Day 1389 - Is there a reward for being faithful?

A Bible Study of Luke 17:1-10 at Second Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, TN, September 29, 2016

The revised common lectionary excises verses 1-4 from verses 1 -10, leaving us only with the parable in vv5-10.  The ten verses are addressed to both disciples and apostles, or leaders of the church (as v5 states).  On one level these verses can be parsed and stand on their own; but Luke has weaved them into a whole that needs to be appreciated to get the full import of the message of the parable. Verses 1-4 set the circumstances for verses 5-10. Let’s read and see. At the beginning of each section I pose the circumstance or question the verses seem to address.

Causing a brother or sister to sin: Luke 17:1-2

The Greek word translated “stumbling” (scandal in modern usage) is an unusual (rare) word in Biblical Greek, “skandalon,” and it really means something like “ensnared,” or “caught in a trap.” Hence we can use the sense of sinning. The Greek also uses a word translated as “but” in verse 1 that actually imparts a very strong intensity or emphasis to the verb “woe,” “But woe to anyone by whom they (stumbling) comes.”

“Little ones” in verse 2, should remind you of Luke’s frequent quoting of Jesus referring to children both literally and figuratively. This makes a connection for us to both true children, to persons who have newly come upon faith, and to mature persons who still are children of God.

Treating one who sins against you: Luke 17:3-4

These four verses establish an ethical standard for the worshipping congregation. We have to bring the historical context into the present and explore whether we want to apply that ethical standard today if we want to really make sense of and use the parable in verses 7-10. (Remember a parable is a metaphorical structure in a historical context that has the power to be generalized for today’s circumstances.) We will return to this question in the Reflection.

Forgiveness is another common theme found in Luke. You may be thinking of the version of this in Matthew. But here the message, “everywhere repentance is found, forgiveness must be accorded” is good enough.

How can we do it?: Luke 17: 5-6

      According to Fred Craddock, Luke’s Greek word usage to account for what Jesus said is not reprimanding as if they did not have enough faith, but affirming that they do. In Craddock’s words, “Small faith cancels out ‘impossible.’” Thus the sentence fragment “If you had faith…” means, “If you had faith, and you do have it…” The amount of faith is not important, but provenance of genuine faith is the fundamentally, essentially important thing.

A parable saying “There is no such this as ‘above the call of duty’”: Luke 17:7-10

The parable begins with a rhetorical question, “Who among you would…” whose clear implication is, “No one would.”

Notice how Jesus forces us into the master’s position. This is a little remarkable to me, as Jesus usually is subtler allowing the listener to decide where one stands. It is the classic style of the parable however to begin and encourage us to cast ourselves with a supposed protagonist (“good guy,” in this cast the master) but at the end, as usual, to have everything turned upside down by casting us with the least expected actor, in this case the lot of the slave.

Reflection

Jesus spells out two sets of “ethical standards” of Christian fellowship in verses 1-4.

Ask yourself, “What is the first issue?,” or “What threatens the fellowship of living in the community of faithful?”

One issue has to do with our maturity. Are we all on the same level of maturity or are there “little ones” such as newly baptized/new members (a common theme in Paul’s letters to congregations he started, see Corinthians). We say also the mature are free and responsible to the Lord and can chose to do anything that does not diminish faith, but on the other hand, the law of love (to avoid our actions causing another to stumble) trumps the law of freedom.

The second issue has to do with those among us who work against or sin against us. In the face of an injustice, we are to forgive and accept repentance. The step of measuring the magnitude of repentance of one who asks for forgiveness is embarking on the road of judging, not forgiving.

The unstated premise in this parable is that among the entwined fellowship of Christians there is an ethical standard and violating that ethical standard is sin. This is a profound yardstick, because it says, “What we do is not just our business but the community’s.”

It is a major crisis of the present time whether we actually still hold to this ethical standard as something every community of faith should explicitly follow. We can’t really move beyond the sayings and parable without agreeing to this reality.

