Blogspot can't seem to fix their problems, so we are posting the Internet Bible Study at http://montereymethodistsblog.wordpress.com/

Same as last week! Check out the Internet Bible Study at http:montereymethodistsblog.wordpress.com/

check out our this week's Bible Study at http://montereymethodistsblog.wordpress.com/ - Hoping that Blogspot will get its bugs ironed out soon!

Blogspot is having problems still. Check out this week's study at: http://montereymethodistsblog.wordpress.com/

Blogger is again having problems. Check http://montereymethodistsblog.wordpress.com/ for this week's study (August 3)

Luke 14:15-24

     Jesus just finished talking of how real generosity is expressed by not inviting those whom you know will be able to repay you on some level. Some of the guests may have been thoughtful at that point, examining their own motives on various matters. Others may have been uncomfortable, not wanting to look at their own interior landscape. Still others may have felt they were being labeled as hypocrites. Whatever else was happening in the minds of the guests at the party, it was probably an awkward moment. The easy flow of conversation whas stopped. One guest, perhaps trying to smooth things over, makes a general comment about how blessed those are who will eat bread in the kingdom of God. This can be seen to follow on Jesus words about the resurrection of the righteous.
      At this point, you have to wonder what was the reaction of the rest of the group. Did they sit back, thinking the awkwardness was eased and Jesus wouldn’t saying anything else? Or, what seems more likely, many of them may have nodded with self-satisfaction, never questioning the assumption that they will be among those chomping down on the divine bread. And what else was going on? Scholars say that it was common at such dinner parties to have a large number of the public present, grouped around the walls, not eating, not reclining as the guests would have reclined (the position then for gracious dining). In a day when there was little entertainment or cultural outlets, the intellectual conversation going on around a dinner of this kind was an attraction alternative for people who would never have been invited otherwise. It was considered acceptable by the host--perhaps the greater number of observers could have been regarded as a status symbol, because the host had thereby acquired a reputation or guest as having the most interesting conversation around his table. With the reputation of Jesus, the number of observers was probably impressive.
     Consider the dynamic. You have the people around the table who were invited and eating their meal. They were the ones who had status, were considered acceptable, and who could join into the conversation. Then there were the uninvited, the silent listeners with little or no status. They went unfed by food but were hungry for things of the mind and soul.
     In today’s world, many couples have begun sending out initial announcements ahead of time for their guests to save a certain date to attend their wedding -- often printed on a magnet so the invited guest can put it on a refrigerator or filing cabinet. The couple may not have put all the arrangements together (where, time of day, etc.) but want to be sure that their friends and family keep that day available. Then, when details are set and it’s closer to the big day, they send out a more formal invitation with a RSVP card.
      Jesus tells a story in which a man has done essentially the same thing, sending out an initial invitation telling people of his impending marriage and the day of the party. The man clearly has wealth and status and has invited a huge number of his friends and associates to share the special day. Then when all is ready and the party is imminent, he sends servants to tell them that it’s ready and now is the time to come. One scholar says that this double invitation was based on a precedent in Esther 5:8 and 6:14. The initial invitation gave guests the opportunity to check whether proper arrangements had been made and whether the right people would be attending the party with them.
      But then we hear a shocking detail. Every invited guest finds an excuse not to come. The excuses are ridiculous. For example, what person buys a field without already inspecting it? The refusal to come also makes no sense. The guests are clearly acceptable, the party promises to be rich and lavish.
      The host is understandably upset. So he sends his servants out to bring in the poor, the crippled and the lame. But the places is still not filled so the master says to go out everywhere else and find people to come in and fill up his house. The initially invited guests won’t eat of the meal.
      Put simply, this parable speaks of everyone getting invited, and when people are excluded, it is by their own choice. It is a parable of “reversal.” Those who considered themselves respectable and wanted by God made excuses. They would have been appalled to see the other guests who sat down at the dinner table. In the same way people of Jesus’ age and in the church ever since, have sometimes patted themselves on the back with the assumption that they are automatically included, acceptable and approved. Under such assumptions, the little excuses, the delays, the wavering of attention go unnoticed or unchallenged by the individual in question.
      Jesus told many stories in which assumptions are perilous things, and inattention to spiritual matters are detrimental. He was uttering a loud wake-up call. Regardless of your beliefs about final judgment, Jesus’ wake-up call is just as important today in a world that has excused itself away from spiritual realities so thoroughly that some folks are starving without any clue where the feast is provided.
      It could be pointed out that Christians and the church are now the servants whose job it is to go out and offer the invitation to the feast. Some traditions are passionate about doing it (though the manner of their invitation frequently turns people away) and others are tentative and simply hope that people will show up. The challenge is to find new ways of being the church, of going out into the lanes and byways without being judgmental or self-righteousness, to offer an invitation that is relevant, meaningful and true to the grace-filled love of God.

What is the hardest thing to you about this parable?
Would you consider yourself one of the seated guests, or one of those standing by the wall listening in?
Have you ever experienced (positively or negatively) someone’s invitation to faith?
Have you ever thought about ways to invite others to faith?

Luke 14:7-14

     Jesus seems to have been one of fairly large group who is having a meal at the home of a leader among the Pharisees. An observant man, he notices how the guests at the party were choosing places of honor. Today’s world is informal but there are still situations where seating may reflect either the importance of the individual, their official position in the group, or their degree of intimacy with the central host or honoree. At a wedding reception, family and closest friends may be seated at the same table or one near to the bride and groom, etc.
     Jesus, of course, was familiar with people who wanted to feel important--his own disciples had a few issues in that direction. So he told a parable. This parable is begun a little differently than some that Jesus related. It starts with a hypothetical situation...suppose you went to a wedding feast. He asks them to consider what could happen there. Someone assumes he is important and takes a seat that reflects it. But suppose someone else arrives who is considered more important by the host? Imagine how embarrassing it would be for that person to be asked to take a seat with lower status. Far better, says Jesus, to take the seat of lower honor in the room, only to be urged by the host to take a position of greater distinction.
     Jesus concludes by pointing out that those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
      His final comment ties this parable with other parables and teachings about reversal. It evokes things such as “blessed are the poor.” Or Mary’s song before the birth of Jesus, recorded in Matthew.
      It is possible, of course, that his words at first might have been interpreted by those listening as an almost humorous, perhaps ironic bit of advice on how to better play the game of social positioning. But this interpretation would be overset by his next comment. Even a host of a dinner party is playing that game of position and honor and expectation of a return benefit. Jesus was aware of this, so he tells them that when they had a party, rather than inviting those who can give them something in return, they should invite those who are poor, the lame, the crippled and the blind. Such unfortunate people can do offer nothing in return. By this they will receive blessings at the time of the resurrection of the righteous.
      The question of honor or benefit for our actions is one that is deeply complicated and ambiguous in our motives. Even while trying our best to do the right thing, ego or personal need may get involved. A college professor used to say that, for example, we give money to causes to keep certain things away from us. We may give to help research on arthritis or cancer because we don’t want it to trouble us or our loved ones. Someone who is wealthy may give expecting respect or honor because of their gift. The complication is that giving can also be a form of witness. The generosity of one often inspires others to give. The wise individual who is interested in their spiritual health, will want to be aware of their own mixed motives. A laugh about it also seems healthy, for in trying to be humble, for example, we may get prideful over our depth of humility. The individual who tries hard to do nothing that will win favor or benefits from earthly sources, may also be acting on a quid pro quo expectation with God, expecting good health, happiness, or a “crown in heaven.”
     How mixed motives can get is illustrated in some books of inspirational writings. There are some in which the author tells of their struggle to move up to the biblical expectation of tithing (giving ten percent of one’s income to the work of God). The authors often tell of how their business or income increased every time they gave more. Or there may be a more “spiritual” benefit described. The intention is to encourage people to be generous because it is worthwhile.
      It is ironic that at a mission conference some years ago, one of the leaders urged people to give money generously to people on the streets (someone who asks for help). Some people were concerned and raised the question of whether it would be used for drugs or alcohol rather than for food or shelter. Give without considering that, they were told, give because it is good for your spiritual health. The thinking on this seemed faulty to many people there. They agreed that generous giving was important. It’s important because those who have enough (and usually more than enough) should share of their resources to help the poor, homeless, or ill. It is good for the soul to be generous. But to give without considering how to make the gift effective for the needs of others, and to do it just because it will make the giver fee good, seemed selfish and counterproductive on every level.  It also may divert resources from those who are truly hungry. If someone gives all they have to a man who will use it to feed an addiction, then what of the hungry family who is living in their car? It is easy to give money and pat oneself on the back for generosity. It is harder work to find out how to give wisely. One charitable foundation in the modern world has been criticized at times for coolly calculated how many results it will get for each dollar spent. No one can or has the right to judge the interior motives of those in charge, but it can be observed that they are trying to spend money wisely and do the greatest possible good with the considerable number of dollars they are spending.
      No doubt Jesus would have sympathy with the difficulties the person of conscience may have with whether they are truly giving selflessly, or whether they are secretly (secret even to themselves) giving for ego, status, or some other benefit. He might simply tell us to continue being generous and trying to be effective; don’t let our possibly mixed motives become an excuse for slacking off.
     The whole question of status is complicated. In one part of the world, missionaries taught converts to be humble and that poverty was spiritually healthy. But because the Christians in that culture have the lowest worldly status, in today’s world they and their faith are not respected. That may be fine for their spiritual health, but what of their witness?
      Another situation to consider: No person can abandon the need for public recognition if they are seeking political office. But a good person in politics can do great good.

