Sermon: A Vision of Peace

Lectionary: Advent 1(A)

Text: Isaiah 2:1-5

Swords into Ploughshares
Peter Koenig

We are in the final few weeks of the calendar year. Music piped in through the stores, the decorations, the advertising and marketing, the giving and receiving of gifts, parties and celebrations – much of it is directed and focused on the creation of a fantastical experience of joy and happiness. But as we all know, once the gifts are opened and the trash taken out, the world remains pretty much what it was before this season of fantasy began. Conflicts will still be unresolved. Violence will still plague us. Death will still tear into us.

For Christians who follow the liturgical year, today is New Year. But we do not begin with celebrations and parties. Instead, for the next four Sundays, we are called to see reality for what it is, to see the ugliness and the brokenness of the world, and relearn what it means to hope for salvation that only God can bring – a salvation that will bring us into a new reality where the ugliness, brokenness, hate, strife, violence, and death will be no more.

Today we will be looking at the reading from Isaiah. Through our examination, we will also learn about the role of biblical prophets and how to read and use prophetic writings in the Bible.

First allow me to read a text.

​¹ But in the days to come,
the mountain of the LORD’s house
will be the highest of the mountains;
it will be lifted above the hills;
peoples will stream to it.
² Many nations will go and say:
“Come, let’s go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of Jacob’s God,
so that he may teach us his ways
and we may walk in God’s paths!”
Instruction will come from Zion
and the LORD’s word from Jerusalem.
³ God will judge between the nations
and settle disputes of mighty nations,
which are far away.
They will beat their swords into iron plows
and their spears into pruning tools.
Nation will not take up sword against nation;
they will no longer learn how to make war. (Micah 4:1-3 CEB)

“Wait!”, you might be thinking to yourselves right now. “Didn’t we just hear this? Isn’t this what was read from Isaiah a few minutes ago?” Yes and no. Yes, these are identical words that were read from Isaiah. And no, I just read from Micah.

Isaiah and Micah were contemporaries. Did Isaiah borrow from Micah, or vice versa? Or perhaps there were common repositories of sayings within prophetic circles that both borrowed from and used in their writings. There is no definitive answer to this question. The point of bringing this up is to note that when a prophet speaks for God, it does not mean that they are necessarily reciting God’s words. Sometimes, and probably more oftentimes, what the prophet said and wrote was their understanding of God’s will and purpose for their immediate time and place.

This brings us to another point that needs to be made. When we think about prophets and prophecies we think mostly about predictions about the future and those who proclaim them. However, this is, in the overall history of scripture, a relatively recent development. Throughout the Hebrew and Jewish history and into the early part of Christian period, prophets were not predictors of the future, but people who spoke for God. They were seen as “forth-tellers”; not “foretellers.” The Septuagint translated as “soothsayers”, the Hebrew word used for prophets. The earliest translation of Greek to Latin used veta to refer to prophets, a word that meant “bard” or “poet.” When later Christians became uncomfortable about pagan associations with veta, they began to use prophet, instead.[1]

If prophecies aren’t about future predictions, then what is their function? Richard Rohr says that prophets “are an early warning system to culture.”[2] In the Hebrew scriptures, prophets were most often associated with troubled times in their history, when most of the culture had strayed from God’s will. Prophets arose to remind the people about God and God’s desires for them, to remind the people what God valued, and to warn them against the pursuit of wrong things. And prophets also cast a vision for a world where all the world would live in harmony with God and with everyone else.

Prophets were called by God when the people pursued wealth at the expense and victimization of the poor, when people pursued violence and war as the solution to their problems, when they looked to accumulation of power and domination over others as “being right.”

The prophets reminded people that God’s ways were exemplified by nonviolence and peacemaking; caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans; and being a servant to all. The prophets called for people to imagine a world where this would be normative practice and called upon the people to begin living this way. Vision casting is not the same as predicting the future.

This is what Isaiah and Micah are doing. They are casting a vision of a world where all violence and warmaking are gone. Throughout history and to the present time we talk about “just war” and “redemptive violence”. But neither of these are true to God’s ways. The alternative society, the kingdom of God, has no war and no violence of any kind. Those who seek to enter God’s kingdom are called to envision that kind of world and to begin living that way in their own lives.

Returning to Isaiah 2:2-3 we read once more,

² In the days to come the mountain of the LORD’s house will be the highest of the mountains. It will be lifted above the hills; peoples will stream to it. ³ Many nations will go and say, “Come, let’s go up to the LORD’s mountain, to the house of Jacob’s God so that he may teach us his ways and we may walk in God’s paths.” Instruction will come from Zion; the LORD’s word from Jerusalem.

This text is not a literal description of Israel or Jerusalem becoming the center of the world.

This text uses metaphors to describe a vision of a world where everyone is interested in following God. Just as water naturally flows downhill, in this ideal world those who are attracted to God will naturally flow uphill to learn God’s ways from those who have already found God’s paths.

Isaiah 2:4 reads,

God will judge between the nations, and settle disputes of mighty nations. Then they will beat their swords into iron plows and their spears into pruning tools. Nation will not take up sword against nation; they will no longer learn how to make war.

It is interesting to note that in this vision of an ideal world, conflicts may still arise. But they rely on God to arbitrate. War and violence are no longer tools for resolving conflict.

Verse 5 is a call to action so that steps can be taken toward realizing the vision of a violence-free world.

⁵ Come, house of Jacob, let’s walk by the LORD’s light.

This is a prophetic call to those who have already heard and know what God wants, but whether intentionally or not, they have not been following God as faithfully as they can and should. It is a call to reject the norms of the domination systems of this world and to walk in the light of God’s kingdom, the kingdom of service and love. It is a prophetic call to not just talk about peace and love, but to begin living as people who have rejected systems that birth hate and conflict, and who actively live to bring peace and love into the world.

During each Advent season we have an opportunity to make a choice. We can choose to accept the façade of love, peace, and joy that cultural traditions and practices give us. But after the bandage is ripped away, sometime around the New Year, we are back to living in the same rut and supporting the same systems of domination and violence that we have done year after year. Or we can choose to see the ugliness of the world as it is, confess and repent of our complicities that cause the ugliness, and to instead live intentionally into genuine love, peace, and joy.

I am not saying that we can’t or shouldn’t celebrate the traditions of the season. But I am encouraging each of us to find ways to bring God’s kingdom just a little closer to the people around us, and to do so in a way that lasts beyond the seasons of Advent and Christmas. Can each of us find ways to be agents of change to influence and change the values and norms of society to bring more humanity and care into the world?

We live in the hope that God will bring justice and peace to the world. But we also live with the knowledge that God works God’s will and purposes through those who choose to walk in God’s light. Advent is a season of reflection and introspection. And it is also a time for decision and action. How will each of us decide?

In the name of God who is Love,

In the name of God who is Light,

And In the name of God who challenges us to Peacemaking, Amen.

References

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Etymonline. (2025, November 29). Origin and history of _prophet_. Retrieved from Etymonline - online etymology dictionary: https://www.etymonline.com/word/prophet

The Bible for Normal People. (2025, April 14). Episode 296: Richard Rohr – Seeing Through the Eyes of the Prophets. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-296-richard-rohr-seeing-through-the-eyes-of-the-prophets/

Van de Laar, J. (2025, November 24). Lectionary Reflection for Advent Sunday A on Isaiah 2:1-5. Retrieved from Sacredise Your LIfe!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-advent

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

 

 

---

[1] (Etymonline, 2025)

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

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)