Sermon: Giving Up Empire

Lectionary: Lent 1(C)

Texts: Romans 10:5-13; Luke 4:1-13

The Heart of Empire

Jesus Carried up to a
Pinnacle of the Temple
(Tissot, James, 1836-1902)

“Jesus is Lord.”

For any of us to say that is noncontroversial. We could yell that in public, and aside from some strange looks directed our way, I doubt anyone would take much notice or care that much. That alone shows how, at least in our society, despite differences in beliefs and opinions, the presence of Christianity is a cultural norm.

Now imagine the city of Rome at the height of the Roman empire. The villas of the nobles and wealthy line the narrow streets winding about the hills on which the city is built. There are images and statuary to the gods at every corner. Approaching an entry to one villa, you see an image of Janus in the entry while at the boundaries to either neighbor, you see icons of Terminus. Inside you might encounter shrines dedicated to the many lares and parentes honoring the household’s ancestors. As you move farther into the house, you come to the kitchen where carvings and icons of panes and penates keep watch of the pantry and the kitchen and dining area.

 In public life the major gods of the Romans were venerated and temples to them can be found on the grounds of the city. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, The Temple of Saturn, the Temple of Hercules Victor, the Pantheon which venerated all gods, and so on.

And then there was the imperial cult of the emperor, where a deceased emperor could be elevated to godhood. The new emperor was then described as “son of god”. There were isolated instances where the living emperor would style himself as a god, but this was not always the case.

Directly related to the gods was the concept of paterfamilias (father of family) and the household codes. There are several places in the New Testament where we see the use of household codes in the text. We can see this in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter. It is based on the concept of paterfamilias where a father rules over the household. It can be traced back to Aristotle where he describes the ideal structure of the state, in Politics, book 1. Here Aristotle appeals to “the natural order” of things to describe how the right to rule descends from the gods to the king to the fathers over his household, which consists of his wife, children, servants and slaves.

The structure and stability of the state is directly attributable to how each paterfamilias governs and rules over his assigned domain. Venerating and appeasing all of the gods, especially the household gods, was a critical aspect of maintaining one’s household.

In this setting, Caesar was the paterfamilias of the entire empire, both political and religious. And because of how households were viewed as part of the hierarchy of the state, Caesar was also the ultimate lord of the household.

Christians in the Heart of Empire

To declare “Jesus is Lord” was an act of treason. It was effectively declaring that Ceasar is not lord. It was a seditious declaration. It was seen as striking at the very pillars that established the security and stability of the state. Abandoning the gods of house and state was risking angering them and inviting catastrophe to both domestic and national affairs.

When Paul writes to the Romans that they are to “confess with your mouth the Jesus is Lord,” all of what I just described is implied. Paul is exhorting the Romans to change their allegiance from Caesar and the empire to Jesus and his beloved community. This allegiance to and belonging to the community of Christ is what Paul means when he writes, “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” This is the meaning of salvation. In Paul’s mind, salvation is not about a future event where the saved are taken to heaven. It is about entrance into a new community and embracing a new way of living with new allegiance, priorities, and values.

For the Christians in Rome who made the decision to baptized and declared that Jesus is Lord, it meant their participation in public life, their welcome in public spaces, their social lives and livelihoods were impacted. Their declaration was not merely words but a literal rejection of the empire and exit from their former ways of living. So, entry into a new community was vital for their survival. That Christian community provided a necessary lifeline where Christians could continue to survive and live.

I’ve mentioned in prior sermons that contrary to popular imagination, early Christians probably did not face systematic, empire-wide persecution, though many conservative Christian historians disagree.[1] One could imagine how the populace of Rome might blame Christians, due to their abandonment of traditional gods, for the conflagration of the city during the reign of Nero. Regardless, the ostracization from social and economic life and exclusion from participation in public life would have been difficult enough and would have necessitated finding support in an alternate community.

When we read about the early Christians and their decision to follow Jesus Christ, we need to understand what that meant. We need to know that its significance and impact went far beyond merely joining a church and leaving much of the rest of their lives unchanged.

Jesus Tested in the Wilderness

We jump over to Jesus and the wilderness temptation. After baptism, in the Lucan version, he was “led by the Spirit in[to] the wilderness, where for forty days he was tested by the devil.”

The first test Jesus faces is where the devil suggests that Jesus meet his need for food (after all, he had fasted for forty days) by turning stones into bread. In the second test, the devil takes him up high (Luke doesn’t specify where) where Jesus is shown all the kingdoms of the world and is offered dominion over them for the cost of worshiping the one offering it, the devil. And for the third and final test, Jesus is taken to the pinnacle of the temple and the devil suggest the Jesus throw himself off the pinnacle because there is a text in Psalms promising protection from physical harm.

