Sermon: Ritual, Piety, and Love

Wooden Love Sign

Lectionary: Proper 25(A)

Texts: Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18; Matthew 22:34-46

Jesus was not against rituals and traditions of his Jewish religious context. He observed feast days and Sabbaths. He paid the temple tax. He wasn’t against bringing offerings and sacrifices to the temple. That Jesus’ interpretations of the law were at odds with other schools of interpretation would not have been unusual. Rabbis of various schools frequently disagreed with one another and debated their viewpoints.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “I say to you that unless your righteousness is greater than the righteousness of the legal experts and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20 CEB)

Jesus’ objection was not about the law or the desire and attempts of the legal experts and Pharisees to observe the law. The objection of Jesus was in the reason and goal of observing the law.

Here I need to disabuse us of the notion that Jewish religion was legalistic. We see portrayals of Pharisees and scribes, and they are often interpreted as focused on the law so that they can earn favor with God. This is the mainstream Christian interpretation of Pharisees and scribes for centuries into today.

But Jews would disagree with this interpretation. In Israelite history, the commandments and laws come only after deliverance. They are already God’s chosen people when they are given the laws. The laws were not given as a means for the people to become delivered. Rather, the laws were given as concrete ways in which God’s people could draw ever closer to God, to express their gratitude to God, and how the people could keep from offending God who had graced them with deliverance from oppression.

This might be likened to an orphan who is adopted into a wealthy family. The adoptee has done nothing to deserve this. They have not first signed a contract detailing their responsibilities to the adopting family. They simply become part of the family. Only after adoption and belonging do they slowly begin to have expectations made of them as a family member. These are not rules that the adoptee must keep to remain a family member. These are rules that are simply expected to be followed as a responsible member of the family. They help contribute to the well-being and harmony of the family. Disregarding the rules and disobedience does not make them any less family, but there are consequences that reach out and impact the entire household.

The problem that Jesus saw with the Pharisees and scribes was that their reason and goal for keeping the law did not go far enough. Throughout the Matthew’s gospel, the criticism of their piety is that they were doing it mostly to look pious and gain favor and honor from other people.[1] This is why Jesus called them out as hypocrites—play-actors.

Today’s gospel reading began, “When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had left the Sadducees speechless, they met together. One of them, a legal expert, tested him. ‘Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the Law?’” (Matthew 22:34-36 CEB)

The question itself is relatively harmless. This was a common question rabbis asked one another. The law was divided into greater commandments and lesser commandments and clarifying the hierarchy of commandments was important when one commandment came into conflict with another.

In Mark’s version of this encounter, the questioner appears to be genuine and sincere in wanting to learn, and Jesus commends him.[2] But Matthew rewrites the story and changes the motives of the questioner.[3] In this way, the story fits into a series, found in Matthew chapters 21 and 22, where Jesus comes into conflict with the authorities.

This small digression highlights how the gospel writers were less concerned with recording facts and history, and more concerned with using Jesus’ story to record their theological perspectives.

How Jesus responds is of ultimate importance. R. T. France, in his commentary on Matthew, writes,

Since the five books of Moses contained, by rabbinic calculation, 613 commandments, some means of assessing their relative importance would be widely appreciated. But to provide this must involve choosing one legal principle over others, and this carried the risk that other teachers, who might have made a different choice, could accuse their colleague of belittling the importance of some other equally scriptural principle. Any answer must risk pleasing some at the expense of alienating others, and therein perhaps is the element of “test” from an unsympathetic dialogue partner, particularly in view of the suspicion already noted in 5:17 that Jesus had come to “abolish” the law. If he differed radically from mainstream Jewish orthodoxy, this question ought to reveal it.[4]

Jesus responds by quoting, first, from Deuteronomy, and next from Leviticus.

³⁷ He replied, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your being, and with all your mind. ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.” (Matthew 22:37-40 CEB)

We might see a potential hierarchy of commands when Jesus says, “the second is like it.” But what Jesus meant by this is that the second is of the same quality, i.e., equal in value, to the first.

France explains Jesus’ response:

Jesus’ choice of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 is notable for two reasons. In the first place, by focusing on “love” rather than on more tangible regulations to be obeyed it lifts the discussion above merely adjudicating between competing rules, and gives the priority to a principle which has potential application to virtually every aspect of religious and communal life. When Jesus declares that “the whole law and the prophets” depend on this principle, he is repeating the point he made in 7:12, “this is the law and the prophets.”[5]

Jesus, by avoiding pointing out specific laws, but rather to a principle that undergirds the entirety of laws, he avoids the trap that was set to divide the crowd and his followers and by extension, shame him.

