Sermon: The Significance of "Name"

Text: Luke(20:45-21:1-4), 21:5-19

Lectionary: Proper 28(C)

Where’s the Good News?

Today’s reading from Luke’s gospel doesn’t seem to have very much gospel – good news – found in it. At least it sure feels like there isn’t. This passage is the first half of a text that is sometimes called “The Little Apocalypse.” There are parallel passages in Matthew and Mark. It seems to be predicting mostly bad news for those who follow Jesus.

Jesus speaks these prophetic words when he is in the temple, surrounded by a crowd. Luke does not specify whose words prompt Jesus’, but they are prompted when he hears some of the crowd oohing and ahh-ing over the magnificent, opulent, and grand temple buildings and its decorations and ornamentations.

In response, Jesus tells those around him that the temple will be utterly destroyed. It can be difficult for those of us here to relate to the kind of magnitude of destruction that would have been felt by those who heard Jesus’ words. For us in the United States, it would be akin to having the entire nation fall into the hands of a foreign adversary. But something like that is nearly impossible given the geographical size and the population number of the nation. It was much easier for Rome to destroy Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, given their respective size and power.

But perhaps we could more readily imagine an internal collapse of systems and structure of the nation, much like what the Roman Empire experienced that led to her collapse. We might more easily imagine the chaos and fear that such an event would bring about.

The people see the temple and assume it will stand forever. After all, it is dedicated to God. Would God allow something to happen to God’s temple?

Yet Jesus tells them that indeed, the temple will be destroyed.

Warnings from Jesus

I can imagine the shock and incredulity of the people who hear this. And they ask, “When will this happen, and what will be the sign that this is about to take place?”

Neither question is really answered in the portion of Jesus’ response that was read this morning. What Jesus offers first is a prelude of things to expect before the destruction itself is imminent.

False Christs

The first thing that Jesus warns about are people that will claim to be delivering messages from him; messages that purportedly offer assurances of certainty and explanations for the chaos and confusion that are being experienced. Jesus says they will “come in my name,” but he warns, do not follow after them.

Global Chaos

Jesus then notes that there will be upheavals among and within nations, sometimes violently. But to not be alarmed or terrified, because these are things that happen. But these are not the signs of an impending end.

Jesus says the natural world will also experience upheavals. But these too, are not signs of the end.

Persecutions

Jesus goes on to detail persecutions that his followers can expect to face. But these will take place even prior to the upheavals just spoken of. Why are Jesus’ followers persecuted? Why are they sent before political and religious authorities? Why are they betrayed by family? Why might some be martyred? Why would Jesus’ followers be hated?

What’s in a Name?

According to Jesus, it is “because of my name”. "My name" is noted twice in this short section.

These two, with the use of “in my name” found in the first warning section, brings to three the mention and use of the phrase “my name”. And that piqued my curiosity. What is the significance and meaning of “my name”?

For most of us, end a prayer “in Jesus’ name” is perhaps our most familiar use of Jesus’ name. But what does that signify and mean? Other than rote habit and tradition, I don’t think we put much thought into it.

In some Christian traditions, a practice found during worship and prayer might include repetitions of calling out “Jesus.” This might be related to the saying that “there is power in Jesus’ name.” But what exactly is meant by that?

For most of us moderns living in the Western civilization, a name is an identifier and not much more. In a few cases names may harken to a noted family member that the child is named after.

We, therefore, have a broadly understood concept of “name” that has little to do with what seems to be the use of names in the Bible.

Ancient Significance of Names

A Jewish scholar, Professor Elinoar Bareket, in an article he writes,

The act of naming someone was a matter of great consequence in the Bible and in the ancient Near East. Indeed, it was widely believed that the name of a thing reflected its essence and very being; in other words, in some sense, the act of naming something meant creating it…

From time immemorial, naming someone demonstrates sovereignty or mastery. Even now, parents name their children, and people name their pets. It is understood in biblical texts that names are generally given by parents. When Pharaoh’s daughter finds Moses in the Nile, she names him; this is a sign that she is planning to keep him and adopt him.[1]

Loren Graham, at MIT and Harvard University, writes about a few ancient beliefs surrounding the use of names:

A common concept in history is that knowing the name of something or someone gives one power over that thing or person. This concept occurs in many different forms, in numerous cultures—in ancient and primitive tribes, as well as in Islamic, Jewish, Egyptian, Vedic, Hindu, and Christian traditions…

The ancient Egyptians similarly believed that one gained power over a god if one knew his name. According to the Jewish religion, the name of God was so holy that it was not to be said out loud. A likely reason for this prohibition was that naming God might be seen as an attempt to assert dominion over him, to duplicate illegitimately a power that God uniquely possessed.[2]

Name and Power

The two key understandings about ancient beliefs about names that are applicable to our reading today is: 1) that the use of a name is associated with power of the named entity, and 2) that the essence and very being of an entity is associated with its name.

