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: Awake in Hope

Lectionary: Advent 1(B)

Texts

• Isaiah 64:1-9
• Psalm 80:1-7, 17-19
• 1 Corinthians 1:3-9
• Mark 13:24-37

Introduction

Back in October and November, my social media feeds were inundated with advertising for all sorts of Advent calendars, for kids to adults, for humans and pets. Traditional chocolate ones, cookies, tea, coffee, wine, beer, liquor, cosmetics, socks, candles, dog treats, cat treats, and probably dozens and hundreds more that I haven’t seen. Now that we are in December, all those ads have stopped. Because clearly, if you haven’t gotten your Advent calendar already, it’s too late.

The Advent season is a time for waiting and preparing? But for what, or whom, really? The popular mind and the Advent calendar market at least gets the waiting and counting down part of Advent.

In the broader world, the timeframe occupied by Advent is a time of preparing for Christmas. And we do that through decorating, cleaning, shopping, cooking, baking, traveling, and so on to create a memorable and meaningful Christmas celebration. Is that the purpose of Advent – to prepare for the best celebratory event we can manage?

Perhaps Advent is a time to prepare and wait for Christ? But what exactly does that mean? Are we again preparing to celebrate the remembrance of the arrival of baby Jesus? The activities of Advent lead toward the remembrance and celebration of Christmas, so its primary focus might appear to be that.

The theme for today, the first Sunday of Advent, is hope. What are we hoping for? What fulfillment of hope are we waiting for?

And finally, there is the admonition to “keep awake” in our gospel reading. In what way do waiting and keeping awake help explain Advent and hope?

Prayers of Lament and Deliverance

The reading from Isaiah and the reading from Psalms both contain words that look back to God’s powerful acts in the past and a longing, and even demands, for God to re-enact similar great works to bring about salvation in the present time. Both are literarily categorized as laments, and their liturgical function was quite likely as prayers. The lament in Isaiah was written in the context of the Babylonian exile of the southern tribe of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Psalm lament was most likely written in the context of the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel.

In light of destruction and devastation suffered by a community, these laments raise up cries for God to act like he did in their long-ago historical memories. Both question where God is and why he has allowed this destruction and suffering to come to his people. Although the Isaiah lament contains a brief mention of the people’s sin, both laments place most or all of the responsibility on God. Both end with call to God for him to act and restore and save his people. Although not explicitly stated in the texts, both laments end with an implied confidence and hope that God will act.

The gospel text in Mark was also formed and read within a community that was probably experiencing some degree of intermittent persecution and suffering from within their own Jewish community and outside from the Roman empire. They too, are longing for deliverance and salvation.

Our Context is Different

That is what makes this set of Advent readings difficult for us to understand. Even though we likely have difficulties and challenges, none of us are likely facing truly existential challenges. We have a life that is mostly comfortable, and challenges we face, we generally don’t have too much trouble handling.

I think that if we are truly honest, many of us really don’t need God’s intervention. We are content with how things are, and we don’t really need or want God to intervene and shake things up.

Yet in places around the world, people and communities are facing dire challenges to their very existence. Some are more well known and publicized than others. Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine are among a few that immediately come to mind. Much closer to home, we remember the very recent landslide and loss of life and property in Wrangell. Right here at home, even next door to where we are meeting today, Humanity in Progress exists only because there are those within our very community who find meeting their basic needs a challenge.

Deep within us, even though our immediate circumstances may be quite comfortable, we know that there is something wrong with this world. Even though there are enough resources to take care of everyone, the dominant powers are unable and unwilling to do what it takes to care for all. Many of us have bought into the philosophies and priorities of the dominant powers and, even if we don’t overtly recognize it, we subconsciously divide people into who we think are “more-deserving” and “less-deserving”.

Keeping Awake

Perhaps one part of incorporating “keep awake” into our lives this Advent is to become more intentional about how we view and judge the world around us. Throughout scripture God is described as not showing partiality and those who follow God are also to be impartial in their dealings with others.[1] Maybe we are the ones who need the “breaking through” of God into our lives to reveal our hypocrisies and correct our partialities.

