Luke 13:1-9
"No, I tell you; that unless you repent, you will perish just as they did." (6)
"'Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I did around it and put manure on it." (9)
Context:
Luke's Gospel includes a significant section on judgement that comes to its conclusion in these verses. Beginning at 12:1 we find a section that includes a warning hypocrisy, exhortation to owning God before others, the parable of the rich fool and two parables about judgement on sleepy or unfaithful slaves. It is in the context of this theme that Jesus is asked about an incident that was fresh in the minds of some of the locals.
Comment:
After the disaster that befell Haiti Pat Robertson made headlines by speaking of it as God's judgement on Haiti. While his remarks may have been slightly misinterpreted the basic idea that these poor and vulnerable people were somehow the victims of God's wrath because of the sins of their forebears is reprehensible. It was with this background that a audio sermon provided good listening ("What would Jesus answer CNN?"). Luke 13:1-9 was the chosen text. While it is clear that the sins of the parents ARE visited upon the children it does not happen in the way that Pat Robertson suggested, but that is another issue.
"Shit happens!" Now this is not a 'holy expression', but it is true. Bad things happen to good people. Good people die because of random events. Good people are traumatised when things go badly wrong. Good people are caused long term suffering because 'shit happens'. Of course, whatever happens to good people also happens to bad people.
It seems that in Israel Pilate killed some Galileans around the time of a sacrifice. Why? We don't know. It certainly fits with Pilate's profile, yet there is no record of this specific event in the annals of history. Today lots of violent acts take place that don't make our newspapers or get plastered over our TV screens. We should not be surprised that things slipped past the historians of 2000 years ago.
There was also an accident that happened at Siloam. A building collapsed and eighteen people died. The Pool of Siloam was a place of healing. Among the eighteen we would not be surprised to find vulnerable people or their carers. Accidents happen and innocent people suffer.
So how are we to respond?
Jesus response pointed to ultimate judgement. Unlike Pat Robertson he did not blame the victims what happened to them, but called for all his hearers to repent before judgement comes. Whether we are saints or sinners it will come.
The parable that follows adds some perspective to the discussion. The fruitless fig tree is under judgement from the landowner. Becasue of the please of the gardener a reprieve is granted. With this parable Jesus offers no interpretation. The parable just hangs at the end of the dialogue. We are left to make our own connections.
Now the fig tree is often used in allegories to represent Israel but that does not have to be the case here. We are simply reminded that judgment is coming - and fruitfulness is required.
We do well to consider our own lives, and the good stuff that comes from them, rather than cast judgement on others. In due course, God will do that. For it is best to encourage fruitfulness in others and to work for it in our own lives.
Other readings:
Isaiah 55:1-9
Psalm 63:1-8
1 Cor 10:1-13
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Year C February 28 Luke 13:31-35
2nd Sunday in Lent
"I say to you, that you shall not see me until that tie comes when you say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" 13:35
Context:
"And he went through the cities and villages, teaching and journeying towards Jerusalem." (13:22) This introductory phrase prefaces a series of story units as Jesus heads towards is fate in Jerusalem.
As this section begins the dialogue focuses on the narrow way, and then moves towards identifying Herod as the one seeking Jesus death. Ironically that warning comes from the mouth of some Pharisees. With Jesus' death introduced as the subject there comes a reference to the 'third day' (32) and a lament over Jerusalem and then a prediction links directly with Luke 19:38 and Jesus' entry into Jerusalem.
After the text for this day we find parables of judgment and grace as Jesus moves toward his fate. Along the way the conflict with Jewish leaders intensifies. The contract between their rule and Jesus teaching is highlighted through the use of parables and Jesus' gracious encounters with ten lepers, a rich ruler and Zaccheus.
Comment:
Being in a position of authority is never easy when hard decisions are to be faced. In this instance it was not his fate that was concerning Jesus, but the fate of Jerusalem.
In leadership choices need to be made. Many decisions impact directly on people - whether for good or for ill. Seeking to walk Jesus way means that we are concerned about the effect of our decisions on all people, and have a special interest in the vulnerable.
Jesus lament over Jerusalem was not for the metropolis as a collection of streets and structures, but for the people who lived there. It was the seat of their cultic worship. The temple was there, and all the great festivals of the Jewish nation were held in the city. It was (and is) a place of national significance.
The image of Jesus a 'mother hen' reflects a concern for the city that "kills the prophets and those who are sent to her." (34) Those of the city were unwilling to come under the protection and embrace of the "mother hen". In 19:41-43 we find another lament over the city that did not know "the things that make for [...] peace!" (v.42).
The wisdom of elders, the knowledge of scribes, and the Pharisees legalism did not combine to effect wise decisions. Self interest and shortsightedness contributed to decisions that took Jesus to the cross, and later brought the destruction of Jerusalem.
We do not have Jesus heading towards our city today. We are not faced with decisions about what to do with him. We are faced with daily decisions about our fellow human beings, those who share our streets, share our cities and share our world. Sadly all our wisdom and knowledge and law still seem unable to move us beyond self-interest. Whether at a personal or national level the over-riding issue is 'what is in it for me/us'?
While we focus on ourselves there are those among us that go without housing, homes and hope. While we focus on ourselves families are torn apart and communities are increasingly fractured. While we focus on our philosophy and way of life communities are being destroyed and countries decimated.
The best efforts of well meaning organisations and peace loving nations cannot restore peace and wholeness. Instead they are swamped with hordes of people living in comfort that they seek to protect, or an ethos they will not examine.
If only eyes were opened to the things the make for peace.
Other Readings:
Genesis 15:1-12,17-18
Ps 27
Phil 3:17-4:1
"I say to you, that you shall not see me until that tie comes when you say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" 13:35
Context:
"And he went through the cities and villages, teaching and journeying towards Jerusalem." (13:22) This introductory phrase prefaces a series of story units as Jesus heads towards is fate in Jerusalem.
As this section begins the dialogue focuses on the narrow way, and then moves towards identifying Herod as the one seeking Jesus death. Ironically that warning comes from the mouth of some Pharisees. With Jesus' death introduced as the subject there comes a reference to the 'third day' (32) and a lament over Jerusalem and then a prediction links directly with Luke 19:38 and Jesus' entry into Jerusalem.
After the text for this day we find parables of judgment and grace as Jesus moves toward his fate. Along the way the conflict with Jewish leaders intensifies. The contract between their rule and Jesus teaching is highlighted through the use of parables and Jesus' gracious encounters with ten lepers, a rich ruler and Zaccheus.
Comment:
Being in a position of authority is never easy when hard decisions are to be faced. In this instance it was not his fate that was concerning Jesus, but the fate of Jerusalem.
In leadership choices need to be made. Many decisions impact directly on people - whether for good or for ill. Seeking to walk Jesus way means that we are concerned about the effect of our decisions on all people, and have a special interest in the vulnerable.
Jesus lament over Jerusalem was not for the metropolis as a collection of streets and structures, but for the people who lived there. It was the seat of their cultic worship. The temple was there, and all the great festivals of the Jewish nation were held in the city. It was (and is) a place of national significance.
The image of Jesus a 'mother hen' reflects a concern for the city that "kills the prophets and those who are sent to her." (34) Those of the city were unwilling to come under the protection and embrace of the "mother hen". In 19:41-43 we find another lament over the city that did not know "the things that make for [...] peace!" (v.42).
