follow.  First, the chief priests raise the issue of authority.  Who are you to challenge us?  In response, Jesus invokes John the Baptist, reminding his interrogators that they had opposed John, who continued to be a popular figure among the people.  Then, he tells the parable of the tenants in the vineyard, a particularly violent story, and one of particular poignance in light of John the Baptist's death. 

Jesus does two important things here:  (1)  He "allies" himself with the popular John in the public mind, and (2) he accuses the chief priests of having a hand in imperial violence.  Jesus is ratcheting up the pressure.

The Temple elite has not been able to do much about any of this because of Jesus' overwhelming support among the people.  They were helpless when he drove out the moneychangers because "all the people were spellbound by what they heard."  They couldn't stop Jesus because "they feared the people."  (20:19) 

Next, they try to get him on taxes.  "Should we pay taxes to Caesar or not?"  If he says "yes," he loses public support.  (People paid up to 50% of their meager income in taxes of one kind or another.)  If he says "no, don't pay taxes" he could be arrested for treason. 

Jesus dodges the question by asking for a coin, a coin with Caesar's picture plastered on it, along with designations such as "divi et rex"--"god and king."  Jesus says, basically, "If Caesar is so insecure he needs to go around plastering his picture on things, then let him have the dumb coin," or words to that effect.

Enter the sadducees--the concentrated power, you might say, of the Temple elite.  The sadducees represented both the heart of Temple power and Temple corruption.  They lived high on the hog in the Temple complex.  The Romans made sure this Temple elite had access to the "finer things of life" in exchange for their help in facilitating Roman power and control.

The sadducees were staunchly conservative in their theology.  For the sadducees, the Torah consisted of only the written text of the pentateuch.  The pharisees--the "liberals" of their day, in a certain manner of speaking--took a broader view of Torah.  For them, Torah included the oral interpretation of the written text.  Even though the pharisees and sadducees were both opponents of Jesus, they were also opponents of each other.   

The sadducees would naturally have reacted against any idea which threatened the status quo, particularly a new-fangled idea like resurrection, a concept which had probably originally filtered into northern Israel from Persia in the period 200-300 BC, and one which, moreover, was associated with justice and righteousness.  (During the Maccabean revolt, c. 160 BC, the question arose as to how God could allow good and righteous people who stood for God and God's law to die violent and horrible deaths.  What would God do about such a clear case of injustice.  Answer?  God would raise them.)

In order to undermine the idea of resurrection, the sadducees pose the question of levirate marriage, the whole idea of which was to continue the name and lineage of a man who died childless.  He could still have children after he was dead if his widow married his brother.  Their children would be considered the legal and religious heirs of their mother's first husband. 

Another "what if?" question:  "What if," ask the sadducees, "a man dies and his widow marries his brother, but then he dies, then another, then another, and the woman never has children by any of them, who would she be married to in your supposed resurrection?"  The issue is framed around children, with its relationship to lineage, and the woman as property--"whose woman will the woman be?" 

In effect, the sadducees played the "family values" card.  If we listen to you, they say, the whole structure of society would become absurd.  You are undermining the traditional family! 

Ironic aside:  In this, the Temple was following the "family values" policy of the previous Roman government headed by Caesar Augustus, who was married three times, each one of them for political reasons.  Augustus made adultery a public crime, although he himself had committed adultery with Livia, his third wife, during her previous marriage, and he continued to commit adultery with numerous other women after they were married.  Hypocrisy on the question is not a new thing.

34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; ³⁵but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. ³⁶Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

Translation:  Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and are given to marry, but the ones considered worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;  for they cannot die any more, for they are equal to angels and they are children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 

Marriage is an institution of "this age."  Marriage was instituted to deal with the problem of death.  It was a way of providing offspring who would continue a man's name and lineage into the future. 

In the resurrection from the dead, Jesus says, people will be "like angels," who do not die.  There will be no need to try to extend one's self beyond their death because there will be no death.  (Notice Jesus does not say that people will be angels.  Rather, they will be equal to angels (isangeloi) in the sense that, like angels, we will no longer die.) 

The important thing is not becoming parents, but rather children--"children of God" and therefore "children of the resurrection," which obviates the need for both offspring and marriage.  Furthermore, in the resurrection, relationships will no longer need to be guarded by exclusive bonds.

Jesus includes both men and women in this--"those who marry and are given in marriage"--which was unusual in a time where marriage had to do with male property rights.  Neither men nor women will need to marry to have an identity because their fundamental identity, which supercedes all others and casts all others into irrelevance, is the designation of "children of God, children of the resurrection."  The owning of people will be over.  All relationships will be transfigured and equalized. 

³⁷And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. ³⁸Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’

Translation:  Now that the dead are raised, and Moses showed at the bush, as he called the Lord God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob, and he is God not of the dead, but of the living, for to him all of them are living."  

Jesus invokes the story of Moses at the burning bush where God identifies himself to Moses as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."  By the time of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had all been dead for a long time, yet the Lord God refers to these patriarchs as if they were alive.  Therefore, Jesus reasons from the Torah, they are alive.  If they were still dead, God would be God of the dead, which would mean he is the God of nothing at all.

But God is a God of life, "for to him all of them are alive."  The NRSV inserts "of them," but this is missing in the Greek text, and, in my view, should not be included.  "For to him, all are alive"--a striking note of universality. 

The sadducees, however, couldn't really quibble since Jesus had made his argument on the basis of a creative use of sadducee-acknowledged Torah, Exodus 3.  This is why "they no longer dared to ask him another question." (v. 40)

Image:  The Resurrection, Monastery Icons

 

All Saints Sunday ::: Luke 6: 20-31

²⁰Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ²¹“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. ²²“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. ²³Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. ²⁴“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. ²⁵“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. “Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. ²⁶“Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.

²⁷“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. ²⁹If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. ³⁰Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. ³¹Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Translation:  And he lifted up his eyes to his disciples (and) was saying, "Blessed (are) the destitute, for yours is the kingdom of God.  Blessed (are) the ones that hunger now, for you will be fed.  Blessed (are) the ones who weep now for you will laugh.  Blessed are you when people hate you and when they may separate you and reproach you and throw out your name as evil on account of the Son of Humanity.  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for behold! your reward (is) great in heaven, for this is how your fathers did to the prophets."

"Moreover, woe to you, to the rich ones, for you have your comfort.   Woe to you, the ones who are full now, for you will be hungry.  Woe, the ones laughing now, for you will mourn and you will weep.  Woe when all human beings may speak well of you, for this is how your fathers did to the false prophets."

"But I say to you, the listening ones, love your enemies, do good to the ones hating you, bless the ones cursing you, pray concerning the ones falsely accusing you.  To the one who smites you on the cheek, give the other, and to the one taking your garment, you may not forbid the tunic.  Give to everyone who asks from you, and to the one taking away your goods, do not demand back.  And just as you wish people might do to you, you do to them in like manner.

 

 

Background and situation:  The lection is known as the "sermon on the plain".  The parallel, of course, is in the more famous "beatitudes" of the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5.  

Jesus is directly addressing the disciples in 6:20, though the larger context includes "a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people" (6:17).  It would appear that the designation of "disciple" would include many more people than the Twelve.

Other important background texts would include the Magnificat (1:46-55) and Jesus' inaugural sermon with its "good news to the poor" (4:18-19). 

"Level place":  Jesus looked up to speak to his disciples, meaning that he was most likely sitting down as he spoke.  Sitting was the authoritative posture for a teacher in those days.  They didn't stand to say something important, as we would do today.  They sat down.

Jesus is on a "level place" as he makes these pronouncements.  This is in contrast to Matthew where Jesus delivers a similar sermon "on the mount."  Luke wants to accent that Jesus is on the same level as the people.  This "sermon on the plain" underlines Jesus' close relationship with people in the "real world" where they live.

Unlike the beatitudes in the sermon on the mount in which there are nine blessings, Luke's version has four blessings and four woes, which makes these "beatitudes" more pointed than those in the "sermon on the mount."  The two versions are similar in content, with Luke's version being sharper and more direct, while Matthew's version is generally more positive in tone and feels more polished rhetorically.

The poor:  These four blessings are consistent with Jesus' over-all mission, announced in his inaugural speech in Luke 4, to bring "good news to the poor."  The four blessings all refer essentially to the same demographic, i.e. the destitute poor (ptochoi).  After saying "blessed (are) the poor," the other blessings flesh out exactly who the poor are.  They are those who are "hungry now," "weep now," and are looked down upon because of their association with Jesus. 

According to Joel Green, the poor would include all those "who have been marginalized in the larger world" (p. 267).  This marginalization is both economic and social.  Indeed, the two are symbiotic.  Loss of economic status leads inevitably to loss of social status. 

The poor would also, incidentally, likely apply to the "disciples" to whom Jesus is speaking.  They had, after all, "left everything" to follow Jesus, thereby becoming poor themselves (5:11). 

The fourth beatitude--"blessed are you when people hate you"--is accompanied by a call to "rejoice" and "leap for joy," which is the only exhortation included in this section (vss. 20-26).  This blessing appears intended for beleagued Christians in Luke's world. 

Luke was written c. AD 85.  After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, Jews and Christians started to go their separate ways.  In some cases, families were split and communities divided--"when they may separate you"--with increasing enmity between the two groups--"and reproach you and throw out your name as evil on account of the Son of Humanity."

The rich:  The four beatitudes are balanced by four woes which are directed toward the rich and those with places of honor in society--"when all speak well of you."  As the poor lost status when they lost money, the rich maintained and enhanced their status through wealth accumulation.  In fact, as Jerome Neyrey argues, the basic purpose of wealth was precisely to get honor and status.   

Luke works the rich over pretty well throughout the book of Luke.  In the Magnificat (1:46-55), Mary sounds a theme which will recur throughout the book:  ^"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly.  He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."  The same terms which enliven the Magnificat--blessing, hungry, filled, rich--also appear in these blessings and woes in chapter 6. 

Issues of poverty and wealth resound throughout the book of Luke.  One of seven passages deals with this theme, and are typified by the story of the rich man and Lazarus in chapter 16.  The rich man goes to Hades not for being a bad person necessarily, but because he was indifferent to the poor man Lazarus.  In chapter 18, it is not even possible for a rich person to enter into the new reign of God. 

Nevertheless, Luke supplies a loophole, even for the rich.  Even though it is impossible for a rich person to grasp what the reign of God is all about, nevertheless, God is the master of impossible situations (18:27).

Loving enemies:  

"But I say to you, the listening ones, love your enemies, do good to the ones hating you, bless the ones cursing you, pray concerning the ones falsely accusing you.

In 6:18, Luke had referred to the great crowds which "had come to hear him."  Now, he speaks to those who have heard, i.e. "the listening ones."  Throughout the four gospels, Jesus will often refer to those who "hear" or complain about those who don't. 

The reason for these exhortations to hear is because what Jesus had to say was hard to hear.  He is talking about a massive paradigm shift, the complete inversion of the conventional wisdom of his day (and ours). 

The ones on the top will soon be at the bottom and the ones on the bottom will soon be on top.  Not only that, but the ways that typify conventional society--violence, hatred, insult, economic theft--are not to typify the followers of Jesus. 

These default mechanisms of our social life are so ingrained that people have difficulty hearing, or even conceiving, of a different way.  Yet, for those who can hear, followers of Jesus are to do everything they can to subvert these mechanisms. 

Luke continues to work in groups of four.  In the four beatitudes, the first is for the poor, which is then defined in three ways--the hungry, the sorrowful, the hated.  In the four woes, the primary thematic "woe" is for the rich, which is then defined in three ways--"full," "laughing," and honored. 

