Sermon: Following Christ in the Ordinary

Lectionary: Proper 5(A)

Text: Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Woman with the Flow of Blood (detail)
Wesley, Frank, 1923-2002

What does it look like to live as a Christ-follower? We have left behind the first half of the Christian year, filled with high days and holidays. We move past the pillars of Christian calendar and enter Ordinary Time. We descend from the mountaintops of the Christian liturgical calendar to spend the next six months walking the ordinary paths with Christ. To live as a Christ-follower is to learn how Jesus lived among the ordinary lives around him.

We need to set up the scene for today’s gospel reading. The Sermon on the Mount has been delivered. Jesus goes to Capernaum. Along the way he performs healings. In Capernaum, he heals a centurion’s servant. Jesus goes to Peter’s house where he heals Peter’s mother-in-law. Large crowds come to Peter’s house, where Jesus is staying, to be healed.

Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee, where a storm rises. Jesus calms the storm. Upon reaching the other shore Jesus is confronted by two men possessed by demons. Jesus cures them by sending the demons into pigs which result in their destruction. The people of the town beg Jesus to leave. He does and returns to where he came from.

The text in Matthew reads, “And came to his own town.” This could mean Nazareth, but it is more likely to be Capernaum, the home of Peter and the other fishermen disciples. This is where the rest of the story in Matthew 9 takes place.

First, a group of people carry a paralyzed man on a stretcher. Jesus forgives the man’s sins, giving credit to the faith of the entire group as the catalyst for forgiveness. Some of the religious leaders are alarmed by Jesus’ claim to offer forgiveness. In response, to show that he does have authority to forgive, he heals the man’s physical ailment.

It is in this immediate aftermath (at least in the way the writer of Matthew has arranged the text), Jesus comes across Matthew, the tax collector.

Here I pause to make note that the call of Matthew and the two healings that are part of today’s gospel reading are found in both Mark and Luke. The sequence is the same in all three, but details are different and even contradictory in a couple places. I note this to remind us that the gospel writers were not writing factually accurate historical texts. They were writing theological interpretations of Jesus’ life and adjusted details to fit their purposes.

Matthew, the tax collector, is named Levi in the other gospels. He is called by Jesus to follow, and he does. Next there is a banquet held. In Mark, the location is ambiguous. It could be Matthew’s house, or it could be at Jesus’. Luke identifies the location as Levi’s house. Matthew, the writer, use “the house” to identify it. The last house mentioned that fits the grammar is Peter’s house. Using this last reading, at least when reading Matthew’s text, we can conclude that it is Jesus who is hosting the banquet. This interpretation also fits well with the theme of the Messianic banquet found later in Matthew’s text.

In hosting the banquet and inviting “tax collectors and sinners” (as some of Jesus’ antagonists put it), Jesus acts and shows what restoration and wholeness of community looks like.

Some of the religious leaders observe Jesus’ association and question the boundary breaking Jesus is allowing himself and his disciples. It is interesting that the question is directed not to Jesus, but to his disciples. It is almost as if they are attempting to sow seeds of doubt into Jesus’ disciples…

But Jesus hears the question and answers.

But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13 NRSVue)

The first saying is an adaptation of similar proverbs in circulation around that time. One commentary states,

Plutarch quotes a similar saying of the Spartan king Pausanias when he was criticized for neglecting his own people: “It is not the custom of doctors to spend time among people who are healthy, but where people are ill.” The philosopher Diogenes is quoted as saying that as a doctor must go among the sick so a wise man must mix with fools. The point is obvious: any effective “healer” must expect to get his hands dirty.[1]

Jesus then says, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” The word learn is μανθάνω (manthanō) which forms the root for the word disciple, μαθητής (mathētēs). Here we begin to understand that becoming a disciple means learning. What are disciples to learn? We are to learn the way of God’s mercy.