The wisdom of elders, the knowledge of scribes, and the Pharisees legalism did not combine to effect wise decisions. Self interest and shortsightedness contributed to decisions that took Jesus to the cross, and later brought the destruction of Jerusalem.
We do not have Jesus heading towards our city today. We are not faced with decisions about what to do with him. We are faced with daily decisions about our fellow human beings, those who share our streets, share our cities and share our world. Sadly all our wisdom and knowledge and law still seem unable to move us beyond self-interest. Whether at a personal or national level the over-riding issue is 'what is in it for me/us'?
While we focus on ourselves there are those among us that go without housing, homes and hope. While we focus on ourselves families are torn apart and communities are increasingly fractured. While we focus on our philosophy and way of life communities are being destroyed and countries decimated.
The best efforts of well meaning organisations and peace loving nations cannot restore peace and wholeness. Instead they are swamped with hordes of people living in comfort that they seek to protect, or an ethos they will not examine.
If only eyes were opened to the things the make for peace.
Other Readings:
Genesis 15:1-12,17-18
Ps 27
Phil 3:17-4:1
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Year C February 21 Luke 4:1-13
Luke 4:1-13.
"If you are the son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread." (4:3)
Context:
After his baptism by John (3:21-22) Luke outlines Jesus genealogy. Following the divine voice that prcolamins Jesu as his 'beloved Son' we find the Lukan genealogy that identifies this ancestral line. The next episode in Luke's story of Jesus is the temptation of Jesus.
Comment:
Even in setting the scene there is the remind that temptations and testing comes even before ministry. For some there may be doubts about the calling, for others obstacles sem to be placed in their path, while for all of us the lure of a softer alternative is ever present.
During these past days the testing suggestion to turn a stone into bread has been at the forefront of my thinking. While the whole text and the three tests are worthy of extensive consideration it is the first that is most pertinent for me. In the opulent and sometimes corpulent western world the need to turn stones into bread is not real. SO let's take another tack and replace "bread" with whatever is your greatest need. Replace bread with something else that would change or transform your life. Replace bread with the change you need for wholeness or satisfaction. Now consider again this temptation.
Jesus had been without food for forty days. His body would be crying out for nourishment, and his mind battling to remain focussed. With the power to do what Satan challenged him to do Jesus refused. In an instant his hunger could be satisfied and his body nourished. Jesus refused to use his power in that way. His response comes from Deuteronomy 8:3 - we do not live by bread alone.
Step back to the original scenario of Deuteronomy. It was a reference to trusting God, for God had provided 'manna' for the Israelites as they wandered in the desert (Exodus 16). God told them it would be there for them, and it was. God's word was enough. They had to trust the word that came from God.
Then we come to Jesus. Faced with a raging hunger and a not-so-subtle temptation to prove his connection with God he said "No". I will trust what God says. I will rely on what God has told me. I will do what God has asked me to do.
Now we come to ourselves. I believe that God has the power to intervene and fix all that is wrong in our lives and in our world, yet still there are things wrong. Those who love and trust God have been chosen to reveal and share the kingdom of God. We have not been given the rich life as a sign of blessing, we have been given the presence of God. We have not been given the power to right all wrongs and fix all faults, we have been given access to grace and strength to endure.
So here is the temptation: "If God is truly God we should be able to ask that wrongs be righted, ills be cured, and justice prevail." Yet God says simply "Trust me. Rely on my promise to be with you always."
Turning stones into bread is not a test of my faith. Fixing all that is wrong is. I will continue to trust even though the hunger remains.
Other readings:
Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13
"If you are the son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread." (4:3)
Context:
After his baptism by John (3:21-22) Luke outlines Jesus genealogy. Following the divine voice that prcolamins Jesu as his 'beloved Son' we find the Lukan genealogy that identifies this ancestral line. The next episode in Luke's story of Jesus is the temptation of Jesus.
Comment:
Even in setting the scene there is the remind that temptations and testing comes even before ministry. For some there may be doubts about the calling, for others obstacles sem to be placed in their path, while for all of us the lure of a softer alternative is ever present.
During these past days the testing suggestion to turn a stone into bread has been at the forefront of my thinking. While the whole text and the three tests are worthy of extensive consideration it is the first that is most pertinent for me. In the opulent and sometimes corpulent western world the need to turn stones into bread is not real. SO let's take another tack and replace "bread" with whatever is your greatest need. Replace bread with something else that would change or transform your life. Replace bread with the change you need for wholeness or satisfaction. Now consider again this temptation.
Jesus had been without food for forty days. His body would be crying out for nourishment, and his mind battling to remain focussed. With the power to do what Satan challenged him to do Jesus refused. In an instant his hunger could be satisfied and his body nourished. Jesus refused to use his power in that way. His response comes from Deuteronomy 8:3 - we do not live by bread alone.
Step back to the original scenario of Deuteronomy. It was a reference to trusting God, for God had provided 'manna' for the Israelites as they wandered in the desert (Exodus 16). God told them it would be there for them, and it was. God's word was enough. They had to trust the word that came from God.
Then we come to Jesus. Faced with a raging hunger and a not-so-subtle temptation to prove his connection with God he said "No". I will trust what God says. I will rely on what God has told me. I will do what God has asked me to do.
Now we come to ourselves. I believe that God has the power to intervene and fix all that is wrong in our lives and in our world, yet still there are things wrong. Those who love and trust God have been chosen to reveal and share the kingdom of God. We have not been given the rich life as a sign of blessing, we have been given the presence of God. We have not been given the power to right all wrongs and fix all faults, we have been given access to grace and strength to endure.
So here is the temptation: "If God is truly God we should be able to ask that wrongs be righted, ills be cured, and justice prevail." Yet God says simply "Trust me. Rely on my promise to be with you always."
Turning stones into bread is not a test of my faith. Fixing all that is wrong is. I will continue to trust even though the hunger remains.
Other readings:
Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13
Monday, February 15, 2010
Year C Ash Wednesday
Feb 17
Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21.
"When you fast do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance,. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting." (6:16)
Ash Wednesday is not part of the traditions of The Salvation Army. While the day has significance in many churches and denominations it is not a day that stands tall in our collective history or our liturgical year. Ironically, in Australia at least, the pre-Easter period has been taken over by our missionary 'self-denial' appeal. Instead of a spiritual exercise the Lenten period has become an exercise in mission fund-raising, with appeals to self-sacrifice that require self-discipline. I have no argument with the self-denial appeal but would welcome a greater emphasis on Lent as a spiritual time of preparation.
My Google search of Ash Wednesday revealed a little of the origins of this day, but there were many references to the fires of Ash Wednesday 1983. In the minds of many it has become a marker of a state tragedy (47 deaths in Victoria, 28 in South Australia), not the commencement of a spiritual exercise.
Ash Wednesday and the period of Lent has no scriptural foundation that points to a command or demand for observance or recognition. It is another day and the commencement of another season in the church calendar that is planned to help us focus on Christ. The origins apparently (according to Wikipedia) go back to the placing of ashes on the forehead as a sign of repentance, and the timing is 40 days before Easter. Those 40 days do not include Sundays! Why? A good question - for which I have no answer!