How much soul searching about mixed motives is helpful?
Can we seek status in the world for good purposes without losing our spiritual compass?
How do we keep a passion for doing good?

Luke 14:1-6

     Once again, the question of healing on the Sabbath is raised. Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath. By this time, everyone was interested in what he would do, and most especially because they knew a man with dropsy was in his path. Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them whether it was lawful to cure someone on the Sabbath. They wouldn’t answer him.
     So he healed the man and sent him home. Then he asked the righteous people listening whether, if they owned an animal that had fallen into a well, wouldn’t they immediately rescue it? If they had a child, that had done so, wouldn’t they help it, whether it was the Sabbath or not? But they still didn’t answer him.
     The first question was general. Was it lawful? The second question was possibly more rhetorical than anything else. That is, the answer was likely self-evident. If they had an animal in which they had an economic interest, of course they would rescue it from the well. If a son or daughter had fallen into a well, they wouldn’t dream of telling the child to wait until it was no longer the Sabbath.
     The lawyers and Pharisees might have argued that an emergency was different from a man who had been ill for some time and could have waited until tomorrow. Yet Jesus could easily have countered with asking why the man should have to suffer any longer? Why should he wait until a day when Jesus might or might not be present to help him?
     The idea of the Sabbath being a day of rest is a good one. Not all ancient cultures had a weekly established day in which to rest and in which to give special attention to spiritual matters. The history of a five day (for many people) work-week and a weekend for rest and recreation may well have come from the establishment of the Sabbath.
     For the Israelite people there is even a folk tale that said each day of the week had a mate, but for the Sabbath, its mate was the Jewish nation. The day had laws to define its beginning and end. It was important to protect it and make sure it did not degenerate into a day just like every other day. Multiple laws were given to help keep it a day of rest and to keep it holy. The laws are old and don’t always fit the modern world. For example, there has been debate in orthodox Jewish circles as to whether turning a light switch is the same as kindling a fire (prohibited on the Sabbath).
     Some excellent rules regarding the Sabbath were the one that protected others, even the poor and powerless. A rich person couldn’t enjoy the Sabbath and making a servant labor. Even the foreigner deserved a Sabbath. Animals were to be allowed a day of rest. The Sabbath law was extended to the land--every seven years a field was supposed to lie fallow, not tilled and worked. (This is one of a number of laws investigated by those interested in ecological awareness).
     For some in ancient Israel, the rule had become almost the purpose of the Sabbath. Jesus would turn that around and point out that the Sabbath was made for the sake of the people and not people for the sake of the Sabbath. Jesus wasn’t a spiritual anarchist, he simple wanted the spirit and understanding of spiritual rules to be understood and followed more than the specifics. He might have asked, what more spiritual thing could be done than to do a good deed of healing a man who has been suffering?
     On this particular day, it is unfair to necessarily assume that the Pharisees and lawyers were in opposition to Jesus. The laws were good ones and they felt charged with upholding them. It is more realistic to believe that some on the group nodded with approval and understanding, while a few others were ambivalent or negative.
     As one scholar points out, following the rules of the Sabbath was a good thing--the Sabbath was considered a gift from God that should be honored by careful observance. It was a gift for rest and restoration, physically and spiritually. The choice Jesus had in healing the man was not between a good thing or a bad thing, but between two good things. He chose the love of a fellow human being as the spiritual duty with the greater priority, but did not reject the Sabbath laws.

In what way do you keep a time of Sabbath?
Is your Sabbath as spiritual as it could be?
How do you choose between two good things?

Okay - Had to establish a new blogsite until Blogger fixes their problem. Check out this week's Bible Study at http://montereymethodistsblog.wordpress.com/

Had hopes that applying a new template and look would help, but so far nothing. If all else fails - we will establish a new blog and post the address here.

The saga continues - The study is too long for the comment section - again - will try tomorrow

Okay - it turns out it will let me post a "comment" - please check there for this week's study

Tried again - title is only part of website that is working - will again tomorrow - sorry!

Sorry - blogsite won't let me post this week's study - only this title

Luke 13:31-35

     Some Pharisees come to Jesus and warn him that Herod wants to kill him. The mention of the Pharisees is interesting. Scholars sometimes argue whether Luke presents a more positive picture of the Pharisees than the other gospels, although there are arguments against it as well.
     “The Pharisees” are generally lumped together as a group and their portrait is frequently negative. As a consequence, Christians have used the term, Pharisee, to refer to people who are hypocritical, falsely spiritual, and unawakened to truth. A more balanced Christian scholarship will recognize that the Pharisees were likely the ones who were responsible for holding the Jewish faith together after the complete loss of Israel. Much of the good teachings passed down in Judaism will have come from them. Indeed, there are some scholars who suggest that Jesus himself might have been a Pharisee and that this accounts for their particular ire toward him. That is...one who publically calls his own fraternity to account for its shortcomings tends to be disliked more than those who do some the outside.
     Logic says that no group could have been entirely against Jesus. There were Pharisees known to be interested, attracted and positive toward him. But Christians have, unfortunately, grouped them together as one, just as Christians sadly did the same for the Jewish people.
      What we know in this case is that some Pharisees warned Jesus of danger. We don’t know their motives, but there is no reason to believe they were negative. Jesus’ response is to the threat itself. Herod’s enmity is not surprising. Jesus calls Herod a fox and indicates he will continue his ministry, adding that a prophet cannot die outside of Jerusalem.
     Jesus had a clear understanding that his work was raising opposition; he understood human nature, and he understood the climate of the violent age in which he lived. It didn’t take a genius to know that if he didn’t back down, he was likely to die, and he must have known it was most likely to happen in Jerusalem, where the power base was, and where he would most openly challenge it.
     Jesus’ words about Jerusalem shows both a frustration and a sorrow over a city that had a history of making mistakes. Prophets had also challenged the wealthy and religiously important people of Jerusalem, and had sometimes suffered for it. Yet Jesus loves this city of his people and uses images also found in the Old Testament, that of gathering the city about him in the same way as a mother hen would gather her chicks close to her.
     The last statement is full of irony according to one scholar, but one may wonder if there is also layers of meaning here. Jesus says that they will not see him again until they say, ‘Blessed Is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Those are words used as part of the processional hymn sung by pilgrims as they enter the city of Jerusalem. One scholar says this prefigures the end times (the end of the world and the final return of Jesus). Yet many disciples and sympathetic onlookers chanted these words (Palm Sunday) as Jesus entered Jerusalem the last week of his life. The question might be raised whether it is really “seeing is believing” or does believing provide sight to the individual?
      The temptation of this passage seems to be the temptation of using it to enhance the suggestion of rejection of the Jewish people based on their failure to accept Jesus. This can be part of anti-Judaism. It also denies us the opportunity to see what wisdom is available to us.
     Christians have also spend considerable effort to reject or ignore not only the prophets, but the parts of Christ’s message that do not fit what we want. Jerusalem can be a symbolic intersection for us as well as those who lived in Jesus’ day.

