Sunteți pe pagina 1din 21

Jerome

H.
University of Notre Dame

Neyrey,

S.J.

1st Baptism - C (Luke 3:15-16, 21-22)


According to Luke, John the Baptizer functions as an evangelist because his
remarks about Jesus can be considered a form of preaching the good news
(3:17). This puts him in company with previous figures in the gospel who had the
same message. Looking back, we can now see how Luke has described the
progress of Gods gospel in the world, first to Mary by Gabriel, then to the
shepherds by angels, to Mary and Joseph by Simeon and Anna, and now to the
crowds by John, who is both prophet and herald. Johns good news is about the
presence at the Jordan river of a peasant artisan from Nazareth, namely, Jesus.
Some onlookers who examine Johns powerful preaching and his purification
rites think of him as the Messiah, a figure who in Israels writings could just as
well be a prophet, priest or king according to contemporary literature. No, John
does not have that role; he is, however, the herald of the One to Come. His entire
career, he tells us, has been to witness to this. John declares that the Coming One
is mightier than himself, which suggests that he will do mighty deeds requiring
Gods power, such as the casting out of demons. Moreover, as noble as John is in
terms of status and role, the Coming One is infinitely superior, so much so that
John is unworthy to be his slave, that is, to bend down and loose his sandal.
Finally, whereas John employed water for his purification rites, the Coming One
will cleanse with two opposite substances, water and fire. John, then, uses the
language of prestige to describe Jesus as one who wields Gods exclusive power
in his cleansing from evil and sin.
In Lukes story we often find incidents stitched together by a literary technique
called prophecy - fulfilment. Something predicted, either in the Old Testament
or more recently by a prophet, is eventually fulfilled. This point of view
underscores Gods reliability in the events of salvation history. Things both
ancient and modern occur which dramatize Gods ongoing providence. Here, the
prophecy of John is immediately fulfilled. But it happens quite differently than
the crowds would expect. Innocently enough, Jesus steps into the water and is
baptized along with other penitents seeking purification. But in contrast with
them, he comes up from the river and is praying when a great theophany of
God occurs. A theophany is the term used to describe the appearance of God to
figures like Moses at the bush and on Sinai, or to prophets such as Isaiah. Luke,

of all the evangelists, constantly presents Jesus as praying. By this he suggests


that Jesus always seeks the face of God and constantly strives to learn Gods
word and will. Here, we are told, God gave him a most dramatic and surprising
response to his prayer. First, God split the heavens open to signal that Gods
world was communicating with our earthly one. From this heavenly world
descended the Holy Spirit in bodily form, as a dove upon Jesus -- a singular
gift of empowerment. Finally Gods voice spoke, honoring Jesus and
commissioning him. The content of the heavenly voice resembles the
commissioning given the Israelite kings according to Ps 2 and also the
authorization of the Servant in Isa 42. The point is clear: God commissions Jesus
by virtue of this ritual. God validates and authorizes Jesus with power for the
career of a prophet.
When we look back in the Scriptures to other times that God has appeared to
people, most of them function as the official commission or authorization for
special roles and tasks. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, for
example, begin their new roles and take up their new tasks only after God
appears to them to authorize them. Thus, temporally, the baptism of Jesus should
be seen as the beginning of Jesus career; no wonder the Church has made it the
head of ordinary time. The Church understands this theophany of Jesus as his
commissioning and the inauguration of his new role and status. Turning his back
to Nazareth, he turns his face to the world.
2nd - (John 2:1-12)
John labels this as the first sign that Jesus performed. Usually the first of any
series contains motifs, themes and phrases which continually arise as the
narrative unfolds. It is, then, programmatic for reading the rest of the narrative.
First, then, we note that the miracle at Cana is the first sign by Jesus which
manifests his power and glory. It will be followed by other signs such as the
healing of the royal officials son (4:46-54), the healing of the paralytic at the
pool (5:1-9), the multiplication of loaves (6:1-14), the healing of the man born
blind (9:1-12) the raising of Lazarus (11:28-44) and so forth (see 20:30-31). Here
is important evidence why Jesus disciples who observe Jesus power should
bond themselves in loyalty to Jesus; here are his credentials and a sample of what
his career is about. Although prophets also multiplied food and even raised the
dead, Jesus as Christ, Son of God proves his identity by these signs and
convincingly demonstrates that I have come that you may have life, and have it

to the full. This miracle, like all of the other signs, serves as credentials for
Jesus; it is evidence and proof of his role and status.
Two other programmatic features are contained here. First, we observe a contrast
between people not in the know (steward and groom) and those in the know
(the servants). Throughout the gospel, we will see characters considered not in
the know (Nicodemus, the man at the pool, Simon Peter) and praised for being
in the know (the man born blind; Mary Magdalene, the Beloved Disciple). This
criterion serves to indicate characters who are insiders (in the know) or ones
who are outsiders or weak members (not in the know). Second, a long
conversation takes place between the steward and the groom, neither of whom
know whence this fine wine comes. This programs readers to notice how time
and again people struggle to know whence Jesus comes and whither he goes.
Most see him only as the illiterate peasant artisan from Nazareth (he comes
from Joseph of Nazareth); but Jesus himself schools his disciples to know that he
comes from God and returns to God. Thus both knowing and knowing
whence Jesus comes or draws his power are two major themes introduced in
the story at Cana.
Imagine trying to stage this little drama! The interchange between Jesus and his
mother is anything by cordial; the request is noble, that is, to save the groom and
his family from great shame should the wine run out. It would seem that Mary,
and therefore Jesus, are related to the grooms family, possibly as cousins. But
Jesus reacts in a most un-Jesus manner; he effectively tells Mary to desist,
because he knows something that she does not know, namely, his hour. As curt
as this sounds, it may mean that Jesus demands that the rationale for a sign such
as this be exclusively in terms of his initiative and at his orchestration. After all,
he does finally do as requested. The second scene describes Jesus ordering the
water jars filled and their contents taken to the steward. We note that these jars
are for Jewish purification rituals; this suggests a broader meaning of Jesus
action than mere humanitarian concern. Jesus signals that the fluids he
provides are superior to those used in traditional rites. Just as Jesus will replace
the entrance ritual of circumcision with baptism, the Passover ceremony with the
true bread and drink, the various feasts of Israel with their perfect counterpart, so
too the daily rituals of washing and purification are superceded here by Jesus
purity rites. Finally, the third scene describes the conversation between the
steward of the servants and the groom. Unlike the servants, the steward does not
know whence the wine came; in this story such ignorance is not fatal, but it does
program us to the ongoing distinction between being in the know and not in

