Sermon: A Puzzling Parable

Lectionary: Proper 20(C)

Text: Luke 16:1-13

Parable of the Unjust Steward (2012)
Mironov, Andreĭ (Andreĭ Nikolaevich), 1975-

“The parable of the dishonest steward poses significant theological challenges, not the least of which is the apparent injunction to imitate the unrighteous behavior of the main character (v. 9). Further, a cluster of exegetical problems complicates any plain sense reading of the text.”[1]

So begins one commentary on their discussion of today’s text. Another begins,

“None of the parables of Jesus has baffled interpreters quite like the story of the dishonest steward (or is he better labeled ‘the shrewd manager’ or ‘the prudent treasurer’?).”[2]

As you might surmise, interpretations of today’s reading are all over the place. Not only that, but it doesn’t help that today’s reading is an amalgamation of three (and perhaps four or five) separate sayings which originally were probably not heard together.

The parable itself ends after verse 7, maybe after the first half of verse 8, or goes all the way through verse 8, depending on the interpreter. A few include verse 9 as part of the parable. The second half of verse 8 is sometimes seen as suggested interpretation added by Luke. Verse 9 is seen both as continuing the suggested interpretation, or a separate saying that was appended.

This is followed by a saying about faithfulness. The final saying is the one about the inability of anyone to serve two masters.

The interpretation of the parable itself depends heavily on key assumptions made initially about the two characters. Is the rich man good or bad? Is the manager good or bad? Maybe neither are good people. How did the original audience perceive the characters? The rich man, especially in Luke, is often presented as an ethically ambiguous character at best, and frequently evil. The underdog is usually the hero, but his behavior in this parable appears compromised.

If we take the position that the parable ends after the first half of verse 8, which reads, “And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly,” then the manager is probably the “hero,” at least in the parable as it was originally heard. And that makes sense given that he is seen as fighting back against the landowner from whom all the debtors rent the land and to whom they owe significant amounts.

A more familiar example with similar actions by protagonist might be the tales of Robin Hood. Who is seen as the hero in this tale?

One traditional interpretation turns the landowner into an allegory of God, but this has its own problems and requires creative interpretive gymnastics to explain why he commends the dishonest manager and his activities after learning he is fired.

Another common interpretation leans heavily into the following commentary verses and sayings. This interpretation explains that the parable is not describing the dishonest manager as someone to emulate. Instead, it is an illustration of how people who are steeped in the ways of this world act shrewdly to maintain their own interests. If such is the nature of worldly affairs, according to this interpretation, then it is even more imperative that Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of the kingdom of God.

What if both the landowner and his manager were selfish and greedy, each in their own way? How might the parable be heard?

The landowner had an established system of renting land and collecting proceeds from the tenant farmers. It didn’t matter if the weather cooperated or not. It didn’t matter if pests destroyed the crops. It didn’t matter if some other disaster struck. What was due at the end of the year was fixed, and he made sure he got his very generous portion. The renters made do with what was left. After a good year, they might have enough to live on. After a bad year, they didn’t have enough to pay even the rent. The landowner would put their debt on account, at exorbitant interest, making it impossible to ever repay. The renters could complain but it wouldn’t do any good. They might even get evicted and if they had any debts, they risked being sold into slavery.

One tenant farmer owed 900 gallons of olive oil, an equivalent of about three years’ wages. Another tenant farmer owed 1,000 bushels of wheat, an equivalent of about 8 years’ wages.

The manager was better off than the tenant farmers. He had no debt, but he was nowhere near the status of the landowner. He didn’t have to labor in the dirt. He had a nice, comfortable job, and he wanted to keep it that way. He cooked the books here and there and skimmed off a bit of the harvest, to get himself a little more security and luxury.

When he is fired for reports that he was embezzling, he scrambles to place himself in a situation where he doesn’t have to go back to manual labor or worse. His cunning mind hatches a plot. Before the news that he is fired gets out, he will call in each of the tenant farmers and slash debt equaling about 18 months of wages from each one and make it appear the this is a gift from the landowner. In this way, the tenant farmers will praise the landowner for his benevolence and generosity.

The landowner is stuck in a bind. He cannot reverse the “loan forgiveness” without losing honor. And how could he explain firing his manager now? He couldn’t let it out that he had been bested by an underling.

The shrewd and scheming manager brought honor to his master as well as possibly saving his job. And even if not, he would be seen as a hero by the tenants for going against the master and providing them with relief from a tyrant landowner. It didn’t matter that the manager was doing this all out of self-interest and not out of any kind of altruism or goodness. The canceling of debt, even partially, would feel to the tenants as a gift and a miracle.

The landowner, the boss, has no choice but to commend his weasely manager.

The manager is accidentally welcomed into community.

And as the parable ends, we want a nice moral to the story. We want a good allegory that keeps everything inside a box. The early Christians wanted fixed conclusions, and the gospel writers insert conclusions and commentaries.

But that isn’t what Jesus offers in his parables. He stops and leaves the conclusions as an exercise for the listener. He confounds, challenges, and discomforts. He tells parables to cause his listeners and wrestle with questions that have no “correct” answers.

So, in the spirit of the purpose of parables, instead of answers I leave you with challenges to work out on your own meditations and together in faithful community.