In each case, Jesus counters the devil’s test quoting from scripture, specifically from the text of Deuteronomy. It needs to be noted that in the third test, the devil used scripture as part of the test, but it was not a proper use of it. This should be reminder that because someone quotes texts from the Bible, that by itself is not sufficient evidence for an argument. When a text is quoted, we need to evaluate if it is being quoted properly, in all its relevant contexts.

What about these tests that Jesus faced and what might it symbolize? One commentary reads, referencing Chrysostom, a church father from the fourth century,

The tests might also suggest to the Hellenistic auditor the threefold category of vice: love of pleasure, love of possession, and love of glory.[2]

Now, there is nothing wrong with enjoyment and pleasure, of having possessions, or experiencing success and even receiving adulation for accomplishments. But we should not fall in love with any of these things. When we do, they become our own household gods that we end up having to constantly appease by striving for more and more of them.

Another commentary on these three tests suggests,

In these dialogues Jesus rejects three methods of inaugurating the kingdom of God: (1) use of extraordinary power to provide bread, (2) military dreams of world empire, and (3) a sudden appearance in the temple…

The Messiah is God’s servant, and the Sermon on the Plain (6:20–49) is Jesus’ alternative Messianism, the demand for active merciful love toward the poor and hungry.[3]

In these three tests Jesus rejects methods of empire to build and hold power. Jesus rejects manipulation of his powers, Jesus rejects the use of military and political might, and Jesus rejects self-aggrandizement and religious manipulation.

Jesus gave up and rejected the way of empire to bring about change in the world. Instead, he inaugurated a different community with values and priorities opposing the world’s.

Following Jesus, Rejecting Empire

When we claim that Jesus is Lord, we should be following his way, and that includes giving up empire and rejecting the methods used by the world to acquire, maintain, and control power. If we say that Jesus is Lord, then like our ancient forebearers of the faith in Rome, we should be saying that our allegiance is not to any nation or leader of this world, but to Christ alone.

The fact that, at least in this current society that we are in, we face no hardship for saying, “Jesus is Lord,” says one of two things. Either our society is so much like God’s kingdom already, or the church and Christians have become nearly indistinguishable from the world. Since I’m sure all of us can agree that it is not the former, we can say that it is closer to the latter.

We need to change how we read these texts. We need to acknowledge that we are part of the empire, comfortably living in it and enjoying its benefits and privileges. We need to read scripture as being written to warn us. We are the rich ruler asking Jesus how we can get into his kingdom. We are the ones that are being asked to give up everything to follow Jesus. We are the ones who look at Jesus yet longingly look back to what we are being asked to leave behind. We are the camel trying to go through the eye of a needle.[4]

The beloved community of Jesus is composed of those who are presently poor, hungry, weeping, reviled and rejected.[5] It is not enough to merely pay lip service to helping the poor and hungry. It is not enough to merely speak words of comfort to those who are weeping. It is not enough to merely stand with the reviled and the rejected.

We need to find ways to be in solidarity with them. To be in solidarity with them means finding ways to create a community where they are valued and respected as full members and citizens.

Salvation Begins Here

When Paul wrote about salvation to the Christians in Rome, he meant (quote from Romans Disarmed: Resisting Empire, Demanding Justice) –

… an end to the imperial rule of death. It meant resurrection, and it meant life: life for those who were enslaved, life for those who were hungry, life for the poor who were naked, life for those who were dying because of the economic and political violence of the empire…

Unless we are willing to name the injustice of sexual abuse, economic oppression, human trafficking…, the exclusion of the stranger, we have no way of understanding either the word of hope that the gospel brought into these situations of pain or the radical nature of Paul’s language in Romans…

Paul wasn’t talking about sin or injustice in general. He was naming the experiences to whom he wrote, those who lived, Rome in the middle of the first century CE…

It is only when we share in the suffering of these people that we truly understand the need for repentance, that we truly understand the sins for which we must ask forgiveness.[6]

During this Lenten season, I encourage each of us to find ways to give up empire, resist it, and demand justice. I encourage you to take to heart what it means to declare that Jesus is Lord. I encourage you to find ways to move your allegiance from entities of this world to the kingdom of God. God is never on the side of the aggressor and oppressor. I encourage each of us to find ways to join together with the suffering people in our world.

Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven, for that is how their ancestors treated the prophets. (Luke 6:22-23 NRSVue)

In the name of God who is our Parent,

In the name of God who is our Sibling,

In the name of God who unites us in Love, Amen.

References

Aristotle. (2025, March 8). Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, section 1253b. Retrieved from Aristotle, Politics: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1253b

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2009). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 2 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Johnson, L. T. (2013). Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New Testament). Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.

Keesmat, S. C., & Walsh, B. J. (2019). Romans Disarmed: Resisting Empire, Demanding Justice. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Kirk, J. D. (2022). Romans for Normal People. Perkiomenville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

Talbert, C. H. (2012). Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (Reading the New Testament). Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.

