Sermon: On Not Speculating About the End Times

Lectionary: Proper 28(C)

Text: Luke 21:5-19

Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple
Tissot, James, 1886-1894

This chapter of Luke and parallel ones found in Mathew and Mark takes me back to my past. What do I mean by that?

A large segment of Christian groups focuses a great deal of their theology and energy into the interpretation of scripture that are attributed to describing and prophesying the end times. Although specifics and interpretive details vary widely from group to group, if you’ve heard words and phrases such as the rapture, time of trouble, the antichrist, the millennium; if you’ve seen or heard about prophecy seminars; if you’ve seen diagrams and charts plotting world events against scripture; you have come across those who place a high priority on understanding the end times.

I grew up in one of those groups and environments. In my framework, Luke 21 spoke about both the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming. I recall having a kind of checklist of characteristics for false Christs so that we could identify them and not be led astray. I recall identification of natural phenomenon and disasters – earthquakes, signs in the skies – with specific events in history as proof that we were living in the end times. We were sure that man-caused disasters and wars could not go on forever and Christ would return to end it. We were sure the end of this world’s history was only a few years away.

Yet here I am and here we are. I’ve been here over half a century now. People who were born before me, who also were certain that they would see Christ return, have died.

I was sure we would be faced with persecution and threat of death for our theological beliefs and practices. We had certain beliefs that were “core” that we could never renounce, and ones that we were supposed to hold up high and loud as “a testimony.” But that hasn’t come to pass either. In fact, in many ways the increase in pluralism here and around many parts of the world has made it easier to practice one’s beliefs openly. This isn’t to say that it is always easy, or that this is the case everywhere. But at least in our present society, diversity is more accepted.

Before going on, I want to state to you what the Presbyterian Church (USA) has to say about the understanding of the end times. There is a very long formal document, but here are a few summary points:[1]

• ·        Fundamental to Presbyterian beliefs is a rejection of idle speculation about the “end times”,
• ·        Presbyterians reject dispensationalism and The Rapture as understood through dispensationalism,
• ·        Presbyterians believe that the divine purposes of reconciliation, justice, peace, wholeness, and the “good” that marked each part of God’s first creation will be restored,
• ·        Presbyterians reject the view that Christians will be largely successful in converting the entire world as preparation for Christ’s return, conversely,
• ·        Presbyterians reject the view that the world is nearly completely under Satan’s power, and that only those who hold to a particular set of Christian teachings are exempt,
• ·        Presbyterians reject the view God’s purposes depend on human achievements and institutions,
• ·        Presbyterians believe in engagement with the world as it exists, to establish communities that demonstrate God’s purpose,
• ·        Presbyterians believe that part of this demonstration includes resisting injustice in all its forms – including racism, sexism, and economic oppression,
• ·        Presbyterians believe the demonstration of God’s kingdom also includes feeding the hungry, healing the sick, caring for the suffering, freeing the oppressed, and preaching good news to the poor and disenfranchised,
• ·        Presbyterians believe in being ready for the end times while not speculating or being fearfully anxious about them, and
• ·        Presbyterians believe God is as concerned with the redemption of society as of individuals and therefore actively seek to demonstrate God’s purpose here and now until it is fully realized in God’s good time.

Now, I think this is a much healthier and productive way of waiting for Christ’s return. Instead of trying to identify events in history, to attempt to read and interpret the tea-leaves of present-day events, to be easily swayed by charismatic and powerful voices, or to ride an emotional rollercoaster of potential and failed signs, we are to engage with the world and people around us. We are to utilize what gifts, abilities, and power with which we have been entrusted to benefit and improve the lives of those about us.

Is the Presbyterian understanding of the end times consistent with scripture? I believe it is. While not every point stated earlier has direct association with today’s gospel text from Luke, there are several.

When Jesus is asked about when the temple will be destroyed, he does not give any kind of a specific answer. The list of signs he provides are things that happen before the end. And before giving the signs, he states a warning to not be deceived and led astray.