What is justice in an unjust system?

How do we act justly toward others within an unjust system?

How are we benefiting from and complicit with unjust systems?

Can someone “accidentally” stumble onto and into the kingdom of God?

What if the prayer “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” literally meant forgiving and canceling debts here and now?

How do we break free from the unjust systems of this world and enter the kingdom of God?

Who are the present-day victims of unjust and dehumanizing systems, laws and policies?

How can we be heroes to these victims?

If the gospel we proclaim and live does not protect the marginalized and oppressed, if it does not improve the lives of real people here and now, is it really the gospel?

What do we mean when we pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done one earth as it is in heaven?”

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who saves,

And in the name of God who challenges, Amen.

References

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Henson, D. (2022, September 25). The Parable of the Dishonest Steward, by The Rev. David Henson. Retrieved from St. James Episcopal Church: https://stjamesepiscopal.com/9-25-2022-the-rev-david-henson/

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 2 (Chapter 12-24). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Talbert, C. H. (2012). Reading the New Testament: Reading Luke. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] (Bartlett & Brown Taylor, 2010)

[2] Ibid.

Sermon: Found and Restored

Lectionary: Proper 19(C)
Text: Luke 15:1-10

Lost Coin, 1864

Losing something is an experience we have all gone through. Whether through forgetfulness or carelessness, we lose track of things (and sometimes people). When we realize we’ve lost something, we often (but not always) search for it. Depending on the value (monetary, functional, or sentimental) of the thing lost, we might make a cursory search, search frantically, or not bother to search at all.  And once again, depending on value, we experience varying degrees of relief and joy. But rarely would we, in this time and place, invite our neighbors to join in a celebratory feast.

Another area where the idea of discovering something is lost and then searching to find the thing lost occurs in many retail environments. Periodically, the store’s inventory is counted to determine its value. In the process, it is not unusual to discover that there are missing items. It might be due to theft, but (at least in my case) often it is because things have been shuffled around in storage and placed where they have been overlooked and forgotten. Again, depending on the value of the item, the person counting might go to great lengths to try to find it, or write it off as an acceptable loss. A loss of a few five-dollar magnets is far less concerning than a missing $1000 bracelet. (And frequently during future inventory counts items previously thought “lost” are discovered!)

Our reading today from Luke 15, has two parables about losing and finding. There is another immediately following that completes a trilogy of parables. This third is commonly known as the parable of the prodigal son. Luke places these three parables together for his literary and thematic purposes.

When reading and attempting to interpret parables found in the gospels, there are several layers of reading and interpretation to consider. All writing, reading, and interpreting are done through filters and colored by them. It is helpful to recognize and point them out so that we know how our reading and interpretation might be affected. What briefly follows is a primer (or review) on reading scripture more responsibly.

The first layer and the most obvious is our present-day layer. Our social, cultural, economic, religious, and political contexts color what we read and see in the text.

The next layer is history and tradition. Two millennia of Christian interpretation color how these parables are interpreted. There are denominational differences in interpretation and what might be emphasized. From the early apostles to now, interpretation have changed and what was considered a good interpretation a thousand years ago might now be seen as inappropriate and replaced by something else.

The third layer I bring up today is the literary context. This includes how the gospel writer (or redactor) arranged and edited the parables, placing them into a narrative context, and adding his own interpretation to speak to his audience with their immediate contexts.

The final layer is the parable itself and its original audience. Luke’s parable of the lost sheep finds a very similar one in Matthew 18, but with differences. The literary context of Matthew’s placement is quite different from the one in Luke. The parable is also found in The Gospel of Thomas with significant differences in editing and emphasis. From this, scholars conclude that the original parable was appropriated by each writer/redactor, changed and arranged to make their own points. But there is agreement that the core parable can be traced back to a single source. And that core is what Jesus’ original audience heard.

In our search for the core of the parable, let’s touch on a few common interpretations. As we do so we will peel away some of the layers that have been added over the course of Christian history.

One of the most common interpretations treats the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin as allegories, where the shepherd and the woman represent God, who goes to search for the lost sheep and lost coin. The sheep and coin, within this interpretation, represent those who have gone astray from God. God offers gracious forgiveness and reconciliation as they are found and brought back. This is indeed good news and a description of God, but it does not challenge or provoke. Parables are supposed to be challenging and provocative.

The writer/redactor of Luke, himself, adds a layer of allegory by placing an interpretive commentary at the end of each of the parables.

“In the same way, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who changes both heart and life than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to change their hearts and lives.” (Luke 15:7 CEB)

“In the same way, I tell you, joy breaks out in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who changes both heart and life.” (Luke 15:10 CEB)

By adding these verses, Luke attempts to fit the parables to his narrative setting. The setting is that the Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus of welcoming and hosting sinners at his table. In this narrative context the parables are Jesus’ response to their criticism of him. And Luke constrains the interpretation to fit into the narrative by making them about repentance and returning to God. It describes God’s desire. It might even be a critique of religious leadership. But it does little to challenge or provoke.

There is too, a problem of assigning to God the allegorical roles of the shepherd and the woman. In the first parable, the shepherd loses one of his sheep. In the second, the woman loses one of her coins. They each bear responsibility for their loss. If they represent God, then we have a problem of God losing things. In fact, in the second parable, the woman admits she lost the coin.