God’s mercy has already been demonstrated in the Jesus’ works of healing, of casting out demons, and offering forgiveness. Mercy was demonstrated in calling Matthew, someone many would have considered a traitor to the nation. Mercy was demonstrated in Jesus seeking out those that would normally not be invited to dine at a rabbi’s table.

Too often, Jesus’ response has been used to place grace and mercy in opposition with religion, ritual, and law. It has been used to negatively portray Jews and Judaism as self-righteous, legalistic and lacking in grace and mercy. We need to unlearn such misconceptions and harmful stereotypes.

Sacrifice, religion, and rituals are not problems. Neither is righteousness. But when they become boundary markers to define insiders and outsiders, when they become tools to harm and exclude, then their uses become problematic.

In the next two vignettes, Jesus continues to demonstrate his way of mercy.

In the middle of the banquet he is hosting, a community leader enters and entreats Jesus to come now. He is a desperate father and assumes a posture of petitioning, but this scene could be interpreted as showing this leader’s privilege in interrupting a banquet and assuming Jesus would comply.

Jesus sets aside his own banquet to follow the community leader. In this we learn that following Christ might mean following petitions of need, regardless of whomever is making the request. It might mean diverting from our current activities and plans.

While on the way, a woman experiencing hemorrhaging for twelve years quietly comes to Jesus and touches the fringe of his outer garment. In doing so, she is healed and noticed. A woman is restored to physical and social health.

History is replete with Christian sermons that expound on the idea of uncleanness and ritual purity that is supposedly found here. The text is silent on the matter. Even if the concept of ritual purity might have been in the background, the foreground is about the mercy that Jesus shows and the healing and restoration to wholeness that is his work.

When ritual purity becomes the focus of these texts, it too often becomes a boundary marker and a point of judgment by Christians against Jews and Judaism. It ends up reinforcing something these very stories are meant to abolish.

Jesus continues to the leader’s house where funeral practices have already begun. He is laughed at when he says that the girl is only sleeping. Ignoring their ridicule, he commands them out. He resurrects the girl by merely touching. And in so doing, he restores life, family, and community.

On this first Sunday of Ordinary Time, a lesson on following Christ is to learn the way of mercy. God extends the same mercy to all, the mercy that brings healing and wholeness, mercy that begins reconciliations and restorations, mercy that invites all to come. We are agents of God’s mercy and invitation to join at God’s banquet table.

How can we be more inclusive and accepting? How can we be more welcoming? How can we erase boundaries that world’s systems and structures say are needed? What harmful ideas must we unlearn that society, culture, and religion have transmitted to us? This is our work during Ordinary Time, the time of quiet growth and transformation.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Invites,

And in the name of God who Cultivates, Amen.

Bibliography

France, R. T. (2007). New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Grace, S. (2026, June 2). An Inconvenient Gospel. Retrieved from Companions on the Way: https://www.companionsontheway.com/post/an-inconvenient-gospel

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2013). Feasting on the Gospels--Matthew, Volume 1: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Levine, A.-J. (2007). Matthew and Anti-Judaism. Currents in Theology and Mission, 34-6, 409-416.

Levine, A.-J. (2009). The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Mathis, T. M. (2026, June 7). Learning Tenderness, Proper 5 (A) – June 7, 2026. Retrieved from Sermons that Work: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/learning-tenderness-proper-5-a-june-7-2026/

Van De Laar, J. (2026, May 29). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 5A on Matthew 9:9–13, 18–26. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-853

Wassen, C. (2008). Jesus And The Hemorrhaging Woman In Mark 5:24–34: Insights From Purity Laws From The Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripture in Transition, 647-666.

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

Wilson, W. T. (2022). Eerdmans Critical Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

---

[1] (France, 2007)

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: Doing Mercy

Lectionary: Proper 10(C)

Text: Luke 10:25-37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the name of God who is Compassion,

In the name of God who is Mercy,

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

 

 

---

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

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

Sermon–Soliloquy of a Prodigal God

This sermon explores similarities between the parable of wayward Israel in Hosea 11 and the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Questions explored include: What is the nature and character of God, what does it mean to be created in the image of God, and what does it mean for us to be holy as God is holy?