Forty is a number of significance in the Bible. Going back to the time of Noah (it rained for forty days and nights) it has signified a sense of completeness - so the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights, and Jesus was tempted and fasted for forty days. Hence Lent is a period of forty days.
There is no requirement to observe Lent, which has been linked with self-denial in many traditions. In preparation for the great self-sacrifice the idea that we should "give up something" that will cost us in some way is a laudable one. It is also a worthy discipline as we follow the story of Jesus on the journey to the cross.
In this process it is notable that the texts for this day stand in opposition to the practice of placing ashed on the forehead and wearing them until they are worn off. The verses from Matthew remind us that Jesus told us to pray, to fast, and to give alms without drawing attention to ourselves. God will know what we have done.
In this day and age its OK for an individual, but for an organisation the relies on the public to support of programs of aid and transformation in the community it presents something of a challenge.
During this period we do well to engage in some form of prolonged self-discipline. We could give up something that costs us money, and direct those dollars to the poor. We could choose to eat less - miss a meal a day perhaps, or stop eating chocolate/sweets or drinking coffees. Or we could allocate some time each day to stop and pray for the needs of those around us, asking that God might touch our hearts and help us to see others as Jesus would.
However you choose to respond to Lent it is my prayer that you will understand better the mind and heart of the One who is the focus of this time.
Other readings for this day:
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 or Isaiah 58:1-12; Psalm 51:1-17; 2 Cor 5:20b-6:10
Readings for the 1st Sunday in Lent: Feb 21
Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13; Luke 4:1-13.
Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21.
"When you fast do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance,. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting." (6:16)
Ash Wednesday is not part of the traditions of The Salvation Army. While the day has significance in many churches and denominations it is not a day that stands tall in our collective history or our liturgical year. Ironically, in Australia at least, the pre-Easter period has been taken over by our missionary 'self-denial' appeal. Instead of a spiritual exercise the Lenten period has become an exercise in mission fund-raising, with appeals to self-sacrifice that require self-discipline. I have no argument with the self-denial appeal but would welcome a greater emphasis on Lent as a spiritual time of preparation.
My Google search of Ash Wednesday revealed a little of the origins of this day, but there were many references to the fires of Ash Wednesday 1983. In the minds of many it has become a marker of a state tragedy (47 deaths in Victoria, 28 in South Australia), not the commencement of a spiritual exercise.
Ash Wednesday and the period of Lent has no scriptural foundation that points to a command or demand for observance or recognition. It is another day and the commencement of another season in the church calendar that is planned to help us focus on Christ. The origins apparently (according to Wikipedia) go back to the placing of ashes on the forehead as a sign of repentance, and the timing is 40 days before Easter. Those 40 days do not include Sundays! Why? A good question - for which I have no answer!
Forty is a number of significance in the Bible. Going back to the time of Noah (it rained for forty days and nights) it has signified a sense of completeness - so the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights, and Jesus was tempted and fasted for forty days. Hence Lent is a period of forty days.
There is no requirement to observe Lent, which has been linked with self-denial in many traditions. In preparation for the great self-sacrifice the idea that we should "give up something" that will cost us in some way is a laudable one. It is also a worthy discipline as we follow the story of Jesus on the journey to the cross.
In this process it is notable that the texts for this day stand in opposition to the practice of placing ashed on the forehead and wearing them until they are worn off. The verses from Matthew remind us that Jesus told us to pray, to fast, and to give alms without drawing attention to ourselves. God will know what we have done.
In this day and age its OK for an individual, but for an organisation the relies on the public to support of programs of aid and transformation in the community it presents something of a challenge.
During this period we do well to engage in some form of prolonged self-discipline. We could give up something that costs us money, and direct those dollars to the poor. We could choose to eat less - miss a meal a day perhaps, or stop eating chocolate/sweets or drinking coffees. Or we could allocate some time each day to stop and pray for the needs of those around us, asking that God might touch our hearts and help us to see others as Jesus would.
However you choose to respond to Lent it is my prayer that you will understand better the mind and heart of the One who is the focus of this time.
Other readings for this day:
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 or Isaiah 58:1-12; Psalm 51:1-17; 2 Cor 5:20b-6:10
Readings for the 1st Sunday in Lent: Feb 21
Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13; Luke 4:1-13.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Year C The Transfiguration February 14
Luke 9:28-36
“He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah of God”. Luke 9:20
Context:
It is unusual for me to include a verse that is not in the reading as my leader. On this occasion it is very helpful as we read the epiphany that we know as the “transfiguration”. The question of Jesus identity and significance is one we look at post-resurrection. For those who lived and walked with Jesus the question “Who is this man?” was a live and on-going issue. Was he really the Christ, God’s anointed, the Messiah?
The Messiah was longed for and long-awaited by the Jews. When dominated by a foreign power that longing was intensified. They needed a deliverer. It is not surprising that they held on to any that seemed to offer a glimmer of hope. The scene in Monthy Python’s “The Life of Brian” where the John Cleese character cried out “He’s really the Messiah. I should know, I’ve followed a few in my time.” May be closer to the truth than the film maker knew.
Luke follows the Marcan order of events (Mark 8:31-9:8) and makes very little adjustment to the Marcan wording. It is worth taking note of the responses of the disciples when the one they believed to be “the Christ” raised the matter of his own suffering and death. This was not the picture they had of the Messiah.
Comment:
Sandwiched between two declarations of future suffering and death is this remarkable epiphany. God broke into our world in dramatic ways. Here, up on a mountain (and hence closer to God in the thinking of the ancients), Jesus prayed. The disciples with him, Peter, James and John, were stirred from their tiredness by the luminous presence of Moses and Elijah with Jesus. Jesus stands between the great deliverer of Israel and the great prophet of Israel.
A drowsy Peter is confronted with these two heroes who stand alongside a “dazzling white” Jesus. His impulsive and blustering response is to build a tent and stay in this exalted state. Ironically the discussion topic of discussion between Jesus, Moses and Elijah is about Jesus departure and “what he was to accomplish in Jerusalem.” (31)Every time the prospect of his rejection, suffering or death was raised the disciples (for whom Peter was the mouthpiece) protested. The idea of a difficult path for their master was not comfortable, and certainly not welcomed by the disciples. In words reminiscent of the epiphany at Jesus’ baptism the divine voice speaks "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!" (35) The path chosen for Jesus and by Jesus was one of suffering. The price paid for a greater good was enormous, but it was a price Jesus was willing to pay.
Many are the times that we would say NO to suffering and pain. We would all prefer the easy road. Yet God calls us to walk in His ways. For some those paths will seem impossibly hard, and yet we must trust that ultimately the will bring about the best. For us there is a responsibility to listen for the divine voice, the voice of God. Once we have heard the challenge is to obey.
Other readings:
Exodus 34:29-35
Psalm 99
2 Corinthians 3:12–4:2
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Year C February 7 Luke 5:1-11
5th Sunday after the Epiphany
Luke 5:1-11.
Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." (5:5)
Luke's gospel is "an orderly account" of the life of Jesus. We should not confuse 'orderly' with the idea of chronologically correct detail. Luke's gospel is not a diary, nor does it necessarily present events the order that they occurred. Look carefully at the transition words that are used as the story moves from one scene to the next.
