Sermon: Baptized into Community

Lectionary: Baptism of the Lord (A)

Text: Matthew 3:13-17

Holy Baptism
Miller, Mary Jane, 2008

I grew up in a Christian tradition that places great emphasis on baptism. There are baptismal classes taught in church run schools, classes for children to adults held at church, and global evangelistic series where one of the key goals is to gain baptismal commitments. During these mega evangelism events, many who have already been studying for baptism are baptized and these events are broadcast globally during the series. I’ve seen Olympic sized pools rented to accommodate these mass-baptism events.

I was baptized when I was eleven or twelve years of age, after completing a series of classes held at the church-run school I attended. The church where I was baptized had a congregational capacity of several hundred, a large, raised platform with choir seating for probably around a hundred members set against the front wall, behind the pulpit area. Inset into the front wall, raised some 15 to 20 feet above the choir, was the baptistry. It was arguably the most prominent feature of the sanctuary, communicating the importance of baptism to the tradition.

That is where I was baptized. I’m sure the experience is different for everyone, but my experience was somewhat of a letdown. After all the hype and learning about what baptism means, it didn’t feel that particularly special. Heaven did not open. There was no light or voice from heaven, no dove, and no angel choirs. I didn’t suddenly experience a different set of thoughts, nor did my proclivities change. The only thing that tangibly changed was full membership into this church.

The rhetoric offered was that baptism was the beginning and a start to a new life in Christ. But actual practice, at least as I felt it, unconsciously communicated that baptism was a kind of finish line.

The tradition I grew up in, alongside many evangelical groups, practice what is sometimes termed “believer’s baptism” which places emphases on individual belief, repentance, forgiveness, and commitment to Christ. On the other side are the groups – Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Roman Catholic, and others – who practice infant baptism. Here the emphasis is on family and community commitment to the new member of God’s kingdom and their involvement in helping the new member grow in Christ.

In my younger days, I would have stated that infant baptism is unbiblical and wrong for not following the physical example of Jesus. I’ve since learned to see things differently, and in preparation for this sermon looked more closely into the history and development of Christian baptism. The conclusion from that is that every position can cite biblical and theological basis and that each one offers a different glimpse into the mystery of the meaning and function of baptism.

For those that adhere to believer’s baptism, as noted earlier, repentance and forgiveness of sins through the act of baptism is a critical pillar. It is this point, however, that in today’s gospel reading, John has a problem when Jesus asks to be baptized. The writer of Matthew, too, notices that problem and in his text, he has John saying, “I baptize you with water for repentance…,” (Matthew 3:11a NRSVue) but omits the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” that is found in Mark and Luke’s versions of the account.

The dialogue of protest and response by John and Jesus is also unique to Matthew. In Mark and Luke, Jesus appears and is baptized, and John does not seem to recognize Jesus at all. In the gospel account of John, the writer states that John the Baptizer did not recognize Jesus until after the baptism when a sign was given from heaven.

Jesus’ response to John offers a statement that is puzzling.

¹⁵ But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he [John] consented. (Matthew 3:15 NRSVue)

The puzzle comes from this: if Jesus was sinless, wasn’t he already righteous? Then what does it mean for him to fulfill all righteousness?

When we hear “righteous” and “righteousness”, we probably hear them in legal and forensic terms. We think of them as states of being. In other words, in our minds these terms are synonymous with concepts such as perfect and sinless.

A clue that points to Matthew’s use of righteousness as something different is the Jesus’ saying, “… It is proper for us”. Righteousness is not something that is attained, but something that is done, and here, done together.

Rather than concepts such as perfection and sinlessness, Matthew has in mind when he pens righteousness, right-doing, right-relationship, and engaging in works of justice.

Jesus and John affirm and announce three things when they together, complete Jesus’ baptism.

First, Jesus affirms John’s ministry and call for repentance. John’s ministry continues until he is arrested by Herod. Jesus does not begin his full-scale public ministry until John is silenced. And when Jesus begins his ministry, his first message is “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 4:17b NRSVue)

Second, Jesus announces his relationship with humanity. Through baptism, Jesus announces his identification with humanity, even unto death. He announces that his relationship with humanity will be that of service. Through his baptism by John, who has claimed himself lesser than Jesus, Jesus demonstrates giving up of position and privilege that he is entitled to.

Thirdly, Jesus announces his relationship to God. Through God’s affirmation of Jesus’ baptism, Jesus announces that he is obedient to God’s will. At this specific time, Jesus allowing himself to be baptized by John and what that means is God’s will.

Jesus may also be declaring a broader meaning of repentance than what we generally think. We tend to think of repentance as turning away from something. But the corollary of turning away is turning toward. In the very next scene after his baptism, Jesus is confronted by the devil in the wilderness. Even though Jesus is without sin, through the wilderness temptation he chooses to turn away from what the devil offers and turn toward God and the ways of God’s kingdom. In that sense, then, I think it is appropriate to see Jesus performing an act of repentance.