To say these ethical standards are a heavy burden understates the matter. It is no wonder the apostles (not just the disciples but the apostles, or leaders of the Lord’s Church) ask for more faith!

To appreciate the parable also we must accept the context of slavery, regardless of how objectionable it is. This is an essential part of the parable. Slavery is loathed by everyone, then and now. No one wants or wanted to be a slave. In ancient Palestine slavery, although every person loathed the idea of being a slave, was an accepted reality. We have to attempt to place our self in that context to understand the parable.

This parable describes a “small homeowner” who has perhaps a single slave who has double duty, work outside in the field and work inside fixing dinner for example. The slave’s time belongs to the master and when the master’s tasks are done, the slave can turn to his own tasks. There is no ground for a slave to boast, the slave has a duty to perform. Keeping this image in mind also helps us understand the power of the reversal in Jesus’ words that to lead one must be a servant (slave).

When we tie this conclusion of the parable to verse 5, the parable is addressing a question to the leaders (apostles) of the church, “Are you a servant of God, or are you cruising and seeking ‘your fair share’?” It also points to the faulty idea that if my faith is increased, some kind of perk or reward must come along with it.

The reality of this parable is that we have no special “claim” upon God, rather everything we have is on loan from God.

When Jesus calls us “worthless slaves” we must recall both his words that to be a master one must be a slave, that the ultimate virtue of a slave is humility or subservience, and that Rome believes the ultimate virtue was power.

What does Paul say defines the acme of virtue? (Philippians 2:1-12). This passage in Philippians, written long before Luke penned his gospel captures the essence of the humility demanded in this parable. It is the humility the Lord used when he faced Rome to defeat the power of death. As an aside, this passage in Philippians is believed to be the earliest hymn of affirmation of faith.

In the quite extensive, hedonistic society within which we live, these ideas may seem alien, if not irrelevant. Who brooks a slight? The reality of following the Way is that whether we are in the field or the house, we are still servants/slaves to the Lord. We may politely translate the Greek word as “servant” because “slave” is so repugnant, but the reality of grace is we are worthless  to receive something that is freely given to us. Jesus is telling us in these verses three things about the duty of one who avows to follow the Way: (1) to avoid causing someone to stumble, (2) to accord forgiveness to those who repent, (3) to live by faith.

We can conclude that this unmerited gift of grace has no justification in value we bring to it. If there is no justification or value we bring, then it is a gift to the unworthy. How can there be a reward for accepting a gift for which we have no merit? There is no reward for being faithful save its reality as our act of accepting the gift acknowledging our loyalty and subservience to the Lord. Doesn’t the part of the Westminster Shorter Catechism  inscribed on the gate of McCallie School embody this parable? “The chief end of humanity is to glorify God and enjoy his grace forever.”

Amen

Day 1386 – Can You Hear Me Now?

A sermon given at Northside Presbyterian Church, September 25, 2016, Chattanooga, TN

OT reading: Amos 6:1,4-7

Epistles Reading:  1 Timothy 6:13-19

NT Reading: Luke 16: 19-31

Here we go again with another parable, Lazarus (the only parable where a name is given, it means “one who God helps") and the rich man.  Here are a few useful pointers as reminders. Jesus said that he would use only parables to communicate the good news, (see Matthew 13:10-15,35). He chose to do this because parables are intentionally hard nuts to crack.

Fred Cradock describes a parable as a literary device most closely related to poetry. It does not deal with concrete meaning, but the subjective or metaphorical nature of reality. They are complex, obscure and even outrageous they contradict the initial “common sense” impression upsetting the listener’s world.  Expect them to disrupt conventional thinking and cause you to consider fully the implication of what has been said. In almost every case we will take sides with one of the characters in the parable when in actuality Jesus holds the listener as the object.

The value of a metaphorical meaning allows us to apply the meaning in the historical setting to the setting in which one hears the parable, that is, with discernment a parable is a generalized teaching guiding the present action of the faithful Christian.