There is a similar story in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where a lawyer asks Jesus how to gain eternal life.[6] In Matthew’s and Mark’s versions, Jesus responds by listing several commandments. When the lawyer says he has kept the commandments, Jesus responds by telling him that he lacks one thing: give away his wealth to help the poor. The questioner goes away disappointed because he cannot give up his wealth.

The version found in Luke is intriguing, because instead of Jesus listing commandments, he asks the lawyer what the law says and how he interprets it. In response, the lawyer answers by quoting the very same texts from Deuteronomy and Leviticus that Jesus quotes in the Matthew story. (It seems that Luke merged two stories to create a new one.) But the lawyer is not satisfied and asks, “Who is my neighbor?” This becomes the impetus by which Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan and the meaning of “neighbor.”

Although we, along with Luke, tend to criticize the lawyer for asking “who is my neighbor?”, it could be seen as a reasonable and justifiable question. Here is a portion of today’s Leviticus reading with my emphasis on how “neighbor” could be understood.

¹⁵ You must not act unjustly in a legal case. Do not show favoritism to the poor or deference to the great; you must judge your fellow Israelites fairly. ¹⁶ Do not go around slandering your people. Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed; I am the LORD. ¹⁷ You must not hate your fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your fellow Israelite strongly, so you don’t become responsible for his sin. ¹⁸ You must not take revenge nor hold a grudge against any of your people; instead, you must love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:15-18 CEB)

As you have heard, the immediate context of the “love your neighbor” strongly favors fellow Israelites. However, when we keep reading, the text goes on to expand the definition of who fits into “neighbor.”

³³ When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. ³⁴ Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:33-34 CEB)

What Jesus does with his parable of the Good Samaritan is to further expand the boundaries of “neighbor.” It is no longer just people of your own tribe and nation; it is no longer those who live in your land; “neighbor” extends to those outside of your family, tribe, nation, and those within your borders. Everyone in the world is your neighbor, including those that you consider enemies. Jesus introduced this expansive definition in his Sermon on the Mount.

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. ⁴⁴ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you ⁴⁵ so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete. (Matthew 5:43-48 CEB)

Jesus criticizes religious ritual and piety not because they are useless, but because too many people stop there. And that is the danger that all of us face. It is much easier to fall on rituals and piety as the full expression of love to God. But Jesus taught ritual and piety are insufficient. When Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness is greater than the righteousness of the legal experts and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven,”[7] he meant that the purpose of ritual and piety was to become more like God and learn to fully love as God does. If religion, rituals, and piety don’t lead to us becoming more sensitive to the needs of all and to become willing to sacrifice ourselves to meet those needs that we encounter, then our religion and religious activities are worthless.

Richard Floyd writes in a commentary,

Our culture entices us to begin and end with a kind of expressive individualism: What are my needs, my rights, my desires? What will bring me self-actualization and contentment? This kind of solipsistic thinking contributes to the disintegration of society… and the impoverishment of our planet…

Congregations are not immune to the acids of this expressive individualism. Many congregations are tempted to turn from self to God without consideration of the neighbor. Thus we begin with my needs as a sinner and ends with God’s salvation in Christ, cleanly circumventing the hurting neighbor (which must be understood to include the whole of creation). Other congregations are tempted to turn from self to neighbor without consideration of God. Thus their ethical passion easily dissipates into self-righteousness or despair.[8]

True religion needs both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Rituals and piety help us draw closer to God and conforms us increasingly to God’s desires for the world. God’s desires for the world are enacted and made concrete by our activities in loving the whole of God’s creation. But lest we become self-sufficient and self-aggrandizing, we return to religion to worship and acknowledge God as the source and goal, the beginning  and end, of love for the world.

In the name of God who created the world,

In the name of God who sacrificed for the world,

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

References

Enns, P. (2026, October 24). Pete Enns - Pete Ruins Leviticus. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episodes/episode-204-pete-enns-pete-ruins-leviticus

Enns, P., & Barker, J. (2026, October 24). James Barker - Writing and Rewriting the Gospels. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episodes/episode-337-james-barker-writing-and-rewriting-the-gospels

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

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 2: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

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

Wilson, W. T. (2022). The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 2 (Matthew 14-28). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

 

---

[1] C.f., Matthew 6:1-2, 5, 16; 23:2-6.

[2] Mark 12:28-34.

[3] (Enns & Barker, James Barker - Writing and Rewriting the Gospels, 2026)

[4] (France, 2007)

[5] (France, 2007)

[6] Luke 10:25-37; Matthew 19:16-19; Mark 10:17-19.

[7] Matthew 5:20 (CEB)

[8] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2013)

Sermon: Reassessing Fairness

Lectionary: Proper 21(A)

Text: Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32

Social scientists observe that across cultures, a sense of fairness develops in children by the time they are around the age of three. Anyone who has been around young children knows the fierce sense of fairness frequently demonstrated during play, when portions of desirable food are divided among them, when they are assigned chores, and so on.