In terms of loving enemies, the same four-fold pattern is used.  The first statement is a general teaching--"love your enemies."  This establishes the pattern which is then defined in three specific ways--doing good, blessing, and prayer, all for your enemies. 

All of the teachings of Jesus can be found somewhere in the prophets--with one exception:  love for enemies.  Everything else came from the existing prophetic tradition.  Love for enemies is new and unique.

One will note that loving of enemies is not characterized by passivity.  Jesus does not call for weakness and submission, but rather active mission on behalf of enemies.  Followers of Jesus are to "do good" to those who hate them, "bless" those who curse them, and pray for those who lie about them. 

To the one who smites you on the cheek, give the other, and to the one taking your garment, you may not forbid the tunic.  Give to everyone who asks from you, and to the one taking away your goods, do not demand back.  And just as you wish people might do to you, you do to them in like manner. 

This same principle is applied in certain specific situations--those who smite you on the cheek, take your garment, or take your goods.  In the first century world, a strike on the cheek was likely to be a back-handed slap.  It was an insult, designed to put one in one's place. 

Turning the other cheek is an act of provocation.  It is a form of active resistance.  "Hit me again" is a way of saying, "Take me seriously, look at me, I am somebody."  If they take your cloak, give them your shirt.  Stand there naked, but stand!  Take the vicious and acquisitive energy of your enemies, let it flow into absurdity, but do not be dismissed.

The Golden Rule in verse 31 is a subversion of accepted social practice in the ancient world.  One's typical social posture in that world (and ours) was to bless those who bless you and curse those who don't. 

Doing to others as you yourself would like to be treated, whether friend or enemy, was a radical re-interpretation of this social practice.  One's relationship with others is not determined by their past actions, but rather by the new reign of God in which the poor are blessed and enemies are loved.

Image:  Wassily Kandinsky, "All Saints" 

 

²⁰Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ²¹“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. ²²“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. ²³Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. ²⁴“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. ²⁵“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. “Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. ²⁶“Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.

²⁷“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. ²⁹If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. ³⁰Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. ³¹Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Translation:  And he lifted up his eyes to his disciples (and) was saying, "Blessed (are) the destitute, for yours is the kingdom of God.  Blessed (are) the ones that hunger now, for you will be fed.  Blessed (are) the ones who weep now for you will laugh.  Blessed are you when people hate you and when they may separate you and reproach you and throw out your name as evil on account of the Son of Humanity.  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for behold! your reward (is) great in heaven, for this is how your fathers did to the prophets."

"Moreover, woe to you, to the rich ones, for you have your comfort.   Woe to you, the ones who are full now, for you will be hungry.  Woe, the ones laughing now, for you will mourn and you will weep.  Woe when all human beings may speak well of you, for this is how your fathers did to the false prophets."

"But I say to you, the listening ones, love your enemies, do good to the ones hating you, bless the ones cursing you, pray concerning the ones falsely accusing you.  To the one who smites you on the cheek, give the other, and to the one taking your garment, you may not forbid the tunic.  Give to everyone who asks from you, and to the one taking away your goods, do not demand back.  And just as you wish people might do to you, you do to them in like manner.

 

 

Background and situation:  The lection is known as the "sermon on the plain".  The parallel, of course, is in the more famous "beatitudes" of the "sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5.  

Jesus is directly addressing the disciples in 6:20, though the larger context includes "a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people" (6:17).  It would appear that the designation of "disciple" would include many more people than the Twelve.

Other important background texts would include the Magnificat (1:46-55) and Jesus' inaugural sermon with its "good news to the poor" (4:18-19). 

"Level place":  Jesus looked up to speak to his disciples, meaning that he was most likely sitting down as he spoke.  Sitting was the authoritative posture for a teacher in those days.  They didn't stand to say something important, as we would do today.  They sat down.

Jesus is on a "level place" as he makes these pronouncements.  This is in contrast to Matthew where Jesus delivers a similar sermon "on the mount."  Luke wants to accent that Jesus is on the same level as the people.  This "sermon on the plain" underlines Jesus' close relationship with people in the "real world" where they live.

Unlike the beatitudes in the sermon on the mount in which there are nine blessings, Luke's version has four blessings and four woes, which makes these "beatitudes" more pointed than those in the "sermon on the mount."  The two versions are similar in content, with Luke's version being sharper and more direct, while Matthew's version is generally more positive in tone and feels more polished rhetorically.

The poor:  These four blessings are consistent with Jesus' over-all mission, announced in his inaugural speech in Luke 4, to bring "good news to the poor."  The four blessings all refer essentially to the same demographic, i.e. the destitute poor (ptochoi).  After saying "blessed (are) the poor," the other blessings flesh out exactly who the poor are.  They are those who are "hungry now," "weep now," and are looked down upon because of their association with Jesus. 

According to Joel Green, the poor would include all those "who have been marginalized in the larger world" (p. 267).  This marginalization is both economic and social.  Indeed, the two are symbiotic.  Loss of economic status leads inevitably to loss of social status. 

The poor would also, incidentally, likely apply to the "disciples" to whom Jesus is speaking.  They had, after all, "left everything" to follow Jesus, thereby becoming poor themselves (5:11). 

The fourth beatitude--"blessed are you when people hate you"--is accompanied by a call to "rejoice" and "leap for joy," which is the only exhortation included in this section (vss. 20-26).  This blessing appears intended for beleagued Christians in Luke's world. 

Luke was written c. AD 85.  After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, Jews and Christians started to go their separate ways.  In some cases, families were split and communities divided--"when they may separate you"--with increasing enmity between the two groups--"and reproach you and throw out your name as evil on account of the Son of Humanity."

The rich:  The four beatitudes are balanced by four woes which are directed toward the rich and those with places of honor in society--"when all speak well of you."  As the poor lost status when they lost money, the rich maintained and enhanced their status through wealth accumulation.  In fact, as Jerome Neyrey argues, the basic purpose of wealth was precisely to get honor and status.   

Luke works the rich over pretty well throughout the book of Luke.  In the Magnificat (1:46-55), Mary sounds a theme which will recur throughout the book:  ^"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly.  He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."  The same terms which enliven the Magnificat--blessing, hungry, filled, rich--also appear in these blessings and woes in chapter 6. 

Issues of poverty and wealth resound throughout the book of Luke.  One of seven passages deals with this theme, and are typified by the story of the rich man and Lazarus in chapter 16.  The rich man goes to Hades not for being a bad person necessarily, but because he was indifferent to the poor man Lazarus.  In chapter 18, it is not even possible for a rich person to enter into the new reign of God. 

Nevertheless, Luke supplies a loophole, even for the rich.  Even though it is impossible for a rich person to grasp what the reign of God is all about, nevertheless, God is the master of impossible situations (18:27).

Loving enemies:  

"But I say to you, the listening ones, love your enemies, do good to the ones hating you, bless the ones cursing you, pray concerning the ones falsely accusing you.

In 6:18, Luke had referred to the great crowds which "had come to hear him."  Now, he speaks to those who have heard, i.e. "the listening ones."  Throughout the four gospels, Jesus will often refer to those who "hear" or complain about those who don't. 

The reason for these exhortations to hear is because what Jesus had to say was hard to hear.  He is talking about a massive paradigm shift, the complete inversion of the conventional wisdom of his day (and ours). 

The ones on the top will soon be at the bottom and the ones on the bottom will soon be on top.  Not only that, but the ways that typify conventional society--violence, hatred, insult, economic theft--are not to typify the followers of Jesus. 

These default mechanisms of our social life are so ingrained that people have difficulty hearing, or even conceiving, of a different way.  Yet, for those who can hear, followers of Jesus are to do everything they can to subvert these mechanisms. 

Luke continues to work in groups of four.  In the four beatitudes, the first is for the poor, which is then defined in three ways--the hungry, the sorrowful, the hated.  In the four woes, the primary thematic "woe" is for the rich, which is then defined in three ways--"full," "laughing," and honored. 

In terms of loving enemies, the same four-fold pattern is used.  The first statement is a general teaching--"love your enemies."  This establishes the pattern which is then defined in three specific ways--doing good, blessing, and prayer, all for your enemies. 

All of the teachings of Jesus can be found somewhere in the prophets--with one exception:  love for enemies.  Everything else came from the existing prophetic tradition.  Love for enemies is new and unique.

One will note that loving of enemies is not characterized by passivity.  Jesus does not call for weakness and submission, but rather active mission on behalf of enemies.  Followers of Jesus are to "do good" to those who hate them, "bless" those who curse them, and pray for those who lie about them. 

To the one who smites you on the cheek, give the other, and to the one taking your garment, you may not forbid the tunic.  Give to everyone who asks from you, and to the one taking away your goods, do not demand back.  And just as you wish people might do to you, you do to them in like manner. 

This same principle is applied in certain specific situations--those who smite you on the cheek, take your garment, or take your goods.  In the first century world, a strike on the cheek was likely to be a back-handed slap.  It was an insult, designed to put one in one's place. 

Turning the other cheek is an act of provocation.  It is a form of active resistance.  "Hit me again" is a way of saying, "Take me seriously, look at me, I am somebody."  If they take your cloak, give them your shirt.  Stand there naked, but stand!  Take the vicious and acquisitive energy of your enemies, let it flow into absurdity, but do not be dismissed.

The Golden Rule in verse 31 is a subversion of accepted social practice in the ancient world.  One's typical social posture in that world (and ours) was to bless those who bless you and curse those who don't. 

Doing to others as you yourself would like to be treated, whether friend or enemy, was a radical re-interpretation of this social practice.  One's relationship with others is not determined by their past actions, but rather by the new reign of God in which the poor are blessed and enemies are loved.

Image:  Wassily Kandinsky, "All Saints" 

Pentecost 20 ::: Luke 18: 9-14

⁹He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: ¹⁰“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹²I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ ¹³But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ ¹⁴I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Translation:  And also, he spoke this parable to certain ones having been persuaded by themselves that they were just and despising the others:  "Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a pharisee, the other a tax collector.  The pharisee stood (and) was praying thusly, 'God, I give thanks to you that I am not like the others--extortionists, the unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week.  I tithe on all that I possess.'  But the tax collector, standing far off, did not wish even to raise (his) eyes to heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.'  I say to you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other.  For all the ones exalting themselves will be humbled, but the ones humbling themselves will be exalted."

Background and situation:  The reading follows the parable of the unjust judge.  Jesus is speaking to both disciples and a general audience.  The story is related only in Luke, though 18:14 has a parallel in Matthew 23:12. Jesus is speaking to the disciples, though throughout this section, the pharisees are still within earshot. 

Text:  The table is set rather specifically.  Jesus addresses his remarks to a certain mindset.  He is addressing the idea that a person may think of themselves--or even "depend on themselves" (pepoithe epi)--as righteous or just, while, at the same time, looking down on other people. 

Note that Jesus does not specify by name who these people are.  Our mind, having listened to many sermons on the evils of phariseeism, tends to see these people as pharisees or others of the religious hierarchy.  Jesus is not so sanguine.  He knows that depending on yourself is not limited to pharisees.  Even the disciples are not immune.  Jesus had already had to warn them about "the yeast of the pharisees" in 12:1-2. 

Moreover, in the story that follows, the disciples will be shown to think themselves as higher up than children, a notion of which they are quickly disabused.  Jesus is not singling out specific people or groups therefore, since all may be guilty.  He is addressing a specific psychological and spiritual stance.  He is attacking self-righteousness.