When Jesus warns his listeners to be on guard for those who will come in his name, I think that this use of Jesus’ name is related to the idea that names have power, and that the wielder of the name has the power of the being that is named. It is very much magical thinking, but for people who lived in a time where this was the very air they breathed, for those who were following Jesus, it wouldn’t have been at all far-fetched to go after someone offering assurances and certainty in Jesus’ name.

We might want to believe that we would not be so naïve as to succumb to that kind of ploy. But the historical record shows otherwise. There have been many proclaimers of an imminent end whose proclamations have not come to pass. Some have been sincere but who have misunderstood scripture. But others have been far more nefarious, using the Bible and Jesus to satisfy their own egocentric desires, to manipulate and defraud, and even kill. At this very time in our history there are many who are using the name of Christ to advance a false gospel of security and certainty that is believed to be possible through accumulation of power, and power over others.

Name and Being

Genuine followers of Jesus will face persecution “because of” Jesus’ name. And here I think that the second understanding of “name” is finding application. Genuine followers of Jesus don’t use his name. Instead, their actions and very nature toward the world reflect Jesus’ actions and attitude toward the world.

Today we call ourselves “Christian”, but the earliest followers did not. In fact, “Christian” was an insulting name that was coined by outsiders to call those who followed Jesus.[3]

What are some of these actions and attitudes that Jesus demonstrated? A couple of short episodes immediately preceding this morning’s reading offers some examples.

^20:45 In the hearing of all the people he said to the disciples, ⁴⁶ “Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes and who love respectful greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets. ⁴⁷ They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

^21:1 He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; ² he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. ³ He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them, ⁴ for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” (Luke 20:45-21:4 NRSVue)

First, Jesus is against self-aggrandizement and the use of wealth and power to create division and excuse oppression. Second, he notices people and their actions that don’t seem much in the world’s eyes, people and actions that are overlooked and even dismissed as irrelevant and unworthy. These are actions and attitudes that go against all prevailing powers of the world. They disrupt the social order. If wealth and power are not respected, if they are in fact disdained, entire power structures will be destroyed; those who benefit from them will lose their place and privilege.

This is the very essence and being of Jesus. It is also the very essence and being of God. One of the early Christ-hymns recorded is found in Philippians chapter 2, part of which reads:

⁵ Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
⁶ who, though he existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
⁷ but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
assuming human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a human,
⁸ he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 NRSVue)

This is what it means to live a life where others can accuse you of having Jesus’ name.

Assurance and Security

Earlier in his gospel text, Luke recorded Jesus saying,

Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it. (Luke 17:33 NRSVue)

When the world around us is chaotic and uncertain, it is tempting to look for someone or something offering security and certainty. Jesus tells his followers that it is not through wealth and temporal power, even if some may attempt to align it with the name of Jesus Christ.

What Jesus seems to be telling us is that the world will always appear to be chaotic and the future uncertain. What Jesus seems to be telling us is that instead of trying to find stability in this world, we should use the opportunity to speak out against the evils that wealth and power bring, to speak out against oppression, and to notice and lift up those that the world dismisses as unworthy and inconsequential.

We will not attain worldly influence or power through such means, but the God who noticed the widow giving all that she had will keep us secure, such that even though we may die, we will gain a life greater than what we experience today.

---

[1] Bareket, Elinoar. What’s in a Name?: The Bible vs. the Middle Ages - TheTorah.com (https://www.thetorah.com/article/whats-in-a-name-the-bible-vs-the-middle-ages)

[2] Graham, Loren. Philoctetes - The Power of Names: Religion & Mathematics (http://philoctetes.org/news/the_power_of_names_religion_mathematics)

[3] IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament; 2^nd ed. Acts 11:26. “Christians” occurs in the New Testament only here, as a nickname given by outsiders, and in 1 Peter 4:16, as something like a legal charge. The title is formed on the analogy of adherents to a political party: the “Caesarians,” the “Herodians,” the “Pompeians” and so forth. Had it been interpreted politically (“partisans of the executed Judean king”) it could have stirred persecution, but here it apparently functions merely as derision. At least by a later period, Antiochans were known for making fun of people. By the early second century, however, Jesus’ followers had welcomed the title.

Sermon: An Unexpected Turn

Lectionary: Proper 26(C)
Text: Luke 19:1-10

Usual Telling of the Story

The story of Zacchaeus in the tree is one of the more famous and well-known of the stories found in the gospels. It is certainly a memorable one. It is one that is commonly included in children’s lessons. For those of us who have heard this story many times, is there anything more to be learned?