Righteousness, then, is a measure of relationship within a community. It is how communities continue to function in harmony and peace. Jesus’ baptism inaugurated his announcement and formation of a community founded on right relationships between God and humanity, and among the human individuals of the community.

In the Epistle to the Colossians, we are given a Pauline[1] understanding of baptism and its effects. Note how nearly everything is about relationships within the family of God.

^2:12 When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead…

^3:1 So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. ² Set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that are on earth, ³ for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. ⁴ When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory.

⁵ Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). ⁶ On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient., ⁷ These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. ⁸ But now you must get rid of all such things: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. ⁹ Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices ¹⁰ and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. ¹¹ In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, enslaved and free, but Christ is all and in all!

¹² Therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. ¹³ Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. ¹⁴ Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. ¹⁵ And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. (Colossians 2:12, 3:1-15 NRSVue)

Amen.

References

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

Dagmar, H. (2023, December 14). Baptism. Retrieved from St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology: https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/Baptism.pdf

ELCA. (2026, January 9). What Do Lutherans Believe About Baptism? Retrieved from St. Luke's Lutheran Church: https://www.stlukesbloomington.org/uploads/5/9/6/2/59621829/baptism-handout.pdf

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

Gambrell, D. (2016, February 15). What Presbyterians believe: the sacrament of baptism. Retrieved from Presbyterian Church (USA) - Presbyterian Mission: https://centernet.pcusa.org/story/what-presbyterians-believe-the-sacrament-of-baptism/

Garland, D. E. (2001). Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

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

Power of Presence: Glory Revealed. (2026, January 11). Retrieved from Discipleship Ministries: The United Methodist Church: https://www.umcdiscipleship.org/worship-planning/glory-revealed/baptism-of-the-lord-year-a-lectionary-planning-notes/baptism-of-the-lord-year-a-preaching-notes

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

Wilson, W. T. (2022). The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 1 (Matthew 1-13). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

 

---

[1] Colossians is one of the disputed letters of Paul, scholars divided about 50/50 on Paul being the author vs. perhaps one or more of Paul’s followers writing it.

Sermon: The Light Incarnate

Lectionary: Christmas 2(A)

Text: John 1:10-18

Christ Our Light

Whereas the gospels of Matthew and Luke offer a story of a physical arrival of Jesus into the world, John’s gospel offers a philosophical approach to Jesus’ entry into the physical world. Even though it doesn’t follow the traditional expectations of a Christmas story, it is a Christmas text. Scholars think that the Prologue may have originally started as a Christological hymn upon which editors expanded, and which we have today.

The Prologue of the gospel according to John provides a sweeping overview of the remainder of the gospel. It introduces key themes that will repeatedly appear. It offers a broad sweep of the types of people and their relationships to Jesus that will be seen.

In the middle of this section, we encounter a tragedy: although the Light was in the world, his own people failed to recognize him. His own people rejected him.

It is tempting and easy to read “his own people” and conclude that this means the Jews of the time. Maybe you’ve heard this interpretation before. However, this kind of reading has led to antisemitism and anti-Judaism. Instead, we should look at the literary structure to find a better interpretation.

First point to note is that the Prologue casts a very universal vision. It uses the word “world” and the phrase “all people” multiples times to refer to the subjects of God’s activity. The default scope of interpretation is universal.

Now, let’s re-read verses 9-11.

⁹ The true light that shines on all people was coming into the world. ¹⁰ The light was in the world, and the world came into being through the light, but the world didn’t recognize the light. ¹¹ The light came to his own people, and his own people didn’t welcome him. (John 1:9-11 CEB)

What is found here is a series of poetic parallelisms. “The world” and “his people” can be interpreted as referring to the same thing. When read and interpreted this way, no single people group can be held responsible for rejecting Christ. Instead, all humanity has rejected him. We all have participated in rejecting Christ.

But that is not the end of the story for us and for the rest of humanity. Verses 12-13 offers the Christmas hope:

² But those who did welcome him, those who believed in his name, he authorized to become God’s children, ¹³ born not from blood nor from human desire or passion,
but born from God. (John 1:12-13 CEB)

Many preferred darkness and refused to recognize the Light. But some chose to come out of the darkness and into the Light.

Now, for us in these norther latitudes in the winter, where a large portion of each day is in darkness, we might wonder why someone would refuse to come to the light. We string up lights all around town to illuminate the area and to brighten our senses and feelings.

But if we consider that there exist many organisms—animals, plants, and fungi—that are adapted to darkness, which may be harmed by the light, we can begin to understand the metaphor that is used in the Prologue. We might also think about those who act against the norms of society—criminals—who do their nefarious deeds under the cover of both literal and metaphorical darkness.

The two phrases “Those who welcomed him” and “those who believed in his name” are also literary parallels. Welcoming and believing are synonymous here, or it could be interpreted to mean that welcoming the Light necessarily includes believing in his name.