All the parables and events we have read over the last several weeks at the deepest level are about building righteous living from having the spirit of the Law written in our heart. Jesus consistently points towards the timeless spirit of the Law being compassion. In the Leviticus Holiness code(Chapter 19:1-18) the justification to have a Godly, compassionate attitude towards one’s brother’s and sister’s blares from verse 2 like an air horn, “You shall be holy because I the Lord your God AM holy.” Let’s look at more closely at this parable told to the Pharisees to see if it is about wealth and poverty or trying to be holy.

It begins, “There (once) was a rich man…,” a classic “story format” that tells us Jesus is not using a real event. Jesus sets the first scene in these first three verses as one of immense contrast between a sick and disabled man whose sores dogs lick and a very rich man partying indifferently. Immense contrast persists through the entire parable.

We are almost certainly expected to identify the rich man (wearing purple and fine linen and “feasting sumptuously”) as a symbol of the rich, religious governing elite. The Greek words actually suggest not necessarily just a sumptuous feast but extravagant partying. The Pharisees however, probably think the rich man is only enjoying what we call today the fruit of the prosperity gospel. Deuteronomic religious thought ( Deuteronomy 30:1-9) understands the Moses to say that the righteous meticulously follow the Law and will be blessed with reward in this life and the impenitent, curses.

So, to the Pharisees this poor man Lazarus, sick with sores on his body and disabled, literally laying outside the rich man’s door, or on his front porch is an outcast sinner. (Remember Job’s friends?) We know Lazarus, the one God helps, is sick and disabled (See KJV or ESV) because the Greek word used to describe him says he was “thrown or put” on the rich man’s porch. The custom of the time expected friends or relatives to take a person who was so ill he could not get there on his own to a place where alms might be gained.

The Pharisees may also recognize Jesus adopted a common story that circulated at the time to construct this parable.  Literature from 47 AD records an old Egyptian folktale about a rich ruler and poor man who died and in the afterlife the poor man was enthroned but the rich ruler was tormented. I would not be surprised that the Pharisees were wondering why is God going to help (Lazarus) this sick and disabled man they believed was a sinner and outcast, and not the rich man; furthermore, what does an Egyptian folktale have to do with them?  Then suddenly tragedy strikes in another element of contrast. The poor man dies and is immediately taken to heaven, but the rich man dies and is buried.

The Pharisees must be more outraged. Only two persons in the OT of great divine favor were carried to heaven and not buried, Elijah and Enoch. How can Jesus compare this outcast to Elijah or Enoch! Adding to the outrage, we find out the rich man was buried, consigned to “sleeping with his ancestors” separated from God and life itself and not only opposed to Lazarus, but the rich man ends up in Sheol. (Hades is the Greek word used for Sheol, the resting place of the dead, or Gehenna, the Hinnon Valley where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire) as the next verses say,  

²³ In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. ²⁴ He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. ²⁶ Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’

This story twists Judaic righteousness of the Pharisees into a pretzel. The rich man asked for water from the finger of an outcast, a person a righteous person would never touch! No explanation for the reversal in death is given. Why was the outcast taken to Abraham in the afterlife. Perhaps his infirmities and suffering evil things on earth justified his comfort now as Psalm 22 says?

Today we easily accept this reversal in fortune of Lazarus and the rich man as obvious, the sick and disabled man gains his positive reward in death and the indifferent rich man who used his wealth only for personal pleasure gets his reward as torment. The Pharisees however would object to an outcast marked by sin received a reward and the rich man whose wealth is a mark of righteousness receiving punishment.

There parable so far judges neither man. Abraham only tells the rich man who asks for a drop of water: “Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’”  Something must be more deeply buried in verse 26 than a chasm between the poor and disabled and the wealthy.