Sermon preached at the Presbyterian Church on July 31, 2016. Below is the manuscript text.

Texts: Hosea 11:1-11; Luke 15:11-32; Hosea 6:6a; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:16

---

Introduction

If you, as a parent, had a child who persisted in making bad choices and even deliberately rebelled and rejected you, how would you feel? What would you do? If and when this child returned, what would be your response? Yell at them? Make them prove they’ve changed? Shame them? Keep reminding them of their guilt? Or rejoice at their return? Love them? Accept them? Restore them into the family as your child?

If you were this child who had deliberately rebelled and rejected your parents, would you ever return to them? What would you expect from them upon your return? What would you want from them upon your return?

❖

Parable Of Wayward Israel

Hosea chapter 11 is a parable – a parable about wayward Israel. In this parable, Israel is pictured as a son of God, and God is described using maternal imagery. Israel is rescued from Egypt who had been abusing him, and God has given life and healing to bring up Israel through his childhood.

Yet Israel is not content with what God has done. Israel longs to return to Egypt. And if a return to Egypt isn’t possible, then he wants to be with Assyria. Power is often attractive, even if it is abusive. To be associated with an entity of power makes the one associating feel powerful, even if they end up victims.

God reveals that his wish will come to pass, but that the result will not be what Israel expected. Instead of security and prosperity, he will find himself embroiled in death and destruction. He will discover that God does not come rushing in to intervene and deliver.

Yet God is moved with compassion and when Israel finally comes to see why he has suffered calamity, and in response returns to God, God will accept him back. There will be no rebuke, chastisement, or punishment. God will accept Israel back, restore him, and return him to his home.

❖

Parable Of The Prodigal Son

In Luke 15, there is another parable about a parent and a wayward child. It is probably quite familiar to most, if not all, of you. We know it by the title, The Prodigal Son.

Here’s the short version: there are two sons and the younger, for whatever reason, determines that he no longer wants to live within the confines of his father’s household. He asks for his portion of the inheritance and goes away to a far country. There, this son squanders the inheritance. Alas a famine hits the land and with his fortunes gone, he ends up in one of the most reviled jobs available: that of feeding pigs. He is so famished that he wishes he could eat the feed being given to the swine. In a moment of clarity, the son realizes that even the least servant in his father’s household is given enough to eat, and as a result decides to return home. He prepares a speech of contrition in which he asks to be given quarter, no longer as a son, but as one of the servants.

When the son approaches home, his father sees him, and moved with compassion, the father runs to meet his returning son. Before the son can even get the first sentence of his prepared speech out of his mouth, the father has directed his servants to reinstate the lost son back into the family to his former place as son.

A grand party is held, welcoming the son home. The older son hears the commotion, asks about it, and is quite displeased, because he had not gone astray like the younger, but has instead sacrificed all his life in service to his father. The father tries to talk to this older son about why they are celebrating, because a family member who had been lost has returned.

❖

God's Soliloquy

The central and vital portion of Hosea 11 is the center section, in which God reveals her (remember, this passage is depicting God in traditionally maternal terms) thoughts (and I’ll continue to use feminine pronouns for God throughout this sermon). It is a soliloquy in which she speaks about her initial reaction, her emotions, and then her conscious choice about what to do in response.

In Luke’s parable of the prodigal son, we aren’t told much about the father’s thoughts between the son’s departure and his return. But in Hosea I think we are given some of those thoughts and how God processes them. It gives us a look into the character and heart of God. As we examine God’s internal monologue, we can learn a little more of what it means to be created in the image of God.

❖

Where Did I Go Wrong?