Where have we resisted being gathered?
Where have we faltered and could have been counted amongst the foxes?
Where have we asked to see in order to believe?
Where have we believed, and thereby had our eyes opened to perceive truth?

Luke 13:22-30

     Jesus is again traveling.
     The gospel stories are not biographical in any way that we would recognize. It is difficult if not possible to construct a historical timeline for the life and ministry for the most famous man in history. Gospel means “good news” and that is what the gospels intend to proclaim, rather than biography. What we do catch glimpses of in the gospels, is of what seemed to have been a ministry lasting approximately three years. Jesus traveled a great deal, including into Samaria and sometimes back to his home territory. It seems likely that many of his parables and other teachings were repeated on frequent occasions. Sometimes, he may have varied his words or stories to fit a particular situation or audience or question.
     As Jesus traveled, he became known. Word spread about what he did as well as about what he taught. On this occasion, someone may have heard stories about his parables showing amazing growth of God’s kingdom. Or the question could have arisen on its own. We certainly raise the same question today. Will many or all be saved eventually? Or will there only be a few who will be saved?
    Some who ask the question of many or few are hoping that it will be few, and of course assuming that they know exactly who will be among the fortunate few. For some, there is an appeal in the idea of “heaven” (whatever you conceive it to be) as an exclusive country club. And there are people for whom exclusivity is exactly what makes it attractive...the idea that others have been excluded. It is easy then, to pat oneself on the back, feel superior, self-righteous, and judgmental.
     Others who ask the question of many or few in today’s world find it difficult to picture a loving God excluding anyone. The idea of being saved while others are lost is distasteful. So the hope is that salvation is universal, even if God has to work on some souls for centuries to get them aboard. (There is, in Timothy, an implication that this is the plan).
     Not surprisingly, Jesus’ answer is beautifully ambiguous. It is hard to know whether it is parable, or teaching and parable together. Some scholars believe that Luke could have collected a variety of teachings and combined them here in answer to a question that was asked both during the lifetime of Jesus, but also by the church in post-resurrection days. This could be possible (remembering that, again, the gospels were intended as vehicles of telling the good news rather than iolgraphy. But it is equally possible (in this writer’s opinion) that Jesus deliberately formed his anwer insuch a way. And, if the whole thing is a “parable, what is the point that arises out of it?
     He begins with responding to the question of whether it’s many or few by not answering it directly at all. He says instead to ‘strive to enter through the narrow door, for many will try to enter and not b able. But then the image shifts to a closed door with someone standing outside and knocking, asking the Lord to open. But they are told that they are not known. The knocker insists they are known, that they ate and drank with the Lord, yet they are still turned away as evildoers. The Israelite listener to this would then have been shocked to hear that Abraham and the prophets and “you yourselves” will be thrown out, yet people will come from east and west, from north and south to eat in the kingdom of God.
     Those who come from a distance, are they Jews who were dispersed throughout the known world? Or is Luke referring to Gentiles? There is no question that Luke was interested in telling about the inclusion of the Gentiles and could well have been referring to them. Or he could have been referring to the question of whether only the locally orthodox would be deemed acceptable rather than the greater number of Jewish people who were liberal in their theology and lifestyle. Either way, however, it becomes a parable about surprises. Those who pat themselves on the back and were sure of their inclusion (and enjoying the exclusion of others), find the way barred.
     This is undeniably reminiscent of the parable of knocking at the door of the neighbor in the middle of the night, wherein persistence is proclaimed to be effective.
      The final statement here is that wonderfully ambiguous statement that some who are first will be last and others who are last will be first. This is, again, a statement of surprise and reversal, yet it still leaves open the question of numbers. Will those put at the last eventually be included? Are they simply required to wait, learn some humility, keep knocking, and try?
      If the entire response if in a sense, a "parable” then what is the point? Is it to puncture the pretensions? Jesus was certainly no stranger to that effort, for he contented often with self-rightousness and judgmental attitudes. Jesus could have been teaching persistence, no matter what. He could have been doing both, double meanings and layers of meaning being popular in that time.
      In the end, modern response to Jesus’ words will depend, as it surely did in those days, whether exclusivity is valued or desired. It could, however, be also taken as a reminder that none of it is under the decision of humans. This is God’s domain and human assumptions, demands or biases will not hold. Jesus could have been suggesting people work as hard as they could, as though it is entirely up to them, but know that in the end it is God who will let people in, dependent upon divine grace.

What is your response to Jesus words?
Who would you assume to be among those acceptable and included?
What are the dangers of such assumptions?

Luke 13:20

      The parable of the leaven may also have had unexpected impact (as did the mustard seed story - last week). It is in many ways a parallel with that of the mustard seed. A woman takes leaven (yeast in many translations) and mixes or hides in a large quantity of flour until all of it was leavened.
     Leavening of the modern type (baking powder or soda) was unknown. Nor did the baker of first century Israel have pure yeast such as the modern cook uses from the store. Yeast or leaven was a piece of old, fermented dough added to a fresh lump of dough to start the leavening process in it. (Frontier cooks often used a similar process, sometimes called sourdough. Laura Ingalls Wilder described her mother putting the scraps of dough into a jar of water to be added to the next batch of biscuit or bread makings.)
     Yet, in the first century, leavening was not always a positive image. Paul twice spoke of a little yeast leavening the dough (Col 5:9; 1 Cor 5-7). But he was warning against what may have appeared to be a little something that was wrong growing amidst the Christians. Leavening, also, was to be completely removed from the home during Passover, in remembrance of the time that the Israelites had to leaven Egypt before their bread was leavened (and it baked hard in the sun, unleavened, unrisen.) Natural leavening begins almost immediately, whether or not something else is added. Natural organisms get wet and that begins the process. For unleavened bread to be “kosher” it must be baked less than twenty minutes after moisture has been added to the flour.
     But Jesus here is not referring to yeast as a negative influence corrupting the whole. It is a parable of God’s kingdom.
      Although modern translations often say mixed instead of hidden, scholars made much of the fact that the woman may have “hidden” the leaven. Three measures of flour would have been a huge amount, enough to feed 150 people. If she hid it, she unintentionally ended up with a considerable amount of bread dough. There was likely some humor intended here. The humor is also apparent in the fact that the growth of the kingdom is portrayed as powerful and unstoppable. Small beginnings can eventually change the character of the whole. After all, who’d have believed that a small number of socially, economically and intellectually unimportant men and women, following a crucified leader, would help change the world?
     Finally, it is impossible not to note the fact that Jesus is using an image from a woman's point of view.  He did the same with the parable of the lost sheep - and the woman searching for a lost coin.  We can only imagine, but do imagine the impact upon his female listeners who were probably accustomed to having their world, their value and their presence be devalued.  What did this say to them?

What is the character of hope in this parable?
What image in today’s world might have some of the same meaning?
What new and powerful movement can be discerned today?

Will post tomorrow!

Sorry - today's post will probably be done tomorrow.  Have been out of town a good part of the week and need some hours to get things together.  Take care and blessings!