What about the parable of the sheep? We often end up conflating multiple similar stories and assume things about them. In the Matthew version of the parable, the sheep is said to have “gone astray.” While ambiguous, some interpreters have suggested that this is an allegorical image of people voluntarily straying. The parable of the Good Shepherd in John is also often read into the parable of the ninety-nine and one sheep. But when we take what is found in Luke, and especially when read alongside the parable of the lost coin, the audience is expected to understand that the shepherd was perhaps careless and lost a sheep.

Another problem regards the repenting commentary inserted by Luke. Neither sheep nor coin can repent. It takes a bit of interpretive creativity beyond what is in the text to allow sheep and coins to repent.

When the parable of the prodigal is also considered, it might seem that the younger son repents and returns home. We don’t have time today to consider this parable in detail, but there is a strong case to be made that the idea of repentance is absent from that parable also.

If these parables initially weren’t about God’s search for sinners or repentant Christians, what were they about?

In each parable, the owner loses something of value. They recognize the loss. Something that was whole and complete is now incomplete. The owner makes great effort to find and recover what was lost. When they do, what had become incomplete is restored to completeness. They admit responsibility for their part in causing the loss to occur. And there is joy, and the community is invited to participate in the rejoicing.

These parables challenge and provoke us in several ways. First, are we even aware that our community is incomplete? Are we aware of who or what is missing, who might have been driven out, and who might have drifted away? Have we made any efforts to search for them and bring them back into community? Have we examined ourselves and our community to understand why some may have left or wandered away? Do we bear responsibility for any of the losses? Can we admit them? And do we genuinely want the messiness of a diverse community with different viewpoints, approaches, and experiences?

The main characters in each parable simply bring what was lost back into fellowship with others of its kind. There are no sermons. There are no altar calls. There are no confessions made. They are simply returned to community. This too, is a provocation and a challenge. The community that Jesus founded is larger than any human made boundaries. Can we appreciate and imitate Jesus’ inclusiveness?

I conclude with words by Amy-Jill Levine from her discussion of these parables,

Recognize that the one you have lost may be right in your own household. Do whatever it takes to find the lost and then celebrate with others, both so that you can share the joy and so that the others will help prevent the recovered from ever being lost again. Don’t wait until you receive an apology; you may never get one. Don’t wait until you can muster the ability to forgive; you may never find it. Don’t stew in your sense of being ignored, for there is nothing that can be done to retrieve the past.

Instead, go have lunch. Go celebrate, and invite others to join you. If the repenting and the forgiving come later, so much the better. And if not, you still will have done what is necessary. You will have begun a process that might lead to reconciliation. You will have opened a second chance for wholeness. Take advantage of resurrection—it is unlikely to happen twice.

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who reconciles,

And in the name of God who challenges us to be reconcilers, Amen.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

Sermon: The Master Who Serves

Lectionary: Proper 14(C)

Texts: Luke 12:32-40 

When you return home from a late-night party, do you knock on the door of your home to be let in?

Hold that thought. We’ll come back to it.

Today’s gospel lection is both interesting and difficult. It is at an intersection where literary images and themes converge and diverge. Each part can stand alone, yet its meanings can only be fully appreciated by seeing how it is informed by what came before and how it informs what comes after.

For example, the first few texts about not being afraid belong to an extended section that was not read. The parable in the middle stands alone, yet it can be more powerful when contrasted with the parable of the rich fool from last Sunday, and the theme of things happening unexpectedly are repeated in the following sections.

The last two verses share a motif with the parable, but its emphases and symbolisms change. Locating parallel texts in the other gospel accounts, these verses don’t seem to be part of the original parable.

Finally, ironically, these two parts are quite distinct and separate. Commentaries that follow the lectionary readings either try to force the whole thing together or choose one to comment on and omit the rest. I will be taking the latter option and selecting the parable in the middle.

This parable of the master returning in the middle of the night is another instance where the English translations can get in the way of better interpretation. Until I started reading Ken Bailey’s commentary on this parable[1], the following is the picture I had of it.

The master has gone away some distance to a wedding celebration. The servants/slaves don’t know when their master will return. But they need to remain vigilant and be ready to wait on him when he returns. When the master returns late at night, or even very early in the dark of the morning, he knocks on the door, and the servants rush to greet him. When he enters, instead of being served, he readies himself to serve. To the surprise of the servants/slaves, he tells them to seat themselves and waits on them.

I will now read Bailey’s translation of Luke 12:35-38.

Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning, and be like people who are expecting their master when he withdraws from the wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks, immediately they may open to him.

Blessed are those slaves who coming, the master finds awake.

Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself and cause them to recline [to eat], and come to them and serve them.

If (in the second of third watch), he comes and finds thus, blessed are those slaves.[2]

Did you catch the numerous nuances that are different in Bailey’s translation over nearly all English ones?

I think that the key difference and one that changes the approach to interpretation is the idea that the master is the host of the wedding banquet. If he himself isn’t the groom, then his son or another key family member is the groom. The celebration is taking place at his own estate. It might very well be in the same building, or perhaps a detached one on the same grounds.