We humans do not deal well with uncertainty. Therefore, whenever someone or some group comes along claiming to be able to plot the future, to be able to interpret signs, who comes with confidence and authority, who is charismatic and persuasive on one hand, or uses fear to manipulate, we are tempted to accept what they have to say. History is littered with examples of groups following a leader who claimed to have answers, who had supposed solutions to the problems of this world, who turned out to be conmen and frauds.

When Jesus lists wars, food shortages, and epidemics that are to be expected, these are not something unusual that should only be expected rarely, but it is a “feature” baked into a world where everyone seeks to dominate another, who exploits and abuses nature and natural resources, where the one who dies with most is honored.

In contrast to the world’s values, followers of Jesus are to take the very opposite path. They are to resist the world’s values in which acquiring more at the expense of others is good, where might makes right, where human lives are just a “cost” to be accounted for in a profit & loss statement. Jesus’ followers are to resist by speaking out against unjust practices and when they can, by taking action to voice their disapproval of them. But they are also to form an alternate community that is based on Jesus’ teachings, values, and practices. They are to feed the hungry, heal the sick, care for the suffering, free the oppressed, and proclaim good news to the poor and disenfranchised. These activities strike at the very heart of the world’s domination system.

I mentioned earlier that growing up I thought that when Luke’s text speaks about “opportunity to testify,” I thought it meant defending my theology or beliefs. But the text also speaks about words and wisdom that opponents cannot refute. What is something that cannot easily be refuted? Actions: especially actions that have no motivation other than to love and care, and to have compassion for the world and its inhabitants. Actions that are fully congruent with beliefs and values cannot be refuted.

If Jesus was teaching merely philosophy and theology without corresponding action, he would not have threatened (as much) the political powers of his time. If he only performed wonders and signs without tying them to a new value system, he likely would have been welcomed. But he lived a complete life – where his being, mind and body – were in harmony and congruous with the values of egalitarianism and inclusiveness, of taking down the powers of this world and lifting up those who were victims of the powerful.

The mission and purpose for Christ’s followers have not changed since Jesus proclaimed it to his first disciples. Welcome the poor and hungry, oppressed and fearful. Resist and fight injustice in whatever ways you can. Proclaim the good news that gives hope to those cast out and looked down upon by the powerful. Don’t be tempted by the allure of power and influence. Don’t seek benefits for your own self. Don’t be tempted to speculate on what might be. Be present in the here and now. Live a life of integrity so that no one can question your sincerity and motivations.

Jesus gave his promise, “By holding fast, you will gain your lives.”

In the name of God who is faithful,

In the name of God who lived faithfulness,

And in the name of God who confronts our frequent faithlessness, Amen.

References

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. 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.

March, W. E. (1999, Janary/February). The End of the World. Retrieved from Presbyterian Church (USA): Presbyterian Mission: https://centernet.pcusa.org/what-we-believe/end-of-the-world/

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

Van de Laar, J. (2025, November 09). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 28C on Luke 21:5-19. Retrieved from Sacredise Your LIfe!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-79f

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

 

 

---

[1] (March, 1999). This list is a paraphrase of highlights from the article.

Sermon: Children of the Resurrection

Lectionary Proper 27(C)
Text: Luke 20:27-38

The question of the Sadducees,
Harold Copping, 1907

Upon first glance, the question that some Sadducees pose to Jesus seems to be about whether there is a resurrection of the dead. The argument and disagreement about resurrection is attested to by other writers of the same period.

The Sadducees, despite their prominence in Christian thought, appears only briefly in the New Testament. They appear only in the Synoptics, and in Mark and Luke, appear just once when the question about resurrection is brought to Jesus. The term “Sadducee” is derived from the name Zadok. Zadok was the first high priest of Israel in Solomon’s Temple, going way back to the founding years of Israel. The Sadducees of Jesus’ time claimed ancestry to Zadok. Spiritual authority and interpretation of God’s will were given to Aaron and to his descendants, and because of this the Sadducees believed that spiritual authority and interpretation of scripture belonged to them. They were the priests and caretakers of the Jerusalem temple during Jesus’ time.

