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)

Sermon: Following Jesus

Lectionary: Proper 8(C)

Text: Luke 9:51-62

Sermon

After Jesus provided food for more than five thousand people, expectation of a conquering Messiah was high. But instead of announcing a conquering kingdom, Jesus told his disciples that he would suffer and be killed. He said to them, “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?” (Luke 9:23-25 NRSVue)

Following this Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus where he was transfigured atop a mountain and where Moses and Elijah appeared next to Jesus. They heard a voice from a cloud speak to them saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen, listen to him.” (Luke 9:35b)

These events provide key narrative contexts through which today’s gospel reading can be interpreted. “Whose words and actions do we follow?” and “What does following Jesus mean?” are the implied questions beneath what we heard.

From a literary perspective, the reading today contains strong echoes and allusions to several stories concerning the last days of Elijah and the call of Elisha.[1]

2 Kings 2:1 begins, “Now when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven…” echoing what Luke wrote, “When the days drew near for him to be taken up…”

In 2 Kings 1, Elijah calls down fire from heaven to destroy two groups of Samaritan messengers.

In the call of Elisha found in 1 Kings 19, Elisha is called while plowing a field. Elisha says to Elijah, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, then I will follow you.” Elijah gives permission for Elisha to do so.

Elijah and Elisha are two prophets who preside over a period in Israel’s history where God works visibly and mightily to provide for and intervene on Israel’s behalf.

Jesus’ miraculous feeding of a crowd, warnings about costs of following him, his transfiguration, and his announcement of his imminent “being taken up” signaled to the disciples that something big was about to happen. However, the path and destination of Jesus would be quite different from what the disciples hoped for and expected.

Luke 9:51 to 19:28 is the largest unit in the Lucan gospel. It is referred to as the travel document or narrative since it details Jesus’ movement from Galilee to where he enters Jerusalem on what we call the Triumphal Entry. This section is Luke’s collection of events and teachings of Jesus to future disciples about what it means to follow Jesus and carry on the work of his gospel.

Let’s dig into today’s text more closely and see what else we might uncover.

First point to note is that when Jesus is rejected by a Samaritan village, he just moves on. James and John wanted to respond with violence and vengeance, as Elijah had done in their history, but Jesus does not permit it. Luke attributes the rejection due to Jesus having set his face toward Jerusalem. What this means is that the Samaritans appear to have rejected Jesus because of his convictions and what he expected to happen once he got to Jerusalem.

Some questions for us regarding this are, how willing are we to walk away from rejection without responding in kind or worse? Are we willing to let go of violence and vengeance altogether as a response, even when it challenges and threatens our core convictions? Are we willing to respect the freedom and agency of others and not attempt to force our beliefs and ways onto those who aren’t willing?

The next part of the reading contains three interactions. The first and third are about an individual coming to Jesus asking to follow him. The middle one is Jesus calling a person to follow him.

Let’s review the first interaction:

⁵⁷ As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” ⁵⁸ And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Luke 9:57-58)

This can be interpreted as Jesus describing some of the privations that might be experienced because of following him. It might be Jesus asking if this individual has counted the costs. It might be a naïve individual, upon seeing the popularity of Jesus, wants to join the bandwagon.

But there could be more. Jesus’ reply uses the term “foxes” and “birds of the air.” The “fox” was a symbol for Ammonites, and Jesus called Herod Antipas “that fox.” The “birds of the air” was a phrase used to refer to gentile nations.[2] In a veiled fashion, Jesus may have been querying this would-be follower if he really wanted to follow someone who was against the political and power structures of the world. Perhaps this individual was politically connected, or perhaps thought Jesus could be the means to it. Jesus dismantles any kind of political and power ambitions of this person.

For us, the same question is posed. Do we see Jesus and Christianity as a means for acquiring political power and wealth. Because if so, we are misguided. If someone is promising that kind of influence, we should be questioning whether the Christianity they espouse is the one of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, or something else.

The second interaction reads as follows:

 ⁵⁹ To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” ⁶⁰ And Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:59-60)

This has caused consternation among interpreters. On the one hand, interpreters have taken this to be entirely metaphorical, speaking about spiritual life and death. On the other hand, interpreters refer to a cultural practice of multiple burying events and interpret this text as referring to a second burial after the body has fully decomposed.

