Sermon: A Platform of Anti-Violence

Lectionary: Epiphany 7(C)

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

Love Your Enemies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reciprocity

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

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

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

A commentary explains:

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

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

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

Turning the Other Cheek

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

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

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

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

Jesus Commands Anti-Violence

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

In The Anti-Greed Gospel, Malcolm Foley writes,

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

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

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

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

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

No Exceptions

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

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

In Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, the authors explain,

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

Impractical and Pie-In-the-Sky?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following Christ’s Example

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

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

In closing, I again quote from Malcolm Foley,

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

In the name of God who is Peace,

In the name of God who is Love,

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

---

[1] (Barron, 2022)

[2] (Foley M. , 2025)

[3] (Foley S. , 2022)

Sermon: An Uncomfortable Gospel

Lectionary 6(C)

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

Beatitudes, Gospel Differences

Poverty and Wealth, William Powell Frith, 1888

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

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

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

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

The Gospel is Uncomfortable

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

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

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

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

Poor Doesn’t Just Mean Poor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woes of Wealth

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

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

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

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

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

Hated for Being Generous Like Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Challenge to Live Out the Gospel of Liberation

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

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

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

In the name of God who lifts the poor,

In the name of God who comforts the oppressed,

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

[1] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[2] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[3] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[4] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[5] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[6] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[7] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[8] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

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

Sermon: God Among Us

Lectionary Year C, Epiphany 6
Luke 6:17-26

God Among Us

A lofty God is much easier to handle and live with. That’s the picture the Beatitudes recorded in Matthew gives us. In Matthew’s version, when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up a mountain and the disciples came up to see him. In response Jesus offers his disciples an idealistic, spiritual vision of his kingdom: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven… Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled…”

But Luke’s recording of the Beatitudes is different. Jesus is among the crowds and travels down with them to a level place. Jesus is not lifted above the crowd. Jesus is one among them. Jesus is approachable. Merely touching him brings forth healing power from him. And the way Luke begins the Beatitudes offers a hint into what Jesus was doing among the crowd.

Luke introduces the Beatitudes by writing, “Then he looked up at his disciples and said…” Not only was Jesus among the crowds on a level place, he appears to be stooping down to minister to those around him. Jesus is on the ground and physically below his disciples. He must raise his eyes to look up at his disciples. It is a complete reversal of the setting that is found in Matthew.

When Jesus does speak, Luke’s version of the Beatitudes does not attempt to spiritualized away the difficulties of life. In Luke’s recording Jesus says, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled…” In Matthew, the Beatitudes are lofty, idealistic philosophy — Jesus speaks in abstract, religious terms. In Luke, Jesus speaks directly to his disciples in immediate, physical terms.

Matthew’s Beatitudes read more comfortably. It read more like moral philosophy and something that we might strive toward, but we don’t necessarily expect a complete fulfillment until some distant future.

Luke’s Beatitudes are uncomfortable. Jesus is speaking to you — to me. And whereas Matthew omits any kind of woes, Luke carefully balances four blessings with countering four woes: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry…”

Luke’s Beatitudes are uncomfortable, because for most of us sitting here we identity more with the conditions that bring woe than with the blessings. How many of us are so destitute that we are begging for handouts on the streets? How many of us are so destitute that we would sell our own bodies or our children just to survive? How many of us are so hungry that we would search bags of garbage and dumpsters for a scrap of spoiled food? How many of us face the hopelessness and desperation of having the powers and structures of society turned against us? How many of us are recipients of public spite, exclusion, and slander for speaking out against injustices and standing with the desperate and marginalized?

On the other hand, how many of us live in relative comfort? How many of us worry about being homeless and out on the streets? How many of us had a good dinner last night? How many of us have full refrigerators and pantries? How many of us are generally living a good life, where despair and hopelessness are far from our thoughts? How many of us are respected members of community?

On balance, it seems that as individuals and as a faith community, we find ourselves on the “woe” side rather than on the “blessings” side of Luke’s formulation of the Beatitudes. It isn’t surprising that the more spiritualized Matthean version is the one we hear more. After all, all of us can honestly claim that we are “poor in spirit” and “hungry for righteousness.” But Luke doesn’t offer us that option, and so we must sit in the discomfort and with questions about what we are supposed to do with this text.