the know. But the climax of the drama comes with the stewards comment that
something most unusual is occurring: traditionally the first is best, but here the
best comes last. We all know Jesus remarks about last being first and least
becoming greatest. Thus something is being said about the legitimacy of Jesus
himself, the last of Israels prophets, now becoming the leader and first in the
new covenant.
The gospel here suggests several themes for development. 1. Seeing is believing,
maybe. Only spiritual openness will allow seers to grasp the source of goodness,
namely, God and Gods Anointed One. 2. Although all of us begin life not in the
know, God provides for us a host of clues to the divine presence in our lives; the
best way to become sympathetic to this is a life of openness to grace and
especially thanksgiving for what is found. 3. Replacement is a livelong theme:
we move from childhood to adolescence to maturity, and each step requires us to
grow and be shaped by Gods grace. Thus we leave the comfort of what is known
and stretch out to what is unknown. Yet grace assures us that the last is best.. 4.
And Jesus? Whence does he come? wither does he go? From God, of course, and
to God. All that he says and does serves to enrich his disciples and let them see
that he is a pulley raising them up to God. Todays gospel talks mostly about
whence both the wine and Jesus come; but if we grasp the sign before us, it will
point to Gods own wedding feast at which we are invited as honored guests.
Gods
wine
will
not
run
out
3rd - C (Luke1:1-14; 4:14-21)
Our gospel reading begins with the preface which Luke wrote to his narrative.
Like most histories in antiquity, it is dedicated to Lukes patron, who supported
him as he wrote this gospel. The patron is called Theophilus, or One who
loves God. Although Luke admits that many have undertaken to compile a
narrative of the Jesus movement, his effort claims to be superior in that it will be
orderly and will provide the truth of things which have been reported. This
tells us two things: unity of topic but diversity of the accounts. The Church uses
this preface as the beginning of our continuous reading of Luke during the
Sundays of ordinary time.
Lukes narrative of Jesus public life begins with the simple note that Jesus
returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, a clear reference to his baptismal
commissioning and his victorious temptations. Immediately he is famous, for
Luke says that a report about him spread throughout the region; this gives Jesus

the most precious commodity in antiquity: fame, reputation, and honor. He


taught, moreover, in the synagogues, as a person with public authority to speak,
another high honor. His teaching, moreover, caused him to be glorified. Thus,
as we begin, we note Jesus basic piety of attending synagogue and speaking a
bold word about God. And all approve of him, considering him observant and
zealous for the things of God. Shortly we will see that in another synagogue
where he speaks of Gods plan, he isnot respected or honored; on the contrary,
the members of that synagogue will try to kill him. This juxtaposition of Jesus
success and failure is a common feature of this gospel. Simeon, the prophet who
blessed the infant Jesus said: This child is set for the rise and fall of many in
Israel. And in todays and next Sundays gospels, we have the first instance of
this. The life of Gods Christ contains both rejection and vindication, shame and
honor, death and life.
When Jesus enters the synagogue at Nazareth, Luke remarks that it was Jesus
custom to observe the Sabbath; Jesus moreover knows the scroll of Isaiah. These
clues tell us that, even if Jesus later violates Israelite customs, he was raised in
the observant tradition. He is not some ignorant peasant who does not know
better. And as noted earlier, he is entrusted by the synagogue group to read and
speak to them, surely a very great honor. The fact that Jesus searches for a
specific passage from Isaiah further implies that he is learned in the Scripture.
Only Luke of all the gospels credits Jesus with literacy. He finds a special place
which in his interpretation describes his baptismal commissioning.
We recall Jesus empowerment by Gods spirit, which is echoed in Isaiah the
Spirit of the Lord is upon me...anointed me. His commission is to preach good
news (i.e., gospel) to the poor. He is further authorized to proclaim release to
captives. . .sight to the blind. . .liberty of the oppressed. Jesus baptism
commissioned him for special tasks, which were not specified then. But now we
have a clear and sharp description of Jesus ministry. First, it contains both
speaking good news and working liberating wonders. He is, then, a prophet
mighty in word and deed. His deeds, moreover, have the character of
emancipation or liberation from all human and spirit powers. Surely this refers to
his healings, raisings of the dead, and restorations to good social standing. We
ought to savor Jesus selection from Isaiah because it is a miniature of his whole
public career. We rejoice, moreover, in the utter gratuitousness of Jesus work: it
is purely and simply a gift from God, an acceptable year of the Lord.