They accepted only the Torah as authoritative, hence their assertion that there is no resurrection in the Torah. Literarily and historically, it is true that the Torah and nearly the entirety of the Hebrew scripture contains nothing about life after death. Only in post-exilic writings, such as Daniel and Job, do hints appear that there might be a resurrection and life after death. For Israelites and Judahites prior to the Babylonian exile, their life and names were expected to continue through their progeny, particularly sons.

This explains why the Sadducees bring up levirate marriage as the example to refute the resurrection. Their reasoning was, if a resurrection happens, and this woman is married to all these men, they would all be alive and since a woman could only belong to one man, whose would she be? Therefore, it is impossible for a resurrection to happen, because a woman cannot be owned by multiple men. (Note that the reverse is not true: a man can own multiple women.)

Another point that is frequently brought up in sermons and commentaries is that the Sadducee’s question to Jesus is a trap. And given the exaggeration and absurdity of the question, we can conclude that they were not really seeking an answer. Rather, they wanted Jesus to answer yes or no in such a way that he would lose honor and consequently, authority.

If Jesus answered, “There is no resurrection,” he would agree with the Sadducee’s but would conflict with the Pharisees, the scribes, and most of the Jews at that time. His authority and influence with these groups would immediately suffer a blow.

Conversely, if Jesus answered, “There is a resurrection,” the plot was to accuse Jesus of misinterpreting Moses and the Torah, which too would cause people to question his authority in interpreting scripture and influence among them.

Instead, Jesus uses the words of the Torah to reinterpret Moses. Jesus paraphrases Exodus 3:6 which reads, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (NRSVue) Jesus focuses on the present tense of “I am” to argue that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could not be dead when God spoke to Moses. If they are alive in some way after they had died physically and was buried, then there must be a resurrection.

But even this is not the most interesting part of today’s text. When we modern people craft arguments, we usually start with premises, the argument, and then a conclusion. In ancient argumentation, the main point frequently shows up in the middle.

In today’s text, Jesus’ argument and the point he is conveying occurs in the middle and focuses on “this age” and “that age” and the concept of marriage. Too often, discussions of this text also revolve on whether there will be marriage and sex in heaven. We will discover that, too, is not the point.

I’ve already hinted at what the point might be when I mentioned earlier about the practice of ownership of women in ancient societies (and yes, still among modern ones).

Let’s read again Jesus’ rejoinder to the Sadducee’s question.

³⁴ Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. ³⁵ But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; ³⁶ nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36 NKJV)

Hearing this in English, it sure does sound like there won’t be marriage after resurrection. Moreover, it sounds like Jesus is saying that those who would aspire to resurrected life must refrain from marriage in this life. This text together with texts from some of the epistles have indeed been interpreted in that way – that celibacy is the highest form of Christian spirituality.

But is Jesus speaking about marriage in general? Or is he speaking about something more specific?

Let’s back up a bit more in the text and re-read vv. 28-32 in the NKJV:

²⁸ saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. ²⁹ Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. ³⁰ And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. ³¹ Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died. ³² Last of all the woman died also. (Luke 20:28-32)

Many English versions use “marry” in this text to indicate the obligation of a brother in levirate marriage. But the literal phrase is “take a wife,” a term that implies property and possession.