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:  The two characters represent positions at opposite ends of the social and spiritual scale.  The pharisee is respectable, the tax collector despised.  The pharisee stands to pray, the tax collector stood "afar off."  The pharisee recounts his accomplishments, the tax collector knows he needn't bother.

The pharisee begins by thanking God for having made him such a swell person, not like "others."  He recounts his spiritual accomplishments, which include such laudable acts as double fasting and tithing on the entirety of his possessions.  May his tribe increase!  (This is called "superegoratory practice," i.e. "above and beyond the call of duty.") 

In the time of Luke, c. AD 85, "double fasting" was far from unknown.  Some Jews fasted on both Mondays and Thursdays.  Some Christians, probably to distinguish themselves from Jews, fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. 

Likewise, tithing was encouraged, then as now, but, then as now, there were certain questions about the details.  For example, one was expected to tithe on their own production, but what about goods purchased at the marketplace?  Presumably, a tithe had already been paid by the original producer.  The pharisee in Jesus' story wants us to know he tithed on everything he owned.  Oh, what a good little boy is he! 

The pharisee thanks God that he is not like other people, and then specifically identifies these "others" as "extortionists, the unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."  All others, in the pharisee's estimation, are guilty of robbery and violence (harpages), unrighteousness or injustice (adikoi) and sexual immorality (moixoi).

The pharisee's prayer, one also notices, is remarkably short on what God has done for him, and rather windy on what he has done for God.  The tax collector, by contrast, beats his breast, an expression of humility and self-accusation, looks down at his shoes and says, simply, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."  You know what? Jesus says.  This is the guy who goes home right with God and not the other.

Interpretation:  That's fine for this week.  The snooty pharisee gets his comeuppance, and the "tax collector with a heart of gold" catches a break.  How heartwarming.

But what about next week?  Let's say that the same two guys show up in the temple.  The cleanly-attired and clean-minded pharisee reminds God (again) of how devout he is, while, this week, the tax collector shows up (again) with his whisky-breath and a blonde on each arm, and intones the same "I'm a jerk/let me off the hook anyway" prayer. 

Guess what?  The pharisee would (again) not be justified, and the tax collector (again) would.  Week after that, same thing.  Week after that, same thing.  How heartwarming is this story now?

You were thinking that this story is fine as a start, but, in the future, we expect some amendment of behavior on the part of the tax collector.  In other words, while the pharisee is clearly going overboard, we want the tax collector to start acting like one anyway.

Some commentators wonder exactly where the tax collector repented.  Fact is, he didn't, and it wouldn't have mattered a bit even if he did.  The story is not about our righteousness after all, not about our piddly attempts at self-improvement, not about our crying our eyes out or feeling suitably bad about ourselves. 

Quite the contrary.  Our situation is always hopeless.  The twist is that even when we're at our best, such as the pharisee, we're actually worse off than we were before we shaped up.  Now, we're under the illusion that we're "special" and "better."  This has a technical name:  "Lutheran irony."  It means that even when we think we're close to God--especially then--our self-righteousness in thinking so means we're actually farther from God than we were to begin with.

Fortunately, though our situation is hopeless, God is the master of impossible situations.  Even more fortunately, in terms of his love and mercy, God doesn't care a whit about the pharisee's spiritual "accomplishments" or whether or not the tax collector has one blond on his arm or three.

The pharisee went before God dressed in his spiritual finery, the tax collector naked and bare.  That's why the story scares us.  Who wants to stand naked before others? 

Yet, at the same time, the story is the very heart of the good news.  God sees all about us, and knows all about us--every fraudulent act, every whiff of envy, every resentment, every act of self-deception--and throws all of it out the window.  None of that matters anymore because only one thing matters:  Christ's death at the hand of sinners, and his resurrection in the power of God that saves them.  

Image:  The pharisee and the tax collector, Rebecca Brogan

⁹He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: ¹⁰“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹²I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ ¹³But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ ¹⁴I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Translation:  And also, he spoke this parable to certain ones having been persuaded by themselves that they were just and despising the others:  "Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a pharisee, the other a tax collector.  The pharisee stood (and) was praying thusly, 'God, I give thanks to you that I am not like the others--extortionists, the unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week.  I tithe on all that I possess.'  But the tax collector, standing far off, did not wish even to raise (his) eyes to heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.'  I say to you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other.  For all the ones exalting themselves will be humbled, but the ones humbling themselves will be exalted."

Background and situation:  The reading follows the parable of the unjust judge.  Jesus is speaking to both disciples and a general audience.  The story is related only in Luke, though 18:14 has a parallel in Matthew 23:12. Jesus is speaking to the disciples, though throughout this section, the pharisees are still within earshot. 

Text:  The table is set rather specifically.  Jesus addresses his remarks to a certain mindset.  He is addressing the idea that a person may think of themselves--or even "depend on themselves" (pepoithe epi)--as righteous or just, while, at the same time, looking down on other people. 

Note that Jesus does not specify by name who these people are.  Our mind, having listened to many sermons on the evils of phariseeism, tends to see these people as pharisees or others of the religious hierarchy.  Jesus is not so sanguine.  He knows that depending on yourself is not limited to pharisees.  Even the disciples are not immune.  Jesus had already had to warn them about "the yeast of the pharisees" in 12:1-2. 

Moreover, in the story that follows, the disciples will be shown to think themselves as higher up than children, a notion of which they are quickly disabused.  Jesus is not singling out specific people or groups therefore, since all may be guilty.  He is addressing a specific psychological and spiritual stance.  He is attacking self-righteousness.

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:  The two characters represent positions at opposite ends of the social and spiritual scale.  The pharisee is respectable, the tax collector despised.  The pharisee stands to pray, the tax collector stood "afar off."  The pharisee recounts his accomplishments, the tax collector knows he needn't bother.

The pharisee begins by thanking God for having made him such a swell person, not like "others."  He recounts his spiritual accomplishments, which include such laudable acts as double fasting and tithing on the entirety of his possessions.  May his tribe increase!  (This is called "superegoratory practice," i.e. "above and beyond the call of duty.") 

In the time of Luke, c. AD 85, "double fasting" was far from unknown.  Some Jews fasted on both Mondays and Thursdays.  Some Christians, probably to distinguish themselves from Jews, fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays. 

Likewise, tithing was encouraged, then as now, but, then as now, there were certain questions about the details.  For example, one was expected to tithe on their own production, but what about goods purchased at the marketplace?  Presumably, a tithe had already been paid by the original producer.  The pharisee in Jesus' story wants us to know he tithed on everything he owned.  Oh, what a good little boy is he! 

The pharisee thanks God that he is not like other people, and then specifically identifies these "others" as "extortionists, the unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."  All others, in the pharisee's estimation, are guilty of robbery and violence (harpages), unrighteousness or injustice (adikoi) and sexual immorality (moixoi).

The pharisee's prayer, one also notices, is remarkably short on what God has done for him, and rather windy on what he has done for God.  The tax collector, by contrast, beats his breast, an expression of humility and self-accusation, looks down at his shoes and says, simply, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."  You know what? Jesus says.  This is the guy who goes home right with God and not the other.

Interpretation:  That's fine for this week.  The snooty pharisee gets his comeuppance, and the "tax collector with a heart of gold" catches a break.  How heartwarming.

But what about next week?  Let's say that the same two guys show up in the temple.  The cleanly-attired and clean-minded pharisee reminds God (again) of how devout he is, while, this week, the tax collector shows up (again) with his whisky-breath and a blonde on each arm, and intones the same "I'm a jerk/let me off the hook anyway" prayer. 

Guess what?  The pharisee would (again) not be justified, and the tax collector (again) would.  Week after that, same thing.  Week after that, same thing.  How heartwarming is this story now?

You were thinking that this story is fine as a start, but, in the future, we expect some amendment of behavior on the part of the tax collector.  In other words, while the pharisee is clearly going overboard, we want the tax collector to start acting like one anyway.

Some commentators wonder exactly where the tax collector repented.  Fact is, he didn't, and it wouldn't have mattered a bit even if he did.  The story is not about our righteousness after all, not about our piddly attempts at self-improvement, not about our crying our eyes out or feeling suitably bad about ourselves. 

Quite the contrary.  Our situation is always hopeless.  The twist is that even when we're at our best, such as the pharisee, we're actually worse off than we were before we shaped up.  Now, we're under the illusion that we're "special" and "better."  This has a technical name:  "Lutheran irony."  It means that even when we think we're close to God--especially then--our self-righteousness in thinking so means we're actually farther from God than we were to begin with.

Fortunately, though our situation is hopeless, God is the master of impossible situations.  Even more fortunately, in terms of his love and mercy, God doesn't care a whit about the pharisee's spiritual "accomplishments" or whether or not the tax collector has one blond on his arm or three.

The pharisee went before God dressed in his spiritual finery, the tax collector naked and bare.  That's why the story scares us.  Who wants to stand naked before others? 

Yet, at the same time, the story is the very heart of the good news.  God sees all about us, and knows all about us--every fraudulent act, every whiff of envy, every resentment, every act of self-deception--and throws all of it out the window.  None of that matters anymore because only one thing matters:  Christ's death at the hand of sinners, and his resurrection in the power of God that saves them.  

Image:  The pharisee and the tax collector, Rebecca Brogan

Reformation Sunday ::: John 8: 31-36

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; ³²and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’³³They answered him, ‘We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, “You will be made free”?’

34 Jesus answered them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. ³⁵The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there for ever. ³⁶So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Translation:  Then Jesus said to the Judeans, the ones who had faithed in him, "If you abide in my word, truly you are my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."  They answered him, "We are seeds of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone.  How do you say, 'You will become free people?'"

Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, anyone doing a sin is a slave of sin.  But the slave does not abide in the house forever.  The son abides forever.  If, then, the son makes you free, you will be free in reality."

 

Background and situation:  "Jews" should probably be understood as "Judeans."  The word is ioudaioi.  The consensus of scholarly opinion seems to be that ioudaioi should be translated as "judeans."  Some argue that it came to mean "Jews" only after the Bar-Kochba revolt of AD 135, at least 40 years after the writing of the fourth gospel.  (See this discussion.)  

 

Ioudaioi appears 70 times in the fourth gospel vs. 16 times in all of the synoptics.  The ioudaioi--the "Judeans"--constitute the major opponents of Jesus in the fourth gospel.  

The fourth gospel is essentially an argument not between Christians and Jews, as has been so often assumed, but rather an argument between Jews and Jews--more specifically, Judean Jews, those oriented toward Jerusalem and Temple, and Galilean Jews, those who followed Jesus.

The designation is partly geographic, but not completely.  In chapter six, there are "Judeans" in Galilee.  They could have come up from Judea, but, more likely, are Galileans who are expressing a "Judean" point of view.  In the fourth gospel, sticking with the Judean establishment--the Temple--makes one a "Judean" even though that person may actually live in Galilee or somewhere else outside of Judea proper.

"Seeds of Abraham":  Wes Howard-Brook considers the phrase "the Judeans who faithed in him" to be an oxymoron.  There really weren't any Judeans who trusted in Jesus, a judgment which is supported by the chiastic structure of verses 31-37:

a:  31:  if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples

b: 32:  the truth shall make you free

c:  33:  we are "seeds of Abraham"

b':  34-36:  the Son makes you free

a':  37:  my word finds no place in you.

The fulcrum of the chiasm, the point around which it turns, is the phrase "we are seeds of Abraham."  The Word "finds no place" in them.