Yet as we read this, let us keep in mind the typical form of most of Jesus public
events: controversy or challenge and riposte. Jesus here claims Gods
authorization at his baptism; he claims moreover that Isaiah spoke a prophecy,
which is today fulfilled in the hearing of the synagogue. He claims, then, a
special role and status which authorize him to speak and act with power. But
claims often are not accepted, which is where next Sundays gospel begins. Soon
to follow is the groups challenge to Jesus, his powerful response, and their
attempt to kill him. So, the inaugural event in Jesus life ends in failure. But that
does not cancel out the gospel about Jesus which is proclaimed here; after, he did
escape death here by the power of God, just as he will be vindicated after his
death on the cross.
4th - C (Luke 4:21-30)
Luke tells us that Jesus began his career in a most conventional manner: he
attended a synagogue as was his custom. Recognized as an elder, he is asked to
perform a significant public action, namely, to read from the Scripture to those
assembled and to comment on it. Only Luke tells us that Jesus could read, which
seems like most a remarkable thing for a peasant village artisan. Jesus opens
Isaiah, reads a description of healing and delivers the briefest of commentaries:
Today this is fulfilled in your midst. Luke often tells us of prophecies and
Scripture that are fulfilled, meaning by this to argue that Jesus is not outside of
Israels mainstream, but its aim and completion. Thus, Jesus legitimacy is
asserted and the bonds with Israels mainstream are drawn tighter. Gods
providence, moreover, is affirmed, which guides Israels history in its thirst for
freedom, healing and salvation. Jesus commentary on Israel is summed up in one
word,
Today.
.
.
Today the Scripture is fulfilled, just as we petition God for todays bread and
as the thief on the cross is promised paradise today. This represents a persistent
value orientation in Jesus world, maybe one of the most important. God alone
knows and orchestrates the future; the past contains the record of covenant
dealings with God and is predictive of what they should look like today. But
Jesus and his audiences live in the here-and-now. Salvation belongs to today.
But Jesus claim that Isaiahs words refer to him and to his mission finds no home
with the hearers. They become sarcastic and enraged at him. It helps us to
understand the conflict here if we recognize a common form of social conflict.
The ancients, both Greek and Judean, regularly describe scenes of conflict
according to a simple pattern: (a) claims are made to special worth or status, (b)

which cause envy and are contested or challenged, (c) which result in the
claimant taking action to defend himself and his claims, (d) the outcome of which
is judged by an observing public who declares the winner, either claimant or
challenger. Here Jesus makes a claim (Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your
hearing). This enrages the synagogue of his hometown, but why? The ancients
thought that all goods in life existed in finite amounts, whether gold, land, beauty,
respect, and so forth. Should someone increase in any of these, the rest were put
on notice that they are thus losing in the game of life as someone else gains. A
zero-sum game, then, where anothers success is invariably interpreted as my
loss. This way of perceiving means that claimants will surely be envied and
so challenged; they must be taken down a peg or cut down to size, and so the
prior balance will be restored. This is what the synagogue says to him: Jesus is
merely Josephs son, the offspring of a landless artisan, a person of no social
stature, and an arrogant claimant. Jesus in turn responds to the challenge, and in
such a way as to outrage the challengers with even greater claims.
Jesus cites as precedent for his actions the deeds two of Israels greatest prophets,
Elijah and Elisha. He notes that both performed great signs, Elijah miraculously
feeding a woman and Elisha presiding over the cleansing of a leper. Moreover,
and this is the explosive part, Elijah and Elisha both brought their powerful
blessings to non-Judeans. The widow who was fed lived in Zarephtha in the
land of Sidon, while Namaan a Syrian was cleansed. How is this a fitting riposte
to the synagogues challenge? How does this support and explain Jesus initial
claims? First, both Elijah and Elisha were prophets rejected by Israel, such that
the mark of a true prophet is to be rejected. Second, they are prophets, the very
same role and status claimed by Jesus when he read the scroll of Isaiah and to
which he was authorized in his baptism: he is a man of God filled with Spirit to
be mighty in word and deed. Third, as Elijah and Elisha brought Gods covenant
blessings to non-Judeans, so too Jesus will bring Gods gospel to people outside
of the tribes of Israel, who were previously excluded. This summary, moreover,
indicates that non-Judeans will share in the blessing thought to be the exclusive
property of Israel; and, as we noted about the perception of limited good,
Jesus audience now is doubly outraged and envious. They see their own special
place in Gods history as diminished by the admission of non-Judeans. No
wonder they want to kill Jesus!
The gospel message here points first of all to Jesus and the description of his role
as healer and savior. Like Isaiah, he is appointed by Gods spirit, which is the
source of his authorization and power. The scene of envy and outrage is hardly

