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?