The typical lesson goes something like this:

Jesus is on his final journey toward Jerusalem. On the way he comes through Jericho. A man named Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector and rich heard Jesus was coming through.

Now tax collectors were hated by the people because they were usually greedy and dishonest. And Zacchaeus certainly seemed to be that, because he was rich.

For some reason Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus. Perhaps he had heard that Jesus was known for irritating the Jewish rulers by associating and eating with tax collectors. And even one of his disciples was a former tax collector.

But Zacchaeus was short and couldn’t see above the crowd. What could he do? He decided to run ahead and climb into a Sycamore (fig) tree and wait for Jesus to pass by. All he wanted was to see if Jesus really was who he had heard.

Well, Jesus began to pass under. Then he stopped. And looked up. And saw Zacchaeus.

Jesus called to Zacchaeus, “Come down at once, for I must stay in your home today.”

Well now, that was a drastic turn of events! Zacchaeus led Jesus back to his home where he provided a banquet for the guest of honor, Jesus. And realizing his evil and sin, Zacchaeus confessed and repented. As a sign of his sincerity, he pledged to give away half is possessions to the poor and anyone he had defrauded, he would pay back four times!

Then Jesus said, “Today, salvation has come to this household.”

As was just told, the story is nearly always told as a one that offers an example of individual repentance and salvation.

But is it really?

If the story really is just an example of repentance and salvation, there really isn’t much of a challenge to the hearers and readers. It ends up as an overly simplistic, flat, and somewhat uninteresting story, although perhaps with a bit of comedy and arguably usable as a children’s lesson.

Translations are Interpretations

In studying for this sermon, I looked through a number of recent commentaries and translations, and what I found made this story far more provocative and interesting. The hinge is in how the translators chose to interpret a key verb found in verse 8. A fairly literal reading of this text comes from the Common English Bible:

⁸ Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my possessions to the poor. And if I have cheated anyone, I repay them four times as much.”

A common translation, which goes with how the story is typically interpreted reads as is found in the New Revised Standard translation:

⁸ Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” 

So, is it “I give” or “I will give”? Is it “I repay” or is it “I will repay”? The tense found in the Greek is not a future tense. The “I will give” and “I will repay” translations are clearly an interpretive bias of the translator. The actual sense of the verb is that the “I give” and “I repay” is something that Zacchaeus is already doing.[1] Recent biblical scholarship on this text note this translation question and many agree that the verb should be interpreted as a present action already taking place.[2]^,[3],[4],[5]

A More Accurate Story

Here is the entirety of the story in Eugene Peterson’s The Message, which captures what most current biblical scholars suggest:

19 ^1-4 Then Jesus entered and walked through Jericho. There was a man there, his name Zacchaeus, the head tax man and quite rich. He wanted desperately to see Jesus, but the crowd was in his way—he was a short man and couldn’t see over the crowd. So he ran on ahead and climbed up in a sycamore tree so he could see Jesus when he came by.

^5-7 When Jesus got to the tree, he looked up and said, “Zacchaeus, hurry down. Today is my day to be a guest in your home.” Zacchaeus scrambled out of the tree, hardly believing his good luck, delighted to take Jesus home with him. Everyone who saw the incident was indignant and grumped, “What business does he have getting cozy with this crook?”

⁸ Zacchaeus just stood there, a little stunned. He stammered apologetically, “Master, I give away half my income to the poor—and if I’m caught cheating, I pay four times the damages.”

^9-10 Jesus said, “Today is salvation day in this home! Here he is: Zacchaeus, son of Abraham! For the Son of Man came to find and restore the lost.” (MSG)

Culture, History, Literature, and Theology

A few more things to note about this story before moving into what it could mean for us today.

First, Jesus was passing through Jericho. He had no intention of staying there overnight.[6] In the text prior to the one we are looking at, Jesus was just coming into Jericho where he meets and heals a blind person. Now Jesus has already passed through the city. We know this because Sycamore fig trees were planted well outside the city.[7] The people of Jericho would have liked to have Jesus stay with them, for it would be an honor to provide hospitality for such a famous teacher.[8] They probably entreated with Jesus, but he would not accept.

Second, the one point in which pretty much all scholars agree is that tax collectors were hated by the people. But not because they were greedy and dishonest, although some may have been. The Jews hated them mostly because they were seen as Roman collaborators.[9] They were traitors and any wealth obtained from tax collecting was seen as ill-gotten.