One of the first thoughts that go through God’s mind is a review of all that has been done in caring for and raising the child. In this specific case of Israel, God recounts how Israel was delivered from an abusive environment, taught him how to walk, provided him with food, wounds healed, and shown love and care. Yet whatever God did, Israel did not seem to remember; and the more God called, the more determined Israel was to go away.

Similarly when we are rejected or attacked by those we tried to care for, our thoughts return to the times when we had given of ourselves to them. It is a part of being created in God’s image, that we too, build memories and look back on them.

❖

It's Okay To Feel Frustrated And Angry

When we think about God and emotions, we intellectually know that God has them. We read places where God loves, where God becomes angry, where God weeps. But I think we also have this image of God whose emotions are so perfect that in practical terms God doesn’t actually feel. I think it seems almost heretical to picture God who struggles with conflicting emotions and feelings and having to make a choice about how to respond.

That’s why I think the central section of Hosea 11 is so important. We are given a peek into the struggle within God’s heart and mind. Now, it is a human writer, writing in the language of poetry, but if we as humans feel conflicting emotions and we are made in the image of God, I think we can picture God who struggles with emotions.

So God looks back at all that she has done for Israel and yet Israel rejects her. God looks at the military and monetary powers of the world that Israel has turned to, and sees how they will be Israel’s downfall and destruction. Is it any wonder God feels frustrated and angry?

Those of us who are parents and those of us who have been around a little longer than others, have developed a pretty good sense of what foolish decisions made in inexperience and immaturity can lead into. We keep repeating the same instruction to our children, yet it seems they make the same poor decisions over and over. “Will they ever learn?” we ask ourselves.

On one hand we want to rush in and keep them from suffering consequences. Yet we know that we can’t keep doing that forever. We become frustrated and angry. And I think this is what God is saying to herself in Hosea. God doesn’t want to see Israel destroy himself, but God has to let Israel see for himself what happens when he stops trusting in God and in being content with what God has provided.

A key point to make here is that God is not willing suffering to come upon Israel to “teach him a lesson.” Neither has God somehow “ordained” that disaster come upon Israel. What God is doing is honoring the freedom of choice that Israel has made. Love and freedom have to exist together, if love is to be love. Freedom isn’t freedom if its consequences aren’t allowed to come to pass. A love coerced or manipulated isn’t love at all.

Just as parents allow themselves to be rejected and hurt, God too, can be rejected and hurt by humans in order to maintain the integrity of divine love.

❖

What Matters Is What's Done With Anger

The natural human inclination is to lash out and seek revenge upon those who have hurt us. Sometimes, even to our own children. In our frustration and anger, we want to teach them a lesson. Discipline is good, but have we sometimes excused punishment as discipline? I wonder how many times I’ve punished my own children to try to make myself feel better at the expense of providing actual discipline.

We are given a sight into God’s struggle in Hosea. God’s anger seems to want to take it out on Israel. Yet the memory of their earlier years and God’s love eventually extinguishes anger with compassion. God will not act impulsively like a human being. God will act counter-intuitively from human norms. Instead of judgment and raining down punishment, God will act with caring, compassion, and love.

I’ve sometimes heard that God’s primary attribute is holiness. When this is said, it is often in terms of God’s sinless perfection and thus how sin cannot exist in God presence, justifying God’s wrath, anger, and judgment. But what we read in Hosea is that God is holy because she chooses to act in a way very different from humans by foregoing anger and judgment, but instead acting in mercy and compassion.

The biblical definition of holy or holiness has to do with difference and alienness between God and his creation. Perfection and sinlessness can be a part of that, but they are not its entirety, as it is sometimes described. What we read in Hosea is that God is holy because he chooses to act so differently than humans would had they been in a similar circumstance.

Hosea 6:6a reads, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” Jesus quotes this verse twice in Matthew:

Matthew 9:13

13 Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 12:7

7 And if you had known what this means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Since Jesus is the exact representation of God (Hebrews 1:3), what we read in Hosea should not be seen an exception but the actual character of God that has always been. The parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 and the parable of wayward Israel in Hosea 11 describe the same God. Both parables depict a holy God who behaves quite contrary to a natural human, but instead offers full acceptance and restoration.