The master does not return from the celebration but rather, withdraws from it. The celebration is continuing in the public area of the estate. The master takes a discreet leave away from the party.

He comes to the private area of the estate—the private living and sleeping areas. He knocks at the door to the servants’ quarters. Why?

Bailey describes Middle Eastern custom where only strangers knock at the door. Known individuals announce themselves (loudly) so that the homeowner knows who is outside and knows that it is safe to open the door.

The master, however, knocks on the door and expects the door to be opened. This implies that this is an interior door (or perhaps a separate building in a secure part of the estate) so it would be no stranger knocking. The reason for the master to knock is because he does not want to raise his voice, which would alert the wedding guests that he has withdrawn from them.

The servants were not merely waiting (as in most English translations), but they were expecting the master to come. Perhaps they were expecting him to need mid-celebration spiffing up, perhaps a short respite before returning to the party, or perhaps additional directions in regards the ongoing event. In any case, they were not just spending their time waiting, but they were anticipating their master’s needs should he come to them.

But then, the unexpected occurs. The master, rather than asking the servants to serve him, he begins to take the actions of a servant. He girds himself up so that he can be more mobile. Then he directs his servants to recline at the triclinium. This direction can only mean one thing: the servants will be served dinner as honored individuals.

But where will the food and drink come from? All the prepared food is out at the banquet. There is nothing held back. The food and drink must come from the banquet itself. How the master was able to discreetly pack and cart away enough food to serve all his servants is left up to the imagination. The servants don’t get lesser fare. They receive the abundance of the wedding banquet.

In this parable we can see elements of the eschatological wedding and the wedding feast, the Eucharist, and the servanthood of Christ. In the master’s withdrawing from the celebration, we can see echoes of Christ’s incarnation. In the reversal of roles, we see how the kingdom reverses the world’s ideas of power and the powerful.

We can see too, that in fact this parable does have a thread that connects it to the earlier sayings about worry and fear. We don’t need to worry or fear because God will bring the bounties of the kingdom and serve God’s people.

We might also find a contrast between the master of this parable vs. the rich fool. Where the rich fool had no celebration and thought only of himself and hoarding, the master brings a share of the banquet to his servants.

We might also reflect on a thread that connects this parable with the parables of the sower and the seeds. In these parables of growth, one of the key points made is that the kingdom starts out small and unnoticed; it grows without drawing attention to itself until it reaches full growth and maturity when it is finally noticed.

I see an echo to that theme in the quiet withdrawal of the master. He does not announce what he is doing. He does not seek accolades for his generosity. He does not draw attention to his role reversal. He just does what his love for his servants compels him to do.

When we think about church and denominational public relations, advertising, and marketing, I have questions. Questions about whether it is because those are the methods the world promotes, and we’ve just adopted them. Or how much of it is about feeding our own egos.

As Jesus continues to travel up to Jerusalem, then through it, and to Golgotha, he teaches what the kingdom is like and what God is like, he identifies himself with humanity and becomes a servant to all, a servant even to suffer the death of the worst slave and criminal. In return, he offers the kingdom and its banquet to all who would follow his way of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

May we enter into his joy with praise and thanksgiving!

In the name of God who Creates Joy,

In the name of God who Celebrates,

And in the name of God who challenges us to serve, Amen.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 3. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

---

[1] (Bailey, 2008)

[2] (Bailey, 2008)

Sermon: On Loan from God

Lectionary: Proper 13(C)

Text: Psalm 49:1-12; Luke 12:13-21

Parable of the Rich Man,
Rembrandt, 1627

There are certain passages that come up in the lectionary where I wonder if anything more needs to be said. Today’s gospel reading is one of those. In short: greed is bad; be generous instead. Today’s reading also seems rather on the nose with societal goings-on around us that I wonder what more could be said.

It is easy to point fingers at others. It is easy to read this text, think about billionaires and point fingers at their lack of morals and ethics. It is easy to read this text and point fingers at the self-centeredness of the ultra-wealthy and how they seem to have no regard for those just getting by.

None of us sitting here today is among the top one percent in wealth. Most of us must make trade-offs in our budgets and spending. Some of us might consider ourselves comfortable, but not so comfortable that we don’t have worries about finances. Does today’s reading contain anything relevant for us?

Jesus tells the parable of the rich fool in response to a man in the crowd approaching Jesus so that he could settle an inheritance dispute between him and his brother. However, it was more than that. The man, probably the younger brother, had already made up his mind that he was going to get the share of inheritance that the law entitled him to. He was going to exercise his right to have the property divided and given to him. He just wanted a declaration from Jesus that this plan was approved.

It needs to be understood that there was no requirement that an inheritance be divided after the patriarch’s death. Psalm 133:1 praise families who continue to live together: “¹ Look at how good and pleasing it is when families live together as one!” (CEB) In Genesis 13, the separation of Abram and Lot, because each family had grown too large to remain together, is seen as a tragedy.

The younger brother who had come to Jesus had already decided that he wanted to separate from his family and take his portion of the family land with him. “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” (Bailey) responds Jesus.[1] First, as was with Martha and Mary, Jesus does not take kindly to demands that are made to him. If Jesus is Lord and Master, making requests and accepting what is provided is appropriate. But not demands. Second, Jesus came to bring people together into his community, not to divide. Those who follow Jesus as Lord and Master ought to come together, not separate.