For most of us, fairness is often synonymous with equality: equal distribution of goods and equal treatment as people. Fairness is also a way of expressing a facet of justice: being treated in a way that is deserved by one’s actions.

Now, we do see fairness with a bias. For example, if we have more than someone else, we don’t think that is necessarily unfair, but if someone else has more than us, we tend to think of that as unfair to us. And if we are treated more generously than our words and actions deserve, we don’t think that is unfair, but if we see someone else not receiving the just deserts of their bad behavior, we quickly label that unfair and unjust.

We also want to believe that everything that happens is a direct consequence of some other action or state of being. If something good happens to us, it must be because we are good or did something right. Conversely, if something bad happens to someone else, it must be because they are morally lacking and did something bad. Notice too, the cognitive bias implied in the last two sentences. We tend to think that for ourselves, good is causal but bad is not, whereas when we think of others, we tend to think that bad things happening to them are causal and deserved.

It should then be no surprise that people through history have asked how God and gods fit into the scheme of fairness. In many mythologies, the gods are like humans, except with vastly greater powers. Their concern is with themselves and have little regard for minor creatures such as humans. With these gods, humans’ relationship to the divine is appeasement and hoping they stay out of whatever schemes the gods are involved in.

In other mythologies, gods do have regard for created beings, but mostly as servants whose worship, offerings, and sacrifice offer increased power to the gods. In return the gods might offer the worshipers power, protection, and other benefits, so long as the worshipers obeyed all the god’s demands.

And then we come to the God who first revealed a Godself distinct from the other gods to Abraham. The God who would be known as Yahweh, the God who claimed Israel and worshiped by the Jews, the God whom Christians believe was incarnated in Jesus and the God whom we worship. We might hope that our scriptures would provide a clear and unambiguous answer about how God responds to human behavior. But what we find in the Bible are different ideas, some of them contradictory.

One of the early texts where we find information about how God punishes and rewards is found in Exodus 20:4-6.

⁴ Do not make an idol for yourself—no form whatsoever—of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. ⁵ Do not bow down to them or worship them, because I, the LORD your God, am a passionate God. I punish children for their parents’ sins even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. ⁶ But I am loyal and gracious to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6 CEB)

The final section of the book of Deuteronomy echoes and expands into detail what will happen if the people obey God and what will happen if they disobey God. If the people obey, they should expect lasting blessings and prosperity from God. If they disobeyed, they should expect curses and calamity to fall upon them until they are wiped out.

When the predicted calamity falls upon the kingdom of Judah and they are taken exile into Babylon, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) offers a different perspective on God and God’s actions toward human behavior. These prophets now say that everyone is responsible for their own actions and that neither righteousness nor sin transmits across generations.

There are at least two hypothetical scenarios that depict what the people may have been thinking at this time. The first is that they might have thought that since they were suffering for the sins of their predecessors, that nothing they did would change their future circumstances. The second is that there were those among the exiles who did not participate in the sins attributed to the community, yet they were suffering alongside those who did. Neither of these sounds fair.

What Ezekiel offers is a new perspective on how God works with human choice. Here is a summary of the verses skipped in today’s reading from Ezekiel. A hypothetical example of a father, a son, and the son of the son (grandson) is given. The father is righteous and he finds life. The son, however, rejects his father’s ways and lives wickedly. The son does not gain the benefits of his righteous father. He is judged according to his own deeds and dies. The son’s son turns away from his father’s wicked ways and lives a righteous life. The sins of the father are not transmitted to the son. This last son, the grandson, also finds life. But more crucially is that the text then goes to state that those who turn from their wicked ways and live righteously will live, and none of their sins will be considered.

²³ Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked? says the LORD God. Certainly not! If they change their ways, they will live… ³² I most certainly don’t want anyone to die! This is what the LORD God says. Change your ways, and live! (Ezekiel 18:23, 32 CEB)

To those who suffer under the hands of the wicked might consider this aspect of God, unfair. How can God simply ignore the evil that was done? But keep in mind that we are predisposed to want grace for ourselves but judgment for others. God is not like us. God wants life for everyone, even for those that have committed the most heinous evils.

As we move into the gospels, Jesus offers further perspective on evil. John 9 starts with a story about a blind man.

¹ As Jesus walked along, he saw a man who was blind from birth. ² Jesus’ disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned so that he was born blind, this man or his parents?”

³ Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents. This happened so that God’s mighty works might be displayed in him. (John 9:1-3 CEB)

And in Luke 13, we read:

​¹ Some who were present on that occasion told Jesus about the Galileans whom Pilate had killed while they were offering sacrifices. ² He replied, “Do you think the suffering of these Galileans proves that they were more sinful than all the other Galileans? ³ No, I tell you, but unless you change your hearts and lives, you will die just as they did. ⁴ What about those eighteen people who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them? Do you think that they were more guilty of wrongdoing than everyone else who lives in Jerusalem? ⁵ No, I tell you, but unless you change your hearts and lives, you will die just as they did.” (Luke 13:1-5 CEB)

In these two passages, the people are holding to the idea that all evil must have a distinct cause, or that those who suffer evil must have done something to bring it onto themselves. But Jesus counters that thought. He explains that bad things just happen in this world. There does not have to be any direct cause or effect relationship involved.

Suffering and evil is a consequence of living in this world. The Exodus text when interpreted with what we know about history is that it is correct in that evil and harmful actions do have downstream effects that could last over generations. The field of epigenetics has shown that those conceived and birthed in stressful environments can carry epigenetic markers that are transmitted across generations.

The Ezekiel text is correct in that no one can choose life or death for us but each of us individually. The Ezekiel text (the ones that were skipped) also speak at length to how righteousness is exhibited primarily in how one treats others. This is fully in line with Jesus’ teachings found in, for example, Matthew 25. A profession of faith or belief in God and Christ is meaningless if it does not change us to conform to the kind of life Jesus lived.

As Jesus explained, evil and suffering is a consequence of living in a world of human. Sometimes the consequence can be directly traced. But often, consequences add up over time.

This world will never be fair. I think it is unrealistic to think that any of us can ever be fully fair, and perhaps we don’t want to be fair.

God is not fair. Because God is gracious and generous. And I think gracious is what we are called to be when we take on the mantle of Christ.

It is through acts of grace that Jesus overcame and defeated the power of sin and death. When the political and religious powers joined to murder Jesus, he did not demand fairness and justice. He offered forgiveness and grace instead.

The Bible shows a progression from retributive justice to grace and restorative justice. May we grow and mature from merely wanting fairness to offering grace.

In the name of God our Creator,

In the name of God our Restorer,

And in the name of God who challenges us to be more gracious, Amen.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Bühler, J. C. (2018, November 14). Even three-year-olds have a keen sense of fairness. Retrieved from BOLD: https://boldscience.org/even-three-year-olds-have-a-keen-sense-of-fairness/

Sweeney, M. A. (2013). Reading Ezekiel: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.

Van De Laar, J. (2026, September 21). Being Fair in an Unfair World. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/being-fair-in-an-unfair-world

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

 

 

Sermon: Watching Out for One Another

Lectionary: Proper 18(A)

Text: Matthew 18:(1-14),15-20

Today’s gospel text is one that can easily be misinterpreted, misapplied, and abused. It functions as the basis for many procedures of church discipline down through history and into the present day. If you have heard of terms such as excommunication, shunning, disfellowshipping, and the ban, they probably find their origins in today’s text.

Let’s begin by noting a few textual issues. Verse 15 often begins this way, “If your brother or sister sins against you…” With this reading, it is the responsibility of the one receiving offense to initiate contact with the offender. However, the phrase “against you” is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. When this phrase is missing, the responsibility to look out for potential offenses broadens to include the entire community of believers.

In our present-day, Western view of church, it is primarily a voluntary association of individuals. We tend to have a pick of churches and attend one where we feel most comfortable. If something happens that we don’t like in one church, there are other options.

That is not the historical context for this text. The church is a singular community that all believers belong to. One simply cannot pick and choose a different community. A problem in the community will eventually spread to all, and therefore, it is paramount for every individual in community to be alert for anything that might threaten to break apart the community. The community is not a voluntary association, but it is literally a new family, where spiritual siblings function as literal, biological siblings.

I should also mention the word church (Gr., ekklesia) that is found in this text. Firstly, the presence of this word is a sign that this text is Matthew’s interpretation of what Jesus taught and placed into Jesus’ mouth. Jesus could not have spoken these literal words since any kind of church was still a distant future.

Secondly, when we hear church, we imagine structures, hierarchies, clergy, denominations, programs, and policies. None of that existed in the earliest assemblies. Matthew provides guidance on how a member of the assembly should handle problems that arise or they find with another member. When the text reads, “Take one of two others along with you,” it is not appealing to a higher church authority. Rather it is bringing in practices already known from Jewish customs regarding judges and witnesses. The one or two others are present to ensure that both sides are presenting their cases accurately and fairly.

A third textual note is that when the word you is found in verses 15-17, it is in the singular. The tense changes to plural in verses 18-20. What this means is that the guidance for dealing with sin is addressed to individuals. The implication is to reinforce the necessity for every individual member of the community to be alert and to bear responsibility for addressing what comes up with the offender.

It can be easier to shrug it away and sweep it under the rug. Or seethe and brood about it. Or gossip. Or try to pass the responsibility to church leaders. Matthew disallows all these choices. Every individual is responsible for every other individual in the family of God.