When Christians are commanded to “be holy, because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16; c.f., Leviticus 19:2), I don’t think the command is primarily directed at becoming sinlessly perfect. I believe it means to act like God - with compassion and love - in all situations, even in those where we are rejected and hurt. We were created in the image of God. Sin has marred that image, but through Christ we have been given the Holy Spirit whose work is to restore the original image of God in us.

❖

Conclusion

Back to the questioned I asked at the beginning. If you were a parent whose child deliberately rebelled, rejected, and left you, and then came back, what would you do? I’d like to think that most parents would rejoice and accept their child back into the family and home. If we, as human parents would do that, how much more is God willing, happy, and eager to accept her wayward children back.

A parent-child relationship is different than one between siblings. What if it was your sister or brother that threw a bomb into the family, caused disaster, abandoned the family, lived a less-than-upright life, tarnished the family name, and then returned? Would you be as willing to accept them back? This is the position of the older brother in the Prodigal Son parable.

The older brother sincerely believed that belonging to the family meant keeping the family name clean and respectable, by all means necessary. Which included keeping out anyone who might tarnish it, even if it was your own brother. But the father comes out to instruct him that it isn’t about sacrifice - doing your duty - but about mercy - lifting up and restoring the fallen.

God, in Hosea’s parable, tells us that is what makes her different from all other gods – by rejecting anger and instead following compassion.

Jesus, in the parable recorded in Luke, tells us that the Father God, who really is the same as the God in Hosea, is moved to action by compassion.

The message for us, from both the Old and New Testaments, is to develop that kind of compassionate heart for the world. When we are mistreated, misunderstood, ridiculed and rejected, we must transcend anger and transform the passion generated by it into compassion. This is utterly impossible for humans, because it is a holy activity, and one that can be accomplished only through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds.

Let us choose today to have the Holy Spirit give us holy compassion with which to engage the world and all God’s children. Let us be holy, as God is holy.

Sermon–When Zeal Consumes (1 Kings 19:1-18)

The following is the manuscript of the sermon I preached at the Presbyterian Church. The key question is: What does God’s response and actions found in 1 Kings 19:1-18 say about Elijah’s actions of 1 Kings 18?

---

When encountering today’s passage, many sermons focus on the “still, small voice” (v.12). A common theme is how God’s voice can’t be heard in the busy-ness and noise of life, and that we need to get away if we want to hear him.

Another approach might be to take Elijah’s anxiety and fear in running away from Jezebel and go into a discussion of how he ought to have trusted in God and stayed put, or perhaps a message about how to cope with discouragement and depression.

I think there is good case and support for each of these approaches. Yet what struck me as I read through the passage this time was what I perceived as similarities to Jonah chapter 4. It’s a short chapter so I’ll read it now in its entirety.

Jonah 4:1 Now this greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord! Is this not what I said while I was still in my own land? This is the reason that I fled before to Tarshish, because I knew that You are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in faithfulness, and ready to relent from punishment. 3 Therefore, Lord, take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

4 Then the Lord said, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 So Jonah went out of the city and sat down east of the city and made for himself a booth there. He sat under it in the shade, waiting to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God appointed a plant, and it grew up over Jonah to provide shade over his head, to provide comfort from his grief. And Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day, God appointed a worm to attack the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah so that he became faint and asked that he might die. He said, “It is better for me to die than to live.”

9 Then God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

And Jonah replied, “It is right for me to be angry, even to death.”