"Seeds of Abraham" or "children of Abraham" should be contrasted with "children of God."  The opening prologue had asserted:  "...to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." (1:12)  "Children of God" are made through reception and trust.  They are opposed by the idea of a Chosen People based on ancestry, the "seeds of Abraham."   

The New Community of Jesus is most definitely not about inherited national pride.  It is about "mutual indwelling" between Christ and his community (15:4).  The New Community is accessed through rebirth (3:3) and Spirit (3:5-6), and not through mere genetics.  This is why the prologue asserts:  "...not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man" (1:13).  Water and spirit make "children of God," not genetics and ancestry.

The Judean assertion that "we are seeds of Abraham and have never been enslaved by anyone" is, of course, laughable on its face.  The "seeds of Abraham" had been conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, not to mention being their own worst enemy about half the time.

Their ideology has deluded them.  Despite their checkered past, their self-understanding as "seed of Abraham," and therefore Chosen People, means that, contrary to actual reality, they buy into their supposed "superiority" over others, such as the Samaritans, for example. 

Yet, in chapter four, in response to the testimony of the woman at the well, the Samaritans had asked Jesus to stay--menein--with them, which he did, and "many believed because of his word" (4:41).  Here, addressing these "seeds of Abraham," Jesus says, "if you abide--menein, again--in my word, you are truly my disciples." 

Soon after (8:37), however, Jesus says his word "has no place" in them.  The Samaritans, on the other hand, had hailed Jesus as "the Savior of the world" (4:42).  In other words, "his word" found a place among the heretic half-breed Samaritans but not among the supposedly better-informed pure-blooded "seeds of Abraham."

Knowing the truth:  In the fourth gospel, "truth"--aletheion--is defined as the person of Jesus.  John 1:14:  "the word became flesh...full of grace and truth."  Later (14:6), Jesus will say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."  As Jesus the Truth stands before Pilate, Pilate will (cluelessly) ask, "What is truth?" (18:38)

Further, "you will know the truth" (8:32).  The word is the future form of ginosko, which refers to knowledge of a deep and interior kind.  It means knowledge obtained through personal and intimate experience.  This kind of knowledge is not a head trip, in other words, but something more along the lines of "mystical knowing."

This inter-twining of Christ and his followers is a major theme of the fourth gospel.  It is represented in the frequent occurrence of the Greek word menein--to dwell with, abide, remain.  Christ abides with them, and they with him.  They know him, and he knows them.  Knowledge of truth is a function of present intimacy with Jesus.

The truth makes you free:  The word is eleutheria, which means "set at liberty."  Martin Luther liked the word so much that he changed his last name from "Luder" to "Luther" because it sounded like eleutheria.

In the view of some people, the Christian faith speaks to the Superego.  The Superego is the repository of the culture's rules, mores, expected behaviors, and conventional wisdom.  Internalizing these rules, and trying to follow all of them, constitutes being a good Christian in the minds of many. 

Actually, however, the Christian faith speaks to the ego, not the Superego.  The ego is the creative center of the person.  It attempts to navigate reality between the Scylla of the conventional rules and the Carybdis of one's shadow and passions.  Both seek to dominate.  The ego must steer between them to chart its own course and, in the process, become fully-functioning.  

The Judeans, with their assertion that being "seeds of Abraham" was something special, were speaking out of convention and received tradition.  It should not be surprising that their response is characterized by inflexibility and defensiveness.  (Domination by the Superego is characteristically shallow and wooden.)  

The formation of the ego is an exceptionally difficult task.  The voice of the Superego is strong, and the passions of the id are fierce!  Nevertheless, there is a part of us--the ego, the true self--that seeks to discern its own path through this dilemma.  In fact, the ego is largely formed through this process.  

The ego needs outside help.  We face hundreds of competing claims each and every day, many from our internal selves, and many from our society at large.  How can we sort them out?  The fourth gospel uses the metaphor of "sheep" for that part of us that seeks to hear the True Voice of our True Shepherd.    The True Voice cuts through the clutter.  His sheep hear his voice (10:27).

The Voice calls a person to freedom, but freedom is not easily won.  Freedom may mean following an unconventional path.  This will be opposed by the Superego which distrusts anything that is not conventional.  Or, the id may try to hijack the ego and demand that the ego use its freedom to satisfy the primal desires of the id.

The ego acknowledges the risks, yet is willing to take them.  The ego acts in the world on the basis of its own discernment and guidance from the True Voice.  It takes responsibility for itself.  As the ego expresses itself in the world--or, one might say, as the ego acts in freedom--it becomes more fully formed and "larger."  Freedom begets even more freedom.

Thus, Christ speaks to our True Self, engaging us in life, giving knowledge of God, leading us to spiritual maturity and, hence, freedom.  It's not for nothing that Paul writes:  "For freedom, Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1) or that Carl Jung once wrote, "The real Christ is the God of freedom."

Incidentally, the assertion that "the truth shall make you free" would appear to be a teaching new with Jesus.  There is nothing in the Old Testament about the truth making anyone free.  The Qumran community comes closer:  "And then God will purge by his truth all the deeds of men..."

Slavery and freedom:  "Truly, truly, I say to you," Jesus says, "anyone doing a sin is a slave of sin.  But the slave does not abide in the house forever.  The son abides forever.  If, then, the son makes you free, you will be free in reality."

The "slave" is a mere functional unit.  When the slave's job is completed, there is no further use for that slave.  A "son," however, remains because of the deeper unity of the family.  In effect, Jesus turns the Judeans' "seeds of Abraham" argument against them.  They are not truly free "seeds of Abraham."  They are "slaves to sin." 

"If the son makes you free, you will be free in reality (ontos)."  Ontos is where we get our word "ontological," meaning "the very essence." 

The freedom of Christ has nothing to do with ancestry or national pride.  The freedom of Christ constitutes the ontos--the essence--of freedom.  "If the Son makes you free, you are in essence free"--not existentially free, in other words, not free in your own perception, but essentially free, free as part of your very nature. 

This is a sweeping statement, underlined by the fact that this is the only use of the word ontos in the fourth gospel.

 

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; ³²and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’³³They answered him, ‘We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, “You will be made free”?’

34 Jesus answered them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. ³⁵The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there for ever. ³⁶So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Translation:  Then Jesus said to the Judeans, the ones who had faithed in him, "If you abide in my word, truly you are my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."  They answered him, "We are seeds of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone.  How do you say, 'You will become free people?'"

Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, anyone doing a sin is a slave of sin.  But the slave does not abide in the house forever.  The son abides forever.  If, then, the son makes you free, you will be free in reality."

 

Background and situation:  "Jews" should probably be understood as "Judeans."  The word is ioudaioi.  The consensus of scholarly opinion seems to be that ioudaioi should be translated as "judeans."  Some argue that it came to mean "Jews" only after the Bar-Kochba revolt of AD 135, at least 40 years after the writing of the fourth gospel.  (See this discussion.)  

 

Ioudaioi appears 70 times in the fourth gospel vs. 16 times in all of the synoptics.  The ioudaioi--the "Judeans"--constitute the major opponents of Jesus in the fourth gospel.  

The fourth gospel is essentially an argument not between Christians and Jews, as has been so often assumed, but rather an argument between Jews and Jews--more specifically, Judean Jews, those oriented toward Jerusalem and Temple, and Galilean Jews, those who followed Jesus.

The designation is partly geographic, but not completely.  In chapter six, there are "Judeans" in Galilee.  They could have come up from Judea, but, more likely, are Galileans who are expressing a "Judean" point of view.  In the fourth gospel, sticking with the Judean establishment--the Temple--makes one a "Judean" even though that person may actually live in Galilee or somewhere else outside of Judea proper.

"Seeds of Abraham":  Wes Howard-Brook considers the phrase "the Judeans who faithed in him" to be an oxymoron.  There really weren't any Judeans who trusted in Jesus, a judgment which is supported by the chiastic structure of verses 31-37:

a:  31:  if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples

b: 32:  the truth shall make you free

c:  33:  we are "seeds of Abraham"

b':  34-36:  the Son makes you free

a':  37:  my word finds no place in you.

The fulcrum of the chiasm, the point around which it turns, is the phrase "we are seeds of Abraham."  The Word "finds no place" in them.

"Seeds of Abraham" or "children of Abraham" should be contrasted with "children of God."  The opening prologue had asserted:  "...to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." (1:12)  "Children of God" are made through reception and trust.  They are opposed by the idea of a Chosen People based on ancestry, the "seeds of Abraham."   

The New Community of Jesus is most definitely not about inherited national pride.  It is about "mutual indwelling" between Christ and his community (15:4).  The New Community is accessed through rebirth (3:3) and Spirit (3:5-6), and not through mere genetics.  This is why the prologue asserts:  "...not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man" (1:13).  Water and spirit make "children of God," not genetics and ancestry.

The Judean assertion that "we are seeds of Abraham and have never been enslaved by anyone" is, of course, laughable on its face.  The "seeds of Abraham" had been conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, not to mention being their own worst enemy about half the time.

Their ideology has deluded them.  Despite their checkered past, their self-understanding as "seed of Abraham," and therefore Chosen People, means that, contrary to actual reality, they buy into their supposed "superiority" over others, such as the Samaritans, for example. 

Yet, in chapter four, in response to the testimony of the woman at the well, the Samaritans had asked Jesus to stay--menein--with them, which he did, and "many believed because of his word" (4:41).  Here, addressing these "seeds of Abraham," Jesus says, "if you abide--menein, again--in my word, you are truly my disciples." 

Soon after (8:37), however, Jesus says his word "has no place" in them.  The Samaritans, on the other hand, had hailed Jesus as "the Savior of the world" (4:42).  In other words, "his word" found a place among the heretic half-breed Samaritans but not among the supposedly better-informed pure-blooded "seeds of Abraham."

Knowing the truth:  In the fourth gospel, "truth"--aletheion--is defined as the person of Jesus.  John 1:14:  "the word became flesh...full of grace and truth."  Later (14:6), Jesus will say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."  As Jesus the Truth stands before Pilate, Pilate will (cluelessly) ask, "What is truth?" (18:38)

Further, "you will know the truth" (8:32).  The word is the future form of ginosko, which refers to knowledge of a deep and interior kind.  It means knowledge obtained through personal and intimate experience.  This kind of knowledge is not a head trip, in other words, but something more along the lines of "mystical knowing."

This inter-twining of Christ and his followers is a major theme of the fourth gospel.  It is represented in the frequent occurrence of the Greek word menein--to dwell with, abide, remain.  Christ abides with them, and they with him.  They know him, and he knows them.  Knowledge of truth is a function of present intimacy with Jesus.

The truth makes you free:  The word is eleutheria, which means "set at liberty."  Martin Luther liked the word so much that he changed his last name from "Luder" to "Luther" because it sounded like eleutheria.

In the view of some people, the Christian faith speaks to the Superego.  The Superego is the repository of the culture's rules, mores, expected behaviors, and conventional wisdom.  Internalizing these rules, and trying to follow all of them, constitutes being a good Christian in the minds of many. 

Actually, however, the Christian faith speaks to the ego, not the Superego.  The ego is the creative center of the person.  It attempts to navigate reality between the Scylla of the conventional rules and the Carybdis of one's shadow and passions.  Both seek to dominate.  The ego must steer between them to chart its own course and, in the process, become fully-functioning.  

The Judeans, with their assertion that being "seeds of Abraham" was something special, were speaking out of convention and received tradition.  It should not be surprising that their response is characterized by inflexibility and defensiveness.  (Domination by the Superego is characteristically shallow and wooden.)  