When the you tense changes to plural, the subject moves from individual responsibility to the power of God that works through the church, even if there are only two or three. These latter verses are often interpreted as applying to efficacy of prayer, but the context is that of judgment. The principle in context is that if two agree about how to deal with the sin in community, God will be there.

The last textual point to consider is the word sin. It is certainly wrongdoing, but it should be understood more broadly as describing anything that breaks, or threatens to break, relationships. Perhaps more insidious than egregious wrongdoing are wrong attitudes such as pride, greed, and self-righteousness.

One of the abuses of this text and a related passage in 1 Corinthians 6 is using these to justify keeping matters private to protect the reputation of the church. There are too many examples of criminal activity covered up to protect institutions. When we look at the literary organization that Matthew created, we find such practices impossible to defend.

Matthew chapter 18 begins,

¹ At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” ² He called a child, whom he put among them, ³ and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. ⁵ Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. (Matthew 18:1-5 NRSVue)

A summary of this text might be thus: those who are in the kingdom of heaven are unconcerned with power, privilege, and position.

The text continues,

⁶ “If any of you cause one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. ⁷ Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things are bound to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! (Matthew 18:6-7 NRSVue)

This is a warning to those who might see those in the kingdom as vulnerable and easy targets. Those who seek to prey upon God’s family are not welcome.

The kingdom of heaven has boundaries. Not all are welcome. Whereas earthly institutions often create boundaries upon visible markers such as race, social status, and beliefs, the boundary of God’s kingdom is safety of those inside. Those who seek to manipulate, deceive, defraud, abuse, and harm are not welcome. If such is found to have made their way in, they are to be removed.

Matthew’s text continues,

⁸ “If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. ⁹ And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. (Matthew 18:8-9 NRSVue)

Those who are in the kingdom are called to do self-examination. If there is anything in our selves that might be tempted to cause disruption and harm to the family of God, we need to excise it. These are strong words. Those in the kingdom are to let go of any attitudes or actions of self-preservation and self-protection. The text does not specifically say so, but I interpret this to mean that each of us must allow our weaknesses to be known by the family so that they can help us avoid falling into sin and harming the rest of the family. You can see how this relates to the gospel text portion that was read earlier, where each member of the family is responsible for watching out for one another.

Matthew’s text continues with a parable,

¹⁰ “Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven. ¹² What do you think? If a shepherd has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? ¹³ And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. ¹⁴ So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost. (Matthew 18:10-14 NRSVue)

The point of these texts and instructions is safety of the flock and when one goes astray, restoration and reconciliation back into the fold. It is with these principles in mind that Matthew gives instructions on how to keep a watch on those that may be starting to go astray and how to bring them back into the family. The whole process is followed with the goal of preserving family and reconciliation. But what happens if one refuses all attempts at reconciliation? What happens if they refuse entreaties from multiple family members?

With this, we are now ready to interpret the following text,

¹⁷ If that person refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17 NRSVue)

Through their actions, they have demonstrated that they do not want to be reconciled and remain in the family. They have drawn their own boundaries.

But this does not mean that the family stops trying to win them back. Recall how Jesus treated outsiders, gentiles, and tax collectors. He never gave up on them. He kept working to bring them in. His love for them never faltered or waned.

To “let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax collector” is not to shun them, excommunicate them, to treat them punitively. It is a call to redouble efforts to love and restore, to remind them of what they have lost by placing themselves outside of the family. It is to be the father of the parable of the prodigal son.

Whereas earthly justice is often punitive, God’s justice is always restorative. Humankind wants punishment and revenge against those who have offended. But God only seeks to restore that which is lost.

In the name of God, the Loving Parent,

In the name of God, the Good Shepherd,

And in the name of God, who invites us into the discomfort of being keepers of one another, amen.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

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

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 2: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Van De Laar, J. (2026, August 28). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 18A on Matthew 18:15–20. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-8f1

Wilson, W. T. (2022). The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 2 (Matthew 14-28). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

 

Sermon: On Keeping the Sabbath

Lectionary: Proper 15(A)

Text: Isaiah 56:1-8

The prophetic book of Isaiah that we have is not the work of a single author. Modern scholarship assigns the first 39 chapters to an 8^th century BCE prophet. The remainder of the book is a collection of writings divided into two periods. Chapters 40-55 is known as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah, and these chapters come from the exilic period of the Jews in Babylon. The last portion, chapters 56-66 known as Trito-Isaiah or Third Isaiah, is best ascribed to the post-exilic period, after the Jews returned to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

Our reading this morning is from the beginning of this third section. Why is understanding this important? Because during this period, it is hypothesized by scholars that there were competing ideas among the Jews about what it means to belong to God, what it takes belong to the community of God, what faithfulness to God looks like, and why God allowed them to be exiled in the first place.

