Thoughts and Summary: The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7)

Thoughts and Summary: The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7)

Luke’s Gospel

A big and apparent theme throughout the Gospel of Luke is the emphasis of Jesus’ care for the poor and marginalized. This is illustrated by the author in a number of ways but is strongly connected with Jesus mission in the Nazareth Manifesto where he reads from the Scroll of Isaiah and declares:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
        to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
    and recovery of sight to the blind,
        to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour. Luke 4:14-19

In Luke’s Gospel this text functions has a programmatic function- It anticipates later themes. It’s placed near the start of the gospel because the author intends to develop the theme. Further, the author is intentionally connecting Jesus’ missional purpose and ministry to caring for the lost and poor. Brendan Byrne notes that the Nazarene Manifesto “establishes once and for all that the heart of Jesus’ message is the good news of acceptance, the invitation to all to come and be drawn into the hospitality of God.”

With this in mind we take a look at ‘The Parable of the Lost Sheep’.

Some Context

Matthew too, tells the story of the lost sheep in his gospel- but in a somewhat different context. Matthew’s telling of the story appears in the context of pastoral concerns, ecclesiology and church discipline- with the implication that leaders of church communities need to care for all their flock. But the author of Luke makes an effort to frame the story as reflecting Christ’s love for the marginalized. It seems he does this in two ways.

First, in the immediate context, Luke introduces the story with the Pharisees criticizing Jesus for his association with the marginalized (the sinners and tax collectors.) It is in this context Jesus tells the story. Secondly, this story is followed by two other stories concerned Jesus’ care for the lost and marginalized in the story of the lost coin and the lost son.

Why do Matthew and Luke have differences in how they report the story being told? The usual sorts of options are available when dealing with source criticism. Maybe Jesus told the story more than once and in different contexts so Matthew and Luke tell recalling two different occurrences (it shouldn't be surprising to us that Jesus might have told a parable more than once over the time of his ministry.) Perhaps the authors of Matthew and Luke have heard parable as part of the oral tradition and adapt it to their retelling of the Gospel. Perhaps Matthew and Luke simply edited it from the hypothetical ‘Q’ source. Many options stand.

The Story

The story is relatively simple but takes a sneaky subject change from the audience to the character of the parable- “Suppose one of you have a hundred sheep...Does he not leave the ninety-nine...” Jesus is getting into the heads of the listeners.  Verse 1-3 sets the scene with the tax collectors and sinners gathering around Jesus and the Pharisees muttering. Verse 4-6 tells the story. A man leaves his 99 sheep to seek and bring home one that is lost. When he finds it joyfully carries it home and calls his friends and neighbours to rejoice with him in celebration of the finding of the lost sheep. Verse 7 then offers and interpretation of the verse. “In the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent”.

This story, as do many in Luke, reverses the expectations of the reader and audience and places high value in what others (such as the Pharisees) would place little value in.  Jesus is presented as one who not only cares for the lowly, but also goes on a journey to actively seek them out and restore them, all the while rejoicing joyfully. Here Jesus is extending the table beyond what his listeners were expecting- he is showing that he is will to go to great lengths for the lost and frowned upon. Whatever you think Jesus’ limits are, where ever you think Jesus would be going too far or too low- he will always exceed it.

On an entirely pragmatic level this story almost doesn't make sense. 99 in a higher number than 1. Surely it would be better to play it safe and look after the 99 and just let the one go. But Jesus can’t. There is something about the lost and helpless that magnetizes Jesus to them. He has a disposition towards them. He can’t help it. It even goes against reason. Obviously this is a reflection of God’s heart also. It is the heavenly council that rejoices in the sinner finding salvation. Whoever the “righteous” who “do not need to repent” are, they should join with Jesus in the rejoicing of the lost being found ( I see parallels with the story of the prodigal son).