In Jesus’ response, we read “given in marriage.” However, Joel Green, in his commentary explains this phrase and its implications in interpreting this story:

Although typically represented as passive verbs, the instances of the two verbs translated “are given in marriage” (NRSV) actually appear in the middle voice: “to allow oneself to be married.” The focus shifts from a man “taking a wife” (vv 28, 29, 31) to include the woman’s participation in the decision to marry. This is important because the basic concern here is with a reorientation of human relations through a reorientation of eschatological vision. One sort of person is aligned with the needs of the present age; such persons participate in the system envisioned and advocated by the Sadducees, itself rooted in the legislation governing levirate marriage, with women given and taken, even participating in their own objectification as necessary vehicles for the continuation of the family name and heritage. The other draws its ethos from the age to come, where people will resemble angels insofar as they no longer face death. Absent the threat of death, the need for levirate marriage is erased. The undermining of the levirate marriage ordinance is itself a radical critique of marriage as this has been defined around the necessity of procreation. No longer must women find their value in producing children for patrimony. Jesus’ message thus finds its interpretive antecedent in his instruction about family relations of all kinds: Hearing faithfully the good news relativizes all family relationships (cf., e.g., 8:1–3, 19–20).[1]

In other words, Jesus is abrogating marriage as a system of men’s societal control over women to perpetuate and maintain a system in which birth and ancestry determine one’s place and purpose. Jesus is offering a new vision in which all people find their value and purpose in connection with God, rather than societal expectations, gender, and ancestry. Seen in this light, Jesus is not denouncing marriage in general but denouncing the control over women that laws and traditions have place onto them.

The Sadducees meant their question to be a trap. They used the laws of Moses around a certain aspect of marriage to try to disprove the resurrection. Jesus overcomes the challenge posed to him and then goes further. Jesus identifies what motivated the question: desire for control, authority, and domination.

He divides life into “this age” and “that age.” “The sons of this age” are identified with marriage as a metaphor for domination and control, are concerned with things like status and honor, with increasing their power and influence over others. On the other hand, the “sons of the resurrection” are identified with “that age.” They are not concerned with status and honor. They do not pursue power and influence. They give up marriage – that is, marriage as a metaphor of systems of control and domination.

Understanding this, this challenge, posed by the Sadducees to Jesus, becomes pertinent for us. It is no longer an abstract theological discussion about marriage and resurrection. No, it is a choice that we have to make. Do we remain in “this age” and all its implications? Or do we choose to give that up and enter “that age” and become children of the resurrection? Do we choose to let go of benefits that birth and ancestry has conferred on us – benefits we might have merely due to gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, geography, inheritance? Do we choose to use any benefits we might have to improve the lives of those who do not have them? Do we choose not to participate in the systems of status and honor, self-promotion and self-justification? Do we choose not to participate in systems that compare and judge a person’s worth based on appearance, achievements, ancestry, etc.? Do we choose to exit systems of control and domination, and instead enter resurrection life that is characterized by love that frees us from fear and control?

Do we merely celebrate Easter, or do we enter and live Easter?

In the name of God who lives,

In the name of God who resurrects,

And in the name of God who challenges our self-centered inclinations, Amen.

References

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. 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.

Mohn, K. A. (2025, November 9). Commentary on Luke 20:27-38. Retrieved from Working Preacher: https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-32-3/commentary-on-luke-2027-38-6

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

Van De Laar, J. (2025, November 2). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 27C on Luke 20:27-38. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-14c

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

 

 

 

---

[1] (Green, 1997)

Sermon: Group Project

Lectionary: Proper 25(C)
Text: Luke 18:9-14

Pharisee and the Publican
Millais, John Everett, 1829-1896

Over the past several months, we have considered several parables. In those examinations I have suggested that the traditional interpretations, while not necessarily wrong, are often inadequate. I have explained that the point of parables is to provoke thought and to cause discomfort regarding traditional ways of thinking and living. I have explained that what we hear from the parables is colored by our culture and traditions, which are quite different from that of the original audience, and as a result heard things quite differently. I have also pointed out that many parables have a starting frame that is added by the editor which has the effect of guiding the reading and interpretation down one path while discouraging others, and that interpretations are often added as a closing frame to further restrict interpretation.

These observations also apply to today’s parable. Luke, or the gospel account’s editor, adds commentary in verses 9 and 14 as opening and closing frames to guide the reading and interpretation of the enclosed parable. Consequently the traditional reading and interpretation of this parable rarely deviates from the supplied editorial framework.