good news to us, but it does indicate that from its beginning Jesus entire career
created such hostile reactions and will end with his enemies thinking they have
finally cut him down to size. Such is the fate of Israels prophets! Yet here as well
as there, we read that Gods providence protects him and rescues him from death.
So, this inaugural episode forms a bookend with Jesus passion: both reveal envy
so strong as to kill, and Gods faithfulness which rescues. This narrative, then,
truly is a gospel in miniature.
5th - C (Luke 5:15-26)
Todays gospel begins by describing a scene which is the fear of every public
speaker: the audience is filled with Pharisees and teachers of the law who have
come from every village of Galilee, Judea, and even Jerusalem. These are
Jesus mortal enemies and critics, who have come not to hear the good news he
speaks, but to spy on him and catch him in his speech. And they will not have
long to wait. We note that Jesus is teaching and the power of the Lord was with
him to heal. As Clopas later said of Jesus, he is a prophet mighty in word and
deed. With the arrival of the paralyzed man, the characters of the drama are
assembled.
A paralyzed man arrives and is immediately disappointed. He and the relatives
who carried him cannot get Jesus eye because the room where he teaches is
filled. They find a way by opening the roof over Jesus and lowering the paralytic
down before him. Jesus is impressed, and gives the paralyzed man a great
blessing: Your sins are forgiven. Now the spies have what they want, a
provocation that should discredit Jesus and perhaps cause his death: Who can
forgive sins but God only? For Jesus to claim a share in a power reserved
exclusively for God is to shame God by encroaching on Gods sovereignty. But
Jesus is never speechless before his critics, and poses a piece of logic by way of
response. We say talk is cheap, which applies here. If Jesus says your sins are
forgiven, what proof do we have that his word is effective and true? None,
frankly. There is no way to verify that. But if Jesus says arise, take up your bed,
walk, then this word can be verified. The paralytic will be healed, proof of
which is his immediate standing and walking. Jesus, then, chooses to say the hard
word, the word of healing. He does this, we are told, to declare a seemingly
incredible truth: the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. The
word of healing argues that he has also the word of forgiveness too, in the sense
that if one can do the harder task, one is able to do the lesser one also. Thus, this
prophet mighty in word and deed has added another arrow to his quiver. God as

authorized him to forgive sins, with the result that all previous rites, sacrifices,
etc. for forgiving sin are relativized. One needs only contact Jesus.
If we attend to the pattern in which the drama unfolds, we can learn a clue to
reading all of the conflicts of Jesus. The ancient world has been described as a
most agonistic world, a place of push and shove, challenge and riposte. A person,
like Jesus, makes a claim to some power or honor (Your sins are forgiven),
which threatens and infuriates others, who challenge the claim (Only God can
forgive sins). Once challenged, the only honorable thing is to respond, which
Jesus does by the game of the provable/unprovable word. Such confrontations are
always before some public, who watch the contest and award victory to one and
shame to the other. The crowds applaud Jesuss convincing victory by glorifying
God and by praising Jesus actions to the skies.
A gospel like this can be seen in many lights. Jesus teaches, but he is also
passionately sensitive to the physical needs of people. After all, he is a prophet
mighty in word and deed. This story reminds us that Jesus was given many
mighty powers at his baptism; he is the one who purifies with water and fire.
Hence the forgiveness of sins here has been predicted back at his commissioning.
Recall that in 4:18 Jesus read from Isaiah a passage about his anointing with
Spirit for the purpose of liberating and healing. All such materials come into full
bloom here. Moreover, the Paschal future of Jesus is never lost sight of; although
Jesus gains the victory here, we all know that his envious enemies will rise up
finally to crush him.
6th - C (Luke 6:17, 20-26)
When we take up Lukes version of the great Sermon of Jesus, we should
carefully compare it with the version recorded in Matt 5:1-12. Whereas Matthew
states that Jesus ascended a mountain, while Luke locates him on a level place;
Matthew indicates that only disciples came to hear Jesus, but Luke tells us that
two groups gathered: 1. a great crowd of disciples and 2. a great multitude for
Judeans as well as Gentiles from Tyre and Sidon. For Matthew, the occasion is
for instruction only, whereas Luke says that the audience came to hear and be
healed. These small differences suggest that Luke sees the event as accessible to
all peoples, which is not the case with climbing a mountain to hear Jesus in
Matthew. Lukes observation that Judeans and Gentiles gather continues his great
theme of the inclusivity of Jesus ministry. Moreover, Luke presents Jesus here as

a great prophet, mighty in word (speech) and deeds (healing). This is altogether a
most rich introduction to the Sermon.
Immediately we notice that Luke records only four beatitudes, not ten as
Matthew does. These four are identical with four in Matthew (poor, hungry,
weeping, ostracized), which leads scholars to say that the earliest sources of the
Gospel contain a sermon with only these four. What are these sayings? It is better
not to call them beatitudes, because this obscures their meaning. Literally the
Greek says that people covered by these four statements are makarioi, which
means honorable or worthy. The people labeled here are certainly not
happy, nor are the blessed. The choice of honorable reflects the pivotal
value system of Jesus world, in which only the Lamb is declared Worthy to
take the scroll (Rev 5:9) and where God is celebrated by the heavenly court as
Worthy (Rev 4:11). At stake here is a conflict between what the world honors
and what God and Jesus value. Remember that Mary sang about Gods reversing
the values of the world when the mighty are cast down and the lowly exalted.
Worth is at stake. Thus we translate makarios as how honorable or how
worthy.
In regard to the four makarisms, do we have four distinct individuals or do all
four refer to one person? When scholars describe the four in terms of the general
human condition which is filled with evils and disasters, they emphasize four
different scenarios. Yet it seems likely that as we read them, they describe the
composite fate of one person who is a disciple. Let us test this idea. Is there any
rhetorical order to the four makarisms? Usually lists of similar things are put
together in some order or pattern, with emphasis either on the first of a series or
the last. The first would be programmatic, whereas the last would be climactic
and conclusive. In Luke, the fourth makarism would seem to be the key or
climatic one because it is last and longest. It is at least the length of all the other
three together; and as we will see, it provides the reason for the situation of
poor, hungry, and weeping. What then does it say?
The fourth makarism describes a disciple who has been banned, ostracize and
excommunicated (hate, exclude, cast out your name). We know that this
person suffers on account of the Son of man, so he is a disciple and presumably
suffers because of his discipleship. But why is this happening to him? Historical
arguments say that this is not the quasi-formal persecution mounted against the
disciples either by the synagogue or Rome. Rather, the crisis arises within the
family of the disciple. We seem to have a scenario where a son is declared