Jesus is not impressed by this man’s attitude. Jesus’ addressing of him as “Man” is just short of rude.[2]

Jesus continues with a statement of a general principle. “Take heed, and beware of every kind of insatiable desire. For life for a person does not consist in the surpluses of his possessions.” (Bailey)

A couple of things to note here. First, “insatiable desire” implies much more than acquisition and hoarding of possessions. It hints to more intangible things such as power, honor, respect, ambition, and even independence. Second, Jesus is addressing what one does with a surplus. In other words, possessions, tangible and intangible, inherently are not bad or evil. Humans need various things to meet our basic physical, emotional, and social needs. But there comes a point where some can end up with more than is needed. How we respond to a surplus is an indicator of what we truly desire.

The parable Jesus tells lays out one option. When we pause to see its reflection, we can infer the second option, the option that leads to authentic life.

In the parable, the man is already wealthy. He is not condemned for being wealthy. What happens next is that his lands simply produce a bumper crop. Those who farm and garden are quite aware that many things out of their control can affect the harvest. You can work hard and do all the right things to influence the harvest, but the outcome is also determined by things like weather and pests.

This rich man happens to experience a bumper crop for nothing related to his actual work or effort. It is a gift from God. What will he do with it?

He enters a monologue, speaking to himself. The crops, the surplus, everything is his. In his mind he owns it, deserves it, and can do what he wants with it. He has no one to discuss this fortune with. He has no one who celebrates with him. It does not cross his mind that those who worked in the fields might share in it. It is his – all of it.

He decides to tear down his current barns, build larger ones, store up the harvest, and then live an easy life for many years to come. “Relax, eat, drink, and enjoy yourself,” (Bailey) he muses to himself. This might be a reference to Ecclesiastes 8:15, “¹⁵ So I commend enjoyment because there’s nothing better for people to do under the sun but to eat, drink, and be glad. This is what will accompany them in their hard work, during the lifetime that God gives under the sun.” (CEB) What the rich man forgot or fails to realize is that life itself is a gift and a loan from God.

The parable next has God collecting the loan due on the rich man’s life. The man had no time to relax and enjoy what he thought were his possessions. Similarly to the lament of the writer of Ecclesiastes, God asks, “Fool! Who is going to inherit all the things you stored away?”

Jesus ends the parable with a warning. “This is the way it will be for those who hoard things for themselves and aren’t rich toward God.” (Luke 12:21 CEB) Bailey translates this as follows: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not gathering riches for God.” Two choices are laid out. Each person can live for themselves, pursuing their own glory; or, they can use what they are loaned to build up God’s community.

In our modern society, where ownership is such an entrenched and highly prized principle, it might be difficult for us to let go of it. But for those who follow Christ, everything we have is on loan from God; even our time here on earth. If we take to heart the truth that all God has given to us doesn’t belong to us; if we take to heart that God desires community above all else; and if we take to heart that what God gives is intended to build up his community, would we live differently?

I think that the problem of the man demanding his portion of the inheritance wasn’t primarily about the inheritance, but about him wanting to distance himself from community and live independently from family. The parable could be seen as a warning of what unchecked independence without communal accountability will eventually lead to: a life that becomes completely self-consuming and self-indulgent, uncaring of others and their needs.

Living in community, with people that are different from us, don’t always think alike, are sometimes disagreeable and even unlikeable, can be difficult. But that is how and where we practice unconditional love, forgiveness, and mercy. As we contribute our tangible and intangible possessions in building up God’s community, we are “gathering riches for God” and bringing the kingdom of God as we pray each week, in community, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Gathers,

And in the name of God who discomforts us through imperfect community, amen.

References

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 3. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] Most translations use “arbitrator” or similar instead of “divider”, softening the intent of Jesus’ words.

[2][2] Some translations use “Friend” or similar instead of “Man”, softening the intent of Jesus’ words.

Sermon: "Am I Lord or Not?"

Lectionary: Proper 11(C)

Text: Luke 10:38-42

Martha reproving her sister Mary
Gentileschi, Orazio, 1563-1638?

We continue in Luke’s gospel account where Jesus is on his journey up to Jerusalem. Jesus comes to a village. But before we continue, we are looking back to the beginning of Luke chapter 10, where Jesus sent out seventy disciples.

Jesus gave instructions to those that were sent out. Part of the instructions included, “⁵ Whenever you enter a house, first say, ‘May peace be on this house.’ ⁶ If anyone there shares God’s peace, then your peace will rest on that person. If not, your blessing will return to you. ⁷ Remain in this house, eating and drinking whatever they set before you, for workers deserve their pay. Don’t move from house to house.” (Luke 10:5-7 CEB)

Returning to where we took a detour, Jesus enters a village, and he is welcomed by a woman named Martha. She invites him to her home and offers him hospitality. So far, the narrative is going according to Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples and how to identify people who are willing to support his ministry.

We learn next that Martha has a sister named Mary. In Luke’s gospel account, this is their only appearance. John’s gospel names two sisters Martha and Mary who appear together with a brother, Lazarus, in a village named Bethany. These two sets of siblings are probably the same, and most biblical scholars agree.