In the dozen or so commentaries I glanced through during preparation, nearly all followed the same interpretation. In this interpretation the Pharisee is turned into a villain and the tax collector into the hero. The Pharisee is interpreted as exhibiting arrogance, pride and hypocrisy, whereas the tax collector shows humility and acknowledges his shortcomings. Not all, but many interpretations suggest that ritual purity was involved in some way within the parable. And some interpretations suggest that the Temple and its religious structures, to which the Pharisee was allegedly a part, was itself part of the problem which the parable speaks out against.

Keeping the above in mind, let’s revisit today’s reading and the parable contained within to see if we can discover anything different.[1]

The frame or the bookends read as follows:

⁹ He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt… ¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9, 14 NRSVue)

From this we can see how the parable ends up vilifying the Pharisee and speaking out against his prayer. After all, who are the ones who trust in themselves that they are righteous and regard others with contempt? Who is the one who exalts themselves? Clearly, it must be the Pharisee.

But wait. Is the audience of this parable the Pharisees or any of the privileged among the Jews? If we go back over the preceding couple of chapters of Luke, it becomes clear Jesus is addressing his disciples. The “some” that Jesus is speaking to then, the “some who trusted in themselves,” are the disciples, not the Pharisees.

We will revisit verse 14 toward the end of today’s sermon with a suggested alternate translation of a small word, but which changes the meaning of the entire parable.

But we continue on.

¹⁰ “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. (Luke 18:10)

This introduces the setting and characters. Christians have been handed down a tradition where we tend to regard the Jewish temple and Pharisees as corrupt and evil. The disciples, the audience, would not have seen them in that light. They saw the temple as a place where they could approach their holy God, where they could offer their prayers and sacrifices, and be restored to right relationship with God and with fellow human beings. They saw Pharisees, not as power hungry hypocrites, but leaders who genuinely wanted their people and nation to follow God’s commands. Pharisees were respected.

Many of the negative views of the temple and Pharisees which Christians hold today can be traced to anti-Jewish sentiments developed through two millennia of Christian history. Many of the seeds of these negative views, when examined closely, have no basis in history. This is something that we need to be acutely aware of, confess, and repent.

¹¹ The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ (Luke 18:11-12)

We hear this and object to its tone. We jump to the conclusion that because of this the Pharisee must be self-righteous and prideful. However, there are several things we should note about this prayer. First is that in ancient times, people did not pray or read silently. Praying and reading only in one’s mind was something the ancient people did not even consider as possible. The prayer of the Pharisee may have been expressing what today would be only thoughts directed silently. Secondly, do we ever say or think, “There but for the grace go I?” The Pharisee’s prayer is akin to that saying.

A third point to note is that in the ancient Near East boasting was not frowned upon but was expected. A key example in the New Testament is of the Apostle Paul who boasts about his credentials as both a Pharisee and an Apostle. Among other things, to the Philippians, he wrote, “… as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:6b)

In Deuteronomy 26, Moses instructs the Israelites that when they offer prayers of thanksgiving that they are to thank God that they are Israelites, and to enumerate the ways in which they have been faithful in following the law. The Pharisee’s prayer is like that. He is expressing gratitude for who he is. Therefore, to fault the prayer as expressing pride is to miss the point. In listing some of the other people categories, the Pharisee is giving thanks to God that he has been given the opportunity to be more faithful to God than they.

However, there is a problem with the Pharisee’s prayer, and that is when he prays, “… or even like this tax collector.” Here he turns from gratitude to judgment. He lists the ways in which he could be seen as super-righteous (or supererogatory to use a fancy term for “going beyond”). He goes beyond what is required by the law by fasting more and giving tithes of everything, even those things that were normally considered small enough that tithing was not required. Surely, if righteousness was the basis of merit, he had it far over the tax collector.

Tax collectors were agents of Rome and therefore considered traitors. Traditional Christian view of tax collectors is that due to their occupation they were perhaps considered ritually unclean. However, note that he is in the temple grounds, meaning that introducing ritual purity is not appropriate to the interpretation of this parable.

