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
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)