rebellious for failing to submit to parental authority which views Jesus as a


maverick. And so, the son has become a gross embarrassment to his family for
following Jesus. When the son persists in disobeying his father, the family
hates him, excludes himcasts out his name. He is then banned, shunned and
ostracized. A crushing sanction is laid upon him for the shame he has brought
upon his family. The results are easy to see: he will lose all economic support
from his family, and all social contracts with fellow-villagers will collapse, such
as marriage contracts and cooperative sharing of labor at plowing and harvesting
time.
Let us now read the other three makarisms in the light of the climatic fourth one.
A son who is cast out will leave with few or no assets. After all, we are reading
about a subsistence peasant world; whatever wealth peasants might acquire (all
wealth was in land) is swallowed up in taxes and finds its way to palace and
temple. A typical peasant son simply has no personal assets or wealth. He will,
then, be poor when expelled. But we must be careful here. Jesus world
distinguished between two types of poor persons: 1. the working poor and 2. the
begging poor. Two different Greek words described these two and the distinction
between them is ancient and constant. Roughly 90% of the population consisted
of artisans and farmers who had very little wealth; they were the working poor
who lived a subsistence existence; yet every culture also has people utterly ruined
by catastrophe, disease, etc., who resorted to begging, such as blind and crippled
people or orphans and widows. Workers had some dignity or honor, whereas
beggars simply fell off the bottom of the scale. Jesus is talking about just such
folk: begging poor. If they have been banned from the family farm and set adrift
with no resources, such as the fourth makarism describes, they will certainly be
poor, that is, begging poor.
The banned son will also immediately experience hunger. He cannot go to his
fathers fields and gather fruit and grain; the milk goat no longer provides
yoghurt for him. And having no resources, he will assuredly be hungry and
desperately so. He must beg or starve. Moreover, he will surely weep for the
loss of his family. It is as though they have died to him; he can no longer rely on
them for all of the support and sustenance which families provide. No more food,
no more clothing, no more shelter, no more care when sick, no more comfort in
old age. This is cause for weeping. But why no family? The fourth makarism tells
us that they have banned him for his rebellion in becoming Jesus disciple. Thus
the terrible catastrophe set in motion by the familys sanction which produces a
harvest of shame: begging, hunger and weeping. And shame is the right word,

as this person loses all worth in the eyes of neighbors and kin. Yet Jesus values
this person highly, calling him honorable and worthy.
The gospel does not urge people to engage in conflict with their families. Nor
should we romanticize the expulsion of the disciple from his family. Yet we do
learn that discipleship can have consequence, even crushing ones. Yet Jesus
pronounces the rebellious son and all like him as worthy of his company and
Gods kingdom. Here is the gospel, just as it was for Jesus: Ought not the Christ
suffer and so enter into his glory? Honor in this world is what Jesus and his
Father say about us, not what family and friends think. For Jesus came to turn
this world on its head: shameful becomes honorable; last becomes first, and least
becomes greatest.
7th - C (Luke 6:27-38)
Whereas Matthew shapes this teaching of Jesus into a series of five Antitheses,
Luke represents an earlier form of this material which is bracketed at its
beginning (6:27) and ending (6:35) with the command to love ones enemies.
Readers will do well to recall the fourth makarism (6:22-23) which spoke of
banning and ostracism. Jesus command here surely has that in mind here as the
meaning of ones enemies. These are people who have caused great personal
suffering to disciples; they reside in their villages and even their families.
Disciples must face them daily. Jesus tells the disciple injured by this social
conflict to do the impossible, namely to love them, do good to them, bless
them, and pray for them all shocking actions in that culture. The norm of
justice for Judean and Greek alike was vengeance and retribution for hurt
received; this was virtue in their eyes. But Jesus shatters that value system when
he forbids the disciple to seek satisfaction itself a shameful thing to do but
rather to do good to ones enemy; if foregoing revenge was dishonorable,
kindness to ones enemy is more so.
Jesus cites three actions which greatly affect ones status in the village. A slap on
the cheek is an affront because it to the front of the face, the most honorable part
of the body and because it is a violent, public insult which is observed by all.
Ones head and face are the repositories of ones honor and status, hence we
anoint and crown heads and kiss the cheeks of respected people. This treatment
of the face, however, means that ones total self-esteem is negated. But Jesus says
to turn the cheek, not to seek revenge. Similarly with clothing, clothes really do

make the man, even peasants. Hence the taking of a mans outer garment, while
financially ruinous, also signals a man who cannot defend himself and so who
judged. To make matters worse, Jesus requires a disciple to surrender even the
under garment, which will leave the man literally naked before his enemies. Far
from seeking to recover what is his own, the disciple makes himself even more
shameful in the eyes of others. In the third instance, Jesus tells the disciple to
give to everyone who begs and to hold lightly ones goods. It was and is true that
charity begins at home, and so it is shameful to give to others what belongs to
ones family. To give universally to all, moreover, upsets the patronage patterns
of the ancient world. One might give an alms to this or that person, with the
expectation that they in turn will do something to benefit the giver, such as help
at harvest time. But to give with no strings attached was both rare and
remarkable. But worse, this disciple appears to be a person put upon by others.
He has no self-respect in his cultural world, and so he is a nobody who is worth
nothing. Surely Jesus cannot mean what he says? But he does, as he summarizes
this point with what we have come to call the golden rule. Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you. Not only will the disciple accept insults and
reproaches without seeking vengeance, he will act positively toward others,
loving, doing good, blessing and praying for them, just as he would have
them treat himself.
Next Jesus takes up the topic of credit for ones behavior. Given the fact that
everyone in Jesus world vigorously pursued a good reputation laced with respect
and honor, Jesus undercuts this. People normally seek the approval of their allies
and kinsmen, which rested in part on the generosity shown to loved ones and
friends. But Jesus says that there is no merit in this; for, he defines virtue as the
opposite, namely, the benefaction of those who are our enemies. Since all
practiced an economic shrewdness then, careful of what they lent and to whom, it
was good sense to lend only to those who could repay. But Jesus declares that
this practice has no merit, that is, respect or worth in Gods eyes. True merit,
then, comes from doing the opposite of the way of the world. The truly worthy
man will let himself be imposed upon and taken advantage of. How can Jesus
justify this perverted teaching? He appeals to God.
We all understand the expression a chip off the old block. If the parent, who is
God, is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish, then true children will inevitably
resemble their parent by thinking and acting like God. The norm of value and
worth is no longer defined by the world, but by God. In the eyes and ears of the
village, Jesus God may sound shameless here; but by the same token Jesus is