Another element of “keeping awake” may be to reawaken us to the reality that disasters and suffering can easily befall any of us. What is our response when something terrible upends our lives? One line of thought, common in some circles, is to accept whatever happens stoically and even be thankful[2] because “all things work together for good for those who love God”.[3]

If you want to do that, great. That is your choice. But don’t if it is only because you were taught that is the “proper Christian response” to tragedy and suffering.

There are other responses that are acceptable and exemplified in scripture. Psalm 80, which we read, contains one such example.

Even though the Isaiah, Psalm, and Mark texts are in the context of community and existential challenges, our individual tragedies and misfortunes can feel existential. Just because the texts are communal doesn’t mean they cannot be read as expressing individual lament.

Praying a Lament

How might we pray a lament? Let’s read through Psalm 80 once again.

¹ Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel,
you who lead Joseph like a flock!
You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth
² before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh.
Stir up your might,
and come to save us!
³ Restore us, O God;
let your face shine, that we may be saved.

The prayer begins by reminding God of who God is, what God has promised, and demands that God act according to God’s character.

⁴ O LORD God of hosts,
how long will you be angry with your people’s prayers?
⁵ You have fed them with the bread of tears
and given them tears to drink in full measure.
⁶ You make us the scorn of our neighbors;
our enemies laugh among themselves.
⁷ Restore us, O God of hosts;
let your face shine, that we may be saved.

The prayer moves to a complaint. The complaint is that God’s inaction is the cause of God’s people’s suffering and God’s reputation to be sullied in the eyes of others.

This next section includes a large portion that was skipped by the lectionary editors, but it adds important context to the psalm.

⁸ You brought a vine out of Egypt;
you drove out the nations and planted it.
⁹ You cleared the ground for it;
it took deep root and filled the land.
¹⁰ The mountains were covered with its shade,
the mighty cedars with its branches;
¹¹ it sent out its branches to the sea
and its shoots to the River.
¹² Why then have you broken down its walls,
so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit?
¹³ The boar from the forest ravages it,
and all that move in the field feed on it.
¹⁴ Turn again, O God of hosts;
look down from heaven and see;
have regard for this vine,
¹⁵ the stock that your right hand planted.
¹⁶ It has been burned with fire; it has been cut down;
may they perish at the rebuke of your countenance.

¹⁷ But let your hand be upon the one at your right hand,
the one whom you made strong for yourself.
¹⁸ Then we will never turn back from you;
give us life, and we will call on your name.
¹⁹ Restore us, O LORD God of hosts;
let your face shine, that we may be saved.[4]

Once again, the prayer reminds God of God’s early actions in caring for God’s people. And then it again accuses God of allowing destruction to come. It ends with a demand for God to act to restore and save.

The three parts of this lament each end with three refrains. They are similar but with small differences.

The first refrain is “Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved.” The second refrain is similar, but changes the first line to “Restore us, O God of hosts.” The third refrain changes to “Restore us, O LORD God of hosts.” The development is from a generic “God” to “God of hosts” to the most personal “LORD God of hosts.” One might imagine the one praying moving from a lament that is within the boundaries of “proper theology”, to a developing anger that causes the prayer to start to break out from “theological boundaries”, to anguish and anger at seeming betrayal in which one’s personal and close friend has failed to act.

What this says to me is that when we are disappointed with God, it is acceptable to express our anger, rage, and disappointment. If as a community, there is something where we think God has failed to act appropriately, it is okay to step out of “proper theology” and express our feelings as a community toward God. God is not threatened by our feelings. If we sincerely believe God is as personal as our theology claims, if we sincerely believe God is as loving and caring as our theology claims, then we ought to be able to express our complaints and disappointments about God without fearing that somehow, we are violating proper boundaries.