Additional points

·         The parable seems to focus on the saving actions of the Shepherd saving the sheep, while the explanation focus’ on the idea of repentance. Do these two themes match up? Joel Green argues that Jesus simply assumes that the lost sheep are restored by both the efforts of the Shepherd and the repentance of the sinners. A conclusion that seems fair.

·         A lot of effort has been put into understanding the situation of the flock of sheep. Did the Shepherd own all the sheep? Part ownership (with the friends and neighbours) is not out of the question in the Middle Eastern context. Were the sheep safe? The story tells us they were in the “open country” (a better translation than wilderness) which could be considered a safe place for sheep and perhaps the sheep had someone else looking after them. Even further, who are the sheep meant to represent? Perhaps the Pharisees? That option seems unlikely because of the final comment that they “do not need to repent”. Perhaps genuinely righteous people? But then again, this story is being told to the Pharisees.

·         Where the reader hears that the tax collectors and sinners “were gathering’ to Jesus the Greek can be treated a few ways. It could mean they were gathering at the time of the story or it could mean that they had been gathering throughout Jesus’ ministry.

Thoughts and Summary: The Parable of the Two Builders (Luke 6:46-49)

Thoughts and Summary:  The Parable of the Two Builders (Luke 6:46-49)

By definition, one cannot call Jesus “Lord” without also obeying him. Acknowledging his authority therefore means ordering life according to his aims and commitments- John Carroll

I can think of no story of Jesus that has been more robbed by clichéd, christianese and Sunday-school interpretations than ‘The Parable of the Two Builders’. You probably already know the story. One builds his house on sand, the other on rock, a storm comes along and the house made on sand falls and is ruined. It’s the Christian version of the three little pigs. But a lot is lost on this text (especially to adults) because of the simplistic and basic teaching of “Jesus is the rock on which we should build.” It’s not a bad interpretation; it’s not extremely thorough or nuanced either. Hopefully some of the following insights will bring it home a bit more. I should say, I am looking at Luke’s version that doesn’t talk of 'sand vs rock' but instead 'foundation vs no foundation', but the same principles apply, as will become clear.

It’s not long so it’s worth a read through.

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you? ⁴⁷ I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. ⁴⁸ That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. ⁴⁹ But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.”

Literary context

We should notice where this passage takes place. In Matthews Gospel it takes place just after the ‘Sermon on the Mount’. And in the passage I am looking at, right after the ‘Sermon on the Plain.’ So what has Jesus just taught, that he is so eager to have his followers practice?

Things like:

Love your enemies

Do not judge, Forgive

Be humble, not self righteous

Serve God not money

Do to others as you would have done to you

So Jesus teaches these things and pretty much says “don’t just hear, but practice these things I have taught.” These are the teachings Jesus has in mind.

Rock Bottom

In the Middle East, it is common practice to dig down till you hit bedrock to build the foundations of your house on. This way, when a flood or storm inevitably comes your house will remain stable. Alternatively, you could not dig down and instead build upon the ground (soil/sand). Why would you not dig down? Because in Israel they only build in the summer (it’s hot). Also without modern building tools and vehicles, building takes a long time. So really the decision is between a long hard summer working on a stable house on a sure foundation of rock or a less hard summer with the opposite outcome. The second man doesn’t do the job out of both laziness (he doesn’t want to dig through the deep soil to the rock) and apathy (he knows the risks in his actions, but chooses to ignore them).

Anyway, winter comes, river breaks, house fails, contestant #2 loses. Jesus uses this parable to call for a response to his words. It’s not enough to just hear Jesus’ words, but they also need to be practiced. The Second man in the parable was presented by Jesus as someone who heard but didn’t practice. The consequences were disastrous. The one who has taken the time to build his house on a foundation is the one who has listened to Jesus’ teachings and follows the path of wisdom, while the other hears but ignores thus follows the path of folly (proverbial wisdom). One life brings fruit, the other destruction.

This parable is about me (and probably you).