On one side were those who believed their exile was because their ancestors hadn’t followed closely enough the commands given to them by God and Moses. The remedy and restoration back to God’s favor was recommitting themselves to careful and even rigid obedience to the law. The law proscribed foreigners and those whose reproductive capabilities were compromised (such as eunuchs). Of particular importance was keeping the Sabbath sacred and not profaning it.

On the other side were those who believed their exile was due to their ancestors breaking the covenant. In this respect, and on the surface, this seemed nearly identical to the other side. But the similarities end there. Those in this second group saw that one could keep the law and simultaneously violate its intent. For this group, the keeping Sabbath was critical, but for different reasons.

Let’s look at the two Sabbath commandments. The first is found in Exodus and the second is found in Deuteronomy.

⁸ “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. ⁹ Six days you shall labor and do all your work. ¹⁰ But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. ¹¹ For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.[1]

In the commandment found in Exodus, the reason given for the Sabbath is creation.

¹² “ ‘Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. ¹³ Six days you shall labor and do all your work. ¹⁴ But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. ¹⁵ Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.[2]

In the version found in Deuteronomy, the reason given for the Sabbath is deliverance and freedom from slavery.

Now, I want to re-read portions of Isaiah 56 from the English Standard Version, which translates a key word consistently. Notice the repetition of the word keep (Hb. Shamar) in the following verses.

​¹ Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my righteousness be revealed. ² Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.

⁴ For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant…

And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant…[3]

Taken together, according to Third-Isaiah, keeping the Sabbath and holding fast to the covenant is synonymous to keeping justice and righteousness. The point of Sabbath is not the day or arguing and debating what “work” means or does not mean. Rather, it is about caring for all creation with justice and right-relationships (Exodus) and relating to all human beings with justice and equality (Deuteronomy). It is about ensuring that earth is cared for so that it can provide all humanity with its needs. It is about not abusing the earth of its inhabitants. It is about fair distribution of resources so that all can thrive. No one should be overworked and exploited for the benefit of another. No one should have ownership over another.

There are two covenants that pre-date the covenant at Sinai. The earliest is found in Genesis 9, after the Flood event, where God makes a covenant with all life on earth that God will not repeat the destruction of the world through a flood.

The second covenant is made with Abram/Abraham where he is promised land and descendants. The purpose underlying the covenant harkens back to Genesis 12 where God tells Abraham that he will be a blessing to all families of the earth.

The earliest covenants God made included care for all creation and all humans, beginning with Abraham and spreading to all.

Jumping forward to the gospels, we read of several instances where Jesus and the religious interpreters were at odds on the meaning and purpose of the Sabbath.

​¹ At that time Jesus went through the wheat fields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry so they were picking heads of wheat and eating them. ² When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are breaking the Sabbath law.”

³ But he said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and those with him were hungry? ⁴ He went into God’s house and broke the law by eating the bread of the presence, which only the priests were allowed to eat. ⁵ Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple treat the Sabbath as any other day and are still innocent? ⁶ But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. ⁷ If you had known what this means, I want mercy and not sacrifice, you wouldn’t have condemned the innocent. ⁸ The Human One is Lord of the Sabbath.”

⁹ Jesus left that place and went into their synagogue. ¹⁰ A man with a withered hand was there. Wanting to bring charges against Jesus, they asked, “Does the Law allow a person to heal on the Sabbath?”

¹¹ Jesus replied, “Who among you has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath and will not take hold of it and pull it out? ¹² How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! So the Law allows a person to do what is good on the Sabbath.” ¹³ Then Jesus said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he did and it was made healthy, just like the other one. ¹⁴ The Pharisees went out and met in order to find a way to destroy Jesus.[4]

In this story we can see once more that care for creation, its creatures, human beings, and human relationships are the reasons for the Sabbath. The Sabbath is supposed to be the embodiment and enlivenment of salvation and restoration.

What Third-Isaiah tells their reader is that this care and concern for creation and created beings is what identifies those who are part of the covenant community and belong to God. Those whose concerns are for social, economic, and environmental justice are already on their way to finding God and entering God’s community.

The Isaiah text highlights the immigrants and the eunuchs as “outsiders” who might be more in tune with God’s ways than the “insiders” who think they know God’s ways.

This challenges us to consider who the “outsiders” might be in our lives whose hearts are turned toward God in the way they relate to the world. They may not profess Christianity; they might not even believe in God. But Isaiah’s text tells us that God is already at work in their lives, leading them toward God’s community.

On the other hand, through the condemnation of pre-exilic prophets and through the experience of Jesus with his contemporary religious leaders, professing beliefs, practicing religious observances, and displaying religious icons has no value if they are not accompanied by justice and actions that promote right-relationships.