Wikipedia. (2025, March 8). The Myth of Persecution. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Persecution

Wright, N. (2023). Romans for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 9-16, 20th Anniversary Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

 

 

---

[1] Candida Moss’s book The Myth of Persecution, summarized in (Wikipedia, 2025)

[2] From Dio Chrysostom, Orations 4.84 referenced in (Talbert, 2012).

[3] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[4] Luke 18:18-25.

[5] Luke 6:20-22.

[6] (Keesmat & Walsh, 2019)

Sermon: Becoming Awake

Lectionary: Transfiguration (C)

Texts: Psalm 99; Luke 9:28-43a

Becoming Awake

What Would Jesus Do?

Transfiguration - Anonymous

“What Would Jesus Do?”

If you were around in evangelical Christian circles in the 1990’s, this is a phrase you probably heard frequently. Youth groups promoted this phrase and accompanying bracelets as a way of always think about Jesus when faced with decisions.

It might seem cliché, overly simplistic, and a marketing fad that has long passed, but perhaps it shouldn’t be dismissed completely. When organizations and people that wear the label “Christian” don’t always seem to follow Jesus’ way, it seems like maybe we ought to ask more frequently, “What would Jesus do?”

A better question that precedes, “What would Jesus do?” that is of more importance is, “What did Jesus teach?” Perhaps that is where we witness the dichotomy of supposedly Christian groups and people behaving and speaking in unchristian ways. Perhaps the teachings that they are hearing are not what Jesus taught, but perhaps even without fully realizing it, they are carrying out teachings that are more closely allied with the powers and principalities of the world.

A Brief History of WWJD

According to the Wikipedia page[1] on “What Would Jesus Do?” the phrase has an interesting history and one that bears mentioning. The phrase comes from the Latin, imitatio Christi, meaning imitation of Christ. Augustine of Hippo around 400 was the first to use this phrase. The first known use of the English phrase was by Charles Spurgeon in 1891.

In 1896 Charles Sheldon wrote a novel by the title In His Steps based on sermons he delivered in Topeka, Kansas. The sermons spoke to a theology of Christian socialism, which the phrase “What would Jesus do?” embodied for Sheldon. Walter Rauschenbusch was inspired by the novel and formed the beginnings of what was known as the Social Gospel. Sheldon identified his own theology with the Social Gospel.

In the 1990’s appropriation of the phrase, however, the theology around it turned more spiritual, individualistic, and divorced from meeting peoples’ needs. The response to WWJD was FROG: Fully Rely on God.[2]

The history of “What would Jesus Do?’ had very noble and serious origins. It was intended as a critique of Christianity swept up in power and wealth. But by the 1990’s it had become a marketing slogan, stripped of much of its original intent and power.

I think that trying to answer the question “What would Jesus do?” might be a stretch in many cases since we have imperfect understanding and vision. But if we could get better understandings of who Jesus is and what Jesus taught, we might have a better idea of what Jesus might likely do in each situation. We can become better imitators of Christ by getting to know Jesus better. That is the message at the heart of the Transfiguration event.

Transfiguration Announces Liberation

Our gospel reading began with, “Now about eight days after these sayings…” This should alert us that whatever it was Jesus said has relevance to what is about to happen. So, what did Jesus say?

²² … “The Son of Man must undergo great suffering and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised.”

²³ Then he said to them all, “If any wish to come after me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. ²⁴ For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. ²⁵ For what does it profit them if they gain the whole world but lose or forfeit themselves? ²⁶ Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. ²⁷ Indeed, truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:22-27 NRSVue)

From this point onward, Jesus begins to speak more frequently about his impending death and resurrection. This is the subject which Jesus, Moses, and Elijah discuss during the transfiguration. The translation we heard earlier read, “…the way in which he would soon fulfill God's purpose by dying in Jerusalem.” A more literal reading is, “… and were speaking about his exodus, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem.” Jesus’ death and resurrection are portrayed using the metaphor of the great liberation story of Israel from Egyptian captivity. From the appearance of Moses, the mountaintop, the cloud, and more, the entire narrative of the transfiguration contains numerous echoes and allusions to the exodus story. Jesus is not just the greatest of prophets, he is the great liberator of humankind.

Liberation from what? Jesus answered it at the very beginning of his public ministry.

¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to set free those who are oppressed,
¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

In these texts we see various forms of oppression including economic, institutional and systemic, physical, and political. All of these are included in Jesus’ liberating mission.

Asleep and Confused

Peter, John, and James, the three disciples accompanying Jesus are asleep. They wake up just about when Moses and Elijah are ready to depart. In utter confusion, Peter suggests building three tabernacles. Commentators have many opinions about this. Some think that Peter was so confused it was random nonsense. Others think it is a reference to the Feast of Tabernacles. Others think that Peter was trying to prolong the experience. And others suggest that possibly Peter was trying to memorialize the occasion.

That last one bears expanding upon because it is something that we also do. Memorializing significant experiences and events is not, of itself, a negative thing. Recalling, reflecting, and remembering the past can help ground us and give us identity and belonging.