judging his culture and critiquing it according to a different value system and a
different understanding of God.
Rarely do we see Jesus in such a reforming mode. His instruction of his disciples
requires them to reverse all that they have held sacred. Behavior which gains
others a good reputation and respect is denied to the disciples. Moreover, even
when they are caught up in events to which they would normally respond with
aggressive action, Jesus demands that they refuse to play the game. On the
contrary, he requires them to act in even more shameless ways by benevolence
toward their enemies.
8th - C (Luke 6:39-45)
Todays gospel selection presents still another part of Lukes Sermon on the
Plain. Coming as it does after Jesus proclamation of his own value system in the
Makarisms and his critique of the Law of Moses, it shifts the focus squarely on
the disciple who has heard all thing and looks to see what kind of response is
appropriate. This selection of the Sermon contains two blocks of material, each
with a different focus and tone. The first part begins with a parable about eyes,
blindness to be more specific, and the focus remains on the human eye. The
second part keeps the mouth in view. What, then, is Jesus saying?
Jesus parable about the blind leading the blind seems perfectly intelligible: if the
leader or teacher of the group is flawed, disaster inevitably overtakes both leader
and follower. Next a disciple is reminded that he can never surpass his teacher; at
best he might equal him. These general truisms need to be contextualized in the
ministry of Jesus. Surely he is no blind leader, but one of clearest insight;
disciples who follow the light of his teaching do not all into a ditch. Jesus,
moreover, is our master teacher; what disciple could ever equal him, much less
surpass him? All of these remarks are intended to confirm our adherence to Jesus
the Teacher, especially in regard to this Sermon. Continuing his remark about
eyes, Jesus addresses a common phenomenon among people in school: they learn
to be very critical and can spot the tiniest flaw in another. Such people may then
assume the role of teacher over others and so engage in critical behavior which is
also conflict producing. Hence Jesus cautions would-be teachers not to be so
critical because such folk generally have similar or worse impediments in their
own eyes. Better that disciples remove the significant blocks to clear sight in
their own eyes before turning upon another. Clearly the intent of all of this is to

underscore the paramount need for disciples to apply to themselves the teaching
of Jesus before they bring it to others. Parents know this very well: unless
parental values are evident in parental behavior, instruction of children will be
flawed. It is not enough to talk the talk, but we must also walk the walk.
Jesus next statement is cast in a kind of thinking which many of us finds very
flawed. and try to avoid. Good trees bear good fruit; bad trees, bad fruit. We call
this all or nothing thinking -- all black and white, with no grey. The fruit
mentioned here would seem to be the behavior of the disciples, that is, the moral
consequences of faith in Jesus. It is a very old saying that good theology leads to
good morals and conversely, bad theology leads to corrupt behavior. In this
Sermon, Jesus has told us good theology, that is, the inclusive and impartial
kindness of God (6:36) and Gods revolutionary value system (6:20-23). Hence,
this good root should produce in Jesus disciples acts of impartial mercy and
caring for the lowly and needy. The power of Jesus remark lies in its insistence
on a wholehearted adoption of this Sermon. Lives without such focus, dedication
and loyalty are half lives.
Jesus then shifts to matters of speech and the mouth. He draws conclusions
from the material on good trees and good fruit by citing a singular instance.
When persons speak, we hope that they speak from the heart so that their speech
is true and reflects just what they think and feel. But we all know people whose
speech does not reflect their heart; they speak to deceive us or to cover up their
own behavior. Jesus must surely be speaking about the kind of speech that
disciples would speak, especially they confessions of total and permanent loyalty
to Jesus and his God. Talk is cheap, however; some say Lord, Lord, but their
heart has no commitment in it nor is there any intention of living Jesus way. In
effect, Jesus says that he can read such hearts, and that he knows whether speech
matches thoughts and will. Out of the abundance of the heart peoples mouths
speak.
Todays gospel, then, confronts us with the challenge of appropriating the
Sermon of Jesus. It concerns our eyes, whether they are blind and whether we
are blind who lead the blind. It concerns a critical eye, which revels in spotting
defects in others, but does not look to remove its own blindness first. It concerns
our mouth, whether what we publicly say about Jesus and his gospel matches
our behavior. It considers the integrity of our person in loyalty to Jesus and his
God: eye and heart and mouth. No one, of course, will get a perfect grade in this