10 The Lord said, “You are troubled about the plant for which you did not labor and did not grow. It came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 Should I not, therefore, be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people, who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?” (MEV)

So here are particular points of similarities to note:

• Both Elijah and Jonah had fled
• Both ask God to take their lives
• In both cases, God’s response comes in simple questions
• Both situate themselves in a solitary place
• God provides miraculous provisions in both cases
• Wild natural events occur in both stories
• God asks questions twice
• In both cases the response from Elijah and Jonah repeat their first responses
• In both cases God’s final response is about a large number of individuals

What shall we make of this? Is it merely coincidence? The book of Kings was placed into its final form sometime during or closely after the Jewish exile in Babylon. The book of Jonah was composed sometime after that. I think it is entirely possible that the author of Jonah used the story of Elijah as a kind of template, and perhaps even as a parody rebelling retelling of the earlier account. A number of commentators suggest that there could be some connection between the two stories.

Also, according to a number of Jewish traditions regarding Elijah’s story, they see God’s command to Elijah to anoint Elisha as his replacement, and to begin traveling the region anointing leaders, as a punishment of Elijah. In other words, Elijah’s response to God’s query (in 1Ki 19) is found wanting, and Elijah is placed on a retirement path. This too, aligns with the story of Jonah where at the end is found God’s rebuke of Jonah.

The rebuke is that Jonah had perceived God incorrectly, that Jonah’s desires about those who are “against God” are inappropriate. And so I began to wonder if something similar could be seen in Elijah’s story.

We need to back up and quickly review Elijah’s story prior to 1 Kings 19. Elijah was called to speak against Ahab and announce a drought. For three years the drought continued while Elijah was hidden and provided for, first through ravens and then through a widow in a foreign land. At the end of the three years God commands Elijah to “go and present [himself] to Ahab, and [God] will send rain upon the earth” (1Ki 18:1). Elijah does so and sets up a showdown between his God, and Baal and Asherah. It takes place on Mt. Carmel where Elijah’s God is shown to be the victor and Elijah commands the people to seize and kill all the prophets of Baal and Asherah, which they do. And this is where chapter 19 picks up with Ahab telling his wife, Jezebel, of what had happened. She gets angry and declares Elijah a traitor and enemy of the state. Elijah flees.

Now, the frequent interpretation I’ve heard growing up in the church of this preceding set of stories is how wonderful it is that God showed himself to be right, and how fitting it is that evil was destroyed. It’s a “Go God!” story, showing how God will vindicate himself.

But is it really?

Often when we read stories like these, we make the assumption that because things turn out in favor of God and the righteous, that what happened must be right and God’s will. In this case because God sends down fire on Mt. Carmel, it must have been his will, and that the subsequent action taken by Elijah was also God’s will.

But was it really?

What if Elijah was overstepping his bounds? What if Elijah had assumed things about God and was acting upon his own ideas about how he thought God would respond and about what he thought God wanted?

I’ve already laid out some evidence from Jonah and from Jewish commentators as to why an alternate reading is plausible. Now I’d like to show why I think the text of 1 Kings 18 and 19 itself supports this alternate interpretation.

First, in the command God gives to Elijah about returning to Ahab, God’s command is to “present himself [Elijah] to Ahab” and then the rain will return. There is nothing here about God commanding a showdown or a demonstration of power. This reminds me of Moses and his action at Meribah (Numbers 20). In biblical interpretation, Elijah is seen as a type of Moses, so it should not be surprising that the chronicler of Elijah might allude in some ways to Moses’ life events. At Meribah, the people are complaining about a lack of water. God commands Moses to speak to a rock, but instead, Moses, in his anger, strikes the rock twice. In spite of Moses’ actions God supplies water, but Moses is punished by not being allowed to enter the Promised Land. In this story Moses oversteps God’s commands and carries out his own desires. Perhaps the chronicler of Elijah is alluding to this story about Moses. I believe it is quite likely that the entire showdown at Mt. Carmel (that also, incidentally, uses water) was of Elijah going beyond God’s command. God still manifests himself through a sign, but it can be interpreted as not what God desired to happen. And the slaughter of the prophets of Baal? Quite possibly overzealousness on Elijah’s part, and his imitating surrounding culture in how opposing prophets were handled by victorious powers.