Therefore, it is worth pausing here to note that in Luke’s account, Lazarus is not mentioned. In fact, the home to where Jesus is invited is identified as “home of Martha”. It is also worth noting that neither Martha or Mary is identified as a widow nor are their parents mentioned. Since most women in the ancient Middle East were expected to live under either a father or a husband, it is no small thing that Martha owns a home. One of the only ways such a thing could happen is if they were sufficiently wealthy so that they could be independent and probably run their own business.

This goes along with whom Luke identifies as major financial sponsors of Jesus’ ministry. At the beginning of chapter 8, Luke writes, “​¹ Soon afterward, Jesus traveled through the cities and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of God’s kingdom. The Twelve were with him, ² along with some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses. Among them were Mary Magdalene (from whom seven demons had been thrown out), ³ Joanna (the wife of Herod’s servant Chuza), Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources.” (Luke 8:1-3)

I should point out that Mary, the Greek form of Miriam, was a very common name. So there is little reason to equate Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene, although there is also no evidence that they couldn’t be the same. The real point here is that women of means were vital to supporting Jesus’ ministry.

Returning to today’s narrative, we encounter trouble when Martha sees Mary, “who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his message. ⁴⁰ By contrast, Martha was preoccupied with getting everything ready for their meal. So Martha came to him and said, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to prepare the table all by myself? Tell her to help me.’” (Luke 10:39b-40)

Hearing this Jesus answered, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things. ⁴² One thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the better part. It won’t be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42)

There are many interpretations given as to what Jesus meant by this and why Luke included it. Some are better than others and a few are simply bad.

One of the worst is where this episode is interpreted to mean that women are welcome to spiritual learning as long as they sit quietly and keep quiet.

Another poor interpretation is one that can be made only by ignoring the rest of the New Testament. This interpretation prioritizes the life on contemplation as better than the life of service. After all, doesn’t Jesus rebuke Martha for trying to be hospitable and serve while praising Mary for sitting quietly and learning?

There are several reasons why this line of interpretation cannot be sustained. First, Jesus himself says that he came to serve. A second reason is that looking back to the sending out of the seventy, it was expected that recipients of ministry would reciprocate through service. And the third reason is that in Luke’s next volume, the Acts of the Apostles, one of the first things the group of believers do is appoint deacons so that service work can be delegated to them while the apostles could continue the preaching and teaching ministry. Both ministries are equally vital and valued in that episode.

A related point to note here is that “to serve” is diakoinen in Greek. Our English word deacon comes from this Greek term. It should also be noted that in Acts, it is not just women who serve, but men serve and are called deacons. Tasks which culturally likely belonged to women, in the Christian community, were shared regardless of gender.

A better interpretation keys in on the word “distracted.” Martha was distracted. In order to be distracted, she has to be distracted from something, and in this case, it seems to be Jesus himself. Martha seems to be so busy making sure the work of hospitality is done perfectly she has no time for the guest.

However, this too, faces some problems. If everyone sat down to listen, what would happen to the hospitality. Now it could be said that the hospitality Jesus wants isn’t about food and drink but sitting with him and learning from him. Or it could be that Jesus is saying, “Martha, you’ve already done enough. It doesn’t have to be ‘perfect’ as you want to see it.”

It is true that many of us can become so focused on doing things to maintain the structures of ministry that we have no time for listening to Christ. Our liturgy for this morning emphasizes this line of interpretation.

This interpretation isn’t bad or wrong, but there is another alternative that I think makes even more sense.

When Mary sits down at the feet of Jesus, Luke is describing the posture of a disciple learning from their master.

When Luke notes disciples and the women accompanying Jesus in chapter 8, the women are described as supporting and serving him. But they don’t seem to have the role of disciples at that point. James F. McGrath, in What Jesus Learned from Women, suggests that when Mary sits at the feet of Jesus, it is the very first time that a woman has taken the position of a disciple. It is not only unprecedented but also catches Jesus by surprise.[1] How Jesus responds will make all the difference. Jesus may not have even noticed Mary there until Martha points it out.

What is Martha’s real complaint and question? Would Mary have been so imperceptive to leave Martha with all the household work? What if Mary could see that Martha had everything under control? What if Mary recalled how Jesus talked about women in prior months and thought maybe she could be allowed to learn from him, too?

The complaint from Martha then becomes not of immediate need, but a veiled accusation against both Jesus and Mary of violating cultural traditions and demanding that Jesus do something about it.[2] Martha may have been worried about how the impropriety of Mary filling the role of a man might reflect on them. How could Mary find a husband when she was usurping a man’s role? What might the talk of the village be? Perhaps she was worried about what people might say about Jesus for permitting a woman to be one of his disciples. Jesus was already ruffling powerful feathers. Perhaps Martha had a desire to protect Jesus.

Are these things the “distractions” Jesus is thinking about when he responds to Martha? If so, it fits better with the overall progression of Luke’s narrative.