Luke 13:18-19

     Now Jesus tells a parable. He compared the kingdom of God to a mustard seed. A mustard seed could be sown in the garden until it grew into a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.
     A mustard seed has become the familiar image of something that begins small and grows into large. Even more familiar is probably Jesus’ comment that faith, even the size of a mustard seed, can move mountains.
     But in this particular case, Jesus is talking about the kingdom of God. Now, the kingdom is difficult to strictly define. At various times it appears to be something small, other times large, sometime it appears future related and still other time something that is present. The kingdom of God is within and among us.
     Scholars have devoted extensive studies to what it means to define the kingdom of God. Yet Jesus didn’t define it, just accepted it as a dynamic reality that is both present and becoming; it is under the authority of God, yet humans, creations of God, are granted responsibilities in helping build up the kingdom; it is alive in the midst of creation, yet also beyond the life known by humanity.
     Jesus didn’t define and therefore limit the understanding of God’s kingdom. And the parable of the mustard seed seems to contain a wry humor that is often lost on people today. Scholars point out that the description of mustard as becoming a tree is an exaggeration. It can grow into a mighty plant, some eight to nine feet high, but it is highly unlikely that birds would ever nest in a mustard plant. They do grow large, but are not trees and will die back after a season, though casting their seeds to grow into new plants. Mustard grows wild and in some cases is regarded as pest rather than a desirable plant.

     Some Mustard Seed Extras: 

 The mustard seed and its aroma and flavor has been popular for thousands of years. The condiment is made from the crushed seeds of the plant. At first they were mixed with vinegar, but in the Middle Ages it was replaced with something called grape must, which is where it got the name we know today of mustard. Grape must was simply the juice from the grape.  (Mustard – native to Europe and South-eastern Asia; grown in temperate regions. Well known since days of ancient Greece as a condiment and for medicinal uses; frequently referred to in the New Testament and Greek and Roman writings;. (Collins, Mary, Spices of the World Cookbook by McCormick, U.S.A.: produced for McCormick by Penguin Books, 1964), p. 36. As the Greek and Roman Colonizers spread their civilizations throughout Europe, they took their knowledge of spices with them. It is on record, for example, that the first mustard seed were brought to England by Roman soldiers in 50 b.c.

      The parable of the mustard seed was likely intended by Jesus to have echoes in the scriptures of his people. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of being a great tree with the birds of the air nesting in its branches. Ezekiel’s oracle (17:22-23) is an even more specific reference. Yet these older images refer to the kingdom as a great cedar, while Jesus describes it as a mustard. One scholar says that the mustard seed is a parable of the kingdom’s beginnings, but not of its final manifestation. The ministry of Jesus, although with amazing events, was more like a mustard seed, though people expected a full grown cedar.
     Scholars tend to downplay the final result, taking literally what grows from a mustard seed. But is it possible that Jesus was including a little humor here? The mustard seed is small, an inauspicious beginning, but Jesus pictures it growing into something entirely unexpected - a great tree that can give refuge in its branches. In other words, the kingdom of God will grow into something quite surprising by human standards, understanding or expectations.
     The coming of the birds to next in the branches has been interpreted by some to be a reference to the Gentiles who would be welcomed into the church. If Jesus is echoing the images of Hebrew scriptures, this would seem unlikely. The older references are about peace, security and refuge. Yet the Gentiles also found this in the church, just as many who were Israelites did. Luke did have a strong interest in the Gentiles (he may have been one himself) coming into the church. And a later parable (Luke 13:29) will refer to the fact that “people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God.” Double meanings were popular in the ancient Near East, so it is not impossible that Jesus saw a vision of the gentiles being among those who would come to nest in the kingdom of God. Given the fact that he was speaking to an orthodox Israelite audience, this could even be one of the extremely unexpected things that would grow from the mustard seed.
     Again, from human expectations, something grows, or should grow, by increments. Therefore, if Jesus announced the small beginnings of the kingdom as a mustard seed, then two thousand years later, it must surely be larger. But that would ignore the fact that Jesus announced the kingdom for individuals, groups, for creation itself. It is always in the process of becoming. Its growth may or may not be visible to the human perception. Its manifestation may not be what human standards expect.
     
Do you use or think of the imagery of the kingdom of God?
What does it mean to you?
Do you have expectations about God’s kingdom?
Are your expectations limiting your perception of the kingdom’s presence?

Luke 13:6-17

     It is probably only the hellfire and brimstone Christians who are fond of the image Jesus uses here. He tells a story of a man with a fig tree that doesn’t bear fruit. He tells the man taking care of things, the vine dresser, to cut it down. After all, the tree is drawing nutrients from the soil without giving anything back. Here we would ignore the modern understanding that a plant of any kind, even without fruit, is adding oxygen to the air. The fig tree, like any fruit tree, is planted for the purpose of bearing fruit. But the vinedresser disagreed with the man who wanted to cut down the tree. At least give it another year while the vinedresser digs around it and gives it fertilizer. If that doesn’t help, then it could be cut down.
      For some, the image will inevitably be ominous. The ax is waiting. If things don’t change in a hurry, the axe will fall. But the story is also about hope. True, no fruit is in evidence, but give the tree another chance. Give it help and support, don’t just discard it.
      As with all parables, the different parts of the story should not be turned into metaphors and symbols. For example, we should resist trying to invest identity in the land owner or the vinedresser, such as trying to make one into a judging God and the other into Christ. God and Jesus are one in a way that defies human imagination. And God wants God’s children to succeed and bear spiritual fruit. God has given not one but many new opportunities. God has much more in common with vinedresser, or the father in the parable of the prodigal son than with the landowner who wants to cut the tree down.
      Nonetheless, the story can serve as a reminder that humans are called to a purpose and we are missing out on the best of life when we fail to live up to that calling.
      Luke follows this parable with an account about one day when Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues. A woman was there who was crippled, bent over so severely that she couldn’t stand straight. With no other explanation, it was described as a spirit that had crippled her. From a modern point of view it sound like severe arthritis or some other degenerative condition such as multiple sclerosis. When Jesus saw her, he called her over, laid hands on her and proclaimed her free of her disease. Right off she straightened up and began praising God.
      On the side, this woman exemplifies faith in the midst of disease. In the first place, she remained faithful (she was at the synagogue) despite her years of pain and disablement. When she is healed, no matter what the means, she praises God. God must have smiled joyfully when he looked at this spiritual woman who was now healed.
     But there were others there that day, others who thought the rules were more important than people. The Sabbath was a day for rest, and the orthodox understanding of that could be quite rigid. Jesus had violated this by actually healing on the Sabbath. The leader of the synagogue was indignant with Jesus. He may have been also fearful that the day would turn into a madhouse of people seeking healing. So he told the congregation that there were six working days to come. They should come and be healed on one of them, not on the Sabbath.
      Imagine what the poor woman felt at that point. Though she hadn’t even initiated the healing, it must have seemed as if the leader of the synagogue was pointing a finger of judgment at here as much or more than at Jesus.
      Jesus was obviously frustrated and angry. Here this faithful woman had been healed and was doing nothing except praising God...what more appropriate thing could take place on a Sabbath? But the leaders couldn’t rejoice with her. There was obviously more than the one who was objecting because Jesus’ response was about ‘you hypocrites.’ Those pious men would give their ox or donkey water on the Sabbath, but resented the healing of this daughter of Abraham.
      The opponents of the healing were put to shame (other translations say confused or humiliated). But the rest of the crowd was delighted at his words.
      To us, it may seem a no-brainer- the woman was crippled, Jesus had the ability to heal her, so why shouldn’t he do so at the earliest opportunity? But this shouldn’t be taken to think Jesus didn’t respect the rules and customs of the Jewish people. He would even say that he hadn’t come to change the smallest part of them. But it was a time when the rules had been codified, inflated, and expanded to such an extent that no one without ample time and money could observe them all. It was understandable. When people feel under siege, they take control in whatever way they can. With the Romans occupying their country and security and life being uncertain, for some people, the rules may have operated as one of the few things under their control and authority. Although Jesus may have understood their motives, he himself never forgot that the rules God wanted humans to follow were for their benefit. It was good and important to have a day of rest, a day to think about God and order one’s life in the right direction. But the rule wasn’t meant to be kept for its own sake. The woman had been ill for eighteen years, what better time to heal her than the Sabbath?

Do we have our own rules or customs (individually or as the church)? Are we offended when someone else breaks them?
What fruit are we bearing?
Where do we need second chances?