If the parable was a melodrama, the audience would be booing and hissing at this point.

¹³ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ (Luke 18:13)

The audience of the parable would not have liked to hear the tax collector utter this prayer. They knew that God’s mercy did extend to the tax collector. They had to consider the possibility that the tax collector could be forgiven and made righteous. They had to consider that both the Pharisee and the tax collector could be equally righteous under God.

We now come to verse 14 which is traditionally translated something like,

¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, in Short Stories by Jesus, discusses how the phrase “rather than” is one of several possible translations, one that has been traditionally chosen to fit with the earlier verse 9.

She, however, suggests a different translation. She translates verse 14 as follows:

To you I say, descending to his house, this one is justified, alongside that one. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.[2]

She also writes that when we accept the traditional interpretation where the Pharisee is vilified, we are tempted to say, “Thank you, God, that I am not like that Pharisee.” And when we say or think that, we have sprung a trap on ourselves. We have made ourselves the Pharisee.

In Western Christianity, and especially in American Christianity, justification and salvation are considered something granted to individuals. However, in ancient Jewish and in the earliest Christian communities, justification and salvation was bestowed to and through community. The Jews also believed that supererogatory acts of ancestors could trickle down into their descendants. Hence the Jews believed that the supererogatory faith of Abraham continued to offer benefits to them.

Lest we think that as an odd way of thinking about things, we Christians accept that the supererogatory faith of Jesus in his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension grant justification and salvation to those who trust in that work of Jesus Christ.

When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we don’t pray “My Father… Give me my daily bread… Forgive my debts.” No, we pray “Our Father… Give us our daily bread… Forgive out debts.”

We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. What one member does to hurt the community hurts all of us. What one member does to help and maintain the community blesses all of us. Together. Christianity and seeking God is not a solo project. It is a group project.

Dr. Levine, in the chapter where she discusses today’s parable offers an updated version that we might understand better.

The story of the tax collector’s ability to tap into the merit of the Pharisee and the encompassing, communal grace of the Temple system is the ancient version of the middle-school group project. This assignment, perhaps now more familiar through reality television, puts together, in classical terms, the smart one, the one who is good at art, the one who is able to provide provisions (e.g., coffee, donuts, Scotch), and the one who both literally and figuratively brings nothing to the table. Three do their fair share, and more, since they cover the fourth’s work as well. The project receives an excellent grade. The fourth, who may show up at the meetings with all sincerity but who contributes nothing, benefits from the work of others. In middle school, where I was the “smart one,” I found this system unfair. I was justified (I got the “A”), but alongside me, indeed because of me, so was the slacker.

My sense of justice then was too narrow, my sense of generosity too constrained, my sense of self-import too great. But that fourth person believed in the system; that fourth person, whom we dismissed as lazy, as stupid, or as unable to contribute, may well have done what he could. He may have felt himself unworthy; indeed, we three others may have signaled to him that we were disappointed he was assigned to our group. He trusted in us; he trusted in the system. Had we been more generous with him rather than resentful, we would have learned more as well.

And what if he didn’t care at all? What if he depended on us, even thought we were fools for doing his work for him? What we do is still worthwhile. We can afford to be generous. There are other systems of justice (e.g., test grades, a final judgment) in which his contributions or sins will be assessed.

We are all our brother’s, and sister’s, keeper, and living in a community is another form of group work. We all have something to contribute, even if what we give is the opportunity for someone else to provide us a benefit. If we take more seriously this necessary interrelationship, we might be more inclined to consider others, because our actions, whether for ill or for good, will impact them. And if our good deeds aid someone else, rather than begrudge them, why not celebrate all who are justified?

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who is always faithful,

And in the name of God who discomforts the comfortable, Amen.

Bibliography

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.

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

Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Sievers, J., & Levin, A.-J. (2021). The Pharisees. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] I am indebted to Dr. Levin’s discussion of this parable in Short Stories by Jesus in putting together this sermon.

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

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)