examination; but we all can build up Christ body, both church and family, by
seeking clarity of gospel sight and steadfastness of faith and commitment.
9th - C (Luke 7:1-10)
Luke tells this story as the first event after Jesus Sermon, and it is intended to
show Jesus as a prophet mighty in deeds as well as word (24:19). We are
expected to remember several sundays ago the incident in Jesus home synagogue
in which he told about Elijah and Elisha bringing the benefactions of the God of
Israel to Gentiles, a story which caused them to try and kill him. Here is Jesus
own dramatization of the same. A centurion with a dying slave sends to Jesus for
help.
Putting this in perspective, we note that centurion means the commander of
many soldiers in the Roman army. It is this army which has conquered Israel and
incorporated it into its great tax factory. As much as 35% of a farmers crop was
taken in taxes for these very occupying soldiers. We must reason that they were
hated for their brutality and extortion, as well as for the fact that they were nonIsraelites from whom all upright Judeans would separate themselves (Acts
10:28). What a surprise, then, that this centurion asks the help of one of Israels
prophets.
The story has a definite social structure to it, for it describes the common form of
patron-client relationships. People like the centurion have power and other
resources at their disposal, which they will bestow when they see that it will
benefit them. Most sick people come to Jesus as their patron to tap into his
heavenly resources. Here the centurion has already played the patron to a Judean
village by building us our synagogue. But in a crisis in his own household, the
centurion must play the client and beg the help of a Judean prophet. Certain
Judeans of that town and synagogue change roles from that of client to the
centurion-patron to that of mediator on his behalf with another patron, namely,
Jesus. They say the magic word: He is worthy. Jesus should help him because
he has helped other Judeans. The mediation works and Jesus goes with the elders
to their village and to the centurion. While Jesus is on the way, the centurion
employs another set of mediators, friends who contradict the first set of
mediator. These bring the centurions confession that he is not worthy to have
Jesus enter his house. The confession of unworthiness by one who has conquered
and subjugated Israel represents a gesture of remarkable reverence. Instead of
Jesus presence in his house, he appeals to the power of Jesus word. Soldiers

know what it is to command (go, come, do this); a commanders simple


word makes things happen. The centurion implies that Jesus also speaks a
powerful word of blessing, which can have its effect at a great distance. We
probably should read encoded in the centurions remarks a confession of Jesus as
a great prophet, mighty in word and deed. Jesus agrees to be his patron, the elders
and friends have done their job as mediators, and the centurion conqueror
though he be is now Jesus client.
At the end of the story Jesus draw some startling conclusions. This Gentile
officer in an occupying army has a faith greater than that found in Israel. He is a
Gentile, and so his prayer and his reverence indicate that non-Judeans may be
joined to Gods blessed people. The fact that the person healed is a slave is also
of significance. In Gods kingdom there is no Judean or Gentile, no slave or free.
This is confirmed in the very next story about a womans grief over her dead son.
So we have Jesus mercy extended to both male (centurion) and female (widow
of Nain). Status markers such as gender, ethnic identity and hierarchy do not
count in Gods eyes. Deeply encoded here is a belief in Gods impartiality and
inclusivity. The centurions faith here would seem to be a blend of right
knowledge about Jesus (a prophet) and public acknowledgment of him. A simple
story like this contains many items for our prayer and imitation. Mediators
have a place in our lives; Catholics traditionally pray to Mary and the Saints to
mediate for them. Jesus, too, is the great mediator between us and God.
10th - C (Luke 7:11-17)
Most scholars urge us to read todays gospel alongside that of last Sunday (Luke
7:1-10) because Luke often does things by twos: two annunciations (John and
Jesus), two canticles (Magnificat and Benedictus), two prophets blessing the
infant Jesus (Simeon, Anna), and so forth. Both contain a strong emphasis on the
word of Jesus which alone is sufficient to heal. Here we find Luke attending to
parallel gender healings: first a male (the centurion, and then a female (widow);
for similar gender parallel stories, see Luke 15:3-10. Previously when the
centurion met Jesus he declared that he is not worthy for you to enter under my
roof. Still petitioning for a healing, he tells Jesus that his word alone is
sufficient; he does this by calling attention to the power of his own word as a
military commander: Go! Come! Do this! and it is by his word that Jesus
heals the sick from afar. Similarly, confronting the bier of a dead man, Jesus
exercises power by his word alone.

The scene is ambiguous for we do not know the ages of the widow and her son.
We might imagine her as a mother in her twenties or thirties with an infant sun.
But she might be much older, which would make the son an adult, the sole
support of his aged mother. We know that life expectancy at this time was
pitifully low: one third of all babies died before age six; another third would have
died before time for marriage and new children. The husband/father in the story
is himself dead, not a surprising thing. Let us arbitrarily make mother and son
older, for this might bring out the significance of this healing. Since in Israel all
wives left their fathers house and came to live in the households of the husbands,
they were in one sense cut off from the close, caring network of their families,
but also treated as outsiders in the new household. What a catastrophe if the
husband, his father and then brothers all died. The widow and her offspring were
painfully at the mercy of the males in the extended family who would labor to
take over the dead mans inheritance, even if it were a modest land holding. This
was family inheritance, and she was not family. One hears echoes here of the
mantra in the Scriptures to care for the widow and the orphan the most
vulnerable in the village. And how the only son of an aged widow has died,
which means that she too is terribly wounded. Who will take her part? Who will
defend her interests? Who will feed and clothe her? Both son and mother, then,
have suffered a great misfortune.
At the most dramatic moment of the burial service, Jesus appears at the gate of
the village. First he speaks a word Do not weep? which seems foolish in this
context. What else is the widow to do in such desperate circumstances? He then
touches the litter on which the body lays. Israelites thought of corpses as fathers
of uncleanness with the result that anyone who touched a human corpse or even
an animal one was defiled and must wait a period of time, then take a ritual
washing. God is the living God; nothing corruptible comes into Gods
presence, and certainly nothing dead. Hence, to imitate this aspect of Gods
cleanness, humans strove as best they could to avoid contact with corpses.
Hence, Jesus action in touching the litter on which the dead son lay might in
some eyes be risking uncleanness, something observant Israelites strove to avoid.
After stopping the cortege, Jesus then gives an incredible command to the dead
man: Young man, I say to you arise! Here again is the powerful word of Jesus
affecting a most wondrous healing. The man is back in the land of the living. The
widowed mother is likewise healed of the misfortune which had destroyed her
social status and role. Once more, then, the healing of an individual also means
the restoration of the family and the healing of its social relations.