I conclude today’s sermon with a few sentences from John Van de Laar in his meditation on today’s passage.

The lives and world we long for are waiting for us if we will only learn the wisdom of the sabbath and allow it to save us. Ultimately, the sabbath is not a religious ritual. It is not a “day of rest” or a quaint, outdated obstacle to our capitalist dreams. It is a way of being that embodies the just, compassionate, and life-giving rhythms of God’s reign.[5]

In the name of God, the Creator,

In the name of God, Incarnate,

And in the name of God, who discomforts our insular and narrow vision of the kingdom of heaven, Amen.

References

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 3. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Kim, H. P. (2016). Reading Isaiah: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys.

Oswalt, J. N. (1997). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Van de Laar, J. (2026, August 10). More Than a Day Off. Retrieved from Sacredise Your LIfe!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/more-than-a-day-off

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

 

 

---

[1] Exodus 20:8-11, NRSVue.

[2] Deuteronomy 5:12-15, NRSVue.

[3] Isaiah 56:1-2, 4, 6, ESV.

[4] Matthew 12:1-14, CEB.

[5] (Van de Laar, 2026)

Sermon: The Boat

Walking on Water
Peter Koenig, 20th Century

Lectionary: Proper 14(A)

Text: Matthew 14:22-33

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.[1]

Thus begins the Bible. The watery deep and the sea—ancient people feared them. They represented chaos. They represented the source and dwelling place of evil spirits and demons. The first Genesis creation story[2] is a story of God systematically calming the chaotic storm of primordial Earth and replacing it with order and peace.

The fear of the sea is attested to by several sea monsters identified in Ancient Near Eastern mythology. In the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, a sea serpent named Lotan is defeated by the storm god Hadad-Ba’al. In the Babylonian Enuma Elish, the storm god Marduk defeats Tiamat, who is both the cosmic ocean and was a deity in Babylonian mythology. And in the Hebrew scriptures, the God of Israel, Yahweh, defeats the sea monster Leviathan.[3]

The Christian scriptures, in Revelation, depicts a land where “the sea [is] no more.”[4] The theological and emotional significance of this detail for ancient audiences was that God had achieved complete victory over chaos and evil. Nothing would be left—no more large body of water—from whence chaos and evil could reemerge.

Furthermore, in the Hebrew scriptures, Yahweh is shown as one who walks above the waters and calms the waves.

He alone spreads out the heavens, and treads on the waves of the sea.[5]

You walked through the sea; you passed through the surging waters, but left no footprints.[6]

You rule over the proud sea. When its waves surge, you calm them.[7]

These are some of the elements that provide context through which the audiences of Matthew’s gospel would have heard the story of Jesus walking on water through the storm and bringing calm to the waves.

Some interpretations of today’s gospel reading which we have probably heard or read include:

·        The miracle of Jesus walking on water and the winds being calmed show Jesus’ power. Therefore, we can have confidence in Jesus when we go through life’s storms.

·        Peter began to participate in Jesus’ miracle when he stepped out of the boat. But he let fear overcome his faith. But we can step out of the boat and face whatever challenges life throws at us, if we have courage and keep our eyes on Jesus.

·        At least Peter had the courage and faith to step out of the boat while the rest of the disciples stayed on the boat. We should be more like Peter.

·        Jesus allows storms to challenge us. But he shows up at the right time and is always near to save us.

While none of these interpretations are bad, I don’t think these are what the writer of Matthew had in mind. These interpretations are colored by our culture of individualism. When distilled down to their common theme, they are mostly about me, my challenges, and my faith.

As I frequently remind you, the cultural context in which the gospel was written and heard was that of collectivism. Community and relationships were the primary source of meaning and value for a person. Salvation was found primarily through belonging to the community of God. This is why Jesus emphasized the kingdom and belonging to it. Salvation was not something solely in the future but began here and now with how the community members treated one another.

Matthew’s gospel was probably put together toward the latter part of the first century CE. The audiences for this gospel were probably predominantly Jewish and located close to Jewish land.[8] However, these were Jews who had accepted Jesus as the expected Messiah. The response from their compatriots who did not were highly negative. Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed and many Jews killed by the Romans not very long ago. Jesus-following Jews were at odds with both their fellow Jews and Rome. Even without systematic persecution, their lives would have been uncertain and difficult. I think they would have identified with the boat in the story.

The boat may be just a vehicle (literally and metaphorically), but I was surprised by how central it is to this story. True, that the boat has no spoken lines and it does not act, but it is where all the characters and elements of the story come together. Jesus has the disciples get in a boat and tells them to go to the other side. The boat is buffeted by the wind and waves. Peter gets out of the boat. Jesus and Peter enter the boat. When they enter the boat, the wind ceases. And at the end, those in the boat worship Jesus.