Third, Luke’s description of Zacchaeus as a “chief tax collector” and “very rich” primes us to think of Zacchaeus as a sinner – just as the crowd did.[10]

Fourth, In the Roman empire, tax collecting was contracted out. Tax collectors would form associations, and the lead bidder would bid an amount that they could deliver to Rome. Each member of the association would be a subcontractor with their own quotas to meet and deliver. Under the earlier Roman Republic, many taxes were collected this way, but by the time of the Empire and the time of Jesus and Zacchaeus, Roman officials directly collected most taxes. The one type of tax still contracted out was import taxes. The point of this is that Jewish tax collectors weren’t probably directly affecting the lives of most Jews; probably only those that were involved in trade. In other words, most tax collectors were probably not using their powers to defraud and extort money directly from the common people.[11]^,[12]

Fifth, Zacchaeus’ statement that “I give” and “I repay” follows immediately after Jesus invites himself to Zacchaeus’ home and he approves the invitation. There is nothing in the text that places Zacchaeus’ words later in the day or evening, and after he has had time to spend with Jesus. Eugene Peterson’s reconstruction of events is probably correct: The crowd protests Jesus’ actions immediately after they realize what is happening. And it is in response to their accusations and labeling that Zacchaeus is a sinner, that he protests by stating what he already does.[13]

Sixth, the requirement for the wealthy to support the poor is commanded in the Law[14], as is the restitution of theft.[15] Luke gives his listeners and readers an unexpected twist: Zacchaeus is, in fact, righteous according to the Law; he is not a sinner.

Seventh, when Jesus (and really, pretty much all the New Testament, including Paul) talks about salvation, it is not about an individual getting rescued from eternal damnation and going to heaven. It is about restoration of something that has been broken; a return to wholeness. Salvation is something that happens to a group, a community.[16] In the context of this story, what we are to see is that the community’s rejection of Zacchaeus has broken them. He is not an outsider. He is not a sinner. He is, and has always been, “a son of Abraham”. The community may not have wanted to accept him, but to have wholeness and salvation, they must include him in community.

Eighth, this entire story echoes many points from the parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son.[17] The motif of going to search for the lost item. The motif of returning to wholeness by bringing the lost back into the fold. The motif of rejoicing and holding a banquet only after wholeness is restored. And the crowd might be seen as an echo of the older son who grumbles and cannot accept that the father accepts the younger son, who assumes the younger has led a promiscuous, sinful life away from home. The set of three “Lost” parables is prompted because Jesus is accused of welcoming and eating with sinners.

Nine, did the community of Jericho realize what Jesus was saying and did they repent and accept Zacchaeus back into their circle? That question is not answered directly by this story. But in reading between the lines, we could assume that they did, even if not wholeheartedly, because Zacchaeus would have been the most honored person in Jericho that day. And who would not want to have a part of that honor? When Jesus said that “salvation has come to this house,” what did he mean by “house”? Was it just the household of Zacchaeus, or did Jesus broaden “house” to include all of Jericho?

This is a bit of speculation on my part, but I think it makes sense that given these nine points. I think that Jesus would not, or could not, stay and eat in Jericho when the community was still broken. That’s why he was merely passing through it. It was only when Jesus could bring restoration to the community through honoring the most despised person, that Jesus could partake of table fellowship in Jericho.

A Few Lessons

Now that doesn’t mean I think that there are people and groups with whom God cannot be present. But just as Jesus did pass through and was present for a brief time in Jericho, God is present everywhere. But one of the lessons from this story is that a special blessing can be had when the community is whole. And another lesson is that many times, these blessings may be mediated through those that are seen to be outside by those inside, by those that may even be despised by the in-group.

I think that this lesson may have pointed relevance at the present time. We are living in a time of increased and extreme polarization. Where boundaries between those inside and those outside are being defined more rigidly and narrowly. Where animosity and hatred between groups that see the world differently are reaching dangerous levels.

Jesus basically told the city of Jericho to accept back into community one whom they considered a traitor, one that perhaps more than a few would have had no issue if he was killed or disappeared mysteriously.

Jesus said of Zacchaeus, “he too, is a son of Abraham”. Whatever disagreements and differences existed; Jesus pointed to what was common first.

This story breaks the usual stereotype of “Jesus only sides with the poor and marginalized.” Zacchaeus was neither poor nor marginalized. He was part of the elite, albeit the Roman side.

When we look at our own families, our church congregation, the extended church congregation in town, and everyone who lives here, we must first see them as a human person that God loves and values.

Approaching the holiday season, many of us will be gathering with diverse groups of people, including extended family members with whom we may have some strong differences. The lesson from today teaches us that they may be the very ones who God is calling and working through. They may be the ones that can, if permitted, bring restoration, wholeness, and blessing, as difficult to comprehend and imagine as that might be.