First, Jesus is defending Mary’s right to become his disciple. Just as the separation of Jew and Samaritan was erased in the parable of the merciful Samaritan, here Jesus erases gender boundaries that kept men and women in their separate spheres. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the early Christians allowed ministry roles to anyone who was gifted to do the necessary work, and men learned that serving was not beneath them.

Second, Jesus may be noting to Martha an irony in her words, “Martha, you called me ‘Lord,’ but you are now demanding that I do something. Am I ‘Lord’ or am I not?”

Is Jesus asking the same questions of us today? “What are you worried about and distracting you?”

Yes, we worry about being seen as respectable in our families and communities. We worry about how far to push the boundaries of change vs. tradition. We worry about maintaining the physical and social structures of church and denomination. We are worried about how our personal politics might offend a friend or a neighbor. We are worried that if we drop our facades to reveal our true selves, we will be rejected. We are worried about how things outside of our control might impact us. We are distracted by all these things.

“Am I Lord or not?”

We confess you as Lord, but too often we invoke your name wanting you to bless our own desires and plans. We too often place you in boxes and boundaries that make us feel comfortable.

Jesus says, “Turn your ears and eyes toward me. Let go of your worries and distractions. Instead, focus on my teachings and my doings. Do mercy to whomever I send you to.”

In the name of God who is boundless,

In the name of God who broke boundaries,

And in the name of God who discomforts our boundary-making, Amen.

References

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

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

McGrath, J. F. (2021). What Jesus Learned from Women. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

 

 

---

[1] (McGrath, 2021)

[2] (Bailey, 2008)

Sermon: Doing Mercy

Lectionary: Proper 10(C)

Text: Luke 10:25-37

[This sermon is based on insights found in “Chapter 2: The Good Samaritan” in Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, by Amy-Jill Levine.]

The parable of the Good Samaritan is probably close in familiarity to the stories of Christmas and Easter. There are organizations and institutions named after it. There are laws by that name that afford liability protection when one stops to help. Those who unexpectedly come to the aid of another are called “Good Samaritans”.

Its familiarity poses a problem for preachers, because what more can be said about it? We all just heard it read and I’m sure all of us recall sermons that we’ve heard and text that has been written on it. Most interpretations and applications run along the lines of “Don’t be like the priest and Levite but instead be like the Good Samaritan.”

There is nothing wrong with this interpretation. But perhaps it only touches the surface and there is much more that is provocative and subversive if we allow the text to speak to us.

We should keep in mind that this is part of Luke’s “travel document” where Jesus is portrayed going up to Jerusalem where he will be lifted up through crucifixion and resurrection. These texts contain teachings about what it means to have his perspective on the world and continue his work. It also describes some of the reasons why Jesus was rejected and killed.

The text today begins with a lawyer standing up to test Jesus. In our culture the stereotype of lawyers is generally negative. In Luke’s gospel, lawyers are depicted negatively. But to Jesus’ audience and in much of the New Testament, lawyers would have been seen in a positive light. They were considered righteous. They were the rulers of the nation and interpreters of the Torah.

The question the lawyer poses is also a problem. There is no way to answer the question because one cannot do something to inherit something. The Jews were already considered to be among the saved, so the question itself makes little sense other than to try to trap Jesus into saying something wrong and thereby discrediting him. The lawyer also asks the question in such a way that doing something is a one-time action. He thinks of eternal life as a commodity that can be acquired.

Jesus does not answer the question but asks a question of his own. He asks the lawyer, “What is written in the Law (Torah), and how to you read (interpret) it?”

The lawyer responds as would be expected, quoting from Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19, “Love God and love your neighbor.” In Christian interpretation, this has often come to mean that these two replace the Torah and all other laws, especially when reading some of the later New Testament writings.

However, this would have been the furthest from Jesus’ mind. Recall that in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” Matthew 5:17 (NRSVue) Jesus and his fellow Jews would have understood the great command to love God and love neighbors as the lens through which all other laws and actions should be interpreted and assessed. In other words, all other laws are relativized to the two commands to love. If we took this approach, how different might Christianity engage with the world around us?

The lawyer gives the correct answer, for Jesus responds, “Do this, and you will live.” What is key to realize here is that Jesus’ “do” is not the same as the “what must I do” asked by the lawyer. Where the lawyer’s “do” indicate a one-time action, Jesus’ “do” is a ongoing, continuous activity. Eternal life is not a commodity to be acquired, but a lifestyle that must be lived continuously.

The lawyer could have stopped there, but instead he asks, “And who is my neighbor?” That question if it stood alone could be interpreted as a genuine inquiry, but Luke offers a motive, that is the lawyer wanted to “justify himself.” The lawyer wanted to look good in front of the audience around him. He wanted Jesus to list all the categories of neighbors so that he could answer affirmatively, gaining honor and respect.

But in another sense, the question is misguided because asking “who is my neighbor” is inferring that some are not neighbors and don’t deserve or need to be loved. “Whom can I hate?” is the unspoken question.

Here, what becomes relevant is a question asked earlier by Jesus, “How do you read (it)?” Levine writes, “In Hebrew the words ‘neighbor’ and ‘evil’ share the same consonants (resh ayin); they differ only in the vowels—but ancient Hebrew texts do no have vowels… Both words are written identically.”[1]

When Jesus asks, “How do you read?” he is asking the lawyer, can you see “in the very words of the Torah, the equation of enemy with neighbor and thus the command to love both?”[2]

At this point, Jesus launches into a parable. A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead. This is the character with whom the audience is invited to identify and probably does. This man is oppressed and nearly killed, something with which Jesus’ listeners would have been all too familiar. The question raised is, “Who will help this man?”