The early church would have seen themselves as the boat. Following Jesus’ instructions doesn’t always mean they will make it to the other side without trouble, as they were keenly aware. It might even have felt like Jesus had sent them deliberately into the storm.

And where is Jesus in all this? Is he absent? This story peels the curtain back to show his followers that he is “up the mountain” praying to God, praying for his community and their mission. He is not ignorant of the church’s needs and predicament. His apparent absence does not mean he is not with them in spirit.

Like God’s spirit who moved upon the primordial waters of creation, Jesus is moving above the chaos and dangers facing his community. He is always near and his power is there to guide and assist.

But what do we do about Peter? Was Peter a hero or a fool? There is a 2001 book titled If You Want to Walk on Water, You’ve Got to Get Out of the Boat.[9] But is this the only or best interpretation? Peter has some great insights, but in Matthew, he often has great stumbles almost immediately after the insights. Peter is even called out as Satan, tempting Jesus.

A contrary interpretation is based on how Peter’s begins to ask Jesus, “Lord, if it is you…”[10] This sounds awfully similar to how Satan tempted Jesus: “If you are the Son of God…”[11] Peter, like the devil, is asking Jesus to prove himself.[12] At least to Peter’s credit (or is it foolhardiness?) he does follow through on his own demand when Jesus says, “Come.”

Additionally, the language around Peter getting out of the boat and walking to Jesus is ambiguous. Most translators and interpreters go with Peter getting out of the boat and walking on water toward Jesus. But the language leaves open the possibility that Peter intended to do this but never made it onto the water; that his simply trying to get out of the boat was fearful enough, requiring Jesus’ rescue of him.

From our individualist perspective, what Peter tried might be judged commendable. But from a collectivist, communal perspective, it could be argued that what Peter demanded from Jesus was not.

Nevertheless, when Peter fails, Jesus is there to rescue. And together they enter the boat and return into community with the rest of the disciples. When Jesus enters the boat, there calm and peace come over the boat and the waves. The wind and the waves have been defeated. The chaos of the waters can no longer threaten the boat.

For the church for whom Jesus is present through the Spirit, the chaos and dangers outside don’t necessarily disappear. However, the church can experience peace and confidence as they listen to and follow Christ.

Here is where we come to the actual miracle that Matthew probably intended for his audience to discover and experience: that Jesus is not just a great prophet, not just a miracle worker, but he is the Son of God. For these early Jewish Christ-followers, the act of walking on water and calming the waves signified that Jesus was God incarnate. Jesus’ actions has echoes to the Spirit at creation. Jesus walked above the waters and calmed the waves as their prophets had written about Yahweh. Jesus’ reassuring words to the terrified disciples, “It is I,” is a phrase that would have evoked “I am that I am” spoken by God to Moses.[13]

The miracle is that the disciples, at least for a moment, recognized the true nature of Jesus.

The church can be seen as a boat in which we exist. We carry Christ’s presence within our community. Whatever dangers and uncertainties surround us, we can take courage and have peace, knowing the God is with us in community. When we are troubled, our help is found as we come together, not through trying to wade into the storm alone.

Now, I don’t think this means we must isolate ourselves or treat the church as a rescue boat into which we try to drag people. Rather it gives us a behind-the-scenes perspective of Christ’s relationship with us. I think it shows us how to have a broader perspective and a more community-oriented perspective as we seek to carry out his commands to bring the message of God’s peace and love to the world.

In the name of God the Creator,

In the name of God the Savior,

And in the name of God who challenges us to face storms with courage, Amen.

References

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

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

Heiser, M. S. (2018, July 4). What Walking on Water Really Means. Retrieved from Logos: https://www.logos.com/grow/walking-water-really-means/

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.

Van De Laar, J. (2026, July 30). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 14A on Matthew 14:22-33. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-af9

Wikipedia Contributors. (2026, July 8). Lotan. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotan

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

Wilson, W. T. (2022). The Gospel of Matthew: Volume 2 (Matthew 14-28). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

 

---

[1] Genesis 1:1-2, NET 2^nd Ed. (NET2)

[2] The second creation story begins at Genesis 2:4.

[3] (Wikipedia Contributors, 2026)

[4] Revelation 21:1

[5] Job 9:8 (NET2)

[6] Psalms 77:19 (NET2)

[7] Psalms 89:9 (NET2)

[8] Antioch of Syria is one city that is often suggested.

[9] Author: John Ortberg

[10] Matthew 14:32.

[11] Matthew 4:3, 6.

[12] To be fair, all the disciples think Jesus is a ghost. But extending this, why would an invitation to come walk on water prove that Jesus is who he says he is? Wouldn’t a ghost or a spirit be able to also give an invitation?

[13] Exodus 3:14.