And we can turn the perspective around to ourselves. Are we ever obstinate, difficult, disagreeable, and rigid in our dealings with those who aren’t like us? How can we hold on to truth and point out errors while still being gracious and kindhearted? How can we become better at bringing the kind of restoration and wholeness, what Jesus calls salvation, to the groups that we enter?

The good news for today is that all are invited to be inside God’s new community. Whether we are the ones that have been guilty of drawing lines, judging, and excluding; or we are ones that have been judged and excluded, God invites all of us into wholeness where we can go on a journey of learning to live with diversity and differences, yet respect and love our mutual humanity that is created in the image of God.

---

[1] ESV Interlinear Bible Hebrew/Greek and Enhanced Strong’s Dictionary. Also, Bible Hub Interlinear (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/19-8.htm). δίδωμι “I give” g1325; Present-Active-Indicative. ἀποδίδωμι “I restore (it)” g0591; Present-Active-Indicative.

[2] Feasting on the Gospels – Luke, Vol. 2 – Luke 19:1-10; locations 6052-6102.

[3] Ibid., locations 5956-5985.

[4] Another sermon that takes this perspective: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - Caroline Dean (10/30/16) - Christ Church Summit (https://www.christchurchsummit.org/sermon/guess-whos-coming-to-dinner-caroline-dean-103016-2/)

[5] This week’s sermon at the Episcopal Church website also follows this interpretation: By Faith, Pentecost 21 (C) – October 30, 2022 – The Episcopal Church (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/by-faith-pentecost-21-c-october-30-2022/)

[6] Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p. 176. “But rather than turning aside to accept the assumed hospitality of the community, Jesus resolutely moves through the town on his way to Jerusalem, thereby signaling that he is not intending to stay the night in Jericho.”

[7] Bailey, p. 177-8. “Sycamore fig trees have large leaves and low branches… Such trees were only allowed some distance from town.”

[8] Bailey, p. 176. “No doubt the community is deeply disappointed… the anticipated banquet is canceled…”

[9] Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus, p. 173-4. “The tax collector is the agent of Rome and not the agent of God, and the two an be seen as being at cross-purposes. The tax collector would have been presumed to be corrupt, as we see with Zacchaeus, who despite his righteousness is despised by the people in his town.”

[10] Feasting on the Gospels – Luke, Vol. 2 – Luke 19:1-10; locations 5956-5985. “There is no doubt the crowd regards Zacchaeus as a sinner, but not necessarily because they know anything about him beyond his occupation and wealth.”

[11] Bailey, p. 176.

[12] Feasting on the Gospels – Luke, Vol. 2 – Luke 19:1-10; locations 6052-6102.

[13] Ibid., locations 5956-5985. “Zacchaeus is told by Jesus when he draws near to dislodge himself from the tree so that Jesus an lodge in his house. Zacchaeus’ joyous hurry to comply is met with grumbling from the crowd, contemptuous of Jesus’ fellowship with a rich tax collector they regard as a ‘sinner.’ The comes Zacchaeus’ assertion about giving half his goods to the poor and restoring fourfold to any he may have defrauded.”

[14] Deuteronomy 15:7-11.

[15] Exodus 22.

[16] Episode 222: Pamela Eisenbaum - Paul & Salvation - The Bible For Normal People (https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-222-pamela-eisenbaum-paul-salvation/) “Okay, so here you have to think like a Jew for a minute, and one of those is that salvation means a world, literally, a world, where people don’t fight each other, and people don’t know hunger. It’s a world where people behave in a kind of idealized way, as a way God intended for humanity. When Paul talks about salvation, I think he mainly is talking about collectivities of peoples, not individuals. But I think Paul has a much bigger view of the sort of reconciliation of humanity to God than most people give him credit for.”

[17] Luke 15.

Sermon Outline: Restoration and Wholeness

Sermon: Restoration to Wholeness

Lectionary: Proper 23(C)

Text: Luke17:11-19

[It was an unusual Sunday. I was at the Lutheran Church as their musician this morning at the 10am service. And then I had volunteered to provide the sermon at the Presbyterian Church, because last Sunday the schedule didn't appear to have anyone assigned for today. I had been writing out complete sermons for a very long time now, but for a number of reasons, including time available and the intended audience for it, I went with an outline format, intending to flesh it out as I delivered it. When I arrived at the church, it turned out that someone had been scheduled and apparently the scheduler had forgotten or forgot to note it. Anyway, the end result is that she gave her sermon, and then I followed. There was really no overlap between the two, and I was relieved to have kept mine as an outline, so that I could improvise on the spot.]