But memorials can also cause us to get stuck and resistant to change and to new ideas. Memorials can become institutions and edifices. They can birth hierarchies and power struggles.

I’m speculating here, but maybe that’s why the cloud comes down to quash any ideas about creating a memorial. Jesus didn’t come to set up a rival to the Jewish temple. Or an earthly political movement. Jesus didn’t come to change or take control of any existing structures and systems. Rather, Jesus came to usher in something separate from the domains and dominions of this world. He came to create a new society that would, at least for a time, exist alongside current structures but whose citizens would take on the character and behaviors of Christ.

From the cloud God’s voice speaks, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” Following Christ means first, listening to Jesus. It means internalizing his mission as ours. It means prioritizing liberation as a high, if not the highest, priority of our Christian mission. It means being willing to set aside our self-interests and even our own life to bring people out of captivity and slavery. It means understanding that Jesus’ glory, and therefore God’s glory, is not in strength and might but in humble service, sacrifice, and death.

Misunderstandings

The mountaintop scene returns to its normal, mundane sight. Jesus and the three disciples head down the mountain where a crowd greets them. From among them, a man rushes toward Jesus asking for his help in curing his son’s possession by an evil spirit. For some inexplicable reason, the disciples that remained at the base of the mountain were not able to cure the son. Even though they had been granted power over demons sometime earlier as part of their mission to the world.

In what could be read as a frustrated outburst and accusation, Jesus says, “You faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you and put up with you?” This too, puzzles commentators. Why did Jesus say this, which seems be out of the blue with no reason or explanation?

What I suggest explaining Jesus’ words is a guess and should not be taken as definitive. But it does offer one way of looking at it and I hope it makes sense to you also.

What if we read it as a lament? As Jesus looks around the crowd and his disciples, he knows the clock is ticking; his time remaining is short. There is so much he has already taught and done. From the beginning he has been explaining the kingdom of God as based on principles completely opposite to what passes as expected and normal in the world. The whole concept of power and wealth are inverted in God’s kingdom. And now Jesus tells his disciples explicitly that the way to experience God’s glory is through the cross and death to self.

Even when they hear they do not understand, or they refuse to accept what Jesus is saying. Perhaps that is what Jesus means when he laments, “You faithless generation.” In modern minds, faith is often assumed to mean belief, but a better definition is trust. Is Jesus lamenting the people’s unwillingness to trust the way of weakness, humility and death as the way into and the life of God’s kingdom?

When we hear the word perverse, to us it has the sense of moral (especially sexual) deviancy. But it broadly means being against what is right or good. The word used in the Greek text[3] has the sense “to misinterpret” or “to oppose.” Immediately after the portion of Luke we heard today, Jesus once more explains that he will suffer, but the disciples could not understand it. And following that they begin to argue which of them is the greatest. Taken together, when Jesus speaks of “perverse generation” he could be lamenting their failure to perceive and understand the nature of God’s kingdom, and their continued blindness and slumber to what it means to follow him. Instead they are still focused on the kind of glory that comes through physical, military, and political power and might. They still see the coming kingdom as one that rules over others.

Confronting Demons

Jesus Casts Out the Unclean Spirit -
Konrad von Friesach

Jesus calls for the boy and as he is brought to Jesus, the boy is dashed to the ground with convulsions. Jesus then demonstrates the kind of authority, power, and mission he was called to do. He rebukes the demon and frees the boy from the oppression that held him captive.

What do demons and demonic forces represent? It is likely that because of the boy, the entire household was ostracized from community. In a society where communal belonging was primary, this would have been devastating. One thing demons represent can be anything that disrupts and destroys community; anything that causes a member of a community to be isolated and stigmatized. I’m sure each of us can think about many ways in which people in our own community, around the nation, and the world can lose community or be forced out of one with no fault of their own. Jennifer Garcia-Bashaw writes in Scapegoats,

[Jesus] healed their bodies and minds, which made them whole, but he also restored their social standing, halting the stigma that made them scapegoats.[4]

She explains a little later in the chapter,

It is not individual sins that cause illness or impairment; it is the nature of a fallen world plagued by evil and Sin. Once communities recognize that we are all part of the problem, we can move together toward being a part of the solution…

In the Gospels, when Jesus speaks of entering the kingdom, he is not referring to leaving the earth to enter a heavenly place (although this is a common misinterpretation). He is referring to participating in the divine activity and power of God’s reign—being a part of healing creation, of loving God and neighbor in our everyday living.[5]

The work of Christ and God’s kingdom does not occur at the mountaintop. It occurs in the plains, in the valleys, in the shadows, in the pits of despair.