Conclusion

If this season of Advent and reminders about waiting for God bring up memories and feelings of disappointment with God, this might be the time to allow them to be expressed. If you are facing challenges this Advent – it might be financial, it might be your health, it might be something family members are facing – it is okay to express your frustrations and anger, and demand that God act.

While we wait for Christ’s return, we are to keep awake. Depending on the season of our individual and communal lives, it might mean working to alleviate the sufferings around us. Or it might mean crying out to God to act. I believe that the key point is to remain engaged with God and God’s desires for the world. To fall asleep is to succumb to the ennui that we are powerless to make any difference, and that God too, is asleep and doesn’t care.

We are the embodiment of Christ in the world. As long as we are engaged both with the world and with God, we remain beacons of hope in the world. We keep hope awake that justice and righteousness will be restored.

---

[1] Among the texts: Deuteronomy 16:19, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Job 32:21, Matthew 22:16, Acts 10:35, Romans 2:11, James 2:1, 9 and 3:17.

[2] Ephesians 5:19-20.

[3] Romans 8:28.

[4] Psalm 80 (NRSVue).

Sermon: A Different Economy

Text: Luke 11:1-13
Lectionary: Year C, Proper 12

Five years ago Elise and I took a vacation in Italy, spending about a month there. The first third of the trip was a group tour around the country on a bus. It was at the very end of that trip, the very last evening, as the group’s luggage was being unloaded from the bus, that I discovered that my luggage went missing and probably was stolen.

It was a rather unexpected, nasty surprise. But it could have been worse. I had fortunately carried all important documents and credit cards and such on my person. If the thief was looking for valuables in the luggage, they would have been sorely disappointed, save for a bit of US currency that I had in there since I didn’t need any while in Italy. Probably the most valuable thing was the luggage itself.

I was amazingly Zen about the whole affair. Retrospection wouldn’t change things, and the immediate future was somewhat dictated by having to file police reports and get a couple of changes of clothing. Taking the perspective that this led to some new experiences that I wouldn’t have otherwise had, to invoke curiosity about them, might have been factors that helped get through it without getting too stressed or annoyed.

It was decidedly inconvenient, but the sudden cutting loose from stuff that I had been carrying, albeit not my choice, was surprisingly freeing. Looking back on it now, it seems that I was suddenly forced to be more in-the-moment, to have to work through the new circumstances of the here-and-now.

Mindfulness: Being Present

Mindfulness has become quite the trend and buzz in wellness circles over the past couple of decades. It is most frequently associated with the practice of meditation, but the two are not the same. Meditation, particularly the types focusing on breathing and being aware of one’s own body, is a practice that is used to lead toward mindfulness. But mindfulness is the result of meditation or any other practice that leads to a state where one’s focus is on the present, rather than on retrospection (past oriented) or prospection (future planning).

Social scientists and psychologists have found that people who are happy tend to be focused on the present; i.e., they are mindful. They certainly do look back in history for lessons and make plans for the future, but they have learned to live in the present.[1]

On the other hand, those who ruminate in retrospection or are overly fixated on prospection tend to be less happy. Retrospection might be the result of regrets about the past or the preference for nostalgia, where the mind diminishes or erases the bad parts memories. Prospection might be the preference of an idealized future in which everything goes according to plan. In both cases, there seems to be significant felt dissatisfaction with the present.

Lord's Prayer and Mindfulness

I think the Lord’s Prayer, at least in part, is telling us to be present and to be mindful.

The version found in Luke is quite terse and direct, when compared to the version we most often recite from Matthew. Here it is again to refresh our memories.

^2b “Father, may your name be revered as holy.
May your kingdom come.
³ Give us each day our daily bread.
⁴ And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.” (Luke 11:2b-4 NRSVue)

The prayer begins and ends with what could be seen as future oriented: a desire to see the fulfillment of God’s kingdom on earth and a petition to be spared the time of trial.

But the central portion of the prayer is about the present, one day at a time. This is most clearly seen in the petition for provision of today’s needs, “Give us each day our daily bread.”