From last weeks text (4:21-30) we note that Jesus "went down to Capernaum" (4:31) and taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath. "After leaving the synagogue" (4:38) he went to Simon's house. Then we have a sequence: "As the sun was setting" (40) and "At daybreak" (42). Luke gives no indication of the length of time between Nazareth and Capernaum, but we know that it was at least a week (v.16 cf. v.31). The events of 4:31-4:43 clearly took place in a period of about 24 hours. From there the time frame becomes hazy, and possibly irrelevant. We learn that Jesus "continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea"(44) but have no idea of the length of time involved.
The story then moves to the text for this week, Luke 5:1-11 where Simon, James and John leave everything and follow Jesus. According to Luke's orderly account Jesus has already been at Simon's house, and healed Simon's mother-in-law while he was there. Where did this take place? "beside the lake of Gennesaret" (5:1). When did this take place? "Once while Jesus was standing beside the lake…" (5:1). The geographical markers are clear, the chronological markers are not.
Does it matter? Probably not, but it certainly does not make sense for Simon to leave everything, and later have Jesus visit his house and heal his mother-in-law. For Luke this is an orderly account, for us it makes sense and is a logical sequence. Is this the sequence in which things happened? Maybe not.
A miracle, a pronouncement, and a call.
This brief encounter marks a shift in the story. Up to this point the focus was on Jesus, but now other characters are drawn into the story. A complex mix of forms is evident in this incident, and there are suggestions that Luke has drawn on a range of different sources as he reveals Jesus to us. In Simon Peter’s response to Jesus (“"Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" 5:8) we may even find echoes of Isaiah 6.
The challenge for us is to focus on the main part of this story. But what part is that?
Is it the miracle? While important in the narrative the miracle isn’t the main point of this story. Yes, Jesus is able to fill the nets of discouraged fishermen at a time when they normally would not catch fish. Yes, Jesus is able to fill their nets to breaking point. It is an amazing action (see also John 21), but that is not the point of the story.
Is it Simon Peter’s response to Jesus – the echo of Isaiah 6:5? There is additional emphasis here because it is the only time in the gospel that he is referred to a Simon Peter. It has been Simon, it will be Peter, and one reference (6:14) has “Simon, who also called Peter”. Only here is it Simon Peter. In the presence of Jesus our own sinfulness is evident. Jesus is the Holy One of God. Yet I do not think that is the main point of the story.
Is it the pronouncement of discipleship? "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men" (5:10). As important as this is this statement is the culmination of a significant encounter.
Simon had already been with Jesus. Jesus had been to his house, healed his mother-in-law, and received his hospitality. Simon had probably heard some of Jesus’ teaching and witnessed a few more of his miracles. And, of course, Jesus was in his boat catching fish when the fishermen could not. The point is that Simon knew about Jesus. Yet it is in this encounter that he sees Jesus afresh, and has no option but to recognize his own sinfulness in the presence of the Holy One. Here Jesus meets Simon on his own turf, and does something that reveals to Jesus much more of who he is. Simon had a personal encounter with Jesus. It was then he realized who Jesus is, and what he must do.
Some of us have been around Jesus for a while, some for a long while. We can take for granted the stuff of church, of religion, of faith. In that way we can even become good people. But God wants more than good. God seeks relationship and a commitment to follow and to learn. When we have that personal encounter things change. We enter into relationship with Jesus, and not with the church. In that encounter Jesus will invite us to follow him – and will call us to a life that may look radically different from the one we might have planned.
Other Readings:
Isaiah 6:1-8 (9-13)
Ps 138
1 Cor 15:1-11
Luke 5:1-11.
Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." (5:5)
Luke's gospel is "an orderly account" of the life of Jesus. We should not confuse 'orderly' with the idea of chronologically correct detail. Luke's gospel is not a diary, nor does it necessarily present events the order that they occurred. Look carefully at the transition words that are used as the story moves from one scene to the next.
From last weeks text (4:21-30) we note that Jesus "went down to Capernaum" (4:31) and taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath. "After leaving the synagogue" (4:38) he went to Simon's house. Then we have a sequence: "As the sun was setting" (40) and "At daybreak" (42). Luke gives no indication of the length of time between Nazareth and Capernaum, but we know that it was at least a week (v.16 cf. v.31). The events of 4:31-4:43 clearly took place in a period of about 24 hours. From there the time frame becomes hazy, and possibly irrelevant. We learn that Jesus "continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea"(44) but have no idea of the length of time involved.
The story then moves to the text for this week, Luke 5:1-11 where Simon, James and John leave everything and follow Jesus. According to Luke's orderly account Jesus has already been at Simon's house, and healed Simon's mother-in-law while he was there. Where did this take place? "beside the lake of Gennesaret" (5:1). When did this take place? "Once while Jesus was standing beside the lake…" (5:1). The geographical markers are clear, the chronological markers are not.
Does it matter? Probably not, but it certainly does not make sense for Simon to leave everything, and later have Jesus visit his house and heal his mother-in-law. For Luke this is an orderly account, for us it makes sense and is a logical sequence. Is this the sequence in which things happened? Maybe not.
A miracle, a pronouncement, and a call.
This brief encounter marks a shift in the story. Up to this point the focus was on Jesus, but now other characters are drawn into the story. A complex mix of forms is evident in this incident, and there are suggestions that Luke has drawn on a range of different sources as he reveals Jesus to us. In Simon Peter’s response to Jesus (“"Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" 5:8) we may even find echoes of Isaiah 6.
The challenge for us is to focus on the main part of this story. But what part is that?
Is it the miracle? While important in the narrative the miracle isn’t the main point of this story. Yes, Jesus is able to fill the nets of discouraged fishermen at a time when they normally would not catch fish. Yes, Jesus is able to fill their nets to breaking point. It is an amazing action (see also John 21), but that is not the point of the story.
Is it Simon Peter’s response to Jesus – the echo of Isaiah 6:5? There is additional emphasis here because it is the only time in the gospel that he is referred to a Simon Peter. It has been Simon, it will be Peter, and one reference (6:14) has “Simon, who also called Peter”. Only here is it Simon Peter. In the presence of Jesus our own sinfulness is evident. Jesus is the Holy One of God. Yet I do not think that is the main point of the story.
Is it the pronouncement of discipleship? "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men" (5:10). As important as this is this statement is the culmination of a significant encounter.
Simon had already been with Jesus. Jesus had been to his house, healed his mother-in-law, and received his hospitality. Simon had probably heard some of Jesus’ teaching and witnessed a few more of his miracles. And, of course, Jesus was in his boat catching fish when the fishermen could not. The point is that Simon knew about Jesus. Yet it is in this encounter that he sees Jesus afresh, and has no option but to recognize his own sinfulness in the presence of the Holy One. Here Jesus meets Simon on his own turf, and does something that reveals to Jesus much more of who he is. Simon had a personal encounter with Jesus. It was then he realized who Jesus is, and what he must do.
Some of us have been around Jesus for a while, some for a long while. We can take for granted the stuff of church, of religion, of faith. In that way we can even become good people. But God wants more than good. God seeks relationship and a commitment to follow and to learn. When we have that personal encounter things change. We enter into relationship with Jesus, and not with the church. In that encounter Jesus will invite us to follow him – and will call us to a life that may look radically different from the one we might have planned.
Other Readings:
Isaiah 6:1-8 (9-13)
Ps 138
1 Cor 15:1-11
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Year C January 31
4th Sunday after the Epiphany
Luke 4:21-30.