Our Mission

Paul Galbreath writes in a commentary,

Whether it is the oppressive demons of poverty and addiction or the evil spirits of narcissism and self-reliance, Christians are called to face the power of evil in a hostile and skeptical world.[6]

Will we remain asleep while the world continues to head into increasing turmoil and violence, with thousands and millions around the world being subjected to the demonic forces of this world? Or will we awake from our slumber, catch a glimpse of the glory of Christ, become transformed and take on the work and mission of confronting and rescuing people from those demons?

In the name of God who subdued Chaos,

In the name of God who defeated Death,

And in the name of God who Breathes Life, Amen.

Works Cited

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2022). Scapegoats: The Gospel through the Eyes of Victims. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1, Chapter 1-11. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Wikipedia. (2025, February 28). What Would Jesus Do? Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do%3F

 

 

---

[1] Remember when Wikipedia was maligned and when it was thought that no reputable person would refer to it? Times have changed. It is now considered one of the more reliable and reputable sources for general information.

[2] (Wikipedia, 2025)

[3] διαστρέφω, g1294.

[4] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[5] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[6] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

Sermon: A Platform of Anti-Violence

Lectionary: Epiphany 7(C)

Texts: Genesis 45:3-11, 15; Psalm 37:1-11, 39-40; Luke 6:27-38

Love Your Enemies

In the collection of Jesus’ sayings Luke has put together, we have come to perhaps the most difficult and illogical sayings of Jesus. It starts out with a rapid-fire quadruplet:

²⁷ “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; ²⁸ bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28 NRSVue, and remainder of sermon)

The word “enemies” literally means in Greek “one you hate” or “one who hates”. How does one love one’s enemies? The three phrases paralleling the first expound on the first to provide examples of how one accomplishes that kind of love.

The love that is being spoken by Luke here is not about feelings and emotions. It is about actions. I doubt any of us have kind of good feelings toward our enemies, and we are not being called to develop nice feelings toward them. But we cannot hate them in return for their hate toward us. To do so would have us become the very thing that we oppose. Instead, when we are faced with mistreatment, our response must be to reciprocate with good, offer grace, and pray for them.

Jesus continues with examples of how one loves their enemy using several scenarios. He summarizes this set with what we often refer to as the golden rule.

²⁹ If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. ³⁰ Give to everyone who asks of you, and if anyone takes away what is yours, do not ask for it back again. ³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:29-31)

The issue with these texts is that they have been misunderstood and misused. They have been used to excuse, condone, and profit from slavery. They have been used and are used to keep victims of violence quiet and submissive. To use these texts in these ways is wrong and evil. These texts do not require people to remain in places of harm or to remain quiet and continue to suffer abuse and evil. Rather, a proper understanding and interpretation show what Jesus meant with these words.

Reciprocity

The gospel of Matthew includes these same sayings, in slightly different form. Matthew’s version includes a few details that offer clues to a better understanding.

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also…” (Matthew 5:38-39)

From how Jesus introduces this discussion, we understand that the subject under consideration is reciprocal violence. Jesus quotes from the Torah regarding what is permitted under Jewish law. Sometimes the “eye for an eye” has been interpreted as something that must be done in response to violence, but it is a limitation on how much reciprocal violence is allowed. And by the time of Jesus, such bodily mutilation was usually not exacted.

A commentary explains:

Christian interpreters have often mistaken the rule of measure for measure (“an eye for an eye”) as an example of justice without mercy or love (5:38; Exod 21:24–25; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). However, this ancient rule, found in Mesopotamian law, limited the response to injury and insult to a proportionate punishment and brought an orderly end to blood feuds. As interpreted in the Second Temple period, satisfaction was customarily sought through monetary compensation rather than mutilation. (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

In an honor-shame society, reciprocal violence is the flipside of reciprocal hospitality and gift-giving. When one was the recipient of violence, shame came along with it, and it was necessary for the family or tribe suffering the shame to restore their lost honor through exacting vengeance upon the perpetrator. When one side regained honor, the other side then lost honor, and the cycle could easily escalate. The Torah sought to prevent this cycle from spiraling out of control by permitting one act of vengeance and only proportionate to the original harm.

But Jesus comes along and further limits reciprocal violence by telling his disciples that for them, vengeance is completely off the table as an option to respond to violence. “Do not resist and evildoer” could be taken literally, but it can also be read as, “Do not seek revenge against someone who has harmed you.”

Turning the Other Cheek

We next come to the “turn the other cheek” instruction. It could easily be seen as instruction to be a doormat in the face of violence, to just suck it up and receive the abuse. However, Matthew’s detail about the “right cheek” helps us understand how “turn the other cheek” is a form of active resistance while disengaging from retaliating with violence.