Debt Erasure and Not Keeping Records

But notice that the clause about forgiving is stated in the present tense: “And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.” Notice too, how Luke uses sins and debts interchangeably.

I think that there is an important principle here that we often overlook or ignore. Followers of Jesus don’t keep a ledger of debts, either formally or informally.

Keeping a record of debts means always having reminders about something owed to you from the past, and always looking toward a future time when the debt will be repaid in some manner. Relationships become transactional. Our interactions become accounting and mathematical problems. Will what I say or do be a credit or a debit on this relational ledger? Will we be owing someone, or will this be a repayment on some debt owed? Are they doing me a favor because of some past debt, or will they now expect repayment from me in the future? Even if we don’t explicitly think in these terms, I think that there is a part of us that wants to keep this kind of ledger.

Our social and economic structures, the ones we are immersed in from birth, perpetuate and reinforce this kind of thought process. These systems are the very air we breathe. We don’t even think about it. The exchange of goods for other goods and services, meritocracy, lending and borrowing, contracts, expectations of full repayment – these are all not just economic concepts, but they color how we approach community and relationships. Even participation in church can become transactional: am I getting out of church what I am putting into it?

Through the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus teaches us a different economy. One that can free us from being trapped by the past and from limits debt often places onto future possibilities. An economy that is achieved by eliminating ledgers altogether; by forgiving everyone of all debts, where this is done by all for one another.

Could such an economy actually work? Wouldn’t there be some who just take and take without ever giving back, taking advantage of those who give? Perhaps we can’t imagine anything like this working because we are unable to imagine beyond our culture and societal norms. Perhaps we are so steeped in the economy of scarcity and power that we can’t imagine people not taking advantage of one another to acquire more and amass power over others.

Parable of the Friends at Midnight

Immediately after the Lord’s Prayer, Luke records a parable told by Jesus. It does not come through in most English translations, but the first large portion of the parable should be read as a question posed by Jesus.

⁵ And he said to them, “Suppose one of you has [Can you imagine] a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, ⁶ for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ And he answers from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ ⁸

This entire section should be preface as, “Can you imagine a friend doing this with your request?” The expected response from Jesus’ hearers would have been an emphatic, “No, we cannot.”[2]

I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything out of friendship, at least because of his persistence [shamelessness] he will get up and give him whatever he needs. (Luke 11:5-8 NRSVue)

Translation and Interpretation Alternatives

Here we get into one of the very confusing translation and interpretive problems in the New Testament. The word, here, translated as persistence leads to the interpretation that it is because of the persistence of the friend in need that the friend with the means finally acquiesces to the demands. And the frequent application is that we should be just as persistent in prayer to God. But that opens up a whole new can of worms in regard to answers to prayer, which we do not have the time to get into right now.

A better translation is shamelessness. But once more, this is applied to the one asking for bread, leading to the interpretation that one should or must be bold in asking God in prayer.

But other interpreters apply the shamelessness to the friend behind the locked door, the one with means. In this interpretation, the friend finally gives in because to refuse the request would be to bring shame and dishonor not only to himself, but to the entire community, for refusing to be hospitable to the guest who has arrived from outside the community.

A problem with this interpretation is the question about God and shame and honor. Those who object to this interpretation object on the grounds that God isn’t subject to shame and honor, and therefore, this interpretation is unsound. But when we see this and the latter part of today’s reading (which we will not specifically discuss here) as parables of “how much more is God willing” then the interpretation fits. If humans can be motivated by a sense of shame avoidance to do the right thing, how much more is God, who is completely righteous and good, willing to respond to requests from God’s people?

But there is yet another way to look at the parable. In most interpretations we assume that we are the friend asking for bread. But what if we turn it around such that we are the one behind the locked door, with the bread, being asked to get out of bed and get bread for the person outside? We are being asked because we happen to have the resources to fulfill the community’s need at this moment. How will we respond?[3]

Distribution of God's Gifts

It might seem to you like I’m wandering over a lot of territory today that doesn’t seem to connect. I hope that in these last few minutes I can bring it mostly together. First let’s review the final verse from today’s reading.