The formation of the ego is an exceptionally difficult task.  The voice of the Superego is strong, and the passions of the id are fierce!  Nevertheless, there is a part of us--the ego, the true self--that seeks to discern its own path through this dilemma.  In fact, the ego is largely formed through this process.  

The ego needs outside help.  We face hundreds of competing claims each and every day, many from our internal selves, and many from our society at large.  How can we sort them out?  The fourth gospel uses the metaphor of "sheep" for that part of us that seeks to hear the True Voice of our True Shepherd.    The True Voice cuts through the clutter.  His sheep hear his voice (10:27).

The Voice calls a person to freedom, but freedom is not easily won.  Freedom may mean following an unconventional path.  This will be opposed by the Superego which distrusts anything that is not conventional.  Or, the id may try to hijack the ego and demand that the ego use its freedom to satisfy the primal desires of the id.

The ego acknowledges the risks, yet is willing to take them.  The ego acts in the world on the basis of its own discernment and guidance from the True Voice.  It takes responsibility for itself.  As the ego expresses itself in the world--or, one might say, as the ego acts in freedom--it becomes more fully formed and "larger."  Freedom begets even more freedom.

Thus, Christ speaks to our True Self, engaging us in life, giving knowledge of God, leading us to spiritual maturity and, hence, freedom.  It's not for nothing that Paul writes:  "For freedom, Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1) or that Carl Jung once wrote, "The real Christ is the God of freedom."

Incidentally, the assertion that "the truth shall make you free" would appear to be a teaching new with Jesus.  There is nothing in the Old Testament about the truth making anyone free.  The Qumran community comes closer:  "And then God will purge by his truth all the deeds of men..."

Slavery and freedom:  "Truly, truly, I say to you," Jesus says, "anyone doing a sin is a slave of sin.  But the slave does not abide in the house forever.  The son abides forever.  If, then, the son makes you free, you will be free in reality."

The "slave" is a mere functional unit.  When the slave's job is completed, there is no further use for that slave.  A "son," however, remains because of the deeper unity of the family.  In effect, Jesus turns the Judeans' "seeds of Abraham" argument against them.  They are not truly free "seeds of Abraham."  They are "slaves to sin." 

"If the son makes you free, you will be free in reality (ontos)."  Ontos is where we get our word "ontological," meaning "the very essence." 

The freedom of Christ has nothing to do with ancestry or national pride.  The freedom of Christ constitutes the ontos--the essence--of freedom.  "If the Son makes you free, you are in essence free"--not existentially free, in other words, not free in your own perception, but essentially free, free as part of your very nature. 

This is a sweeping statement, underlined by the fact that this is the only use of the word ontos in the fourth gospel.

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; ³²and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’³³They answered him, ‘We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, “You will be made free”?’

34 Jesus answered them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. ³⁵The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there for ever. ³⁶So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Translation:  Then Jesus said to the Judeans, the ones who had faithed in him, "If you abide in my word, truly you are my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."  They answered him, "We are seeds of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone.  How do you say, 'You will become free people?'"

Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, anyone doing a sin is a slave of sin.  But the slave does not abide in the house forever.  The son abides forever.  If, then, the son makes you free, you will be free in reality."

 

Background and situation:  "Jews" should probably be understood as "Judeans."  The word is ioudaioi.  The consensus of scholarly opinion seems to be that ioudaioi should be translated as "judeans."  Some argue that it came to mean "Jews" only after the Bar-Kochba revolt of AD 135, at least 40 years after the writing of the fourth gospel.  (See this discussion.)  

 

Ioudaioi appears 70 times in the fourth gospel vs. 16 times in all of the synoptics.  The ioudaioi--the "Judeans"--constitute the major opponents of Jesus in the fourth gospel.  

The fourth gospel is essentially an argument not between Christians and Jews, as has been so often assumed, but rather an argument between Jews and Jews--more specifically, Judean Jews, those oriented toward Jerusalem and Temple, and Galilean Jews, those who followed Jesus.

The designation is partly geographic, but not completely.  In chapter six, there are "Judeans" in Galilee.  They could have come up from Judea, but, more likely, are Galileans who are expressing a "Judean" point of view.  In the fourth gospel, sticking with the Judean establishment--the Temple--makes one a "Judean" even though that person may actually live in Galilee or somewhere else outside of Judea proper.

"Seeds of Abraham":  Wes Howard-Brook considers the phrase "the Judeans who faithed in him" to be an oxymoron.  There really weren't any Judeans who trusted in Jesus, a judgment which is supported by the chiastic structure of verses 31-37:

a:  31:  if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples

b: 32:  the truth shall make you free

c:  33:  we are "seeds of Abraham"

b':  34-36:  the Son makes you free

a':  37:  my word finds no place in you.

The fulcrum of the chiasm, the point around which it turns, is the phrase "we are seeds of Abraham."  The Word "finds no place" in them.

"Seeds of Abraham" or "children of Abraham" should be contrasted with "children of God."  The opening prologue had asserted:  "...to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." (1:12)  "Children of God" are made through reception and trust.  They are opposed by the idea of a Chosen People based on ancestry, the "seeds of Abraham."   

The New Community of Jesus is most definitely not about inherited national pride.  It is about "mutual indwelling" between Christ and his community (15:4).  The New Community is accessed through rebirth (3:3) and Spirit (3:5-6), and not through mere genetics.  This is why the prologue asserts:  "...not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man" (1:13).  Water and spirit make "children of God," not genetics and ancestry.

The Judean assertion that "we are seeds of Abraham and have never been enslaved by anyone" is, of course, laughable on its face.  The "seeds of Abraham" had been conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, not to mention being their own worst enemy about half the time.

Their ideology has deluded them.  Despite their checkered past, their self-understanding as "seed of Abraham," and therefore Chosen People, means that, contrary to actual reality, they buy into their supposed "superiority" over others, such as the Samaritans, for example. 

Yet, in chapter four, in response to the testimony of the woman at the well, the Samaritans had asked Jesus to stay--menein--with them, which he did, and "many believed because of his word" (4:41).  Here, addressing these "seeds of Abraham," Jesus says, "if you abide--menein, again--in my word, you are truly my disciples." 

Soon after (8:37), however, Jesus says his word "has no place" in them.  The Samaritans, on the other hand, had hailed Jesus as "the Savior of the world" (4:42).  In other words, "his word" found a place among the heretic half-breed Samaritans but not among the supposedly better-informed pure-blooded "seeds of Abraham."

Knowing the truth:  In the fourth gospel, "truth"--aletheion--is defined as the person of Jesus.  John 1:14:  "the word became flesh...full of grace and truth."  Later (14:6), Jesus will say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."  As Jesus the Truth stands before Pilate, Pilate will (cluelessly) ask, "What is truth?" (18:38)

Further, "you will know the truth" (8:32).  The word is the future form of ginosko, which refers to knowledge of a deep and interior kind.  It means knowledge obtained through personal and intimate experience.  This kind of knowledge is not a head trip, in other words, but something more along the lines of "mystical knowing."

This inter-twining of Christ and his followers is a major theme of the fourth gospel.  It is represented in the frequent occurrence of the Greek word menein--to dwell with, abide, remain.  Christ abides with them, and they with him.  They know him, and he knows them.  Knowledge of truth is a function of present intimacy with Jesus.

The truth makes you free:  The word is eleutheria, which means "set at liberty."  Martin Luther liked the word so much that he changed his last name from "Luder" to "Luther" because it sounded like eleutheria.

In the view of some people, the Christian faith speaks to the Superego.  The Superego is the repository of the culture's rules, mores, expected behaviors, and conventional wisdom.  Internalizing these rules, and trying to follow all of them, constitutes being a good Christian in the minds of many. 

Actually, however, the Christian faith speaks to the ego, not the Superego.  The ego is the creative center of the person.  It attempts to navigate reality between the Scylla of the conventional rules and the Carybdis of one's shadow and passions.  Both seek to dominate.  The ego must steer between them to chart its own course and, in the process, become fully-functioning.  

The Judeans, with their assertion that being "seeds of Abraham" was something special, were speaking out of convention and received tradition.  It should not be surprising that their response is characterized by inflexibility and defensiveness.  (Domination by the Superego is characteristically shallow and wooden.)  

The formation of the ego is an exceptionally difficult task.  The voice of the Superego is strong, and the passions of the id are fierce!  Nevertheless, there is a part of us--the ego, the true self--that seeks to discern its own path through this dilemma.  In fact, the ego is largely formed through this process.  

The ego needs outside help.  We face hundreds of competing claims each and every day, many from our internal selves, and many from our society at large.  How can we sort them out?  The fourth gospel uses the metaphor of "sheep" for that part of us that seeks to hear the True Voice of our True Shepherd.    The True Voice cuts through the clutter.  His sheep hear his voice (10:27).

The Voice calls a person to freedom, but freedom is not easily won.  Freedom may mean following an unconventional path.  This will be opposed by the Superego which distrusts anything that is not conventional.  Or, the id may try to hijack the ego and demand that the ego use its freedom to satisfy the primal desires of the id.

The ego acknowledges the risks, yet is willing to take them.  The ego acts in the world on the basis of its own discernment and guidance from the True Voice.  It takes responsibility for itself.  As the ego expresses itself in the world--or, one might say, as the ego acts in freedom--it becomes more fully formed and "larger."  Freedom begets even more freedom.

Thus, Christ speaks to our True Self, engaging us in life, giving knowledge of God, leading us to spiritual maturity and, hence, freedom.  It's not for nothing that Paul writes:  "For freedom, Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1) or that Carl Jung once wrote, "The real Christ is the God of freedom."

Incidentally, the assertion that "the truth shall make you free" would appear to be a teaching new with Jesus.  There is nothing in the Old Testament about the truth making anyone free.  The Qumran community comes closer:  "And then God will purge by his truth all the deeds of men..."

Slavery and freedom:  "Truly, truly, I say to you," Jesus says, "anyone doing a sin is a slave of sin.  But the slave does not abide in the house forever.  The son abides forever.  If, then, the son makes you free, you will be free in reality."

The "slave" is a mere functional unit.  When the slave's job is completed, there is no further use for that slave.  A "son," however, remains because of the deeper unity of the family.  In effect, Jesus turns the Judeans' "seeds of Abraham" argument against them.  They are not truly free "seeds of Abraham."  They are "slaves to sin." 

"If the son makes you free, you will be free in reality (ontos)."  Ontos is where we get our word "ontological," meaning "the very essence." 

The freedom of Christ has nothing to do with ancestry or national pride.  The freedom of Christ constitutes the ontos--the essence--of freedom.  "If the Son makes you free, you are in essence free"--not existentially free, in other words, not free in your own perception, but essentially free, free as part of your very nature. 

This is a sweeping statement, underlined by the fact that this is the only use of the word ontos in the fourth gospel.

Pentecost 19 ::: Luke 18: 1-8

Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. ²He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. ³In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Grant me justice against my opponent.’ ⁴For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, ‘Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, ⁵yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.’” ⁶And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. ⁷And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? ⁸I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Translation:  But he spoke a parable to them concerning their need always to pray and not to lose heart, saying, 'A certain judge was in a certain city not fearing God nor respecting human beings.  But there was a widow in that city, and she was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me from my opponent,' and he was not willing for a time. 

But after this, he said to himself, 'Though I am not fearing God nor respecting human beings, yet because this widow gives me trouble, I will avenge her, so that she might not come (and) give me a black eye to the end.'  But the Lord said, 'Listen what the unjust judge says.  But will not God do the vengeance of his elect, the ones crying to him day and night?  Will he have patience with them?  I say to you that he will do his vengeance quickly.  Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will he find the faith upon the earth?"