The story ends with a detailed record of the crowds reaction, which is very much
worth our study. Luke says that Fear seized them all. This fear, we know, is
best translated as awe or reverence. It expresses a positive reaction to the
actions of God in his earthly word. It would be equivalent, I think, to breaking
out in applause in the presence of some joyful wonderful thing. And extending
this sense of awe and thanksgiving, Luke states that they glorified God for the
heavenly benefit bestowed. Since no one else in the cosmos has power over
death, the crowd declares God has visited his people. Thus praise, glory,
thanks, and honor are all good ways to express the crowds reaction. God, who is
the Father and Patron of Israel, has blessed his people through Jesus, a great
prophet. . .arisen among us. This small section of the story is a miniature of
ancient prayer: someone experiences a benefaction from God, and acknowledges
the gift, both singing Gods praises and offering thanks.
As we begin, we need to know about widows in Jesus world. Marriages were
made between families; they were not the romantic joining of two people in love.
Brides generally left their fathers homes and took up residence within the
husbands extended family. This was generally a difficult position, for the bride
was a stranger here and it was never clear if she would support her husbands
familys interests over her own fathers. Her security and worth came with the
birth of a son; here was another farmer to help with the crops, another stout
fellow to defend the familys possessions. But should that widow lose both
husband and then son, she became a liability to his family. Her investment in the
family by means of her dowry and her participation in its food, shelter and
clothing was in genuine doubt. Therefore, at Nain we find not only the death of
the last son, but the prospect of social death for the widowed mother.
11th - C (Luke 7:36-8:3)
Immediately after we learn that Jesus has been slandered as a glutton and a
drunkard (7:34), we observe him at table with a Pharisee. The force of the
slander rests in the implication that Jesus eats with sinners and so shares their
manners; what a contrast, then, to see him at table with a Pharisee, who professed
strict observance of the law, especially in regard to the production and
preparation of kosher foods. This may seem like an irenic setting to the
uninitiated, but it is a theater where controversy and criticism will emerge.
The story quickly describes another person at the meal, an uninvited female who
was a sinner. This charge may simply mean that she was nonobservant; yet it

probably implies that she embodies the sin that is most shameful to females in
antiquity, namely, lack of sexual exclusivity. Nevertheless, she is known to all
and she cleans Jesus feet with her tears and dries them with her hair. What is she
doing? The Pharisee host sees only that Jesus has allowed himself to be touched
by an unclean woman, and this discredits him as a prophet charged with
maintaining purity: Is this man were a prophet, he would have known who and
what sort of woman this is. A wrong perception and a false conclusion. But the
Pharisees sparks the controversy; and in defense of himself (and the female)
Jesus tells a parable.
Because so much of Jesus world was crushed under the debt of taxation for
Rome and for the Temple, Jesus remark about creditor and debtors makes
emotional sense. A creditor in the story does an absolutely unthinkable thing. He
forgives debts, both very great and small. Who will lovehim the most? Even
the Pharisee can follow the logic here: the person with the greater debt that is
forgiven! Jesus then applies this, equating the controversial female with the
person with the greater debt forgiven. And at this point Jesus brings the Pharisee
himself into the parable. Jesus notes that the Pharisee is not without sin. Although
he invited Jesus to a meal, he insulted Jesus by refusing him the customary marks
of hospitality: no washing of Jesus feet, no anointing of Jesus head, and no
welcome kiss. As perfectly observant as the Pharisee claims to be, he has failed
in a significant element of life: he refused customary hospitality to Jesus, thus
insulting him in public. For all of her sins, the woman showed a type of respect
and courtesy to Jesus: she washed his feet, kissed them, anointed Jesus with oil.
She has honored Jesus whereas the Pharisee has shamed him.
Thus, the criticism of Jesus by the Pharisee has been effectively answered. The
woman has been shown to love Jesus more than the Pharisee; the debt of her sins
which are forgiven is great, but greater is the resulting loyalty she has for Jesus.
But it is when Jesus declares that her sins are forgiven than another controversy
erupts among other guests at the meal. She was cleansed Jesus feet and he has
cleansed her of her sins. She is, then, clean but not in the way that Pharisees
understand purity. Jesus forgiveness of her debt of sin puts her in the category of
one who is pure and clean, which is bound to be offensive to the Pharisees there.
To be sure, other Pharisees at this meal rise in criticism of Jesus for claiming
power to forgive sins. Clearly, this never was a cordial event at which friends of
like mind and stamp gather. Jesus has enemies on all sides. Here he does not
stoop to respond to this criticism. He simply tells the woman that her faith has
saved her. In a fundamental way she has acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, an

agent with Gods power to forgive and heal. This is just what the Pharisee denied.
Moreover, she responds to the kingdom which Jesus preaches and illustrates in
his healings: purity is found not in observance of many laws but in grasping Jesus
and seeking his power to make whole. Thus we learn that holiness is being
redefined: faith in Jesus replaces purification ritual; sinners, moreover, are
those who reject Jesus. It is probably not an accident that we have here a woman
praised and a man criticized.

S-ar putea să vă placă și