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?

Luke 11:14-26

     Luke tells us that Jesus was driving out demons (or devils). He mentions this in passing because the point of the story is the controversy which follows. We are told that the demon was dumb and when it had been driven out, the dumb man began to speak.
     The modern world often interprets a story such as this to some physical cause. The people then believed it was a demon; in fact it must have sometimes seemed as if there was no other possible explanation for certain psychological and physical conditions.
     Whether or not you believe in demon possession, the controversy that followed was over where Jesus gained his power and authority. Some of the onlookers figured it was from Beelzebub, prince of devils and that’s why he could drive out demons. Other people wondered whether it could be from God, but demanded Jesus give them a sign to prove it one way or the other.
     Jesus understood human nature and made the ironic comment that a kingdom divided against itself falls, which is exactly what would be the case if his power had come from evil. And if his power had come from evil, then what of those whom they trusted who also drove out demons But if what Jesus did was from God, then the kingdom of God was already upon them.
      He goes on to postulate a military situation, when a man is guarding his household. It is the stronger man who can overcome and take the treasure guarded by the first man. The logic of this comment was surely not lost on those who first heard it.
      Next words are among those that seem puzzling in context with other words he is reported as having said. He tells those listening that the one who is not with him was against him, and the one who does not gather with him, scatters. Yet earlier he had told his disciples that one who was not against them was on their side. Of course, in the one situation with his disciples he was apparently teaching tolerance, and in the other may have been defining the opposition against him.
     The words Jesus spoke that day, as recorded in Luke, were spoken in a time of gathering opposition. It seems possible that he was issuing a challenge to his opponents.  And his words sound almost like a proverb. Proverbs can carry meaning within their culture and time that are lost to those who were not part of it. (What would describing an attitude as “dog in a manger” mean to people not familiar with it?) Is it possible that there is a nuance of meaning we could be missing?
      Nonetheless, it does raise a question, what does it mean to be only neutral regarding Jesus?
      Certainly there are those who are indifferent. They may not know him, they may not have been introduced to him in such a way as to understand the difference he can make in their lives. Christians have too often presented a holier than thou attitude to the world, and have been experienced as judgmental and self-righteous to those who weren’t part of the Christian “in” crowd. In addition, we live in a world in which we know that inter-religious cooperation could make the difference between peace and destruction.
       So, how should these words be interpreted or made a part of the Christian message?
      Should they be understood as a specific response to a particular situation, with the more tolerant attitude earlier expressed as reflecting Jesus’ general response to those who are not his followers?
      Whether or not you regard "demons" as literal or figural, what are the demons you'd like to see run out of your life?