Luke 11:3

     Sorry, everyone, for the late post. 


     After teaching his disciples to pray for their daily bread, Luke tells us that Jesus taught them to ask forgiveness for their sins, linking it to the way they forgave those who sinned against them. In traditional renderings of the Lord’s prayer, the phrase is stated in two ways. “Forgive us or trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Some denominations say, forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors - the phrasing used in the musical rendition as well. The more modern ecumenical version states simply, forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us.
     In Matthew 6:9-13, we also hear how Jesus taught people to pray, this time taught as part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is where debts rather than trespasses or sins is used. Both variations have significant meaning. Trespasses or sins would include the harm we have done, and the harm directed at us. Debts would refer to the good we should have done and the good that someone might have failed to render toward us.
     Jesus definitely links what we ask for with our own willingness to offer the same to others. It is not a situation of quid pro quo--that is, Jesus wasn’t saying we can earn what we ask for, or deserve it. But he was concerned with spiritual health, and he knew that to ask for forgiveness without being willing to extend it to others, is to miss the meaning and power of grace. A commonly used image in past years in reference is the Dead Sea. Water flows into it, but not out. The salt has therefore built up and it can no longer sustain life. To ask for forgiveness without giving it is likened to asking to receive without giving.
     Jesus doesn’t want us to live a life that circles only into ourselves. God didn’t make us for that kind of life. God made us for community and love and mutual support.
     The prayer of Jesus thereby seeks to turn out hearts to our neighbor, even our enemy. To forgive sins is to resolve conflict. In the version Jesus taught the people, we are reminded of the good we are supposed to do, and that which others are called to do as well. If the prayer for bread symbolizes talking with God about all that we need, perhaps the prayer for forgiveness is also about our service and discipleship.

What do you find hardest to forgive?
What good might you have done, yet failed to accomplish?

Luke 11:3

     Give us this day our daily bread.
     This request that Jesus taught his disciples to make is a reminder of the fact that God cares about our physical needs and that Jesus didn’t expect his followers to be unaware of that. The world and life in it is good; after all, God created it.
     The prayer Jesus taught may be understood as outline, or brief mentions of whole categories. Daily bread can be seen as representing all that is needed for the needs of physical life. Luther, according to one scholar said that to pray for daily bread was to pray for that which is needed to have and enjoy one’s daily bread. And, at the same time, it is to pray against everything that interferes with enjoying it.
      As we pray for daily bread, perhaps we are praying for the storekeeper who brings the bread or flour, for the truck driver who delivers it, the miller who grinds it, the farmer who grows the wheat, the fields lying under the sky.
     Of course, this study is being written in a land of abundance. Many people in this world of abundance are often more worried about how their daily bread is affecting their waistlines, than they are about having it in the first place. In the United Methodist Women’s study, Food and Faith, from a few years ago, it was pointed out that simplicity of eating was most common through most of human history. For special occasions humans feasted, but the rest of the time, fare was simple, even sparse. But in today’s affluent societies, “feasting” happens every day and we have lost the understanding of it, having to amp up what we have continuously in order to have the sensation of feasting.

What does this say in a world in which there are still people whose daily bread is seriously in question? Should this portion of the prayer call upon us to look at the difference between need and want?
How often are the two confused in this society?