One possible interpretation is a very literal one. I point to a later section in this very same Lucan gospel where Jesus seems to advocate and praise such a literal application. In chapter 18 we read about the rich ruler:

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” 21 He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 He replied, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.”

28 Then Peter said, “Look, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

A couple of the most notable examples who literally followed Jesus’ words just read include Francis and Clare of Assisi. Each was born into wealthy families but left their families and what they could have inherited and vowed themselves to severe poverty to serve the poor through service and prayer.

Again, we are forced to sit in discomfort as we ponder the Beatitudes of Jesus.

Another way to read this is to see it as time and culture bound. In other words, the words which Jesus spoke and Luke wrote down are specific to the historical period and people that is being addressed. Whether the early or later authorship dates of Luke are considered, both fall in periods during which followers of Jesus were at best seen as oddities and at worst seen as danger to the establishment. There may not have been prolonged and systematic persecution of the church, but they would have been targets of harassment and occasional persecution at the hands of both fellow Jews and Romans. The lengthy fourth blessing about being hated, excluded, and defamed seems to emphasize this historical circumstance about the audience community.

It should, therefore, not be surprising that the Beatitudes seek to bring comfort to those who are suffering and being slandered. It should not be surprising that woes are directed against those who are probably seen to be the instigators against Jesus’ followers, who laugh and mock them, and who are the respected citizenry and who hold power in society.

It would be easy to dismiss the Beatitudes as not that applicable to us. We live in very different circumstances from its original audience. Or we might say that it is applicable to present-day Christians who are experiencing the things described in the Beatitudes, but not to the rest of us. We could say that the words are meant to offer comfort and promise of divine attention, but it bears little practical relevance for most of us.

This too, is uncomfortable, because now we are dismissing an entire scripture passage as having little relevance to present-day life.

Maybe the discomfort is the point of this passage. The unease and tension that we feel as we wrestle with this difficult text may be the point. We prefer settled interpretations and answers, but instead the words of Jesus invite us into questions and dialogue. We are encouraged to approach the text from many angles.

A rhetorical, literary structural perspective offers a third way.

The carefully constructed parallelism between the blessings and the woes are patterned after prophetic utterances found in the Old Testament. As with the prophets of old, Jesus is portrayed by Luke as announcing a reversal of fortunes. Those who have been oppressed and marginalized, Jesus offers relief and comfort. To those who have lived in comfort, Jesus prophesies discomfort and ruin. Jesus tells his hearers that contrary to what is often believed, God is among the poor and hungry, rather than with the rich and full. God identifies with those who are reviled and rejected by society. Just as Jesus stopped down to care for the hurting and suffering, God is found among the despised and diseased.

Perhaps the questions to be asked of this passage is this: Where are we looking for God to show up? Among what kinds of people are we expecting to find God’s blessings?

What seems to be the case according to these Beatitudes is that the groups that we typically think of as “blessed,” the life circumstances that we often label a result of God’s “blessings,” are in fact, not. Instead, those who seem to be suffering the most are the recipient of God’s blessings. Those who are least in control of their own fates are the most blessed by God. In God’s economy, those who appear to have the least have the most, and those who appear to have the most don’t have anything. I think we’ve been trained to think about God’s kingdom as a better, more improved version of what we have now. But it is a complete reversal.

The Church is a manifestation and a breaking-in of the kingdom of God into this world. Since the kingdom of God is a reversal of the priorities and fortunes of this present world, what should the church look like? What should the church’s priorities be? What kinds of activities should the church be involved in? Where and among whom should we be spending our time?

Today’s text isn’t comfortable, and I don’t think it’s meant to be. It is there to wake us up and lead us to examine our priorities, both individually and corporately. Jesus has described whom God calls blessed. Where are we in relation to that? Are we God’s blessing to the world?

Whatever the verdict of our own self-examination, we can be sure that God can work through our sincere efforts. God’s grace and power is larger than any of our shortcomings and failings. We need new minds to even think about a world ordered completely upside down from what we know. That is the kind of “repentance” God desires in us – a completely new way of thinking. Through the words of today’s Beatitudes, let us begin to allow God to change our minds and thoughts.