Luke 13:1-5

     Then some people came who told Jesus about some Galileans who had been killed by Pilate while they had been offering sacrifices to God.
     This is the only place in the gospels where this story is told about Pilate and the murdered Galileans. And this event is not recorded in Roman or any other historical records. That doesn’t mean that it did or didn’t occur, only that no one else wrote it down. Pilate himself is not found in roman historical records, only in the histories of the Jewish people. Historians do tell us that it was not an unlikely occurrence. Pilate was not known to be a lover of the Jewish people and could well have found a reason to have ordered a killing. One commentator on the passage, however, points out that this is the kind of story that oppressed people often told, sometimes growing each time it was repeated and passed on.
     It is hard to say what were the motives of the people who told the story to Jesus. They might have hoped Jesus was a Zealot (he did number them among his followers) who wanted to fight and over throw the Romans. They may have simply wanted to share the grievance of oppression.
      Jesus did an interesting thing with this story. He asked if they thought the Galileans had been more guilty or worse sinners than other Galileans. He answered his own question.  No, if they didn’t turn from their own sins, they would die also.
     In a general sense, as the Cambridge Bible Commentary discusses on this passage, it is easy for some to believe that misfortune comes to others because they somehow deserve it, that others are more sinful than we are. Jesus didn’t seem to think that misfortune was a punishment. In fact, he said that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, which seems to contradict the concept of worldly problems being directed by God to punish us for our misdeeds. He further recognized that people could actually be persecuted because of their righteousness or their faith. In responding as he did, Jesus may also have been contemplating the coming violence and fall of Jerusalem. It wouldn’t happen for decades, but Jesus clearly understood the path his people were taking, and the power of Rome which they would not be able to defeat.
     Beyond all this is another truth. When people are oppressed, it is tempting to consider the enemy as the sinful one and the oppressed as righteous. Too often, “blessed are the poor” has been taken that way, as though poverty by its very nature and the suffering it inflicts makes the poor into the good side, with the rich as the sinful evil side. Yet the poor can be as obsessed with money as the rich, and the poor can be just as sinful while the rich can uphold goodness.
      The people of Israel weren’t automatically good simply because Rome was oppressing them. Israel wasn’t righteous simply because it was suffering. Another thing to consider--of the oppressed don’t look to their own faults and sins, when they get power they often turn out to be as bad or worse than the original set of oppressors. A study of history tells us this. Victims often become victimizers.
      As one scholar points out, Jesus was taking the hard road of calling the oppressed and downtrodden to recognize and repent of their own sinfulness.
     Jesus further drove his point home by referring to an architectural disaster, when the tower of Siloam fell and a large number were killed. The first story was one of a tyrant killing people by choice. The second was the story of an accident. Were those 18 people being punished for their sins? Jesus says clearly that they were no more sinful than others who were not killed. Everyone is in need of repentance.
     Repentance may not be the favorite topic of the modern world. Yet even psychiatry has been described as helping to free people from the tyranny of their past. Repentance means being sorry for wrong doing, and changing direction so that the individual seeks to live in such a way that the mistakes are not repeated. It means accepting forgiveness so that the individual is free for an improved life.
      Another aspect of the story is that the people who carried that story to Jesus may have been wanting confirmation of their goodness and therefore of their safety. One of the things when misfortune occurs is that people sometimes start looking for “why.” Interestingly enough, one path this takes is to try and assign blame to the victim. They made an error driving and therefore had an accident. They didn’t take care of their health, that’s why they’re sick. While this can be the explanation, it can be very disturbing to some people when they learn that something happened without the fault of the victim. What that means is that life isn’t in the control of humans; it means that we can’t be smart enough, good enough or skillful enough to avoid all problems. That sense of powerlessness can be terrifying. So some who suffer misfortune are further afflicted by well-meaning “friends” who try to assign blame.
    
How tempting is it to emphasize the mistakes or sins of others, but find reasons to accept our own?
What tyranny of the past do you struggle with?
What would you say to someone who wonders if they can be free?

Luke 12:49-59

     Turn the other cheek
     Peace I give to you, not as the world gives do I give to you.
     Forgive.
     Judge not.
     Love your neighbor.
     Love your enemy.
     He who lives by the sword will de by the sword.
     All these teachings of Jesus and the Judeo-Christian scriptures seem oddly incongruous with the words he speaks in this portion of chapter twelve, that he has come to bring not peace but a sword. That he had come to bring division. That his coming would set even families against each other.
      These words are especially troubling in an era when the extremists of most world religions have practiced terrible violence.
      Was Jesus condoning such violence? Or was he making an observation upon reality?
     Christians early found that their belief was sometimes a source of outer conflict even while it brought them peace and joy of the spirit. Becoming a Christian could break up a marriage. It could lead to persecution. Jesus surely knew this would happen. Was he referring to this when he spoke of bringing a sword? Could the sword sometimes be metaphorical?
     Yet, a few sentences later, in verses 57-9, he speaks of making peace with an opponent before he drags you to court and perhaps lands you in jail. One scholars suggests that the goal is tHaso encourage people to reconcile with God--i.e. if you are clever enough to reconcile before a worse fate with humans, surely people are wise enough to do it in regard to their faith. People are able to interpret signs of the weather, so it is ironic that they can’t interpret the signs of God’s actions.
     Some traditions may not find these words of Jesus troubling. Others will. Though the suggestion of violence is difficult to understand for some, it is undeniable that Jesus came to create change. And change is often difficult. Jesus is not the lord of passivity, or apathy. Christians are called to wholehearted commitment and passionate faith. A question to be raised, then, is how to be passionate, without becoming like one of the extremists who lose all the positive aspects of their faith teachings.
 

If the “sword” could be a metaphor, what would it represent in your life?
What would passionate faith mean to you?
Has your faith ever caused some form of disruption in your life and relationships?

Luke 12:32-48

     The discussion of worldly goods, anxiety and faith concludes with Jesus telling his disciples to have no fear, sell possessions so they can give to the poor, to provide for themselves spiritual purses, whose wealth is in heaven, for no moths can chew that up and no thieves can steal it. For, Jesus said, where our treasure is, so will our hearts be.
     Few Christians have been as radical as to sell all their possessions, yet many Christians have learned the joy of denying themselves and giving generously. Jesus here masterfully points meaning back at the story which he had used earlier, that of the man who had built a bigger barn thinking that was what he needed, only to learn that earthly belongings are temporary--he should have been paying more attention to matters of the soul.
     The climax of what Jesus says is his comment that where our treasure is, that is where our hearts will be found. Jesus understood human nature extremely well. If what we treasure is earthly, our souls will be earthbound. If what we treasure is spiritual, our souls will gain wings.
     Jesus then shifts to another matter, the subject of readiness. He images a servant waiting for the master to return home from a wedding party. Such a party could conclude at any time, short or long. The master might leave the party at any time. The servant doesn’t have any idea. Does the wise servant head for sleep and figure there’s plenty of time?
      Forget modern concepts of fair employment and eight-hour workdays--those don’t apply here. In the day and time of Jesus, the servant paid attention to the needs and wants of the master. If the master returned home and found things out-of-place, not prepared, there would be reprisals. Jesus was pointing out that the wise servant stays ready.
     Then Jesus shifts to a situation anyone might face, even the poor. No one expects a burglar. No one knows the time someone might break in a steal something. Even if it has never happened, the wise householder does not lull themselves into a state of security. It could happen, without warning.
     Using these images of wisdom and preparedness, Jesus reminds them to be ready, because they never know when the Son of Man is be among them.
      Peter, ever the literal man who wants detailed instructions, wants to know if this applies to everyone, or just to the disciples.
     Jesus, ever one to ask people to think, doesn’t give a simple yes or no. Instead he returns to the image of the wise and trusty servant. Who is this servant? Who is the one appointed as the steward (a powerful and honorable position)? It won’t be the one who slacks off and abuses the other servants. It will be the one who was faithful and ready.
      Jesus concludes with the comment that to those who have been given much, much will be expected. This is reminiscent of his parable of the talents.