If someone was in front of you and slapped you, would it be possible to slap you on the right cheek? Only by using the left hand, correct? However, the left hand was considered unclean and used only to perform unclean tasks. To use the left hand to slap someone would also render unclean the person using the left hand to slap. Therefore, the slap had to be with right hand. The only kind of slap possible with the right hand to the right cheek is a backhand slap, a slap meant to demean, humiliate, and shame the one that is slapped. It is reserved for those that are of lower social standing than the one who is slapping. It is reserved for non-citizens, women, children, servants and slaves.[1]

When Jesus instructs the one being slapped to turn the other cheek (left), he is offering a creative solution to the problem of violence. The two usual options are to accept disrespect and dehumanization and walk away, or to respond in kind which might be the most natural desire but could have deadly consequences. Instead, Jesus’ solution is to assert one’s humanity and demand respect without resorting to violence. To offer the left check means that the slap must be done with an open hand or a fist, actions that are reserved for social equals. The one slapping is put into an awkward and humiliating position. He cannot slap or punch without acknowledging the other’s equality, but to do so would undermine himself and the social hierarchies that were believed necessary to maintain order from the gods down to the slaves.

Jesus’ solution puts a wrench into the expected cycle of violence. It is anti-violence.

Jesus Commands Anti-Violence

Toward the end of today’s gospel reading, we heard Jesus’ words, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven…” (Luke 6:37)

In The Anti-Greed Gospel, Malcolm Foley writes,

Jesus didn’t mince words about the logic of retaliation and revenge. Christians are called to consider their lives and the situations in which they might be tempted to seek revenge and refuse to do so…

If we cannot stomach one thing, it is someone getting away with evil. Yet when we retaliate, we are refusing to do the hardest and most essential action we are called by Christ to do, which is to forgive. In fact, the refusal to respond to evil with evil is what the kingdom of God is about…!

Is it hard to forgive, to eat a cost, to not strike back when we are struck? Of course! But none of that has any bearing on whether or not Christ has told us to do so. And he has. This takes violence off the table for the Christian.”  (Foley M. , 2025)

It needs to be restated, however, that this does not mean that a Christian is required to stay in unsafe places, where they continue to receive abuse. This is especially true of victims and survivors of domestic violence.

I should also define what I mean when I use the term violence. It is not just physical violence. Violence includes anything that diminishes a person’s ability to flourish as a human being. This includes financial and emotional violence: withholding means to live, threatening harm or loss, and so on. This includes inhumane government policies and indiscriminate firings. This includes poverty and homelessness.

No Exceptions

“But what about self-defense or national defense?” one might object. First, it must be asked, “Why are we so eager to find exceptions to anti-violence?” Historically, the first three centuries of Christian tradition was decidedly pacifist. Only after Constantine did Christianity cozy itself up to war and began endorsing warfare as a means of legitimating itself in the eyes of violent nations and empires.[2] On the question of self-defense we only need to look at Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he tells Peter to put down his sword and heals the ear of Malchus, which Peter had just cut off. Jesus furthermore offers to his enemy a gift of healing in response to the hate he is being subjected to.

When someone takes your coat, give him also your shirt. The first is a violent taking, a violation of one’s humanity. But the response is to give a gift.

In Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, the authors explain,

First, reciprocity is assumed and permeates the passage. Second, Jesus is redefining reciprocity but not eliminating it. Those who are harmed feel they should reciprocate harm. Part of reciprocity was that you reciprocated love to your friend and harm to your enemy… Jesus redefines reciprocity… Giving the coat [shirt in Luke] is a gift—a gift to an adversary. This is not a disinterested gift. Gifts in his reciprocal world sought to establish friendships. Giving the coat would be a gesture of magnanimity, goodwill, even a desire for relationship. It seeks to turn the adversary into a friend.  (Richards & James, 2020)

Impractical and Pie-In-the-Sky?

My vision, so accustomed to seeing the world through its eyes and thinking about these things in terms of its power and logic… I find it difficult to see how any of what Jesus is commanding could work. But let us not mince words here: Jesus is commanding his disciples to respond with gifts, mercy, and forgiveness to enemies and the hurts, harms, abuses, and threats they bring.

We can’t imagine how this could work. But it has been tried. It was first tried during the first three centuries of Christianity. The Roman empire was so threatened by this Christian response that they brought Christianity into the fold of empire to tame and control it.

It was tried by Mahatma Gandhi, who learned about Jesus’ anti-violence through Leo Tolstoy’s work, The Kingdom of God is Within You, which in turn was influenced by American Christians Adin Ballou and William Lloyd Garrison who wrote against governments engaged in violence and war. Through Gandhi’s non-violent resistance, India was freed of its colonizing powers.[3]

And influenced by Gandhi, nonviolent resistant was employed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his efforts to extend civil rights to African Americans.

A BBC article reports on research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University which

… confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way… Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns: they led to political change 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests… Once around 3.5% of the whole population has begun to participate actively, success appears to be inevitable. (Robson, 2019)

However, the method of nonviolence, the way of anti-violence, often does not bring immediate results. It is a way that is often lined with patient suffering and even martyrdom.