A priest then a Levite pass by, but both, seeing the man, intentionally pass by on the other side. Interpreters have attempted to offer various reasons for why, including Jewish religious practices, but these explanations have problems. From the text what can be seen most plainly is that they simply didn’t care and didn’t want to be bothered. They didn’t have compassion.

After this a third individual appears. We are familiar with tropes of three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; mind, body, soul; Curly, Larry, and Moe, etc. Jesus’ listeners were also familiar with the trope beginning with a priest and a Levite. The expected third was Israel. It would be natural and expected for a fellow Jew to come to the aid of this man.

But Jesus breaks the pattern and introduces a Samaritan. You are probably quite aware of the hatred between the Jews and Samaritans. Their history is one of violence against one another. When the Samaritan sees the man left for dead, he experiences compassion for the man, something that the first two did not. He approaches and gives aid. Not only that but he takes the man to safety and offers the innkeeper funds to care for the man, promising to make up any difference if the need continues.

At this point the listener is forced to consider that the one they have labeled as the enemy might be capable of doing good. They must contemplate the possibility that the one they have been taught to hate might be their only source of help.

Levine suggests that this parable might be rooted in an incident recorded in Israel’s history, in 2 Chronicles 28:1-15. Ahaz became king of the southern kingdom of Judah, but he did not reign righteously, and so it is written that God allowed enemies to defeat him, conquer his land, have many of his people killed and the rest taken captive. One of those victorious over Ahaz was the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom took two hundred thousand of their defeated cousins as captives and their possessions as spoils, leading them to Samaria. It is here that we will read from the biblical text:

⁹ One of the LORD’s prophets named Oded lived in Samaria. When the army arrived there, he went to meet them and said, “Don’t you see that the LORD God of your ancestors was angry with Judah and let you defeat them? But look what you’ve done! Your merciless slaughter of them stinks to high heaven! ¹⁰ And now you think you can enslave the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem? What about your own guilt before the LORD your God? ¹¹ Listen to me! Send back the captives you took from your relatives, because the LORD is furious with you.”

¹² At this, some of the Ephraimite leaders—Johanan’s son Azariah, Meshillemoth’s son Berechiah, Shallum’s son Jehizkiah, and Hadlai’s son Amasa—confronted those returning from battle. ¹³ “Don’t bring the captives here,” they told them. “Your plan will only add to our sin and guilt before the LORD. We’re already guilty enough, and great anger is already directed at Israel.”

Then we read what might be echoes found in the parable Jesus told.

¹⁴ So the warriors released the captives and brought the loot before the officers and the whole assembly. ¹⁵ Then people named for this task took charge of the captives and dressed everyone who was naked with items taken from the loot. They gave them clothing, sandals, food and drink, and bandaged their wounds. Everyone who couldn’t walk they placed on donkeys, and they brought them to Jericho, Palm City, near their Judean relatives. Then they returned to Samaria. (2 Chronicles 28:9-15 CEB)

A prophet was brave enough to confront the actions of the king, his military, and all the people who saw the southern kingdom as enemies and their oppressors. They had plans to dehumanize them—their own kin—as slaves. The prophet said, “No.” That courage and reasoning allowed a few other leaders of the northern kingdom to rise and confront their own people and lead them away from violence and oppression that they were about to commit. For the people of the southern kingdom taken captive, salvation came from an unexpected source: the ones that a few moments ago were their enemy.

Returning to Jesus, after finishing telling the parable he asks the lawyer, “Which of these three was a neighbor to the one who fell among the robbers?”

The lawyer responds, “The one who did mercy.” Even though he cannot get himself to say the hated term “Samaritan,” he gets the point of the parable. What is also interesting is that the lawyer goes beyond simply saying, “The one who showed compassion.” The neighbor is the one who shows compassion and responds in mercy.

It is not enough to have compassionate “thoughts and prayers.” In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus tells his disciples, “³⁵ Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. ³⁶ Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:35-36 NRSVue)

As I wrap up this message, consider who each of us might consider our “enemies.” Who are the people and groups we fear and maybe hate? Who are those whom society, politicians, tradition, and some religious teachings say we ought to hate, ignore, send away, cause them to suffer, and delight in their suffering?

In Jesus’ reading of the Torah, there is no distinction between neighbor and enemy. All humanity is one. When we claim the name of Christ as our identity, we are agreeing with Jesus. If we think of anyone as not deserving of mercy, we cannot be truly Christian. If we elevate any law above the lens of the command to love God and neighbor, we should question our sincerity in following Christ. And may God give us the courage to speak out for compassion, the courage to do mercy, and the courage to confront hate, fear, and oppression.

In the name of God who is Compassion,

In the name of God who is Mercy,

And in the of God who discomforts our selective love, Amen.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Levine, A.-J., & Brettler, M. Z. (2011, 2017). The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

 

 

---

[1] (Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, 2014)

[2] (Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, 2014)