However, Levine, Brettler, and Bailey state that the phrasing used here strongly implies that no one has died yet.[3],[4] They explain that “Let me go and bury” is a Middle Eastern idiom used to mean “let me go and serve my father while he is alive.” Honoring one’s parents is part of the Ten Commandments, given by Moses. It is an important pillar in maintaining family and community. What Jesus is telling this individual is that following him supersedes cultural values, it supersedes even what Moses wrote down as words received from God.

But reading between the lines, it sounds like this individual is making excuses. He seems to want the praise and acknowledgment of following Jesus, but on his own terms. He wants to follow Jesus only when it is convenient.

The third interaction has some similarities to the previous. This reads:

⁶¹ Another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” ⁶² And Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:61-62)

Whereas Elijah allowed Elisha to go back to his father and mother and leave plowing, in this text Jesus does not. Just as Jesus is greater than Moses, Jesus is greater than Elijah. The precedent set by Elijah in his call to Elisha as disciple is superseded by Jesus making new and greater demands of his disciples.

We might wonder why Jesus doesn’t even allow a quick farewell. The problem is how a Greek word is translated and what we think that means. The word ἀποτάξασθαι is translated “say farewell” here but it is better translated “take leave of” (which is how this word is translated everywhere else in the New Testament) and which can also mean “renounce.” Kenneth Bailey writes that what this means in practice is that the person is asking to return to his home and community and ask for permission to leave and follow Jesus, knowing full well that the community will not.[5]

Like the second individual, the third individual expresses performative discipleship. He wants the accolades and admiration of those who are watching and listening, but he knows that at the end of the day, he does not have to give up anything.

Taken together, our reading indicates several aspects of following Jesus. It opposes power, might, wealth, violence and vengeance upon which the world’s political, social, economic, and religious systems are built. The way of Jesus’ gospel of peace, love, and inclusion supersedes all previous religious and spiritual traditions. Following Jesus may mean having to renounce community and family ties, if they are opposed to his ways. Following Jesus is not a road to comfort, power, and wealth. It can lead to rejection, persecution, and death.

In the three dialogues Jesus had with would-be disciples, their response is not recorded. Luke asks his readers to place themselves — us —in their places. How will we respond?

References

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

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

 

 

---

[1] 1 Kings 19:15-21; 2 Kings 1:2-16, 2:1-12.

[2] (Bailey, 1976, 1980)

[3] (Levine & Brettler, 2011, 2017)

[4]  (Bailey, 1976, 1980)

[5] (Bailey, 1976, 1980)

Sermon: Power Over the Demons of Empire

Lectionary Year C, Proper 7 (12)

Text: Luke 8:26-39

Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac

As the fire of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost continued to empower and encourage the disciples, they spread the good news of Jesus Christ throughout Jerusalem, Judea, and even to Samaria. But was the gospel limited to Jews and those who converted to Judaism? Was the gospel another interpretation of Judaism, or was it destined to become something else? Did Jesus set any example or precedent in bringing his work and message outside of the Jews?

This year’s lectionary readings do not include the development of the first-generation Christians found in the book of Acts. But today’s gospel reading from Luke could be interpreted as both a foreshadowing and a summary of what Luke will elaborate upon in his second volume, the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

In the Lucan text, prior to our reading, Jesus told two parables. One was the parable of the sower, and the second was the parable of the lit lamp. Both parables are interested in how the gospel is spread and received. We might see today’s reading as an illustration of the concepts found in the parables.

Some time after that, Jesus decides to take his disciples from one side of the lake to the other side. During the sailing, they are caught in a sudden storm, which Jesus calms and the disciples are awed and amazed. This showed Jesus’ command of natural forces, and more specifically the sea, which to the ancient mind was often associated with primordial chaos and the abyss, the dwelling place of demons.

With this brief background and setting the scene, we are ready to look more closely into today’s text.

The first detail to note is that they sailed to the Gerasenes’ land and that Luke specifically adds that it “is across the lake from Galilee.” Archaeologists and scholars aren’t sure why Luke uses Gerasa, which if the city is intended, is about 30 miles away from the lake. Perhaps Luke used the name because it was one of the most prominent cities in the area and would be better known than a more obscure one. The city itself was thoroughly Hellenistic and Roman. Luke’s use of “across the lake” adds to the emphasis that what will be narrated is thoroughly outside Jewish territory. One commentary noted that it was so outside the borders of acceptable Jewish travel that not even the religious leaders monitoring Jesus accompanied him to keep tabs on him.