Following Christ’s Example

The powers of this world are maintained and enforced through threats, acts of fear and violence. Jesus came to establish a different kind of society and community—one based on love and giving—where hierarchies and power mongering would be dismantled and destroyed. No wonder the principalities and powers of this world felt threatened and executed Jesus. He lived his platform of anti-violence to the very end. He did not speak any words of vengeance upon those who took part in his execution. He did not take revenge upon any of them after his resurrection. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, broke the cycle of violence, leaving his disciples an example to follow.

We, who claim Christ’s heritage and gospel as our own, must follow in his footsteps. We must take an unequivocal stand against violence, against the threat of violence, and against the fears that they invoke. We must never resort to violence in our striving to promote and establish justice and righteousness. We must never dehumanize those that oppose us but instead respond with grace, mercy and love. We must work tirelessly to resist empire and break cycles of violence in and around us.

In closing, I again quote from Malcolm Foley,

We are encouraged to make exceptions to Christ’s commands because we think he asks too much of us. It is far too difficult for me to think creatively about resisting violence when I can lash out at my aggressor. It is far too difficult for me to respond with grace and love when my enemy is insistent on treating me like garbage. But violence and retaliation are the least creative responses to evil. The body of Christ is called to holy creativity. (Foley M. , 2025)

In the name of God who is Peace,

In the name of God who is Love,

In the name of God who empowers us to confront evil with creativity, Amen.

Bibliography

Barron, R. (2022, August 11). Why ‘turning the other cheek’ is fundamentally misunderstood. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHIW5UDT1n8

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Foley, M. (2025). The Anti-Greed Gospel: Why the Love of Money Is the Root of Racism and How the Church Can Create a New Way Forward. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Foley, S. (2022, October 14). Turn the Other Cheek: the radical case for nonviolent resistance. Retrieved from CBC Radio: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/turn-the-other-cheek-the-radical-case-for-nonviolent-resistance-1.6616634

Grace, S. (2025, February 18). Love Is Action. Retrieved from Companions on the Way: https://www.companionsontheway.com/post/love-is-action

Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Roberts, K. (2016, January 14). Turn the Other Cheek? (Explained in Context). Retrieved from Patheos: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unsystematictheology/2016/01/turn-the-other-cheek-explained-in-context/

Robson, D. (2019, May 13). The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

 

 

---

[1] (Barron, 2022)

[2] (Foley M. , 2025)

[3] (Foley S. , 2022)

Sermon: An Uncomfortable Gospel

Lectionary 6(C)

Texts: Jeremiah 17:5-10; Psalm 1; Luke 6:17-26

Beatitudes, Gospel Differences

Poverty and Wealth, William Powell Frith, 1888

When we encounter the beatitudes, the version we usually hear or think about is the one found in Matthew. As we just heard, the version in Luke is different from the one in Matthew. Luke’s version is placed in a different setting, there are fewer blessings, and each blessing is paired with a woe. The differences speak to the different purposes each gospel writer had in including the beatitudes into their gospel account.

Matthew has Jesus going up a mountain and immediately begins speaking. For Matthew, Jesus is the new Moses and the new lawgiver, who ascends a new Sinai to proclaim a new set of laws that the new community that is being inaugurated are to follow.

Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus coming down from a mountain, to level ground. He is surrounded by people from all around the region. He met their healing needs first.[1] And then, not even standing up, he looks up to his disciples and begins to speak to them.

For Luke, Jesus is one with humanity. He is the one who came down from God’s presence, giving up all its privileges and power, and became human. Jesus is not just human, but he is one who places himself as a servant and a slave to everyone else. He is one who identifies with the lowest of the low, the most outcast and reviled, the poorest of the poor, the most abused and desperate. Ninety-percent of the people in the Roman empire lived in poverty. Two-thirds were barely surviving or worse.[2] Luke’s gospel reveals a God whose preference is for these kinds of people.[3]

The Gospel is Uncomfortable

Luke’s version of the beatitudes is very uncomfortable to read, especially for many modern Christians who do not experiencing the privations, possible persecution, and powerlessness that many first century Christians experienced. We prefer Matthew’s version that omits the woes and spiritualizes references to the poor and to the hungry. We prefer a more comfortable, domesticated, and defanged gospel.[4] But Luke challenges us to sit with the discomfort.

One commentary suggests a scenario in which Luke’s gospel might have been read.

Luke’s churches listened to this sermon read aloud as the wealthy believers reclined in the dining room (triclinium) of a Roman house and the poor sat out in the peristyle garden (Osiek and Balch: chs. 1 and 8), the setting in which Luke places Jesus’ last supper (22:14, 24–30). The sermon is specifically addressed to “disciples” (6:20) divided by economic class.[5]

This demands that we ask of ourselves: Does this scenario in any way have resonance with our own present-day circumstances? Do we sit in comfortable spaces with plenty to eat while many others remain outside and hungry?

Poor Doesn’t Just Mean Poor

We also need to better understand what the term poor meant to Jesus and to Luke. What layers of meaning are encoded in this word?