Outline

I. What kind of disease?

A. Leprosy (Hansen’s disease) – No 

1. Older Bible translations and some newer ones retain this word

2. Most modern scholarship reject this disease identification

3. Commentaries and sermons that describe leprosy as a disfiguring, gross, permanent disease were common in the past – still encounter some recent ones

B. Broad category of skin conditions – Yes (Leviticus 13)

1. Could include temporary, short-duration conditions, but also chronic ones – usually serious, but difficult to ascertain from Leviticus text

2. Inspection and rituals to restore purity after condition goes away

II. Ritual Purity

A. Not necessarily having to do with sin (as is commonly defined today)

B. Impurity does not imply individual is bad or did something wrong

C. Impurity itself was believed to be inherently contagious

D. Cuts an individual off from normal social and religious community

E. Rituals to restore purity and restore an individual back into communion

III. Different words used in describing the healing that took place

A. Cleansed [g2511. καθαρίζω katharizō] – vv. 14, 17

1. Origin of catharsis – “to release” 

B. Healed [g2390. ἰάομαι iaomai] – v. 15

1. Modern usage – perhaps one origin of “-iatric”  as found in words such as pediatric

C. Made Whole, Saved [g4982. σώζω sōzō] – v. 19

IV. Specific texts to highlight

A. “And as they went, they were made clean.” (v. 14)

1. They all go without first experiencing healing

2. Healing takes place along the way

3. All are cured

4. Word used is katharizō – a restoration of ritual purity

B. “Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice.” (v. 15)

1. Word used is iaomai – physical healing

C. “And he was a Samaritan… ‘Did none of them return to give glory to God except this foreigner?’” (v. 16, 17)

1. Reader/listener now learns that the one who returned was an “outsider”, a Samaritan, a foreigner; one who was despised by the “insiders”

2. The other nine, being Jews had received what they needed to be restored into community. They had rituals and priests. 

3. Those on the margins may realize need and experience gratitude more readily than those who “expect it”

a) Irony that all ten were on the margins before they were made clean

D. “'Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.’” (v. 19)

1. Word used is sōzō – made whole and saved

2. It is the first time “faith” is mentioned in this narrative and it is in conjunction with gratitude toward God’s actions

V. What does this mean for First Presbyterian?

A. The community is currently not “whole”

1. Not saying the community is in a state of ritual impurity

2. But it is missing a critical element – a permanent pastor 

B. How might this story find application or offer encouragement?

1. What might it look like for the church to be “whole”?

2. How might the instruction to go about regular business look like?

a) C.f., Today’s Jeremiah reading: Jeremiah 29:1, 4-7

3. What is faith and its role in bringing about restoration and completeness?

4. How does gratitude enter the picture? 

a) C.f., Today’s Psalm reading: Psalm 66:1-12

5. What relevance might there be in Jesus locating himself and being found outside cultic traditions and hierarchy? 

a) But also note that he instructed all ten to adhere to cultic tradition and practices

b) However, healing occurred before any of them were able to practice the cleansing rituals

c) Jesus did not tell the Samaritan who returned to then go and follow through on the rituals

Sermon: Blind Spots

 
Texts: Luke16:19-31, 1 Timothy 6:6-19

Lectionary: Proper 21(C)

Introduction

This last August when we traveled to Portland, we rented a car. The car happened to be a Kia Soul. And for some reason we kept seeing others of this car model driving around a lot more than we normally notice. One afternoon we were parked at a coffee shop. Upon coming out later we noticed that there was another Kia Soul parked right next to us. Just moments after we came out, a woman came out of the store and quickly walked over to the other Soul, opened the door, rummaged around, and showed us a laminated sign that read, “Soulmate!” It took us a few moments, but we realized that the sign was meant to convey a common bond with other Kia Soul owners and drivers.

It’s common for new car owners to suddenly start seeing more of the car model driving around that match what they now drive. The same might be also true for clothing and accessories, pets, and other lifestyle elements that are externally visible.

Speaking of pets, since both Elise and I are cat people, if we’re traveling and encounter a cat we are immediately drawn to it, and if the cat happens to be sociable, then we might end up spending quite a bit of time with it. I recently saw a meme on Facebook of a cat on cobblestones with the caption, “Spent a day in Paris. Took 32 photos. 29 were of this cat.”

“Don’t think about pink elephants for the rest of the day.” Are you thinking about pink elephants? Don’t. There are no pink elephants here, or anywhere. Pink elephants are fictional. Stop thinking about them. Can you now?

Similarly to how our brains can fixate on familiar things or on thoughts that are repeated, our brains can also learn to ignore things that might be uncomfortable and inconvenient. That is not always a negative function, because it may be a way that the brain works to protect us, and it can be a coping mechanism that allows us to function. But sometimes, it may not be so good and may even be bad.