"I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed--only Naaman the Syrian." All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. (4:24-28)
Context:
Praise came from the lips of the crowd gathered at the synagogue. Jesus' words has been welcomed as the carpenter's son returned to his home village and opened the scriptures on the Sabbath. He was welcomed back, but as they moved past their initial impressions of his speech they considered what he said, and it did not sit comfortably with them - in fact they were greatly offended.
"Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" is a veiled Messianic claim. "No prophet is accepted in his home town" and "There were many lepers in Elijah day, but only Naaman (the Syrian) was cured" are pointing to the failure of Nazareth and Israel to recognise Jesus as prophet - and possibly as Messiah. At the beginning of his ministry in Israel Jesus is foreshadowing the 'failure' of that ministry, and his rejection.
Comment:
Jesus' return to Nazareth has parallels in Mark (6:1-6) and Matthew (13:53-58). Luke's account includes more detail, including the "mission statement" of 4:18-19 and recognition of the depth of the opposition Jesus' faced. This additional information points to another source for Luke, and the placement of the incident reflects programmatic or thematic considerations. For Luke this incident is of major significance. It is not just the rejection of Jesus in his home town, but points to the rejection of Jesus by his own people and extension of his ministry to Gentiles. Jesus has been sent or 'anointed' to bring good news, not only to the Jews, but also to those beyond its borders.
Nolland suggests that these verses indicate that "unbelief has created a situation where possibilities are not realized and benefits do not flow" (Nolland, WBC, 201) rather than emphasising Jesus rejection.
In the parallel accounts the unbelief of the people somehow limits Jesus a few deeds of power in Nazareth. If faith is a key element in miracles this is not surprising. It should not be understood that God is limited by our unbelief, for God is able to act without our consent. Yet there is an element of welcome and respect that is lacking in the people, and Jesus respects their choice. The Nazarenes are the poorer as a result.
While the unresponsiveness of the people is noted in Matthew and Mark, the account in Luke includes a much more vigorous and determined opposition. What Jesus said was seen as being 'highly provocative" and the picture presented in not Jesus being launched to his death off a high cliff but is indicative of an angry mob preparing to stone Jesus. It follows the pattern of casting the victim down from an elevated position, from which his opponents could throw or drop the stones. Just how Jesus is delivered her is not stated. Again Nolland notes that it is reflective of John's view that "his hour has not yet come".(201)
The reaction seems to be "over the top" to modern readers. It is difficult for us to comprehend. Those who have been brought up in a Christian tradition, or a democratic country value freedom of speech, and rarely become violent when alternate view or divergent opinions are expressed. In other parts of the world such a reaction is not unknown. When deeply help beliefs and views are challenged it is considered disrespectful to the elders and leaders, and is likely to result in the offender being ostracized, excluded or even persecuted.
Those who stand in the line of Christ must be prepared for their message, however graciously expressed, to be rejected and for opposition to result. Changing the world is not easy. When peoples world views are challenged and their practices are questioned we must not be surprised by their reactions. If they agree with what we say there will be acceptance or even praise, but when the message challenges or offends expect a reaction.
While we should not go out of our way to provoke a reaction, perhaps we have become accepting of the status quo and desirous of peoples praise to the detriment of the gospel.
Other Readings:
Jer 1:4-10;
Ps 71:1-6;
1 Cor 13:1-13.
Luke 4:21-30.
"I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed--only Naaman the Syrian." All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. (4:24-28)
Context:
Praise came from the lips of the crowd gathered at the synagogue. Jesus' words has been welcomed as the carpenter's son returned to his home village and opened the scriptures on the Sabbath. He was welcomed back, but as they moved past their initial impressions of his speech they considered what he said, and it did not sit comfortably with them - in fact they were greatly offended.
"Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" is a veiled Messianic claim. "No prophet is accepted in his home town" and "There were many lepers in Elijah day, but only Naaman (the Syrian) was cured" are pointing to the failure of Nazareth and Israel to recognise Jesus as prophet - and possibly as Messiah. At the beginning of his ministry in Israel Jesus is foreshadowing the 'failure' of that ministry, and his rejection.
Comment:
Jesus' return to Nazareth has parallels in Mark (6:1-6) and Matthew (13:53-58). Luke's account includes more detail, including the "mission statement" of 4:18-19 and recognition of the depth of the opposition Jesus' faced. This additional information points to another source for Luke, and the placement of the incident reflects programmatic or thematic considerations. For Luke this incident is of major significance. It is not just the rejection of Jesus in his home town, but points to the rejection of Jesus by his own people and extension of his ministry to Gentiles. Jesus has been sent or 'anointed' to bring good news, not only to the Jews, but also to those beyond its borders.
Nolland suggests that these verses indicate that "unbelief has created a situation where possibilities are not realized and benefits do not flow" (Nolland, WBC, 201) rather than emphasising Jesus rejection.
In the parallel accounts the unbelief of the people somehow limits Jesus a few deeds of power in Nazareth. If faith is a key element in miracles this is not surprising. It should not be understood that God is limited by our unbelief, for God is able to act without our consent. Yet there is an element of welcome and respect that is lacking in the people, and Jesus respects their choice. The Nazarenes are the poorer as a result.
While the unresponsiveness of the people is noted in Matthew and Mark, the account in Luke includes a much more vigorous and determined opposition. What Jesus said was seen as being 'highly provocative" and the picture presented in not Jesus being launched to his death off a high cliff but is indicative of an angry mob preparing to stone Jesus. It follows the pattern of casting the victim down from an elevated position, from which his opponents could throw or drop the stones. Just how Jesus is delivered her is not stated. Again Nolland notes that it is reflective of John's view that "his hour has not yet come".(201)
The reaction seems to be "over the top" to modern readers. It is difficult for us to comprehend. Those who have been brought up in a Christian tradition, or a democratic country value freedom of speech, and rarely become violent when alternate view or divergent opinions are expressed. In other parts of the world such a reaction is not unknown. When deeply help beliefs and views are challenged it is considered disrespectful to the elders and leaders, and is likely to result in the offender being ostracized, excluded or even persecuted.
Those who stand in the line of Christ must be prepared for their message, however graciously expressed, to be rejected and for opposition to result. Changing the world is not easy. When peoples world views are challenged and their practices are questioned we must not be surprised by their reactions. If they agree with what we say there will be acceptance or even praise, but when the message challenges or offends expect a reaction.
While we should not go out of our way to provoke a reaction, perhaps we have become accepting of the status quo and desirous of peoples praise to the detriment of the gospel.
Other Readings:
Jer 1:4-10;
Ps 71:1-6;
1 Cor 13:1-13.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Year C January 24
3rd Sunday after the Epiphany
Luke 4:14-21
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
It's kick off time!
Ironically today is the day when Salvation Army Officers are officially welcomed (installed) into their new appointments in my area of the world. It is their first official Sunday, even though they began their responsibilities during the week. Today's reading marks a 'formal' commencement of Jesus ministry in the Gospel of Luke.
Context:
Jesus has been baptised (3:21-22), tempted (4:1-13) and begun to teach in the synagogues around Galilee (4:14-15). The verses prior to our text are a summary statement. It is worth noting these in Luke's writings (especially the Acts of the Apostles). They are a reminder that the gospels are not a complete record of all that took place, and an indication of the sort of activity that was taking place. Here we see that the arena of Jesus' activity was Galilee, and his main activity was teaching. (4:15) Returning to his hometown he was invited to open the Scriptures in the synagogue.