When God finally speaks to Elijah (in 1Ki 19) after fleeing Jezebel, there is no commendation of Elijah’s prior actions. Rather there seems to be a sense of rebuke. Elijah’s response is that he was defending God’s honor (“I’ve been zealous for the Lord”), and by pointing out that he was all alone in this, perhaps seeking some kind of pity and affirmation. But God offers neither. This happens twice. And Elijah’s response is identical both times.

In between the two conversations a violent storm, an earthquake, and fire come, but God is not in any of them. These are metaphors associated with violent judgment. But when God finally speaks, it is not through any of them but rather, in “a still, small voice.” Perhaps this is an explanation that the fire that came down on Mt. Carmel was more about Elijah’s desires rather than God’s. Perhaps this is God trying to tell Elijah that power and violence are not the means of reaching the hearts of people. I think here, Jonah’s story is the counterpoint, where merely speaking changes people’s hearts.

God asks again what Elijah is doing here, and Elijah gives an identical response, word for word. It seems clear that Elijah has failed to comprehend God and his methods of working with humans, even with those that fail to acknowledge him. Jewish commentaries suggest that Elijah’s failure was to consider God’s mercy and compassion as greater than his power and vengeance. It appears his zeal has consumed his ability to be merciful or to even think about it as a possibility. There is still work for Elijah, but it is in wrapping up his time on earth and appointing a successor.

I hope you can see now that Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, often seen as an example for us to confront forcefully those we think are opposing God, could be the antithesis of what the storyteller in this passage really wanted the reader to understand. In the broader picture, this could be a story about people overzealously claiming things for God that God himself wants no part of.

I think we should be extremely wary of any claims to force, power, and violence as tools that God desires or uses. I think we should be very careful in how we defend God, if we ever feel the need arises. I think we need to re-read the Bible with more nuance and not automatically assume that because something turned out okay, God must have desired things to come about in the manner described. I think our frequent desire for judgment and vengeance is more a reflection about our nature than about God’s. I don’t think we can ever exaggerate the magnitude of God’s love, mercy, and compassion.

Whenever we are confused about how to respond to another person, favor the way of love, mercy, and compassion – with no ulterior motives and with no strings attached. Don’t let your zeal for God consume your mercy and love for others.

Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus–What Does It Reveal About God?

Text: Matthew 1
Discussion Outline
Discussion Audio MP3 (61 minutes)

Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, though based on history, is not about history. Its purpose is strictly theological. The genealogy is the entire first chapter, not just the first seventeen verses. The first seventeen verses provide the context and explanation to Jesus’ origins as described in the remainder of the chapter.

Jesus’ genealogy shows three things:

• The relationships between justice, mercy, and law. God’s justice is his mercy, not his wrath. Wrath is the catalyst for mercy. (I.e., there are two choices when faced with wrath: to give out what is deserved, or to respond in mercy. God chose the latter.) God’s mercy transcends the processes and demands of the law.
• Faithfulness is the undivided pursuit of justice (aka, mercy). The human individuals commended in the genealogy exhibit this kind of faithfulness. This foreshadows the life of Jesus and through it the portrait of God he paints for us. (Faith/Faithfulness is not belief in God.)
• There are two types of community: one is based upon blood lineage, the other is based on mercy and faithfulness. Jesus chose to be grafted, through law, into the human lineage. By doing so, he opened the way for all humankind to be grafted into the community of faith, through his (Jesus’) mercy and faithfulness.

Sermon: The Prophet Who Didn’t Like His God

Passage: Jonah
Audio MP3 (37 minutes)
Key Texts: Jonah 4:10-11; Luke 6:35-36

I think if asked about the story Jonah, most people first think about the big fish that swallowed him. The fish is mentioned only in three verses out of the entire book. The book ends with a question from God about his mercy and that is where the main theme is to be found.

This sermon was given at the Presbyterian Church.