Background and situation:  The story is generally known as the parable of the importunate widow, or the parable of the unjust judge.  The text is unique to Luke.  Jesus is speaking to the disciples, though throughout this section, the pharisees are still within earshot. 

The passage follows immediately upon 17: 22-37, a major theme of which is the suffering and rejection of Jesus, which provokes an eschatological crisis, out of which comes the New Day of the Lord--"the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Humanity be in his day" (17:24). 

Other pertinent texts:  See Sirach 35: 15-19 for God as judge who hears a widow's prayers.  In 2 Chr 19:7, judges in Judah were to "let the fear of the Lord be upon" them, a sharp contrast with the unjust judge.  Among several Old Testament texts exalting the cause of widows, see Exodus 22:22-24, Deut. 24:17, Psalm 146:9.

The unjust judge:  The judge did not fear God (phobos) or have respect (entrepomenos) for people.  Entrepomenos is an unusual word.  It can mean "to shame" or, in the passive, "to be ashamed."  It can also mean "reverence," though this is the third meaning. 

The judge not only felt no "reverence" for people, but also had no sense of "shame" in how he treated them--a typical Roman judge, in other words.  Roman judges had vast power within their jurisdiction.  If they wanted to, they could decide cases based on personal whim alone.  The judge in this story is just such a judge--one with no concern for justice.

The importunate widow:

But there was a widow in that city, and she was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me from my opponent,' and he was not willing for a time. 

The stage of the parable is set by the contrast between, on the one hand, a powerful magistrate who can do whatever he feels like doing, and, on the other, a poor widow who must take what she can get. 

That the woman appears by herself in court means that she has no male relative to speak for her.  She is indeed powerless and poor.  On the "power scale," the judge is at one end and the widow at the other.

The Hebrew scriptures are replete with injunctions to consider the needs of widows, orphans, and strangers.  Perhaps these injunctions are so frequent because the people of Israel needed continual reminding--and, as it turns out, to little effect! 

By the time of Jesus, the powerful and unscrupulous were still preying on widows.  Jesus will later say that the Temple elite "devour widows' houses" (20:47), such as when the Temple bureaucrats swooped in upon the death of the husband and "managed" the estate, taking a sizable cut for themselves.  It should not be surprising that a judge who does not fear God would likewise not care about God's demonstrated concern for the weak and vulnerable.  If he does not fear God, why would he respect people?

The widow says, literally:  "Avenge me from my opponent (antidikos)."  The widow, normally a sympathetic figure in Jesus' stories, seems to expect that she may actually get justice in this kangaroo court.  She thinks she might yet come out a winner.  For all its well-known corruption, she still believes in the system!

Xronos and kairos:  "For awhile he refused"--literally, "he did not wish, upon time (chronos)."  This is a good time to review the distinction between chronos and kairos.  Chronos is about regular "earthly" time.  It's where we get our word "chronological."  Kairos is "special time"--"inbreaking of God" time, if you will.  According to "regular time," the judge has no use for the widow.

But--meta tauta--"after this," or "beyond this"--the judge changes his mind.  Maybe this is pushing it, but "beyond" chronological time is kairos--"God's time."  In God's time will come justice (though justice will be defined in a surprising and unusual way, as we shall see).  "God's time" is not something that happens after chronological time ends.  "God's time" is any time in which the reign of God breaks in.  It can be right now.

In his speech to himself, the judge openly acknowledges what had originally been said about him, i.e., that he doesn't fear God or respect people.  This tells us that he has had no internal change.  He remains the same person he was when first identified. 

Nevertheless, he decides to change his approach regarding the widow:  "Though I am not fearing God nor respecting human beings, yet because this widow gives me trouble, I will avenge her, so that she might not come (and) give me a black eye unto the end." 

The black eye:  The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates hupopiaze as "wear me out."  This seems weak.  The word comes from the world of boxing and refers to striking someone under the eye.  "Give me a black eye" is not only faithful to the Greek, but paints a rather startling and humorous picture of the poor widow battering the powerful judge.

What's more, she will "give me a black eye unto the end (telos)."  The word telos is a special word in the scriptures.  It means the goal, the consummation, the gathering of all into all.  If the widow keeps battering him with her appeals, her desire for justice just may make the judge look bad through all eternity.  To avoid this fate, the judge rules in the widow's favor.

But the Lord said, 'Listen what the unjust judge says.  But will not God do the vengeance of his elect, the ones crying to him day and night?  Will he have patience with them?  I say to you that he will do his vengeance quickly.  Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will he find the faith upon the earth?" 

Luke identifies Jesus as "Lord," which means that he speaks with authority.  His response is along the lines of saying that if even an unjust judge will finally grant justice, how much more will God do so?  God will respond to the peoples' cry for justice, and will not delay. 

Their vindication will be soon--en taxei--but not, however, by making the poor widow come out a winner through the judicial process.  Quite the contrary.  The vindication that is approaching "soon" is the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The woman's "justice," and all true justice, will come then. 

Justification and justice:  This is the answer to the question posed by Luke in 17:22-37.  The crucial time is coming soon when the Son of Humanity "must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation" (17:25).  This will be tragic and difficult, but will also inaugurate the New Age--"the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Humanity be in his day" (17:24).

Diko (justice) occurs six times, in various forms, in this brief passage.  This concern over justice is answered by justification.  In God's kairos, injustice is dealt with through cross and resurrection--not on the merits of the case, in other words, no matter how good those merits may be, but rather on the basis of Christ. 

To put it most bluntly, God does not care about the "justice" of the poor widow's case, or, for that matter, the justice of anyone's case.  Whether you deserve heaven, or a good swift kick in the keister, is completely irrelevant.  God settles all these cases not on the basis of who deserves what, but on the basis of the death and resurrection of his son. 

Let anyone think they have a just cause, the real truth is that we are all losers.  As Martin Luther said on his deathbed, "We are all truly beggars."  In our winner-take-all world, we see this as bad news.  In God's world, however, this is good news--good news precisely because "the Son of Humanity came to seek and save the lost (19:10)."   

God raises the dead without regard to the "justice" of anyone's case.  We are all lost and dead in our sins, but God's "justice" is the "justification" of sinners.  God judges all on the basis of the cross and resurrection of his Son.  There are no other considerations.  As Paul put it, "God shows his love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Image:  “Parable of the Unjust Judge” by Nikola Sarić (http://www.nikolasaric.de)

 

Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. ²He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. ³In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Grant me justice against my opponent.’ ⁴For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, ‘Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, ⁵yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.’” ⁶And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. ⁷And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? ⁸I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Translation:  But he spoke a parable to them concerning their need always to pray and not to lose heart, saying, 'A certain judge was in a certain city not fearing God nor respecting human beings.  But there was a widow in that city, and she was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me from my opponent,' and he was not willing for a time. 

But after this, he said to himself, 'Though I am not fearing God nor respecting human beings, yet because this widow gives me trouble, I will avenge her, so that she might not come (and) give me a black eye to the end.'  But the Lord said, 'Listen what the unjust judge says.  But will not God do the vengeance of his elect, the ones crying to him day and night?  Will he have patience with them?  I say to you that he will do his vengeance quickly.  Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will he find the faith upon the earth?"

Background and situation:  The story is generally known as the parable of the importunate widow, or the parable of the unjust judge.  The text is unique to Luke.  Jesus is speaking to the disciples, though throughout this section, the pharisees are still within earshot. 

The passage follows immediately upon 17: 22-37, a major theme of which is the suffering and rejection of Jesus, which provokes an eschatological crisis, out of which comes the New Day of the Lord--"the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Humanity be in his day" (17:24). 

Other pertinent texts:  See Sirach 35: 15-19 for God as judge who hears a widow's prayers.  In 2 Chr 19:7, judges in Judah were to "let the fear of the Lord be upon" them, a sharp contrast with the unjust judge.  Among several Old Testament texts exalting the cause of widows, see Exodus 22:22-24, Deut. 24:17, Psalm 146:9.

The unjust judge:  The judge did not fear God (phobos) or have respect (entrepomenos) for people.  Entrepomenos is an unusual word.  It can mean "to shame" or, in the passive, "to be ashamed."  It can also mean "reverence," though this is the third meaning. 

The judge not only felt no "reverence" for people, but also had no sense of "shame" in how he treated them--a typical Roman judge, in other words.  Roman judges had vast power within their jurisdiction.  If they wanted to, they could decide cases based on personal whim alone.  The judge in this story is just such a judge--one with no concern for justice.

The importunate widow:

But there was a widow in that city, and she was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me from my opponent,' and he was not willing for a time. 

The stage of the parable is set by the contrast between, on the one hand, a powerful magistrate who can do whatever he feels like doing, and, on the other, a poor widow who must take what she can get. 

That the woman appears by herself in court means that she has no male relative to speak for her.  She is indeed powerless and poor.  On the "power scale," the judge is at one end and the widow at the other.

The Hebrew scriptures are replete with injunctions to consider the needs of widows, orphans, and strangers.  Perhaps these injunctions are so frequent because the people of Israel needed continual reminding--and, as it turns out, to little effect! 

By the time of Jesus, the powerful and unscrupulous were still preying on widows.  Jesus will later say that the Temple elite "devour widows' houses" (20:47), such as when the Temple bureaucrats swooped in upon the death of the husband and "managed" the estate, taking a sizable cut for themselves.  It should not be surprising that a judge who does not fear God would likewise not care about God's demonstrated concern for the weak and vulnerable.  If he does not fear God, why would he respect people?

The widow says, literally:  "Avenge me from my opponent (antidikos)."  The widow, normally a sympathetic figure in Jesus' stories, seems to expect that she may actually get justice in this kangaroo court.  She thinks she might yet come out a winner.  For all its well-known corruption, she still believes in the system!

Xronos and kairos:  "For awhile he refused"--literally, "he did not wish, upon time (chronos)."  This is a good time to review the distinction between chronos and kairos.  Chronos is about regular "earthly" time.  It's where we get our word "chronological."  Kairos is "special time"--"inbreaking of God" time, if you will.  According to "regular time," the judge has no use for the widow.

But--meta tauta--"after this," or "beyond this"--the judge changes his mind.  Maybe this is pushing it, but "beyond" chronological time is kairos--"God's time."  In God's time will come justice (though justice will be defined in a surprising and unusual way, as we shall see).  "God's time" is not something that happens after chronological time ends.  "God's time" is any time in which the reign of God breaks in.  It can be right now.

In his speech to himself, the judge openly acknowledges what had originally been said about him, i.e., that he doesn't fear God or respect people.  This tells us that he has had no internal change.  He remains the same person he was when first identified. 

Nevertheless, he decides to change his approach regarding the widow:  "Though I am not fearing God nor respecting human beings, yet because this widow gives me trouble, I will avenge her, so that she might not come (and) give me a black eye unto the end." 

The black eye:  The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates hupopiaze as "wear me out."  This seems weak.  The word comes from the world of boxing and refers to striking someone under the eye.  "Give me a black eye" is not only faithful to the Greek, but paints a rather startling and humorous picture of the poor widow battering the powerful judge.

What's more, she will "give me a black eye unto the end (telos)."  The word telos is a special word in the scriptures.  It means the goal, the consummation, the gathering of all into all.  If the widow keeps battering him with her appeals, her desire for justice just may make the judge look bad through all eternity.  To avoid this fate, the judge rules in the widow's favor.