Content:
Here we find what amounts to a 'mission statement' from Jesus (18-21), and a response from the people (22,23-29). While the text under consideration only includes 14-21, it is instructive to remember that there was a response to Jesus' words. While the initial response was positive the mood quickly turned as the message became less 'acceptable' to the hearers. The boy who grew up in Nazareth and found favour with 'God and man' (2:52) slipped out of favour very quickly!
The reputation built in his short Galilee tour no doubt led to the invitation to read the Scriptures in his home town. We see that the people were amazed at his 'gracious words' of the carpenters' son. It is difficult to understand what those gracious words were, since Luke only offers us the words that were read, and one short sentence. The 'gracious words' could refer to the text that Jesus read (Isaiah 61:1-2), and the omission of "the day of vengeance of our Lord" (2b). It could also refer to other comments he made about the text that are not recorded in the Gospel.
It is interesting to note that John Nolland (Word Biblical Commentary Vol.35A Luke 1-9:20, 196) offers a somewhat different translation of 61:1b. His translation reads "To evangelise the poor her he sent me" in contrast to "he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed" (NRSV). While Nolland observes that the extent to which this should be spiritualized is a "vexing question" the link between the historical context of the quoted text, the quoting of the text and today points to a more holistic reading of this phrase. Evangelize in our context carries strong spiritual/other-worldly overtones. The words of Isaiah are in the context of the restoration of Israel and reflect a present experience, and immediate salvation evidenced in the day to day experience of the Jewish people. Jesus' miracles freed those oppressed by sickness, and exclusion from the community because of 'sin'. Release from political oppression was in view in Isaiah, but this is not so evident in Jesus' ministry. While it is difficult to imagine a political system operating on the basis of Jesus' teaching, such a system could not be oppressive.
The quotation of Isaiah points to a ministry that was all-encompassing, and brought physical, emotional, relational and spiritual salvation. To share in the mission of Jesus is to be concerned that people might experience the God-life in every area of their existence. To focus on the spiritual alone is a failure to embrace God's creation, and to ignore the spiritual is offering only a temporary "fix". We must strive to share the fullness of the good news that is salvation through Jesus Christ.
Other readings:
Neh 8:1-3, 5-6, 8-10;
Psalm 19;
1 Cor 12:12-31a;
Luke 4:14-21.
Luke 4:14-21
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Lk 4:18-19a
It's kick off time!
Ironically today is the day when Salvation Army Officers are officially welcomed (installed) into their new appointments in my area of the world. It is their first official Sunday, even though they began their responsibilities during the week. Today's reading marks a 'formal' commencement of Jesus ministry in the Gospel of Luke.
Context:
Jesus has been baptised (3:21-22), tempted (4:1-13) and begun to teach in the synagogues around Galilee (4:14-15). The verses prior to our text are a summary statement. It is worth noting these in Luke's writings (especially the Acts of the Apostles). They are a reminder that the gospels are not a complete record of all that took place, and an indication of the sort of activity that was taking place. Here we see that the arena of Jesus' activity was Galilee, and his main activity was teaching. (4:15) Returning to his hometown he was invited to open the Scriptures in the synagogue.
Content:
Here we find what amounts to a 'mission statement' from Jesus (18-21), and a response from the people (22,23-29). While the text under consideration only includes 14-21, it is instructive to remember that there was a response to Jesus' words. While the initial response was positive the mood quickly turned as the message became less 'acceptable' to the hearers. The boy who grew up in Nazareth and found favour with 'God and man' (2:52) slipped out of favour very quickly!
The reputation built in his short Galilee tour no doubt led to the invitation to read the Scriptures in his home town. We see that the people were amazed at his 'gracious words' of the carpenters' son. It is difficult to understand what those gracious words were, since Luke only offers us the words that were read, and one short sentence. The 'gracious words' could refer to the text that Jesus read (Isaiah 61:1-2), and the omission of "the day of vengeance of our Lord" (2b). It could also refer to other comments he made about the text that are not recorded in the Gospel.
It is interesting to note that John Nolland (Word Biblical Commentary Vol.35A Luke 1-9:20, 196) offers a somewhat different translation of 61:1b. His translation reads "To evangelise the poor her he sent me" in contrast to "he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed" (NRSV). While Nolland observes that the extent to which this should be spiritualized is a "vexing question" the link between the historical context of the quoted text, the quoting of the text and today points to a more holistic reading of this phrase. Evangelize in our context carries strong spiritual/other-worldly overtones. The words of Isaiah are in the context of the restoration of Israel and reflect a present experience, and immediate salvation evidenced in the day to day experience of the Jewish people. Jesus' miracles freed those oppressed by sickness, and exclusion from the community because of 'sin'. Release from political oppression was in view in Isaiah, but this is not so evident in Jesus' ministry. While it is difficult to imagine a political system operating on the basis of Jesus' teaching, such a system could not be oppressive.
The quotation of Isaiah points to a ministry that was all-encompassing, and brought physical, emotional, relational and spiritual salvation. To share in the mission of Jesus is to be concerned that people might experience the God-life in every area of their existence. To focus on the spiritual alone is a failure to embrace God's creation, and to ignore the spiritual is offering only a temporary "fix". We must strive to share the fullness of the good news that is salvation through Jesus Christ.
Other readings:
Neh 8:1-3, 5-6, 8-10;
Psalm 19;
1 Cor 12:12-31a;
Luke 4:14-21.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Year C January 17 John 2:1-11
2nd Sunday after the Epiphany
John 2:1-11
Context:
The third day. An interesting sequence appears in John 1. The next day begins three short incidents (1:29.35.43) and then we have the wedding on the "third day". Explanations include attempts to link this expression with the resurrection, but it is the third day after Jesus baptism (1:29-34).
Already Jesus has gathered a group of disciples around him. Two of them had been John's disciples (v.35)- including Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.
This group is invited to a wedding in Cana and in this context (the only actual wedding that is recorded in the gospels) Jesus first public "miracle" is performed. This public miracle was recognised by only a few people who were 'in the know', the majority of the guests continued to enjoy the fine wine that resulted.
Comment:
It seems quite remarkable that the first miracle (sign in John's gospel) recorded in John's Gospel should be the turning of water into wine. It is not a comfortable miracle for consideration by a temperance movement - but cannot be ignored.
In this miracle we read of Mary's request that Jesus retrieve a social situation. A wedding was one of the major social occasions in the Jewish culture, as in our culture. It was important for the social standing of those concerned that everything went well - and the supply of adequate refreshments was one of the aspects that could make or break an event. To run out of wine was a disaster that would be the lasting memory of the event and damage the prestige in the village. With this in mind Mary (whose relationship to the hosts is unstated) seeks to rescue the hosts from major social embarrassment. It was not a matter of life or death nor a matter of physical quality of life. Mary would have known of the lasting effects of such embarrassment in the community, and approached Jesus. So she approached Jesus and he acted, turning water into wine that caused the steward to remark of its great quality. About 120 gallons (over 500 litres) was a large quantity to produce near the end of the wedding feast.