¹³ If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13 NRSVue)

The specific mention of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask reminds me of the gifts of the Spirit that are found in several of the Epistles. Here is one such list and description from 1 Corinthians:

⁴ Now there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, ⁵ and there are varieties of services but the same Lord, ⁶ and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. ⁷ To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. ⁸ To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, ⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, ¹⁰ to another the working of powerful deeds, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹ All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NRSVue)

What I notice is that the gifts are distributed among the community for the common good. No one person has all the gifts, and the Spirit determines how the gifts are allocated.

Can We Imagine Better?

What if the answering of prayers to God is most frequently, by God, intended to be answered through God’s community on earth? What if the community of believers, globally, has been given all the resources and gifts necessary to respond to nearly every request that has and will be petitioned through prayer? What if all believers fully believed and trusted in the abundance of God’s provisions? What if we fully trusted that God provides sufficient resources to offer one another with our daily bread? What if we trusted that on some days we would be the ones blessed with abundance, but on other days we would be the ones asking another, but together we could meet one another needs for the day? What if we didn’t keep tallies of who was giving more and who was asking more, but rather, understood that all resources come from God to be used for the common good?

Honestly, I don’t know if this vision is realistic. In all reality, I seriously doubt it could work at all. But maybe just being able to imagine something different is a start.

I think there are briefs moments when each of us has experienced such grace from the community around us. Many of us have probably had opportunities to extend such grace. But then we quickly get back to the ways in which the world actually works.

Letting go of the baggage of living in this world, according to the ways of this world, is a difficult thing. Jesus says to us,

²⁸ “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30 NRSVue)

Jesus won’t take away our baggage without our consent. But he pleads with us to allow him to take them, because he knows it will be so freeing for us.

This sermon does not have answers, only questions. But what I do hope is that it will ignite some small part of our spiritual imaginations to ponder the kind of community that Jesus began to build, and what it will take to continue that work, to create a community that operates from a sense of abundance and cooperation, rather than scarcity and competition.[4] 

---

[1] How to Know That You Know Nothing - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/10/mindfulness-curiosity-arthurbrooks-ellenlanger-howto-2021/620283/). Also the entire “How to Build a Happy Life” podcast series, from which this episode is taken, explorers what happiness is and how to build a life that can experience more of it.

[2] Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant, Chapter 6, “Exegesis of Luke 11:5-13”.

[3] Feasting on the Gospels – Luke, Volume 1. Commentary on Luke 11:1-13, Pastoral Perspective.

[4] Although I do not specifically reference the New Testament reading for this week, Colossians 2:6-15, in this sermon, I think there are thematic touchpoints. 1) An ongoing, daily, present walk with Christ (v.6-7). 2) The exhortation to not conform to the "elemntal principles of the world" (v.8). 3) God forgiving "all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us" (vv.13-14). 

Ask, Seek, Knock…

Does God grant any prayer request?

Matthew 7:7-11 reads:

⁷ “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ⁸ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ⁹ Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰ Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? ¹¹ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

This is the version familiar to most people.

There is a parallel version found in Luke 11:9-13:

^{9 “}And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ¹⁰ For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ¹¹ What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; ¹² or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? ¹³ If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Although the Matthew version is generally more familiar and more often seen, the Lucan version is considered to be closer to the original saying (Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Combined edition), 136; Kenneth E. Bailey).

Where this observation becomes key is in the concluding phrase of these passages. The Matthew version reads, “How much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” In this version there appears to be no qualification for the asking, seeking, knocking. The audience could go away believing God will give anything to the one who asks, if he/she asks with enough passion, faith, diligence.

The Lucan version concludes, “How much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” This version is quite specific about what request God will grant without limits. In this version the audience cannot mistakenly go away believing God will grant any request or wish. In this version it is specifically the Holy Spirit that God will grant without measure.

This example I provide here shows one of the the dangers of a simplistic reading of Bible texts without, among other things, exploring variations and literary connections.