Where would you say your treasure is?
Is readiness important for you?
What are you waiting for?
What is your readiness as a steward?

Luke 12:22-31

     After telling a story about a man who had a great crop and built a bigger barn to put it in, Jesus directed some words to the disciples. He told them not to worry about what they needed for food and clothing. Life is more important than food and the body more than clothing. The birds don’t plant seeds or harvest, they don’t need barns, but God still feeds them. And “you” are worth so much more than birds.
     Taken literally and to the extreme, these words seem completely contrary to the responsible work ethic that many of us hold. If the birds don’t sow and reap, why should we?
     It isn’t enough to say, ‘well, he was talking to his disciples and not to the rest of us.’ Most of what he said to his first followers is definitely applicable in some way to the chain of disciples down the line 2,000 years later. Did he intend the disciples and succeeding followers to forget about earning a living and expect it to fall from heaven?
      It is hard to believe that Jesus was advising people to do nothing in life or to expect other people to take care of them. He certainly wanted people to use their resources wisely and charitably, and that assumes people will have some resources to manage. The question may boil down to how “excessive” is defined. Jesus was talking that day to a group of extremely practical men, literal, largely unimaginative, and with a tendency to put excess worry into the wrong things.
     This is further emphasized by his next words as he asks his disciples whether they can add even a day to their lives by worrying about it? If not, then why worry about all the other matters? And he continues with the example of the wayside flower, noting that even wealthy King Solomon was not clothed as beautifully as the bloom in the field, though the flower neither spins nor sews. Won’t God clothe the disciples as well?
      As the modern reader of health articles know, “worry” or “stress” is the bugaboo for blood pressure and other health problems. The proliferation of acidic stomach, tension headaches, etc. can attest to it. Yet since the first attempt to turn “stress” into a wholly negative aspect of life, others have pointed out that stress is natural to life and some of it is vital for survival. Balance is often the recommended approach. But could Jesus have talked to these worrying, obsessed disciples about “balance” and have them understand? There was a cultural tendency toward hyperbole, which should never be underestimated, even while we take the teaching seriously.
     Jesus concludes by commenting to the disciples on how small their store of faith is.
     We may all have known people who sat back and declared that “we should act on faith.” Members of churches or other Christian organizations have sometimes made decisions on the belief that they should act on faith and that God will provide. Sometimes that calm belief has proven itself in spectacular ways. In other cases, those who acted on faith ended with a lost mortgage or other problem on their hands. It is possible to say that perhaps what they originally wanted was wrong and that is why God didn’t “provide.” But that backs the question up to the original statement of faith and whether people should be cautious about leaping off the roof and simply expecting God to catch them.
       Of course, it is extremely unlikely that the disciples would ever choose to be non-workers, living off the efforts of other people. They were generally a hard-working responsible group who took a huge leap of faith in leaving their nets and other tasks behind to follow Jesus. Now that they were in the middle of it, they were obviously stewing over what was going to happen next. Was Jesus trying to remind them of the leap they’d already taken and encourage them to hold fast?
      Jesus contrasts the lack of worry he is advising them to have with the pagans who are always concerned about what they will eat and drink. Comparing them with pagans may have been a shock statement. Instead, he tells them, your Father knows that you need these things.
       Once again, the “but” could be asked. There are people of deep and sincere faith who have starved to death, have gone unclothed or watched their children die. We must be honest enough with our faith and its ideals to confront reality. But would Jesus want us to use that as an excuse for scrambling after worldly “security?” Or would he use it as a call to manage any resources we have so we can share with others?
     One thing is certain, excessive anxiety and grasping after worldly goods can exclude God from consideration. It can trap us in our own concerns and close off our compassion for other people.
     Whatever it meant to the first disciples, Jesus’ words challenge us today.
     What does it mean to be people of faith?
      How much planning and work and caution is stewardship, and when does the excess become foolish and counterproductive worry?
     Have you ever taken a leap of faith? Enough of them?

Luke 12:13-21

     Jesus is by now a known and respected speaker. A man in the crowd spoke up and asked Jesus to require his brother to divide with him the property their father had left for them. It has been speculated that this would have been the younger brother. The larger share of property always went to the eldest son in the family. Although this seems unfair to most people today, it was the accepted practice in many cultures throughout history. Scholars say that it was to ensure the maintenance of larger estates for social stability.
     This isn’t to say that the younger brothers enjoyed the situation...as this story and the tale of the prodigal son both illustrate. In this particular situation, the elder brother has apparently refused to give the younger sibling his allotted share and this defrauded man looks to Jesus to remedy the situation.
      From a certain perspective, this may have seemed right. Jesus was respected. He clearly had an air of authority that impressed the crows and made his opponent nervous. Perhaps the brother had even come and joined the crowd, thereby acknowledging some sense of respect for Jesus’ opinion. Yet, from the perspective of time, we might look at this man and wonder why he was bothering with physical property when he had the lord of life in front of him.
     The response of Jesus doesn’t appear to be scornful, but more sad when he asks who had given him the right to judge the matter. Then he used the moment to pass on a teaching to the entire crowd when he warned them to beware of greed, for their true and genuine life was not summed up in what they owned.
      Jesus proceeded to tell the parable of the man with the bigger and better barn. He’d had a great harvest and decided to tear down his barn and build one good enough for his harvest. Once it was done he congratulated himself and decided he could be at ease. But God tells him he’s a fool, for he would die that night and what good would his barns or harvest be?
     This is how it was, Jesus said, with those who pile up earthly riches, but are not rich with God and spirit.
     Jesus had a clear sense of priorities. A person grasping after wealth was missing out on eternal riches. Most spiritual paths have tended to raise concern over those who emphasize the physical over the spiritual. A Hindu fable ends with the comment that those who live only for bread will do anything to attain it.
     One wonders if the man wanting his share of the his father’s property understood, or rejected the teaching. Certainly, Christians have not always had a comfortable relationship with the physical world. Responses range from ascetics who reject all physical pleasure or comfort, to those who have convinced themselves that being a Christians is a path and justification for affluence.
     It is true that Jesus’ words can be taken in more than one way. He doesn’t necessarily say that wealth and spiritual riches are necessarily exclusive. That is, perhaps someone can be rich in both ways. The dangers of it are clear--the temptation to forget priorities in the pursuit of worldly gain. On the other extreme, few Christians have gone the path of someone like Mother Teresa, and many feel a sense of spiritual angst in observing that sort of consecration.
      It is not a subject that is or should be easily resolved.

What is your relationship with money?
If you were brutally honest with yourself, how important is physical wealth to you?
Would your attitude toward worldly security lead you to be blind to the treasure of Jesus standing in front of you?