But the Lord said, 'Listen what the unjust judge says.  But will not God do the vengeance of his elect, the ones crying to him day and night?  Will he have patience with them?  I say to you that he will do his vengeance quickly.  Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will he find the faith upon the earth?" 

Luke identifies Jesus as "Lord," which means that he speaks with authority.  His response is along the lines of saying that if even an unjust judge will finally grant justice, how much more will God do so?  God will respond to the peoples' cry for justice, and will not delay. 

Their vindication will be soon--en taxei--but not, however, by making the poor widow come out a winner through the judicial process.  Quite the contrary.  The vindication that is approaching "soon" is the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The woman's "justice," and all true justice, will come then. 

Justification and justice:  This is the answer to the question posed by Luke in 17:22-37.  The crucial time is coming soon when the Son of Humanity "must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation" (17:25).  This will be tragic and difficult, but will also inaugurate the New Age--"the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Humanity be in his day" (17:24).

Diko (justice) occurs six times, in various forms, in this brief passage.  This concern over justice is answered by justification.  In God's kairos, injustice is dealt with through cross and resurrection--not on the merits of the case, in other words, no matter how good those merits may be, but rather on the basis of Christ. 

To put it most bluntly, God does not care about the "justice" of the poor widow's case, or, for that matter, the justice of anyone's case.  Whether you deserve heaven, or a good swift kick in the keister, is completely irrelevant.  God settles all these cases not on the basis of who deserves what, but on the basis of the death and resurrection of his son. 

Let anyone think they have a just cause, the real truth is that we are all losers.  As Martin Luther said on his deathbed, "We are all truly beggars."  In our winner-take-all world, we see this as bad news.  In God's world, however, this is good news--good news precisely because "the Son of Humanity came to seek and save the lost (19:10)."   

God raises the dead without regard to the "justice" of anyone's case.  We are all lost and dead in our sins, but God's "justice" is the "justification" of sinners.  God judges all on the basis of the cross and resurrection of his Son.  There are no other considerations.  As Paul put it, "God shows his love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Image:  “Parable of the Unjust Judge” by Nikola Sarić (http://www.nikolasaric.de)

Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. ²He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. ³In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Grant me justice against my opponent.’ ⁴For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, ‘Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, ⁵yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.’” ⁶And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. ⁷And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? ⁸I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Translation:  But he spoke a parable to them concerning their need always to pray and not to lose heart, saying, 'A certain judge was in a certain city not fearing God nor respecting human beings.  But there was a widow in that city, and she was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me from my opponent,' and he was not willing for a time. 

But after this, he said to himself, 'Though I am not fearing God nor respecting human beings, yet because this widow gives me trouble, I will avenge her, so that she might not come (and) give me a black eye to the end.'  But the Lord said, 'Listen what the unjust judge says.  But will not God do the vengeance of his elect, the ones crying to him day and night?  Will he have patience with them?  I say to you that he will do his vengeance quickly.  Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will he find the faith upon the earth?"

Background and situation:  The story is generally known as the parable of the importunate widow, or the parable of the unjust judge.  The text is unique to Luke.  Jesus is speaking to the disciples, though throughout this section, the pharisees are still within earshot. 

The passage follows immediately upon 17: 22-37, a major theme of which is the suffering and rejection of Jesus, which provokes an eschatological crisis, out of which comes the New Day of the Lord--"the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Humanity be in his day" (17:24). 

Other pertinent texts:  See Sirach 35: 15-19 for God as judge who hears a widow's prayers.  In 2 Chr 19:7, judges in Judah were to "let the fear of the Lord be upon" them, a sharp contrast with the unjust judge.  Among several Old Testament texts exalting the cause of widows, see Exodus 22:22-24, Deut. 24:17, Psalm 146:9.

The unjust judge:  The judge did not fear God (phobos) or have respect (entrepomenos) for people.  Entrepomenos is an unusual word.  It can mean "to shame" or, in the passive, "to be ashamed."  It can also mean "reverence," though this is the third meaning. 

The judge not only felt no "reverence" for people, but also had no sense of "shame" in how he treated them--a typical Roman judge, in other words.  Roman judges had vast power within their jurisdiction.  If they wanted to, they could decide cases based on personal whim alone.  The judge in this story is just such a judge--one with no concern for justice.

The importunate widow:

But there was a widow in that city, and she was coming to him, saying, 'Avenge me from my opponent,' and he was not willing for a time. 

The stage of the parable is set by the contrast between, on the one hand, a powerful magistrate who can do whatever he feels like doing, and, on the other, a poor widow who must take what she can get. 

That the woman appears by herself in court means that she has no male relative to speak for her.  She is indeed powerless and poor.  On the "power scale," the judge is at one end and the widow at the other.

The Hebrew scriptures are replete with injunctions to consider the needs of widows, orphans, and strangers.  Perhaps these injunctions are so frequent because the people of Israel needed continual reminding--and, as it turns out, to little effect! 

By the time of Jesus, the powerful and unscrupulous were still preying on widows.  Jesus will later say that the Temple elite "devour widows' houses" (20:47), such as when the Temple bureaucrats swooped in upon the death of the husband and "managed" the estate, taking a sizable cut for themselves.  It should not be surprising that a judge who does not fear God would likewise not care about God's demonstrated concern for the weak and vulnerable.  If he does not fear God, why would he respect people?

The widow says, literally:  "Avenge me from my opponent (antidikos)."  The widow, normally a sympathetic figure in Jesus' stories, seems to expect that she may actually get justice in this kangaroo court.  She thinks she might yet come out a winner.  For all its well-known corruption, she still believes in the system!

Xronos and kairos:  "For awhile he refused"--literally, "he did not wish, upon time (chronos)."  This is a good time to review the distinction between chronos and kairos.  Chronos is about regular "earthly" time.  It's where we get our word "chronological."  Kairos is "special time"--"inbreaking of God" time, if you will.  According to "regular time," the judge has no use for the widow.

But--meta tauta--"after this," or "beyond this"--the judge changes his mind.  Maybe this is pushing it, but "beyond" chronological time is kairos--"God's time."  In God's time will come justice (though justice will be defined in a surprising and unusual way, as we shall see).  "God's time" is not something that happens after chronological time ends.  "God's time" is any time in which the reign of God breaks in.  It can be right now.

In his speech to himself, the judge openly acknowledges what had originally been said about him, i.e., that he doesn't fear God or respect people.  This tells us that he has had no internal change.  He remains the same person he was when first identified. 

Nevertheless, he decides to change his approach regarding the widow:  "Though I am not fearing God nor respecting human beings, yet because this widow gives me trouble, I will avenge her, so that she might not come (and) give me a black eye unto the end." 

The black eye:  The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates hupopiaze as "wear me out."  This seems weak.  The word comes from the world of boxing and refers to striking someone under the eye.  "Give me a black eye" is not only faithful to the Greek, but paints a rather startling and humorous picture of the poor widow battering the powerful judge.

What's more, she will "give me a black eye unto the end (telos)."  The word telos is a special word in the scriptures.  It means the goal, the consummation, the gathering of all into all.  If the widow keeps battering him with her appeals, her desire for justice just may make the judge look bad through all eternity.  To avoid this fate, the judge rules in the widow's favor.

But the Lord said, 'Listen what the unjust judge says.  But will not God do the vengeance of his elect, the ones crying to him day and night?  Will he have patience with them?  I say to you that he will do his vengeance quickly.  Nevertheless, the Son of Humanity having come, will he find the faith upon the earth?" 

Luke identifies Jesus as "Lord," which means that he speaks with authority.  His response is along the lines of saying that if even an unjust judge will finally grant justice, how much more will God do so?  God will respond to the peoples' cry for justice, and will not delay. 

Their vindication will be soon--en taxei--but not, however, by making the poor widow come out a winner through the judicial process.  Quite the contrary.  The vindication that is approaching "soon" is the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The woman's "justice," and all true justice, will come then. 

Justification and justice:  This is the answer to the question posed by Luke in 17:22-37.  The crucial time is coming soon when the Son of Humanity "must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation" (17:25).  This will be tragic and difficult, but will also inaugurate the New Age--"the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Humanity be in his day" (17:24).

Diko (justice) occurs six times, in various forms, in this brief passage.  This concern over justice is answered by justification.  In God's kairos, injustice is dealt with through cross and resurrection--not on the merits of the case, in other words, no matter how good those merits may be, but rather on the basis of Christ. 

To put it most bluntly, God does not care about the "justice" of the poor widow's case, or, for that matter, the justice of anyone's case.  Whether you deserve heaven, or a good swift kick in the keister, is completely irrelevant.  God settles all these cases not on the basis of who deserves what, but on the basis of the death and resurrection of his son. 

Let anyone think they have a just cause, the real truth is that we are all losers.  As Martin Luther said on his deathbed, "We are all truly beggars."  In our winner-take-all world, we see this as bad news.  In God's world, however, this is good news--good news precisely because "the Son of Humanity came to seek and save the lost (19:10)."   

God raises the dead without regard to the "justice" of anyone's case.  We are all lost and dead in our sins, but God's "justice" is the "justification" of sinners.  God judges all on the basis of the cross and resurrection of his Son.  There are no other considerations.  As Paul put it, "God shows his love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Image:  “Parable of the Unjust Judge” by Nikola Sarić (http://www.nikolasaric.de)

Pentecost 18 ::: Luke 17: 11-19

¹¹On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. ¹²As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, ¹³they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” ¹⁴When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were made clean. ¹⁵Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. ¹⁶He prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. ¹⁷Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? ¹⁸Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” ¹⁹Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

Translation:  And it happened, as he was going to Jerusalem, he was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.  And as he entered a certain village, ten leprous men met him, who stood at a distance.  And they lifted up a voice, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us."  And he saw (and) said to them, "Go, show yourselves to the priests." 

And it happened, as they went, they were cleansed.  But one of them, seeing that he had been healed, returned, praising God with a loud voice, and he fell down upon his face at his feet, giving thanks to him.  And he was a Samaritan.

But Jesus answered (and) said, "Were there not ten cleansed?  Where are the nine?  Was no one found returning to give praise to God except this foreigner?"  And he said to him, "Rise and go.  Your faith has saved you."

 

Background and situation:  The story is told only by Luke, and inaugurates a new section in Luke's gospel.  Luke resets the scene by the use of egeneto--"it happened"--followed by "as he was going to Jerusalem," which recalls 9:51 when he first "set his face" to go to that city.

Other texts to be kept in mind:  Luke 10: 25-37, the story of the good Samaritan;  2 Kings 5: 1-17, the healing of Naaman the Syrian;  Luke 4: 14-20, Jesus' inaugural statement of his mission. 

On the boundary:  Three place names are mentioned in the first sentence:  Jerusalem, Samaria, and Galilee.  Jerusalem is where he is headed.  Galilee is where his mission began.  Now, heading south, he is "in the midst" of Samaria and Galilee.  The phrase is dia meson.  The sense of the expression seems to mean "on the boundary."   

Here is another case where the symbolic truth is deeper than the literal one.  Jesus was--and is--on the "boundary," and that is true in many ways.  (Bonhoeffer once said that Jesus meets us both on the boundary of our lives and also at the center.) 

The specific "boundary" in this case is the ethnic prejudice which existed between Galileans and Samaritans.  Jews of the time considered Samaritans to be a half-breeds and heretics--half-breeds because they'd intermarried with Assyrians and others, and heretics because they did not bend the knee to the Temple in Jerusalem.  A Jew traveling from Galilee to Judea might walk several miles out of their way so as not to set foot in Samaria. 