Lazarus fades from view as only a would-be messenger when the rich man turns altruistic and worries over his brothers. Now the parable focuses only on the rich man, his brothers and the Law. The rich man still thinks himself righteous (as do the Pharisees), and in a fit of compassion for his brothers begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the death to warn them to change their ways.

Abraham says no, they must listen to Moses and the prophets. The rich man agrees they will not listen but pleads that sending someone back from the dead will open their eyes to repentance.

When the rich man says they will not listen to Moses, Abraham seals the fate of the rich man and his brothers in a more severe and biting way. Their fate rests on their ears. If they will not “listen to Moses and the prophets” (that is, live with the Law written on their hearts), one person resurrected from the dead will not change them.

We and the Pharisees are still left to wonder about Lazarus who never speaks. What about him merited grace? How is it squared by the last verse?

Reflection

On one hand Jesus has adopted an ancient story about the misuse of wealth and unwillingness or inability to live in a way that reflects the Law that shapes Hebrew history. Moses tells us (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) observing the Law is not difficult, you do not need to “go to Heaven or beyond the far sea” to bring the Law close to home. Amos 6:1,4-7 takes both Israel and Judah to task for not living the law, misusing of wealth and mistreating fellow citizens. Isaiah 1:12-17 goes further in a brutally harsh indictment of Zion for reducing life, law and worship to celebratory parties and other forms of self-aggrandizement. We heard Paul, a Pharisee’s Pharisee, say in 1 Timothy 6:13-19, “^…to keep the commandment without spot or blame... those who are rich, not to be haughty, or hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Repeating Isaiah, they are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.

Is Lazarus a prop in a parable telling us to be wise in how we use our possessions, and treat sinners and outcasts?  It makes a good stewardship campaign sermon, but isn’t that sort of a trivial interpretation?

The three parables, the lost sheep, the lost coin and the man who had two sons are often read as parables about the promise to Judaism and those it calls outcasts. Could Jesus again be using sick and disabled Lazarus as a stand-in for all outcasts of Hebrew society, and the rich man is a stand-in for the Pharisees and its religious governance who will hear about the soon-to-be resurrected Jesus?  Or is this also trivial, misleading us into thinking this parable is only about the Pharisees?

Joel Green, a seminarian, in his book, Hearing the New Testament maintains the challenge of every Christian is to understand the historical context of scripture and apply it to the present. That is, to determine how to be “historically righteous” in the present  time whose character and circumstances differ wildly from the historical context.

Rich versus sick and disabled? People quibble whether we are better off now than then. We have scriptures such as Amos and Isaiah that describe gross abuse of the poor and outcasts, and of religious societies replete with hypocrisy.  Some modern folks offer a scientific comparison of then and now to conclude economic disparity in America is worse. But the historical context then and now differs radically. We seem on whole much better off today. We have global access to medical care and vaccines against diseases that kill and cripple, albeit limited and costly for some. Most people have cell phones. On the other hand, we cannot deny that great economic disparity exists right here in Chattanooga. We can’t wave it away as someone else’s fault which a former national campaign manager tried last week saying that any African-American who is still poor after the last 50 years can blame only them self. A self-made man is the greatest heresy. Joel Green wants us to ask, “How does this parable helps us to live faithfully in an age of plenty immersed in a seductive consumer culture?”

In this parable about Lazarus, that their infirmities merit saving grace? About Jesus speaking of his resurrection and grace, or telling the Pharisees and us to use his life as the model to live ours? Jesus often concludes a parable, “let those who have ears hear.” In that perspective, are the Abraham’s final words to the rich man, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead,’” directed to us as well as to the Pharisees? Does this parable pose a timeless question about holiness, “Do we seriously believe that the grace of the good news of Jesus spans the chasm between life and death, that God helps the one who works to perfect righteous through living with the spirit of the Law written in our hearts? To stretch the old Verizon commercial seriously beyond its original purpose, Is Jesus using this parable to ask each of us, “Can you hear me now?”

Amen