Blind Spots

Again, going back to our travels to Portland this past year, it is impossible to ignore the homeless and their encampments that dot the cityscape. Or in the suburbs, there are people at freeway on and off ramps asking for money. We learn to walk past and around them, drive past them, ignore them. We see them, but they don’t really exist to us. Is that good or bad? We don’t know them. They are nameless. Just someone who probably has fallen on hard times, but who knows for certain? We tell ourselves that there are too many for us to start helping, and that a handout might just be used for something other than food. Or we might even think that some of them are actually frauds.

But how about here at home, in Petersburg? We know that there are homeless and those whose housing situation is precarious. We know that there are those who struggle to feed themselves and any family they might have.

Do we see them? Do we know them?

Based on several different conversations around this topic that I’ve participated in over the years, as a generalization, we would rather not acknowledge that there are those in this town that are homeless and struggling to meet their basic needs. We want to believe that this town only contains those attributes that are culturally and socially acceptable as belonging to a good, hard-working, American small town.

Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

At first glance, today’s reading and the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus might not seem to offer much to say to us. The rich man is so obscenely rich and narcissistic that although a few, current, prominent individuals might come to mind that fit the description, none of us here can come close to identifying with the rich man.

Neither can we really identify with Lazarus. Lazarus is so destitute, sick, and hungry that he longs for even just some crumbs. He is physically immobile (the text uses a verb that implies he is carried to the rich man’s gate). He is relying solely on the generosity of the community around him. Of all the members of the community, the rich man should be the best chance to receive meaningful help.

Thus, we end up staring at this strange parable about a reversal of fortunes and a strange underworld. We might be troubled that although the rich man, through his lack of compassion, might deserve Hades, Lazarus is not seen as righteous. Lazarus is just poor and sick. Why is Lazarus “saved”? And what about “Father Abraham”? Is he a kind of “St. Peter at the pearly gates” figure in Judaic stories, one that can grant entry and transport into and between metaphysical places?

Expected Elements of the Parable

First, this parable follows a form that was already well established.[1]^,[2] Jesus’ hearers would have expected this development of two characters and a reversal.

Second, as is the case throughout in Luke, rich people and wealth are thought of negatively. While some Christian interpretations traditionally taught that Jews believed the rich were blessed by God and the poor somehow deserved to be poor, that was not and is not the case. Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish scholar of the New Testament, describes a number of ways in which Christianity has misinterpreted the parable and in regards to wealth and poverty writes:

On both popular and scholarly levels, we find other, more pernicious readings. Over and over again we are told, “At the time of Christ, impoverished beggars were regarded as sinners being punished for their sins,” and, “Judaism of that period would likely conclude that the miserable condition of Lazarus was the result of God’s punishment for sin, and wealth, such as enjoyed by the rich man, indicated God’s blessings.”[3]

… Anytime a parable begins, “There was a rich man who…,” we know that the rich man is a poor role model. The scriptures of Israel, Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, rabbinic sources, and numerous quotes attributed to Jesus of Nazareth all agree that wealth is a snare, that the rich should but usually do not care for the poor, and that God has a special concern for the disadvantaged.[4]

This is an important corrective for us to take to heart when we read about riches and wealth in the New Testament.

Third, the depiction of the afterlife and Father Abraham present in it and the ability for both sides to see one another also reflect ideas of that time, so there is nothing about this that would have surprised Jesus’ audience.[5]

A fourth point that may raise questions in our (Christian) minds is that where a person ends up in the afterlife appears to be based on their actions and place in this life. But that is a Christian concern (and whether one is Calvinist or Wesleyan/Arminian or predates both might have an influence on how one sees the relationship between what seems like “works” and the respective destinations as told in this parable). For the original hearers/readers and Jesus, the speaker, the idea that one’s behavior in this life would affect the afterlife would have been unsurprising.[6]

These broad strokes contain nothing that would have been heard as unusual. So, it must be in the details where we might find one or more of Jesus’ intents in telling his version of the “reversal of fortune in afterlife” parable.

Lesson of Community and Responsibility

There are many lessons that could be drawn from this parable, but I would like to focus on one: the context of community that informs how we might understand relationships.

The rich man was aware of not only the presence of Lazarus, but as he spoke to Father Abraham from across the chasm, he knew Lazarus. He asked for Lazarus by name. This was not simply a case of the rich man failing to notice one particular destitute and sick individual in front of his gate, but he knew exactly which one and by implication we are to understand that the rich man intentionally ignored caring for Lazarus.