Luke 11:1-2

     Jesus must have had a dynamic prayer life. Observing it. The disciples came to him that day and asked him to teach them how to pray. Jesus proceeded to teach them what we have come to call the Lord’s Prayer, simply because it’s the prayer he taught. It is likely that he was not trying to institute a particular set of words, but to do what the disciples asked - teach them how to pray. The prayer he taught includes brief statements that he may have intended to point at subject matter.
     A significant moment for Moses was when he stood at the burning bush and asked God's name. He knew, of course, that this was divinity, holy beyond imagination. He was ready to do what God asked of him. But he wanted to be able to say something more to the Israelites than "this voice spoke to me out of a burning bush..." And the voice said to Moses "tell them that 'I AM' has sent you." That is probably about as much as we humans could handle in a name. After all, how do you sum up the infinite God in a name? God is. The Israelites took this name to heart. Later they wrote it down in what we call the sacred Tetragramaten. YHWH.
      The Israelites received the Ten Commandments. They heard that they should not take the name of the Lord in vain. The New Revised Standard Version translates it as "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God." However, there is something to be said about "not taking the Lord's name, specifically, "in vain." Merriam Webster's definition of "vain" is helpful. 1. devoid of worth or significance. Synonyms: empty, hollow, idle and a few I've never heard before like nugatory and otiose. Related words are profitless, unprofitable, useless, valueless, void, worthless, ineffective, ineffectual, fruitless, futile. To speak God's name in vain is not just swearing or using foul language. It is to speak God's name in ways that are empty, hollow and idle. It is to speak about God in ways that are profitless, useless, valueless, void, worthless, ineffectual, fruitless, and futile. To speak God's name in vain is to speak of God with as little thought as we give to the rug we walk upon. To pop pebbles idly into a pool, with no purpose and no profit. It is to take the holy out of God's name and person.
     The Israelites were faithful to the commandment. You might even say they went overboard in their faithfulness. Eventually, they forbade anyone to ever speak the name of God aloud. Instead, they used titles such as Lord or king. They wrote the name down. YHWH. No vowels. Everyone knew what the vowels were and it was always necessary to save space, so the vowels were left out of all ancient manuscripts. Of course, after a few centuries of never speaking God's name out loud, and given a few wars, changes of language and other difficulties, no one now knows how to pronounce God's name or what the original vowels were. The written name was also revered. Any bit of writing that contained the name of God was saved. Even a schoolboy's practice copying from the scriptures was preserved. There was a medieval synagogue that was excavated some years ago. In a special vault under the floor were centuries of scraps of paper. Saved, because they held the name of God and you don't casually set aside anything having to do with the most holy.
      Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
      Some scholars suggest that Jesus did not intend this statement to hang by itself. A few phrases later we hear, "on earth as it is in heaven." The scholars would say Jesus was pointing to a condition "hallowed be thy name on earth as it is in heaven." Or in other words, "may we humans hold your name holy in our minds and hearts. May we never speak of you fruitlessly or pointlessly." And, if we really mean the prayer, it calls upon us to live in ways which hallow God's name -- that those who see the name of God connected with our lives will know that it has meaning, because our lives will be evidence of it. A witness to those for whom God is simply a word which slips out thoughtlessly when they hit their thumb with a hammer. A testimony to those who do not take God into account as the authority for their lives. A light for those who do not understand that God is a loving parent who will eagerly, gladly give meaning and purpose and hope to living. Pray then, and live, in this way: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name."
   
Aside from the obvious response (profanity) In what ways is the name of God not kept holy in today’s world?

How can we live in such a way that God’s name appears as holy to the people around us?

Luke 10:29-42

      Another thing to note about the story of the Good Samaritan is to reflect back to the event Luke recorded in chapter nine. There, a Samaritan village had refused hospitality to Jesus and his disciples. John and James had wanted to call down fire upon the Samaritans, but Jesus had rebuked them. (Some translations say he also said, for the Son of man came not to destroy human lives, but to save them). Now, a short time later, Jess is telling a story where a Samaritan came out as the good guy of the tale. (Imagine his sideways glance at James and John).
     After all this Jesus proceeded to a village where he stayed with a woman named Martha. She rushed about to provide hospitality while her sister, Mary, sat at Jesus’ feet listening to the conversation. Martha came in and asked Jesus to tell her sister to come and help. Jesus noted her distraction with many details, added a comment that there was only one thing that was necessary. Finally he said that Mary had chosen the better part which would not be taken away from her.
     This story is one that often provoke people to feel uncomfortable. Many women, in particular, feel torn between the practical needs of life and the spiritual one. And the story has frequently been interpreted as a judgment against those individuals who deal with the tasks of daily life. Martha has been sometimes seen as fussy, unimaginative, a-spiritual and dull.
      Yet other stories of Martha indicate the opposite and should be taken into account when evaluating this event. She was intelligent—Jesus had theological discussions with her in which she understood truth faster than most people he talked with. She was unselfish – when her brother had died, she met Jesus on the road and would no doubt have preferred to stay at his side, yet she went back to get her sister so Mary could also be with Jesus. She was a generous hostess.
      No, Martha wasn’t perfect. She had a temper and shouldn’t have embarrassed her sister in front of a group of men. (It’s true that Mary might have been more thoughtful about the work Martha was doing to provide for an unexpected large group of visitors). Martha may have been over-doing, yet given the sacredness of hospitality in those times, we can understand how difficult it would be for her to keep it simple. Some scholars speculate that this is what Jesus meant when he said that only one thing was needed—that they didn’t need anything fancy.
      Jesus was not saying that attending to the needs of people was wrong. On the night he was arrested, he even washed the feet of his disciples.
      The idea that Jesus was praising the contemplative life in favor of the active life was the opinion of Luther, who once commented that Jesus was saying that Martha’s work must be punished and regarded as worthless while he only wanted that of Mary, which is faith. Luther, of course, was interpreting Mary and Martha with the bias of the controversies of his time. The church was going through abuses in which people believed they could by purchasing indulgences or otherwise earn God’s grace. It became an issue of works versus faith, and Luther was promoting faith.
      But it is unfair to look at Mary and Martha only through the telescope of an ancient controversy. Taken to extreme it would cut out service, which is a clear hallmark of Christian life.
      One commentator points out that Martha’s work is repeatedly described as diakonia. This later became a technical term for service at the Lord’s table, proclaiming the good news and providing leadership in the church. Since diakonia is presented as a positive in every other place it is used in the New Testament, it seems highly unlikely that Martha’s work was seen or interpreted as a mistaken or wrong choice.
     Martha’s problem was not the nature of her work, but the attitude with which she was performing it that day. Her mistake is the same that everyone makes—doing the right thing with the wrong attitude.
      Few people can have the luxury of a life that is only contemplative, and if they do, it is provided by the hard work of many Marthas. Most people struggle, rather, to find the right balance between contemplative and active time/activities.