Luke 12:4-13

     Please Note:  After today, the Bible Study will be taking a 2-week break - and will be back on May 4.   
    No doubt because of the gathering enmity, Jesus talks about priorities to his disciples. At this point he may also be addressing the crowds who’ve come to hear him. They need to keep priorities straight. Ones who can hurt or kill the body can do nothing more than that. They need to keep their eyes on eternity and the one who presides over it. Though he uses a fearful image of hell here, he goes on to speak of the more tender compassion of God watching over the sparrows that from a human aspect are sold for almost nothing. Even the hairs on a perso’s head are counted by God. He ends this little teaching by saying they should not be afraid, for people are of more value than many sparrows
    Note the use of the image of fear. Jesus spoke of “fearing” God who has charge of eternity, yet a few sentences later tells them not to be afraid. There are, of course, two kinds of fear. There is the kind we feel at pain or loss or approaching danger or disaster. But fear as the bible speaks of it in relation to God is something different. Respect and aw are closer in meaning here. In other words, we should feel tremendous respect and breathless awe for the lord who made heaven and earth, and who presides over eternity. But we need not tremble with any other kind of fear because of that. We are valuable to that same God.
     Jesus promises to represent his followers to God. His words are difficult to understand about forgiving those who speak against him but not those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, especially as elsewhere the impression is given that a loving God is prepared to welcome and love the returning sinner. One scholar suggests that the attitude of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is to be in a state in which no forgiveness is wanted nor could it be communicated to such a person. That might more sense in the context of the larger picture of God’s love. A person might voluntarily separate him/herself from God and forgiveness would mean nothing to this person in that state. But if the state would change, (as in the prodigal who came home) then a new possibility might present itself.
     Jesus goes on to speak of what seems to be another subject, related only by its connection to the Holy Spirit. When brought before the powerful of the world, they should not worry about what to say, because the Holy Spirit will teach them in that hour how to respond. In its own way, these words of Jesus are equally challenging. Many who have faced a difficult question or confrontation on their faith look back and wish the answers had come more easily and had been more effective or meaningful. Although Jesus could have been directing these words solely to his first set of disciples and the special challenges they would face, it seems unlikely it would have been recorded in the bible if that was the case. We generally have a conviction that what Jesus said to his first followers applies to all those who have sought to be his disciples.
     It is all right to have questions and not neatly package up something from the Bible as ‘understood and dealt with.’ In fact, nothing should be--we should always remain open for further growth and understanding. A passage we never “got” may suddenly gain meaning in certain situations. A passage we have loved but thought had nothing new for us may come to challenge us or raise new questions. It is a process of growth. One of the possible ways to approach these particular words is to remember that we can’t anticipate the times Jesus was saying his followers would meet. Our answers in such situations can’t be canned or said by rote. We can only prepare by trying to grow in God’s spirit and trusting in God rather than ourselves.

What things are fearful to you?
How do you discern the activity of God’s spirit in your life?

Luke 12:1-3

     What Jesus said to the Pharisees was in a private home, though the dinner party likely wasn’t private in the way we think of privacy. Scholars tell us that in a situation where such a dinner was held with a guest like Jesus, the home was open for people to come and listen to the dinner conversation. No doubt it was a mark of distinction if your home was a popular spot for those who wanted to be aware of the intellectual life of the community. And it probably added to the ire of the Pharisees that Jesus’ criticisms of them were not kept for their ears alone.
     Now Jesus has left the home, the Pharisees are looking for ways to catch him up, and the crowds have gathered in large numbers to see him. Jesus speaks first to his disciples, telling them to beware of the “yeast” of the Pharisees. They had not, apparently, been invited to dine along with Jesus, although some of them likely did join those who stood on the edge of the room to listen. But Jesus’ warning gives the impression that others may not have been there, and perhaps without thinking were considering Jesus’ presence in the prominent Pharisee’s house as a climb up the social scale for the ministry. Perhaps they thoug ht it was, by extension, a mark of distinction for them. But Jesus did not want them led astray by hypocrisy, which was common amongst many Pharisees. He told them that things that are hidden or covered and anything secret will become known. He applies it to the disciples saying that anything they have said in the dark will be heard in the light, anything they have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the rooftops.
     Jesus was not all about pointing fingers at other people. It’s easy to talk about other people’s hypocrisy and forget your own. Jesus seems to be seeking to guard his disciples against it by reminding them that you can’t count on anything remaining unknown. If there is something disjointed between what they claim to believe, and what they actually do, then they also will be discovered to be hypocrites.
      There was a time when Christians wanted to guard themselves against charges of hypocrisy or self-righteousness. There was an attempt by any Christians to prove that they were just like other people and didn’t consider themselves any better. One way some did that was to let their public behavior reach some of the lower common denominators. But the effort to prove they were no different from other people as Christians inevitably raises another question. Why be a Christian if Christians are no different from other people? Jesus called his followers to follow--not the standards of other people--but a higher internal one. It isn’t about being better than other people, but about continually becoming a better person than you were the day before.
     One of the more modern definitions of integrity is doing the right thing even when no else knows you are doing it. The words of Jesus here tell us he could approve of that definition.

If someone called you a hypocrite, how would you respond?
Has the hypocrisy of “Christians” ever bothered you?
Have you known people who used the hypocrisy of Christians/church-goers as an excuse to avoid church or active faith involvement?
What efforts do you make to lessen the hypocrisy in your own life and actions?

Luke 11:36-54

     A Pharisee invites Jesus to a meal and Jesus seems to court controversy and conflict. Upon arriving at the home, he does not do the ceremonial washing that was customary at the time. The Pharisee notes this with surprise. Although Luke doesn’t tell us that the host comments, Jesus responds in any case. His words are bold saying that the Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and plate, but inside there was nothing but greed and wickedness.
     It is hard not to wonder if part of the story has here been left untold, since the launch into woes to the Pharisees comes so fast and with seemingly little provocation from the man who had invited Jesus to dinner.
     For Christians, “Pharisee” is a symbol of opposition to Jesus, for hypocrisy and enmity to the truth of God. Yet, this may not be a completely accurate picture of the time or their relationship with Jesus. There are some scholars who have speculated upon whether Jesus began himself as a Pharisee, but came to call them to account for their religious and spiritual faults and abuses. This would raise particularly negative emotions on the part of the Pharisees since it would have come off as disloyalty and ‘treason from within.’ There is no evidence, however, so this remains speculation. It is known that the Pharisees were largely responsible for sustaining the faith of Israel through and after the fall of Jerusalem and is remembered positively for the part it played. And it should be remembered that there were Pharisees who believed in Jesus.
     That isn’t to minimize pharisaic abuses and problems. The religious elite of Jesus’ day were often elitist. The ritualistic part of Jewish life was often emphasized far out of proportion than it should have been. If a person didn’t have the time (working class) or the money (again, the poor and the working class) to maintain all the rituals, such as ritual cleansing, then they were often defined by the Pharisees as sinners and unacceptable.
     It is a temptation of religious minded people to emphasize rules and outward regulations or some other specific issue when under duress or other forms of stress. Christians today sometimes pinpoint one or two issues, neglecting many other things Jesus called us to do in the same way. It is easier to define who is acceptable if there is a simple yardstick. But Jesus tended to avoid these. It was that we can be satisfied with a simple seven times forgiving our neighbors, instead should forgive a ridiculously large number of times (implying a number too large to count). It is spiritual and moral cleanliness on the inside, instead of rituals on the outside. Jesus accused the Pharisees of using the tithe of herbs and spices as the measurement, while neglecting justice and the love of God. Why couldn’t they do both?
      Jesus is not here rejecting rituals or things like the tithe. He would himself follow them in a wholesome manner, not for the sake of a rule, but become the ritual can be a healthy and wholesome aid to the spiritual journey.
     To emphasize the appearance of faith with nothing on the inside backing it up is hollow and dangerous. Jesus said the Pharisees liked the places of honor, but they are like unmarked graves.
     At this point, the lawyers got annoyed and spoke up, feeling they’d been insulted as well. And Jesus said it was no better with them. They load people with terrible burdens and give no aid to help people bear it. They are no different than their ancestors who murdered the prophets (who also called Israelites to repentance).
      It is controversies such as these that got people mad enoughto want Jesus dead. No one likes being called a hypocrite. No one wants to be told that their way of doing things has gone off the tracks of what it should be.
     What those who stereotype the Pharisees (and lawyers) of these biblical controversies is that if they didn’t care on some level about being right with God, they probably wouldn’t have been so offended. But it is also instructive that even those who do have this desire can still be on the wrong track in how they act upon it. Is it any wonder that Jesus spent so much time on the sins of self-righteousness and judgmentalism? These are the sins of the religiously inclined - including Christians.
      Sadly, rather than taking his words to heart and seeing to their own faults, these Pharisees and lawyers became his enemies, trying to trap him with his own words.

Who are the “Pharisees” of our world & church today?
How much “Pharisee” lies within you?
For what would Jesus call us to account today?