Why would Jesus respond to Mary's request and turn so much water into wine?
It seems to me that there are two reasons.
Other readings:
Isaiah 62:1-5;
Ps 36:5-10;
1 Cor 12:1-11
John 2:1-11
Context:
The third day. An interesting sequence appears in John 1. The next day begins three short incidents (1:29.35.43) and then we have the wedding on the "third day". Explanations include attempts to link this expression with the resurrection, but it is the third day after Jesus baptism (1:29-34).
Already Jesus has gathered a group of disciples around him. Two of them had been John's disciples (v.35)- including Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.
This group is invited to a wedding in Cana and in this context (the only actual wedding that is recorded in the gospels) Jesus first public "miracle" is performed. This public miracle was recognised by only a few people who were 'in the know', the majority of the guests continued to enjoy the fine wine that resulted.
Comment:
It seems quite remarkable that the first miracle (sign in John's gospel) recorded in John's Gospel should be the turning of water into wine. It is not a comfortable miracle for consideration by a temperance movement - but cannot be ignored.
In this miracle we read of Mary's request that Jesus retrieve a social situation. A wedding was one of the major social occasions in the Jewish culture, as in our culture. It was important for the social standing of those concerned that everything went well - and the supply of adequate refreshments was one of the aspects that could make or break an event. To run out of wine was a disaster that would be the lasting memory of the event and damage the prestige in the village. With this in mind Mary (whose relationship to the hosts is unstated) seeks to rescue the hosts from major social embarrassment. It was not a matter of life or death nor a matter of physical quality of life. Mary would have known of the lasting effects of such embarrassment in the community, and approached Jesus. So she approached Jesus and he acted, turning water into wine that caused the steward to remark of its great quality. About 120 gallons (over 500 litres) was a large quantity to produce near the end of the wedding feast.
Why would Jesus respond to Mary's request and turn so much water into wine?
It seems to me that there are two reasons.
- His mother asked him to intervene. Honour your father and your mother is one of the commandments, and out of respect and obedience Jesus responded to her request.
- Jesus is about life. Social occasions, meals and celebrations are important dimensions of life. We are meant to enjoy life, and the complete absence of wine would have marred the wedding, hurt the social standing of the hosts, and been a cause of shame to the newlyweds that would have remained with them.
Other readings:
Isaiah 62:1-5;
Ps 36:5-10;
1 Cor 12:1-11
Year C January 17 John 2:1-11
2nd Sunday after the Epiphany
John 2:1-11
Context:
The third day. An interesting sequence appears in John 1. The next day begins three short incidents (1:29.35.43) and then we have the wedding on the "third day". Explanations include attempts to link this expression with the resurrection, but it is the third day after Jesus baptism (1:29-34).
Already Jesus has gathered a group of disciples around him. Two of them had been John's disciples (v.35)- including Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.
This group is invited to a wedding in Cana and in this context (the only actual wedding that is recorded in the gospels) Jesus first public "miracle" is performed. This public miracle was recognised by only a few people who were 'in the know', the majority of the guests continued to enjoy the fine wine that resulted.
Comment:
It seems quite remarkable that the first miracle (sign in John's gospel) recorded in John's Gospel should be the turning of water into wine. It is not a comfortable miracle for consideration by a temperance movement - but cannot be ignored.
(This is a work in process..further comment or information will be added during the week)
Other readings:
Isaiah 62:1-5;
Ps 36:5-10;
1 Cor 12:1-11
John 2:1-11
Context:
The third day. An interesting sequence appears in John 1. The next day begins three short incidents (1:29.35.43) and then we have the wedding on the "third day". Explanations include attempts to link this expression with the resurrection, but it is the third day after Jesus baptism (1:29-34).
Already Jesus has gathered a group of disciples around him. Two of them had been John's disciples (v.35)- including Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.
This group is invited to a wedding in Cana and in this context (the only actual wedding that is recorded in the gospels) Jesus first public "miracle" is performed. This public miracle was recognised by only a few people who were 'in the know', the majority of the guests continued to enjoy the fine wine that resulted.
Comment:
It seems quite remarkable that the first miracle (sign in John's gospel) recorded in John's Gospel should be the turning of water into wine. It is not a comfortable miracle for consideration by a temperance movement - but cannot be ignored.
(This is a work in process..further comment or information will be added during the week)
Other readings:
Isaiah 62:1-5;
Ps 36:5-10;
1 Cor 12:1-11
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Year C January 10 Luke 3:15-17
Baptism of the Lord
Luke 3:15-17, 21-22
"I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."(v.16, 17 NRSV)
One of the unique aspects of The Salvation Army is the non-observance of the sacraments. Baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist are not part of the worship of the church. Against this background we must face the fact that both baptism and the Eucharist are part of the life of the church.
In this particular text we find an unusual combination of images related to baptism. John baptises with water, Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with fire, and then the chaff is to be burned "with unquenchable fire". The burning of chaff is an image of judgement which fits with the "axe lying at the root of the trees" (v.10) but in this context the baptism with water, the Holy Spirit and fire seem to represent a hierarchy of sorts.
John baptises with water - but Jesus is much greater than he is and will baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This would suggest that baptism that Jesus offers is of a different nature than the baptism of John. It is also far more important that John's water baptism.
Within the various churches baptism with water is imbued with particular significance. For some it is baptism into faith. For others baptism into the faith of the church or community. In some churches infants are baptised while only adult baptism is practised in others. Despite the variants each tradition recognises various steps in the journey of faith in particular ways. Among the reasons for The Salvation Army stance was the proliferation of practices, the varied theological understandings, a reluctance to be identified as a denomination, and an attempt to avoid reliance upon symbol rather than experience. The result has been that the movement substituted its own ceremonies in place of water baptism.
What has not been replaced is baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. No church or organisation has been able to make this experience a ceremony or a sacrament. What God gives through Jesus is not something that can be organised, manufactured or scheduled. It comes as a work of grace through our relationship with God in Christ.
Among the criticisms of the Pharisees was the emphasis on rules and regulations rather than relationship. It is easy for us to identify how people should come to faith, and how they should grow in faith. That makes it manageable and measurable, but identification must never become regulation. The work of God cannot always be measured, and it certainly cannot be managed. No matter what the messenger of God does, what God will do in Christ is greater. Our small but significant ceremonies must not be confused with the work of God which may take place with, through, or even despite our ceremonies.
It is my prayer that we might all experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus offers to all who enter into relationship with God through him.
Other readings:
Isaiah 43:1-7;
Psalm 29; Acts 8:14-17;
Luke 3:15-17, 21-22.
Luke 3:15-17, 21-22
"I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."(v.16, 17 NRSV)
One of the unique aspects of The Salvation Army is the non-observance of the sacraments. Baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist are not part of the worship of the church. Against this background we must face the fact that both baptism and the Eucharist are part of the life of the church.
In this particular text we find an unusual combination of images related to baptism. John baptises with water, Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with fire, and then the chaff is to be burned "with unquenchable fire". The burning of chaff is an image of judgement which fits with the "axe lying at the root of the trees" (v.10) but in this context the baptism with water, the Holy Spirit and fire seem to represent a hierarchy of sorts.
John baptises with water - but Jesus is much greater than he is and will baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This would suggest that baptism that Jesus offers is of a different nature than the baptism of John. It is also far more important that John's water baptism.
