Sermon: The Good Life

Lectionary Epiphany 4(A)

Texts: Micah 6:1-8; Psalm 15; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Matthew5:1-12

Sermon on the Mount
Laura James, 2010

What does “living the good life” look like to you? To most, I suspect the good life includes leisure, recreation, and relaxation. It most likely excludes working for a paycheck and people with more power and authority than you ordering you around. It likely includes good health, physical safety, financial security, and freedom from all kinds of worries. And oh yeah, time spent with people I like and enjoy.

When we imagine people who are blessed, or when we apply the term blessed to ourselves, it usually means something fortunate has happened: receipt of good news, unexpected income, offer of a dream job, good family relationships, etc.

We tend to associate blessings with prosperity. And to think about it that way would place us in good company with ancient peoples. What is translated as “blessed are” or “happy are” in the Beatitudes is the Greek work makarios. “In classical Greek, makarios denoted a state of enviable fortune, a privileged position, often associated with worldly success, power, and prosperity.”[1] The Greek gods on Mount Olympus were makarios. They were living the good life, at least in the eyes of mortals down below.

“We want what the gods have!” the cries of humankind rise throughout history. They employ the means employed by the gods, violence and deceit, to acquire. They create hierarchies of social classes and economic standing to codify power and wealth. And they appeal to religion to keep people in their place.

“But followers of the true God certainly wouldn’t fall prey to the games of power and privilege, would they?” one might ask. But the Hebrew scripture and Christian writings contain the sordid history of God’s people falling into the same traps that allow some to enjoy the privileges of wealth and comfort at the expense of others. History of Christianity beyond the canon of the New Testament reveal the same pattern. From the time of Constantine, through medieval Christianity and European royalty’s belief in divine right, through Manifest Destiny, through the history of slavery and the Civil Rights movements, and to today’s Christian Nationalism, the allure of power and privilege of a select few over the rest continues. Any means of pursuing and maintaining power can be justified by appealing to an interpretation of “Christianity.”

The Beatitudes and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount are relevant today as it was when Jesus spoke those words and when Matthew put them down in writing.

A large crowd has been following Jesus, and he goes up a mountain, evoking the image of Moses at Sinai. Jesus’ disciples draw closer to him, and Jesus begins to speak. “Makarios are,” he begins. But what comes next is unexpected. It is not gods, emperor, nobles, priests, the wealthy, or those at the upper echelons of the social hierarchy that are makarios. Jesus tells them, “You are makarios.” Those who are at the bottom of the social ladder: laborers, slaves, women and children. “God is with you,” Jesus tells them. “God’s favor rests upon you. You are living inside God’s good life.” Later in the Sermon, Jesus will tell them that worldly status and riches mean nothing when it comes to the kingdom of God. In fact, they will be great obstacles to finding the kingdom.[2]

The Beatitudes, especially the one in Matthew, is often interpreted in mostly spiritual and inner life terms. It is often read as something that will be fulfilled in the future. Although spiritual and future elements are in the text, it is mostly concerned with the present state of his audience.

The poor and the meek describe those who are literally poor and lack wealth but also include those who are powerless and oppressed. Considering this, those who mourn are those who do so because of the oppression and suffering at the hands of the wicked.

When we hear “righteousness” our minds typically think about good and moral character. But in the Bible, righteousness cannot be divorced from following God’s demand for justice, i.e., how people relate to and treat one another. And here we can review some of our other readings today. From Micah, we heard, “He has told you, O mortal, what is good, and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God?”[3] From the Psalms we heard that those who are in God’s presence speak the truth, do not slander, do not cause evil and shame to fall upon others, will stand by their word even when it hurts, and do not take advantage of others.[4] The Beatitudes describes these actions and attitudes as showing mercy and being of pure in heart.

Those who are makarios are also peacemakers. Peacemaking is not about avoiding conflict, however. For the audience of Jesus, they were experiencing Pax Romana, Rome’s peace. However, this came at the imposition of violent military power. The peace spoken of by Jesus is something altogether different. It is the kind of peace that restores and reconciles. It is a peace that does not seek revenge for wrongdoings. It is a peace where no one takes advantage of another. Peace-making includes not simply living this in one’s own life, but in advocating for this kind of society and speaking out against actions and words that go against.

Those who actively pursue this kind of righteousness and justice, who advocate for the oppressed and powerless, who speak out against violence and atrocities that are being committed in society, can expect pushbacks, can expect persecution, and might even experience loss of their lives. Those who seek to maintain the status quo and those who see the world’s power and might as benefiting them will slander you and label you as evil and agitators. But this is makarios. This is where God is already present. This is where one will encounter the power and favor of God.

The pursuit of justice through non-violent activity is weak and foolish in the world’s eyes. The movement initiated by Jesus, the kingdom of God, is a pursuit of the transformation of communities through the non-violent power of God. We heard from 1 Corinthians,

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength… God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to abolish things that are.[5]

Jesus faced and overcame the temptations of self-glorification and power. Jesus overcame the powers and principalities of this world. Through the last two millennia, however, his church has been far less successful in avoiding the allure of worldly power and glory. In that wake is a history of violence and atrocities committed and justified by the church.

We too, must decide. Will we take the side of those that God calls makarios? Will we give to God our worldly possession, reputation, and even our lives to join with those that are poor and oppressed, to mourn at the injustices that are causing fear, loss, and hunger. Will we join those who actively pursue genuine wholeness, peace, and justice?

Or will we choose to hold on to what comfort and security we have in this world? Will we rather be complicit in the injustices that are excused as necessary to maintain what the world tells us is “peace”?

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who confounds,

And in the name of God who discomforts, amen.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 1. 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.

Hermandad del Cautivo of Sanlúcar de Barrameda. (2026, January 25). Understanding the Greek Makarios: More Than Just "Blessed". Retrieved from Cautivo Estrella: https://cautivoestrella.org/en/greek-makarios/?expand_article=1

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, January 25). Lectionary Reflection for Epiphany 4A on 1 Corinthians 1:18–31. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-epiphany-f89

Van de Laar, J. (2026, January 22). Revolutionary Blessedness. Retrieved from Sacredise Your LIfe!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/revolutionary-blessedness

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

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

 

---

[1] (Hermandad del Cautivo of Sanlúcar de Barrameda, 2026)

[2] Matthew 6:19-21, 24.

[3] Micah 6:8.

[4] Psalm 15.

[5] 1 Corinthians 1:18, 25, 28.

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)