Luke 11:33-35

     Jesus begins here by pointing out the obvious truth that no one lights a lamp just to hide it in a cellar; you light a lamp and put it on a lampstand so everyone can see its light. In the Sermon on the Mount as recorded by Matthew, Jesus said something similar to this occasion, but used the image of hiding the light under a bushel (bushel is the familiar translation, though, for example, the New English Bible uses “meal tub.”). Some translations of Luke show Jesus saying you don’t light a lamp to put in a cellar or a bushel. The second image, of hiding one’s light under a bushel has become proverbial, even for people who are unfamiliar with the bible.
     Jesus then relates light to the eye. The body’s lamp is the eye. When the eye is sound the whole body is full of light and the opposite is true as well, when the eye isn’t sound, the body is in darkness. Therefore don’t let the light in you be darkness.
      Verse 36 is left out of some ancient manuscripts. It points out that if the whole body is fully light, it will be wholly bright, etc. One scholar suggest there is a mistranslation from the ancient Aramaic and it should say “then all about you will be light.” This would accord with Jesus’ use of the same imagery in the sermon on the mount, that the light we carry can give light to those around us.
     It may be no wonder that the first image has become used as a metaphor or proverb, yet this portion is less so. While seemingly obvious, it has subtleties that need deeper examination, although the first statement shouldn’t be passed over as easily as it sometimes is, either.
      Jesus is not talking about physical blindness (and he certainly isn’t judging anyone who is physically blind), though it probably does relate in his discussion, because sight makes use of light and light is unavailable to the one who is blind. But Jesus is certainly pressing for a more spiritual discussion. Jesus seems to be warning against spiritual blindness. On another occasion he also spoke of “blind guides” amongst the spiritual leaders of his people. Luke will next record a controversy in which Jesus speaks a number of “woes” to the Pharisees, a group which largely (though not entirely) was in opposition to him.
     Spiritual blindness is still prevalent. Ironically, many religious folks of today tend to disagree on what constitutes blindness, or rather, in what subjects are some blind while others see the truth. John Wesley tried to cut through that by finding union through love for Jesus while letting Christians disagree in other matters.
     Jesus had the right to look at others and suggest they need to be more careful about discerning the light. His followers should be cautious in doing the same. And witness should not be confused here with argument, which can become judgmental. A person may assume that it is witness when he/she goes out to convince others of their understanding of the truth. But the light a Christian bears is not from peripheral matters, but the love of God and the good news of Jesus. Jesus was gracious, in the Sermon on the Mount to say his followers were the light of the world. But we know that his followers are only bearers of light (and sometimes poorly) and the source is from God.
      Barclay concentrates also upon the individual, suggesting we look at ways that we have allowed the inner light to be darkened. Have our hearts become hard, dull or rebellious?

How do you discern the light within?
What is it that keeps you perception and transmission of light from being completely sound?
As Holy Week begins, what does the stark pain of the cross say to you?

Luke 11:29-32

     This is going up a day early, due to a District Meeting tomorrow.  Scroll down for last week's study.


     This could have been at the same time Jesus talked of the evil spirits, or could refer to another time. We hear that when the crowds were increasing he began to say that this generation is evil, it seeks for a sign. In Matthew, he is asked specifically for a sign. The answer is the same. The only sign that will be given is the sign of Jonah. In the way Jonah became a sign to the people of Ninevah, the son of Man will be a sign to this generation.
     Today, some people interpret the reference to Jonah as referring to Jonah’s three days inside the fish. That is, Jonah spent three days inside a fish and Jesus will spend three days inside a tomb.
     Yet these aspects of the stories do not otherwise relate to each other.
     Jonah was inside a fish because he was reluctant to do the will of God and preach repentance to his enemy (for fear that his enemy might repent and God would forgive them). So he tried to run away from God and the days inside the fish were to teach him obedience. After being spit up on shore, he reluctantly goes to Ninevah, gives a brief message and hopes for fire and brimstone. Instead, the people repent and God relents.
     Jesus would spend three days inside a tomb after he was crucified. While he would have preferred not facing the cross, and prayed that he might not, he nonetheless said he’d do whatever God willed. So it is hard in this context, to connect Jonah and the resurrection. Jesus himself did not do so. He said that the Son of Man will be to this generation as Jonah was to the people of Ninevah (who hadn’t known about the fish at all.)
     Jesus would more appear to be saying that repentance is the key. That is a less popular concept for some religious people, especially today, and the non-religious folks of today might regard it as archaic concept. Yet even psychiatry has recognized the need of people to deal with their past, what others have done with them and what they have chosen to do themselves.
     Repentance is not simply feeling bad over what we’ve done (and all respect to the movies, love doesn’t erase the need to say we’re sorry). To repent means being sorry and choosing to do things differently. There’s a story of a brother and sister and the brother kept hitting his little sister. She’d cry and he’d quickly say ‘I’m sorry, don’t cry.” But he’d do it again and again. Finally, when she was crying, and their mother was coming, he frantically said he was sorry and didn’t she believe he was sorry. Her answer? “When are you going to be sorry enough to stop hitting me?” Her answer could apply to situations of domestic violence, but to all situations requiring repentance. That is, repentance means being sorry enough to stop doing it. But, to apply the earlier parable (last week’s study) about the evil spirit, perhaps we should add that repentance could mean stopping, but then putting a positive action and attitude in place so that the impulse to do something bad will have no welcome.
     Jesus combined his imagery about Jonah with a reference to the Queen of the South. This would be Sheba, generally identified as having come from Ethiopia to hear the wisdom of Solomon. While many in Jesus generation are not listening to someone in their midst, the Queen came many miles to hear someone who was even less wise than Jesus. If the people of Ninevah where on the jury, they’d hardly be impressed. They’d repented at the preaching of Jonah and many were ignoring something far greater than Jonah.


How have you heard or understood the word, repentance in the past?
What do you think people in today’s world would think of it?
It’s been said that one goal of psychiatry is to free people from the tyranny of the past. Regarding some aspects of a person’s life, could repentance do the same?
In a world in which many people are ignoring Jesus, or treating his truth in a trivial manner, how can committed Christians share the message in a way that people can understand his relevance?

Luke 11:24-28

     After talking of unclean spirits and who had the authority to deal with them, Jesus postulated a situation in which an unclean spirit has been driven out of a man. But the spirit goes here and there, but finds no rest. So it decides to return to its original home. There he finds it swept and put in order, so the spirit gets seven other spirits even worse than himself and they enter the man so that his later condition is worse than the first.
     This is an odd story. One commentator says it could simply be a warning to those who’ve been healed to be on guard against the danger of relapse. But it could also be a parable. In Matthew it is linked with a comment that the people’s response to Jesus will only be temporary. But in Luke (and Jesus could have told stories at many occasions, applying them differently), there is a sense that when an evil spirit has been driven out, it is not enough to simply put things in order. A beneficial and new dynamic has to occupy the empty space. (This could be applied to church life. Churches sometimes concentrate on fixing the negative things that bother people, but may not give enough attention to creating positive programs or attitudes that make the negative less powerful.) At the very least, in a world that wants quick fixes and easy answers, this story can remind us that few things are that easy and taking that kind of approach can lead to greater problems down the road.
     The idea of evil spirits aside, this story might be applied to any situation where choices are made to get rid of something negative.
      At this point, a woman in the crowd has been listening and is impressed with Jesus. She shouts out a compliment, couched as awareness of how blessed the mother of Jesus is to have such a son. It would be phrased differently today, more likely as saying it outright, ‘your parents must be proud.’ (It is hard not to be imaginative, particularly with the woman’s more elaborate statement. Was she a mother whose child had gone on a negative path and she was experiencing some angst as she looked at Jesus. Or was she a new mother, with a child at her breast and thinking how her own little one would turn out?
     Whatever the woman’s particular condition, Jesus turned it around into a teaching, as he so often did. Blessed is his mother? A mere physical relationship is not enough. Admiring someone isn’t enough. The real and greater blessedness is found in those who hear God’s word and keep it.

Have you ever known someone who made a good decision, then backslid to worse than they were before?
What could they have done that might have helped them end in a better place?
As Jesus wisely linked hearing and doing, where in your life can that link be discerned?