Within the various churches baptism with water is imbued with particular significance. For some it is baptism into faith. For others baptism into the faith of the church or community. In some churches infants are baptised while only adult baptism is practised in others. Despite the variants each tradition recognises various steps in the journey of faith in particular ways. Among the reasons for The Salvation Army stance was the proliferation of practices, the varied theological understandings, a reluctance to be identified as a denomination, and an attempt to avoid reliance upon symbol rather than experience. The result has been that the movement substituted its own ceremonies in place of water baptism.
What has not been replaced is baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. No church or organisation has been able to make this experience a ceremony or a sacrament. What God gives through Jesus is not something that can be organised, manufactured or scheduled. It comes as a work of grace through our relationship with God in Christ.
Among the criticisms of the Pharisees was the emphasis on rules and regulations rather than relationship. It is easy for us to identify how people should come to faith, and how they should grow in faith. That makes it manageable and measurable, but identification must never become regulation. The work of God cannot always be measured, and it certainly cannot be managed. No matter what the messenger of God does, what God will do in Christ is greater. Our small but significant ceremonies must not be confused with the work of God which may take place with, through, or even despite our ceremonies.
It is my prayer that we might all experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus offers to all who enter into relationship with God through him.
Other readings:
Isaiah 43:1-7;
Psalm 29; Acts 8:14-17;
Luke 3:15-17, 21-22.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Year C January 3
Epiphany
Matt 2:1-12
"But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel." (v.6)
Over recent days I have been pondering this text, and wrestling with its implications. Is this just an interesting bit of the nativity story, or does it have a broader significance? For me the answer is both. There are some questions that need to be asked of any text if we are to take Scripture seriously. Each verse in the Bible is part of 'the inspired word of God' but some passages (or probably most) require us to do more that simply read and apply. The theological questioning must include, at the very least, the following questions:
It points to the passage of time. Depictions of the nativity scenes show these men and their gifts gathered around the manger with Mary and Joseph and the shepherds. References to the "house" (v.11) and the later account of the slaughter of innocents under two yeas old (v. 16-18) indicate an extended time between the birth of Jesus and their encounter with Jesus. We must allow at least 12 months and probably more before the magi from the east found Jesus.
It points to the universal nature of Jesus' mission. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but these magi came from beyond the national borders. Legend depicts the journey as long and arduous. Any journey in those days was difficult, and the time frame confirms that it was a long journey. We do not know how long, but could allow a time span of around a year. Jesus' birth was noted by wise men (not kings) from afar. The Greeks also believed that the birth of a great man or king was also announced with a sign in the heavens - and here we have Matthew's gospel (with its signs of being for a Jewish audience) recognising the existence of such a portent.
It points to the failure of the Jewish leaders to see what they were awaiting. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, and awaiting his arrival to free them from the oppressor and restore Israel to greatness. Micah 5:2 points to Bethlehem as the birthplace, and the scribes and chief priests knew this, yet were informed of Jesus arrival by these foreigners. They missed it!
It points to a misunderstanding of Jesus mission. For Herod the arrival of a 'new king' was a threat to his position and power. He could only see this infant as a direct threat to his authority and sought to destroy what he did not understand. Before Pilate Jesus identified his kingdom as 'not of this world' (John 18:36) - he was a king of a different kind.
It points to God working beyond our expectations. The magi expected the new king to be born in the capital city, not a rural backwater. They expected to find Jesus in a palace, not the house of a common tradesman. The scribes expected the Messiah to be a king in the manner of David, and Herod expected a ruler who would challenge his authority and replace him as ruler of Israel. To the magi Jesus arrived in circumstances far less significant than they anticipated. In their wisdom they found him, but where they found him confounded them. At the other end of the scale the earthly rulers (Herod and later Pilate) discovered that Jesus was not what they expected, but did not see that he was far more than they expected.
So what does it mean for me today?
It reminds me that God is the God of all and Jesus was sent for all humanity - Jews and non-Jews alike. Today that translates to Christians and those who are yet to recognise Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Jesus came for us all.
It also reminds me that God works in unexpected ways. I need to be alert to the signs of his presence in the Word and in the world.
Jesus has come into our world. May we recognise his presence.
Other readings:
Isaiah 60:1-6;
Psalm 72:1-7, 10-14;
Ephesians 3:1-12
Matt 2:1-12
"But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel." (v.6)
Over recent days I have been pondering this text, and wrestling with its implications. Is this just an interesting bit of the nativity story, or does it have a broader significance? For me the answer is both. There are some questions that need to be asked of any text if we are to take Scripture seriously. Each verse in the Bible is part of 'the inspired word of God' but some passages (or probably most) require us to do more that simply read and apply. The theological questioning must include, at the very least, the following questions:
- What did this text mean to its original hearers?
- What does this text tells us about God, Jesus, about mission, about the church?
- What does it mean for the church today?
- What does it mean for me?
It points to the passage of time. Depictions of the nativity scenes show these men and their gifts gathered around the manger with Mary and Joseph and the shepherds. References to the "house" (v.11) and the later account of the slaughter of innocents under two yeas old (v. 16-18) indicate an extended time between the birth of Jesus and their encounter with Jesus. We must allow at least 12 months and probably more before the magi from the east found Jesus.
It points to the universal nature of Jesus' mission. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but these magi came from beyond the national borders. Legend depicts the journey as long and arduous. Any journey in those days was difficult, and the time frame confirms that it was a long journey. We do not know how long, but could allow a time span of around a year. Jesus' birth was noted by wise men (not kings) from afar. The Greeks also believed that the birth of a great man or king was also announced with a sign in the heavens - and here we have Matthew's gospel (with its signs of being for a Jewish audience) recognising the existence of such a portent.
It points to the failure of the Jewish leaders to see what they were awaiting. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, and awaiting his arrival to free them from the oppressor and restore Israel to greatness. Micah 5:2 points to Bethlehem as the birthplace, and the scribes and chief priests knew this, yet were informed of Jesus arrival by these foreigners. They missed it!
It points to a misunderstanding of Jesus mission. For Herod the arrival of a 'new king' was a threat to his position and power. He could only see this infant as a direct threat to his authority and sought to destroy what he did not understand. Before Pilate Jesus identified his kingdom as 'not of this world' (John 18:36) - he was a king of a different kind.
It points to God working beyond our expectations. The magi expected the new king to be born in the capital city, not a rural backwater. They expected to find Jesus in a palace, not the house of a common tradesman. The scribes expected the Messiah to be a king in the manner of David, and Herod expected a ruler who would challenge his authority and replace him as ruler of Israel. To the magi Jesus arrived in circumstances far less significant than they anticipated. In their wisdom they found him, but where they found him confounded them. At the other end of the scale the earthly rulers (Herod and later Pilate) discovered that Jesus was not what they expected, but did not see that he was far more than they expected.
So what does it mean for me today?
It reminds me that God is the God of all and Jesus was sent for all humanity - Jews and non-Jews alike. Today that translates to Christians and those who are yet to recognise Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Jesus came for us all.
It also reminds me that God works in unexpected ways. I need to be alert to the signs of his presence in the Word and in the world.
Jesus has come into our world. May we recognise his presence.
Other readings:
Isaiah 60:1-6;
Psalm 72:1-7, 10-14;
Ephesians 3:1-12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)