The next detail to note is how the man (who is unnamed) addresses Jesus. This man calls Jesus “Son of the Most High God.” Note, too, that in Luke chapter 4, when Jesus encounters another man with a demon, this man addresses Jesus with a similar title, “the holy one from God.” In this case, the setting was a Jewish synagogue. The difference, as minor as it might sound to our ears, is a huge difference. “The holy one from God” is most likely one of Jewish descriptions for the Messiah. “Son of the Most Hight God” was a title used by Romans for Caesar.

Then Jesus asks the man for his name. The reply given is “Legion.” The first point to note is that it was believed that using the name of an entity conferred power over them. So, the man tries to use the true identity and title of Jesus to gain power over him. But instead, Jesus asks the name of the man, and he is forced to give away his name. In this power struggle, it is shown that Jesus is more powerful than the demons.

The second point to note is that legion is a Roman military term, denoting a large unit of soldiers, numbering 5,000 to 6,000 in strength. By contrasting the power of a Roman legion to Jesus, it shows that Jesus’ power can conquer Rome and the empire. It may also imply that the man’s condition is caused by the empire and its powers. Empires and politics always oppress the many so that a few can enjoy its benefits and pleasures.

To show further that Jesus is in command, the demons must ask permission of Jesus to take any further action. And their request is to be sent to the large herd of pigs nearby. When the demons enter the pigs, they run to the sea and drown themselves. The demons ironically end up in the abyss which they were trying to avoid.

This area was also known for the agriculture necessary to feed the Roman armies in the area. By mentioning the herd of pigs, the narrative further emphasizes the foreignness of this land. No respectable Jew would come anywhere close to pigs, yet here Jesus is not too far from them.

Readers have been troubled by Jesus allowing the destruction of so many pigs, and there is no good answer. But if we read it as symbolizing a power struggle and demonstration of Jesus’ strength over creation, it may not make it more palatable to our sensibilities, but it may help us understand the message that was intended.

The Jews of that time are known to refer to Rome and Romans as pigs and swine. Pigs and swine were considered unclean and unholy. It would not have troubled Jews if an entire herd of swine drowned themselves. It might even be a cause for celebration, having both symbolically and economically ruined the Romans.

The scene moves forward and now the man who was formerly naked, homeless, and unable to control himself is sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in control of himself. The position in which he is pictured is that of a disciple learning from a teacher.

When the people of the surrounding area come to see what has happened and see this change, they are in awe. Those who saw Jeus’ power restore the man described to others how the event transpired. And then they were all filled with fear and asked Jesus to leave the area.

There are a few more things to note on this point. First, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not good news to everyone. It can cause some to recoil and turn away. Perhaps the people could only see economic devastation that Jesus caused and could not or would not see alternatives to their future. Secondly, the gospel often does result in social, economic, religious, and political turmoil. It is often easier to live with the devil (or demon) that we know than to be thrown into a completely new and unknown situation. Thirdly, notice that Jesus simply accepts the peoples’ request. He respects their choice and does not try to force himself on them.

As Jesus and the disciples prepare to leave, the man asks to be taken along. But Jesus says, “Return home and tell the story of what God has done for you.” And that is what he did. The man is restored to social belonging, given a home, and given a mission.

Here we see two ways of participating in the gospel work. The first is to go tell the story of how Jesus has changed your life. This witnessing activity plants seeds. The second way is through the process of discipleship, one learns how to tend to the seeds that germinate, sprout, and grow. The man was sent to plant seeds. The disciples returned with Jesus to continue to learn his ways so that they could become caretakers of the early Christian church.

I think that this narrative of the demon possessed man and Jesus is a deliberate satire aiming several pillars of the Roman empire, starting with its head, Caesar, moving to its military, and then to its economy. It shows that Jesus Christ is greater than Rome. It shows that the gospel flips on its head those things that the empire values. The gospel extends beyond a small region or people group, encompassing more than the Roman empire. However, it also reveals that the gospel is not always welcomed. That is to be expected, and one should not force the gospel onto others.

The gospel is opposed to empire, in whatever form and age it appears. Are we on the side of the oppressed or the oppressors? Are we more interested in preserving our comfort at the expense of the humanity of others? How much do the demons of power, privilege, wealth, comfort, respectability, fear, anxiety, and so on, control our decisions and our lives?

May Christ give us the ability to trust him to free us from our bondage to the demons of this world so that we can become fully human, created in the image of God. 

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)