Have you ever felt “judged” by this story of Martha and Mary?
How do you balance your time for service and for contemplative activities?
It is unfair that Martha is remembered most for one of her less positive moments. If you were to be remembered for that, what would it be?  If you were remembered for your best, what would that be? 

Ouch!  If a bible study doesn't get loaded tomorrow - or this Saturday, it's because of some more computer issues.  Technology - love and also hate it!  We'll get back to the study as soon as possible.  In the meantime - the youth had a great weekend.  Please continue in prayer for them as they grow in the journey of faith.

Post for 1-12-13 delayed

The Bible Study for this Saturday, January 12, 2013, may be delayed a few days due to a youth event that five our our young members are attending - along with this blogger!  Please pray for these wonderful young people, that their faith may be enriched.

Luke 10:21-37

     Following the return of the seventy, with all of their success stories, Jesus gave a prayer of great joy, that God had not used the wise and intelligent, but revealed truth to infants.
     In today’s world we laud the wise and intelligent; in Jesus’ time, it would have been no different. It is natural to look for, hope for, and honor those who may have a greater ability or wisdom to deal with the difficult issues that complicate our lives or the times in general. But Jesus is lauding the fact that Jesus didn’t work through these, but those who stood outside the group of those considered to be learned and able. As far as we can tell, the initial followers of Jesus were working men and women. True, the average man in Israel had a better chance of being able to read than in the pagan population, but these followers were not wealthy; they didn’t have the time or resources to devote to extensive study.
     We could wonder, why didn’t God use the scholars, the wise intelligent people who would have been respected for their opinions? And there were surely some of these who believed in Jesus—there are hints here and there that some did believe. But the real power of the movement first came from people who didn’t have those credentials.
     But do the wise depend first upon the foolish truths of God, or upon their abilities? It may depend upon how you define the word. The truly wise will look to God, whether it makes sense to their scholarly minds or not.
     After saying his prayer, Jesus turned to the disciples and said they were blessed because of what they had seen. There had been kings and prophets who had desired it but hadn’t seen what they were seeing, and hadn’t heard what they were hearing. By these words, it would seem that Jesus might not be cutting out anyone in the class of those considered socially more advanced or even learned. Many had hoped for it. The fact that they had hoped for it honors their desire, perhaps even an ability to appreciate it.
       We can speculate widely. We could ask whether God wanted truth to be kept in scholarly circles or to be made accessible to everyone. We could ask whether God wanted a faith of the heart or of the mind only. In the end, we can’t argue with results. The good news came powerfully to people who didn’t filter it through their logic or their scholarly information; it came to people who embraced it and offered the good news to the world.
     Jesus was emphasizing that the moment was at hand. What others in the past had longed for was actually happening.
       But one of the “learned” people in the crowd had to put in his two cents worth. The lawyer stood up to “test” Jesus and ask what he must do to achieve eternal life. Jesus asked in essence for his scholarly mind to bear on the subject. What does the law say?
       The lawyer shared what was central in Jewish religious law. This is the Shema, to love God and to love neighbor. Jesus affirmed the answer and said to do it—this was all that was necessary.
     But the lawyer could not resist arguing the matter. Wanting to “justify” himself, he asked who his neighbor was. This is more than a matter of semantics, although that is an argument often pursued by scholars. On the definition of “neighbor” rests a whole lot of the law. If our neighbor is just the people we like, who look like us or approve of us, the law becomes easy to follow. If our “neighbor” includes people who annoy us, are annoyed by us, or who otherwise don’t like or treat us well, then the ‘golden rule’ is much harder to follow.
      Jesus answered by telling a story. It is one of his best known stories. Even those who don’t know the story have heard and likely used the phrase, “a good Samaritan.” In the end, Jesus asked the lawyer who proved to be a good neighbor to the proper Jewish individual, and the lawyer had to admit it was the despised Samaritan rather than the good and proper priest and Levite. Jesus showed more interest in how neighborly a person was than in narrowly defining to whom we should act neighborly.

Does your logic or learning ever clash with your faith?
How do you see the place of logic and scholarship in the world of faith today?