To our modern ears, when we hear “believe” we typically think about mental and intellectual assent to propositions, principles, and doctrines. We think of believing in terms of agreement with something that can be written down and explained. The two creeds that we frequently recite, the Nicene and the Apostles, begin with the phrase “We believe” and “I believe”. They go on to describe various -ologies that constitute Christian beliefs.

However, the idea of believing as agreeing with a static set of propositions would have sounded foreign to the author of John and his audience. For them the word meant “entrusting”. This meaning pairs much better with welcoming.

With this we can now read that these people entrusted or committed themselves to “his name”. Most of us in modern Western society regard names as identifiers to distinguish between individuals. We rarely consider that names can have meanings. When we do, it is often a matter of curiosity and nothing more. An instance in which we do pay attention is when a new pope is elected and he chooses a new name for himself. In that instance, the choice is deliberate and considered, his new name revealing something about his character and how the future papacy might unfold.

Ancient societies placed great deal of meaning into names. We see this in stories throughout the Bible. What is more significant is when a person is given a name by God. In the Christmas story, God gives Zechariah the name “John” to give to his son, and God gives Mary the name “Jesus” to give to her son. For them a name was not just an identifier, but a representation of the entirety of a person: their character, their values, their actions, and their relationships. Thus, when the John writes that “those who believed in his name”, it is telling us that these people entrusted their whole selves to the character, values, activity, and relationships that Jesus lived. And more than that the final poetic verse of the Prologue tells us that the entirety of Jesus is a perfect reflection of God.

¹⁸ No one has ever seen God. God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made God known. (John 1:18 CEB)

The remainder of John offers a series of sign events that Jesus manifests. After each, people who witness it either entrust themselves to him or reject him. The crucifixion is a culmination of this smaller series of rejections that has already been decided.

It has been noted that the creeds go straight from the Nativity to the crucifixion and resurrection, skipping Jesus’ life without which the others have little meaning. The absence of the Beatitudes and the Sermon[1] from so many creeds and confessions of faith is striking.

To welcome Christ and entrust oneself to his name is to live as Christ did, embodying the message of the Sermon. The Sermon and Jesus’ life is a rejection of power and privilege, a rejection of force and violence, a rejection of nationalism and racism, a rejection of wealth and comfort. It is a welcoming of the poor and marginalized, a lifting up of women and children, a proclamation of freedom to those oppressed and fearful, a welcoming of foreigners and slaves. It is welcoming and entering a new community and relationships of love and equality.

This is the light that is Christ. This is the gospel that he embodied and proclaimed. The things that he rejected are the darkness. Humanity is well adapted to this darkness. And too many, yes those who benefit from it, but also those who aspire to experience the powers and privileges of this world prefer to continue in darkness. This is why Jesus was crucified: because the powers of structures of this world cannot tolerate the Light that would tear it down.

When I look around the world, I see different versions of Christianity. But what John’s gospel makes clear is that either one belongs to the darkness or one belongs to the light. There is no in-between. When we evaluate and consider messages and actions that claim to be Christian, the criterion for judging is whether it conforms to the life of Christ or not. A mere profession that “Jesus is Lord” is not sufficient.

For each of us individually and collectively, in our daily encounters we are compelled by Christ to decide. Do we decide to entrust and follow world, or do we decide to entrust ourselves to him and his way? It will not always be easy, going against societal traditions and expectations. But it is the Way that is Life and Light, in which those who enter it can experience genuine and lasting peace and joy. We were created to be in the light, but over the course of our lives we have adapted to the darkness. Our encounter with Christ calls us to return to who we were created to be.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Illuminates,

And in the name of God who bring to light our attraction to darkness, Amen.

Bibliography

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2023). John for Normal People. Harleysville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2015). Feasting on the Gospels: John, Volume 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

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

Talbert, C. H. (2005). Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (Reading the New Testament Commentary). Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.

Van De Laar, J. (2025, December 28). Lectionary Reflection for Christmas 2A on John 1:(1-9), 10-18. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-christmas

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

 

 

---

[1] I use the singular “Sermon” to refer to both the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke.

Sermon: A Vision of Peace

Lectionary: Advent 1(A)

Text: Isaiah 2:1-5

Swords into Ploughshares
Peter Koenig

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

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

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

First allow me to read a text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 2:4 reads,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the name of God who is Love,

In the name of God who is Light,

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

---

[1] (Etymonline, 2025)

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

Sermon: On Not Speculating About the End Times

Lectionary: Proper 28(C)

Text: Luke 21:5-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the name of God who is faithful,

In the name of God who lived faithfulness,

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

References

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

---

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

Sermon: Children of the Resurrection

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

The question of the Sadducees,
Harold Copping, 1907

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the name of God who lives,

In the name of God who resurrects,

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

References

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

---

[1] (Green, 1997)

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)