By the mention that Lazarus was laid at the gate, we are to also understand that the rich man was a patron or a “father” to the community, that he had communal responsibilities that were expected from someone of his position and wealth. The Torah commands that those who are able take care of the less fortunate within their community:

⁷ “If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor… ¹⁰ Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. ¹¹ Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’ (Deuteronomy 15:7, 10-11 NRSVue)

The reading from 1 Timothy echoes Deuteronomy:

¹⁷ As for those who in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches but rather on God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. ¹⁸ They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, ¹⁹ thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19 NRSVue)

The rich man never belonged to the community. He didn’t want to be a part of the “ordinary folk” outside the gates. So, he dressed like a royalty and feasted like it was a high holy day every single day. He thought himself better than everyone else. He had walls and a gate to keep everyone else out.

When he finds himself in Hades, we see that he has learned nothing from this turn of events. He still will not address Lazarus directly. He expects Lazarus to be his servant. He may “ask mercy” from Father Abraham, but he still expects everyone, including Abraham to acquiesce and fulfill his demands. When he entreats Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers, it is not because he has finally figured out what landed him in Hades. Rather, he just wants to save his brother from landing in the same place. There is no recognition that the lack of concern and concrete ways of caring for the community is the primary issue.[7]

What “Love” Means in the Bible

Before I get to the wrap-up portion of this sermon in which I will try to bring what we’ve discussed all together, there is one other related idea that I think will be helpful. I was listening to a podcast this week and Pete Enns, the podcaster, related the concept that the word “love” in the Hebrew scriptural context is covenant and treaty language.

… Love is a treaty word in the Hebrew Bible that refers to total devotion, not really [sic about] warm, fuzzy feelings. So to love the Lord with all your heart, in the Hebrew Bible, is treaty language, it’s covenant language, it means to be utterly obedient to Yahweh no matter what. And I know that sort of takes the buzz out of some worship songs, but there you have it. Love is a contractual, almost technical piece of vocabulary not only in the Bible, but even outside of the Bible. So to love God really just means to be obedient.[8]

When Jesus talks about “love”, this is what he probably meant and what we should understand. The introductory narrative to the parable of the Good Samaritan reads as follows:

²⁵ An expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” ²⁷ He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁸ And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28 NRSVue)

Reading “love” as obedience and loyalty gives this text a new twist, doesn’t it? As mentioned a few minutes ago, for the Jews it was assumed that loyalty and obedience to God were the necessary human responses to being saved. To do or not do anything else was to place oneself outside the community of the saved and of life itself. It could be said this way: all are saved by God’s grace, but because some refuse to join and participate in the community of life, to accept the responsibilities of that life, as a result they receive the natural consequences of their choice.

The failure of the rich man in today’s parable was that he did not love the neighbor as he did himself, and by failing to do so, he failed to be loyal and obedient to God, and as a result placed himself outside the boundaries of life. The rich man, through the wealth that was given to him, could have been a source of life to Lazarus. But because he chose not to, he forfeited life for himself.

So How Are We to Live?

As a community of faith that desires to follow Jesus, do we see our community? Do we really see what is happening in Petersburg? It is easy to get wrapped up in our work, our families, and our routines that we stop noticing. Or some issues might seem so big that we would rather hope someone else tackles it.

What need has God placed in front of your doorstep? Who might the Lazarus, sitting outside our door, be for each of us? What might it mean to truly love – to be loyal and life-giving to – our neighbor that has been laid in front of us?

I don’t for a moment expect that any one of us alone will be able to change the entire community. But individual efforts, collectively supported, could be that mustard seed that is needed to effect change that improves life and the quality of life for many who are in need. We do this not because we will gain points with God, nor do we do it because it might somehow gain a church member. We don’t do it for any ulterior motives. We do it because they are a part of our community, because they are fellow human beings, and because God is a God of community.

---

[1] Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 4. Kindle location approximately 4531. “The parable begins in a familiar formula of its time, borrowed from what scholars think is an Egyptian tale.”

[2] Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus, p. 263. “Cautionary tales of postmortem reversals of fortune are part of global storytelling.”

[3] Levine, p. 249.

[4] Levine, p. 251.

[5] Levine, p. 264-265. “Folkloric though the parable may be, it speaks to early Jewish views of the afterlife…”

[6] Levine, p. 270. “The concern in Jewish scripture, broadly defined, is not what we have, but what we do… The parables emphasis on the importance of the Torah disturbs those readers who want to set up a law-versus-grace dichotomy… or are worried about works-righteousness. But this commendation of the Law and the Prophets would not have disturbed Jesus’ initial audience, and it makes good sense on the lips of Jesus the rabbi.”

[7] Levine, p. 268-269.

[8] The Bible for Normal People, episode 218, “Pete Ruins Deuteronomy”. Transcript text.