Here I quote from Dr. Jennifer Garcia Bashaw’s book Scapegoats: The Gospel Through the Eyes of Victims.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the law and prophets defend “the poor” and show them to be of special concern to God. The poor are not only economically disadvantaged but also victims of the unjust structures of society… The concept involves the forces that act upon people to further marginalize them. The poor are the powerless, the vulnerable, the insignificant, the exploited, and the oppressed…

The law, the prophets, and the Psalms make the claim the Yahweh takes the side of the poor and oppressed and vindicates their rights against their rich and powerful oppressors. When Jesus states that the Spirit anointed him to bring good news to the poor, we must take his meaning in its context. The good news to the poor must at the very least be about fighting the powers and systems that keep people poor.[6]

This is all in mind when Luke has Jesus saying, “Blessed are the poor, the hungry, and the weeping.” In a world where the rich and powerful control everything and they continue to amass more and more, there is nothing left for the ninety-percent. For many, there is not even a crumb.

For Luke, the community of Jesus-followers is supposed to be bringing the blessings declared by Jesus to the poor. We see this in Luke’s second volume, known to us as the Acts of the Apostles, where he describes the very first Christ-followers working together. Those with means donated money and food so that the poor would experience the blessings that Jesus taught.

Woes of Wealth

However, as the record of Acts reveals and with what we read about in the Corinthian church, the cultural tradition and human nature associated with wealth and privilege corrupted the equitable treatment of people in the church. And that is perhaps one reason why unlike Matthew, Luke is explicit and includes woes to pair with the blessings.

The wealthy would like everyone else to believe that the availability of wealth is infinite, and therefore anyone could become wealthy with enough hard work or luck. But this is a lie. Throughout history, the wealthy became wealthy through exploitation of others.

For Luke who pairs the blessings and woes, he intends to make his audience understand that,

As soon as the rich no longer exploit the poor, the poor will experience comfort. The two fates are interrelated; Jesus is calling out and convicting the oppressor so that the suffering of the oppressed might end.[7]

For those who claim to follow the way of Jesus Christ, this must be doubly true, otherwise we are not following Christ.

Hated for Being Generous Like Christ

But what about the last pair of blessings and woe? This is the one where the blessing reads, “Happy are you when people hate you, reject you, insult you, and condemn your name as evil because of the Human One?” And the corresponding woe, “How terrible for you when all speak well of you?”

It is suggested that at least some of Luke’s audience did take Jesus’ message to heart. Referring back to a commentary read earlier,

Patrons in the Lukan house churches [invited] their poor brothers and sisters to dinner (14:12–14), which generated ostracism from their wealthy, disapproving peers. This relates the fourth beatitude directly to the first, since the disciples were acting and eating according to Jesus’ teaching.[8]

Larycia Hawkins, a biblical scholar said in a podcast interview I listened to,

… What does it mean to have a perspective of the oppressed? And this is what I believe Jesus did. I believe Jesus saw people—Jesus saw people created in God’s image. Jesus dared to be touched and moved by them. He saw that they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd…

How do you heal lepers if lepers live in leper colonies? You go where the lepers are. So I think the impulse to be at the center, centers of power as opposed to clamoring to be last, not first, is anathema to embodied solidarity. So I think there’s something about proximity to suffering that we need to relearn and reclaim. I think the desert is, and the wilderness is, where a lot of us need to be to be rejuvenated, to have our faith challenged. And we could also talk about that as the margins, right? And so where are these marginal places?

And when we are in places of power, are we willing to do risky things?[9]

A Challenge to Live Out the Gospel of Liberation

And I think that is the question we need to wrestle with at this time in history. When so much of what passes for Christianity seems enamored with power, privilege, and comfort, are we willing to risk our reputations and our livelihoods to stand up for the true gospel of liberation that Christ announced and lived out? Are we prepared to do more than just see the poor and oppressed as subjects of theology and our charity? Are we ready to speak out against the systems, institutions, policies, and governance that create and perpetuate poverty? Are we willing to risk our own comfort and security to actively work to dismantle systems of injustice and oppression, wherever they occur?

A few chapters later in Luke, Jesus says to all who seek to follow him, “All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow me. All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me will save them.” (Luke 9:23-24 CEB)

This week, I invite you to meditate on the discomfort of the gospel of liberation and the cruciform life demanded by it.

In the name of God who lifts the poor,

In the name of God who comforts the oppressed,

And in the name of God who calls us to join with our suffering siblings, Amen.

Works Cited

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2009). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2022). Scapegoats: The Gospel Through the Eyes of Victims. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1, Chapter 1-11. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

The Bible for Normal People. (2025, February 10). Episode 52: Larycia Hawkins – Embodied Solidarity. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-52-larycia-hawkins-embodied-solidarity/

 

---

[1] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[2] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[3] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[4] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[5] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[6] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[7] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[8] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[9] (The Bible for Normal People, 2025)