On the flip side, we know less about Samaritans' attitude toward Jews, except that Samaritan actions against Jews tended to be more of the "symbolic protest" variety.  (On one occasion in the first century BC, Samaritans entered the Temple in Jerusalem and defiled the place with unclean animals.)  

The woman at the well in John 4 is a Samaritan, and she seems wary and self-protective, a not unusual posture for religious minorities.  In any case, for his part, Jesus always portrays Samaritans in a positive way.  That is true in all four gospels, and especially in Luke.  (Previously in Luke, though Jesus' initial foray into Samaria had been rebuffed (9:51-56), yet, a short while later (10:25-37), Jesus tells the story of the "good Samaritan.")  

Jesus seemed to be making head way in his message of reconciliation.  People forget:  Jesus was popular.  He was beloved by people.  Apparently, many thought his message of reconciliation between Jews and Samaritans to be a great thing.  They had much in common with Samaritans, after all.  They were both poor and both were oppressed by a corrupt religion and a brutal government. 

One suspects the Galileans, after their initial shock at the idea of Samaritans as positive examples, began to see that the reason they thought the Samaritans were "outsiders" in the first place was because the Jerusalem elite had named them so, a Jerusalem elite which also considered the Galileans themselves to be "outsiders," al beit in a different way. 

The Galileans were not ethnic or religious outsiders, like the Samaritans.  The Galileans were economic and cultural outsiders, looked down upon by cosmopolitan Jerusalem as hicks and rubes from the sticks.  The Galileans, instructed by Jesus, began to think, "Say, maybe we have more in common with Samaritans than we thought."

And as he entered a certain village, ten leprous men met him, who stood at a distance.  And they lifted up a voice, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us."  And he saw (and) said to them, "Go, show yourselves to the priests." 

The original Hebrew word is tzaraath, which refers to any number of skin conditions--everything from acne to the heartbreak of psoriasis.  Their skin condition made them "unclean" and they had to live by themselves.  (Interestingly, the leper community, we will soon find out, includes a Samaritan, which would make the leper community a more inclusive one than many.  Common suffering unites.)

The lepers call Jesus "Master."  The only other people who call Jesus "Master" in Luke's gospel are the disciples themselves, putting these lepers, in Luke's mind, in good company.  (That would not be so in Mark.) 

Jesus sends them "to the priests."  The priests could certify whether or not a person was healed, and, if so, that person could then be re-integrated into common every day life.  (Luke does not tell us which priests they were to go to.  Samaritan ones, or Judean ones?)  As they are going, they are "cleansed"--katharizo, purified, cleansed.  (This is where we get our word "catharsis.") 

The Old Testament reading for the day is the story of Naaman the Syrian being healed by the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 5: 1-17).  The parallels between these two stories are striking.  The healings are for "outsiders," which shows, in each case, that "there is a prophet in Israel."  In both cases as well, the lepers are told to do something, are healed in the process, and then praise God. 

And it happened, as they went, they were cleansed.  But one of them, seeing that he had been healed, returned, praising God with a loud voice, and he fell down upon his face at his feet, giving thanks to him.  And he was a Samaritan.

One of the now-cleansed lepers "sees" that he has been healed.  "Recovery of sight to the blind" is one of the primary missions of Jesus (4:18).  The leper was not blind physically, but, for Luke, anyone not discerning the lordship of Jesus is blind spiritually.  Conversely, those who do, "see."  "Seeing" is a Lukan way of saying "gets it."  (This is true of the fourth gospel as well.) 

Seeing he had been cleansed, this former leper now returns to Jesus.  Perhaps he realizes that if he were going to a Judean priest, he would not have been accepted anyway, even though "cleansed".  Luke portrays his actions upon return as effusive.  He praises God in a loud voice, falls with his face to Jesus feet, and give thanks--eucharistone--to him.  Note that Luke links praise of God with worship of Jesus.

The punchline, of course, is "and he was a Samaritan," a shocking disclosure.  This is similar to the story of the "good Samaritan" in Luke 10.  As he did then, the one Jesus lifts up as a positive example is a foreigner.  As he always seems to do whenever he gets the chance, Jesus subverts a racist stereotype.  (Luke uses the specific word "foreigner"--allogenes--which is the only use of this word in the entire New Testament.) 

Jesus says "your faith has saved you" four times in Luke's gospel--7: 50, 8: 48, 17:19, 18:42--respectively, the woman who anointed his feet, the woman with the twelve year hemorrhage, this leper who is identified as a Samaritan, and the blind man who calls Jesus "Son of David" who is obviously a Jew. 

In other words, Jesus says "your faith has saved you" to two men, two woman--one specifically identified as a Jew and one specifically identified as a Samaritan.  Luke likes this kind of balance.

Image:  Ten lepers cleansed, Ian Pollock

¹¹On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. ¹²As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, ¹³they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” ¹⁴When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were made clean. ¹⁵Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. ¹⁶He prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. ¹⁷Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? ¹⁸Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” ¹⁹Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

Translation:  And it happened, as he was going to Jerusalem, he was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.  And as he entered a certain village, ten leprous men met him, who stood at a distance.  And they lifted up a voice, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us."  And he saw (and) said to them, "Go, show yourselves to the priests." 

And it happened, as they went, they were cleansed.  But one of them, seeing that he had been healed, returned, praising God with a loud voice, and he fell down upon his face at his feet, giving thanks to him.  And he was a Samaritan.

But Jesus answered (and) said, "Were there not ten cleansed?  Where are the nine?  Was no one found returning to give praise to God except this foreigner?"  And he said to him, "Rise and go.  Your faith has saved you."

 

Background and situation:  The story is told only by Luke, and inaugurates a new section in Luke's gospel.  Luke resets the scene by the use of egeneto--"it happened"--followed by "as he was going to Jerusalem," which recalls 9:51 when he first "set his face" to go to that city.

Other texts to be kept in mind:  Luke 10: 25-37, the story of the good Samaritan;  2 Kings 5: 1-17, the healing of Naaman the Syrian;  Luke 4: 14-20, Jesus' inaugural statement of his mission. 

On the boundary:  Three place names are mentioned in the first sentence:  Jerusalem, Samaria, and Galilee.  Jerusalem is where he is headed.  Galilee is where his mission began.  Now, heading south, he is "in the midst" of Samaria and Galilee.  The phrase is dia meson.  The sense of the expression seems to mean "on the boundary."   

Here is another case where the symbolic truth is deeper than the literal one.  Jesus was--and is--on the "boundary," and that is true in many ways.  (Bonhoeffer once said that Jesus meets us both on the boundary of our lives and also at the center.) 

The specific "boundary" in this case is the ethnic prejudice which existed between Galileans and Samaritans.  Jews of the time considered Samaritans to be a half-breeds and heretics--half-breeds because they'd intermarried with Assyrians and others, and heretics because they did not bend the knee to the Temple in Jerusalem.  A Jew traveling from Galilee to Judea might walk several miles out of their way so as not to set foot in Samaria. 

On the flip side, we know less about Samaritans' attitude toward Jews, except that Samaritan actions against Jews tended to be more of the "symbolic protest" variety.  (On one occasion in the first century BC, Samaritans entered the Temple in Jerusalem and defiled the place with unclean animals.)  

The woman at the well in John 4 is a Samaritan, and she seems wary and self-protective, a not unusual posture for religious minorities.  In any case, for his part, Jesus always portrays Samaritans in a positive way.  That is true in all four gospels, and especially in Luke.  (Previously in Luke, though Jesus' initial foray into Samaria had been rebuffed (9:51-56), yet, a short while later (10:25-37), Jesus tells the story of the "good Samaritan.")  

Jesus seemed to be making head way in his message of reconciliation.  People forget:  Jesus was popular.  He was beloved by people.  Apparently, many thought his message of reconciliation between Jews and Samaritans to be a great thing.  They had much in common with Samaritans, after all.  They were both poor and both were oppressed by a corrupt religion and a brutal government. 

One suspects the Galileans, after their initial shock at the idea of Samaritans as positive examples, began to see that the reason they thought the Samaritans were "outsiders" in the first place was because the Jerusalem elite had named them so, a Jerusalem elite which also considered the Galileans themselves to be "outsiders," al beit in a different way. 

The Galileans were not ethnic or religious outsiders, like the Samaritans.  The Galileans were economic and cultural outsiders, looked down upon by cosmopolitan Jerusalem as hicks and rubes from the sticks.  The Galileans, instructed by Jesus, began to think, "Say, maybe we have more in common with Samaritans than we thought."

And as he entered a certain village, ten leprous men met him, who stood at a distance.  And they lifted up a voice, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us."  And he saw (and) said to them, "Go, show yourselves to the priests." 

The original Hebrew word is tzaraath, which refers to any number of skin conditions--everything from acne to the heartbreak of psoriasis.  Their skin condition made them "unclean" and they had to live by themselves.  (Interestingly, the leper community, we will soon find out, includes a Samaritan, which would make the leper community a more inclusive one than many.  Common suffering unites.)

The lepers call Jesus "Master."  The only other people who call Jesus "Master" in Luke's gospel are the disciples themselves, putting these lepers, in Luke's mind, in good company.  (That would not be so in Mark.) 

Jesus sends them "to the priests."  The priests could certify whether or not a person was healed, and, if so, that person could then be re-integrated into common every day life.  (Luke does not tell us which priests they were to go to.  Samaritan ones, or Judean ones?)  As they are going, they are "cleansed"--katharizo, purified, cleansed.  (This is where we get our word "catharsis.") 

The Old Testament reading for the day is the story of Naaman the Syrian being healed by the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 5: 1-17).  The parallels between these two stories are striking.  The healings are for "outsiders," which shows, in each case, that "there is a prophet in Israel."  In both cases as well, the lepers are told to do something, are healed in the process, and then praise God. 

And it happened, as they went, they were cleansed.  But one of them, seeing that he had been healed, returned, praising God with a loud voice, and he fell down upon his face at his feet, giving thanks to him.  And he was a Samaritan.

One of the now-cleansed lepers "sees" that he has been healed.  "Recovery of sight to the blind" is one of the primary missions of Jesus (4:18).  The leper was not blind physically, but, for Luke, anyone not discerning the lordship of Jesus is blind spiritually.  Conversely, those who do, "see."  "Seeing" is a Lukan way of saying "gets it."  (This is true of the fourth gospel as well.) 

Seeing he had been cleansed, this former leper now returns to Jesus.  Perhaps he realizes that if he were going to a Judean priest, he would not have been accepted anyway, even though "cleansed".  Luke portrays his actions upon return as effusive.  He praises God in a loud voice, falls with his face to Jesus feet, and give thanks--eucharistone--to him.  Note that Luke links praise of God with worship of Jesus.

The punchline, of course, is "and he was a Samaritan," a shocking disclosure.  This is similar to the story of the "good Samaritan" in Luke 10.  As he did then, the one Jesus lifts up as a positive example is a foreigner.  As he always seems to do whenever he gets the chance, Jesus subverts a racist stereotype.  (Luke uses the specific word "foreigner"--allogenes--which is the only use of this word in the entire New Testament.) 

Jesus says "your faith has saved you" four times in Luke's gospel--7: 50, 8: 48, 17:19, 18:42--respectively, the woman who anointed his feet, the woman with the twelve year hemorrhage, this leper who is identified as a Samaritan, and the blind man who calls Jesus "Son of David" who is obviously a Jew. 

In other words, Jesus says "your faith has saved you" to two men, two woman--one specifically identified as a Jew and one specifically identified as a Samaritan.  Luke likes this kind of balance.

Image:  Ten lepers cleansed, Ian Pollock