The man who built his house on rock is presented as the one who responded to Jesus and acted in accordance with his teachings. It would be easy to say “well, obviously the one who is hearing and not doing is not a Christian.” But not so. At the start of the parable, Jesus comments “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” This parable is aimed at people who have heard Jesus’ message, may have even responded to it -exclaiming “Lord, Lord” yet don’t practice the things Jesus commands. Joel Green notes on this that “In this instance, ‘Lord’ is a term of great respect; those who use it would thus be designating Jesus as their patron, the one to whom they owe allegiance.” Well maybe then this is aimed at the Pharisees? Probably not though. At this stage, as Joel Green notes, Lk 6:1-11 makes it highly unlikely that the Pharisees would be addressing Jesus as Lord.

 I can’t help but feel as though this is aimed at none other than me. Another, hypocritical, judgemental, dogmatic Christian who says “yes!” but in my actions I say “Sort of/no!” The ECB notes “Jesus’ emphasis on hearing and also acting on his teaching reinforces the observation that this ethic is not passive: one must do it.”

Additional Points

·         The storm hits both houses. Christians do not have divine protection from trails in life, rather are called to trust in something bigger- a stronger foundation, and to persevere.

·         Following on this what is the storm even meant to represent? Trails in life or perhaps judgement (eschatological)?

God is (no)thing; Some thoughts on doubt, mystery and revelation.

When we speak of God, we do not say all that we might (for that is known to him only) but only what human nature is able to receive and our weakness can bear. We do not explain what God is but candidly confess that our knowledge of him is not exact. Where God is concerned, confessing our ignorance is the sign of greatest knowledge.- Cyril of Jerusalem

Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God's incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God. – Henri Nouwen

He is beyond our conception, but the very fact that we cannot grasp him gives us some idea of what he really is.-Tertullian

It feels as if having even the ghost of a hint of a taste of a suggestion of it in your mind requires a spatially impossible contortion in which the immense is contained in the tiny. If you try to imagine what the world is like from its point of view you stumble into awe, defeated- Francis Spufford

I get the sense too many believers aren't honest enough about their doubts and uncertainties because they are afraid of doubt (or it has been demonized around them), being wrong, or not fully understanding the very thing they have presumably committed their life to. To me this is a shame. Our uncertainty and doubt actually points to something bigger and more incomprehensible.  Our doubts and lack of understanding are a necessity to the bigness of the very thing we Christians feebly try to defend.  

Often it feels as though we mistake what we believe about God with who God actually is. It’s a crucial, categorical mistake. If God becomes reduced to our understanding of him, he becomes defined by human ideas rather than something that transcends rationality. He becomes an abstract concept rather than something that is defined by relationality. He becomes an argument instead of an answer. But no, God’s goodness isn't dependent of our understanding of it. It just is, and is beyond what is. This is not to say God is completely unintelligible. That would be a mistake. But it is to say, as Boyer and Hall in The Mystery of God put it, that God is “Supra-intelligible”. That is, there is intelligibility beyond human intelligibility. God is not extensively unintelligible but dimensionally unintelligible. The Christian can claim to know things true of God, just not exhaustively. Migliore notes “Confession that God has been revealed, however, is altogether different from the claim to know everything about God or to have God under our control.” Right on, instead we join the Early church fathers and say Deus Semper Maior (God is always greater!) Migliore further notes that God’s revelation is paradoxically a “hiding of God” writing “If it is truly God who is revealed, God remains hidden, beyond our grasp, never our prisoner.”

But even still this explanation misses something. Critical thinking, concepts and ideas might be helpful for making some sense of the divine mystery, but we forget that Christianity makes the interesting claim of truth being found in a person. If you want to know a person, standing from a distance making analytical comments can only get you so far (especially in that person is God incarnate). But Christianity has a part to it which can only be experienced, lived in, felt- an aesthetic aspect. James Smith notes that  “we inhabit the world not primarily as thinkers, or even believers, but as more affective, embodied creatures who make our way in the world more by feeling our way around it.” And when our affective creaturely senses are engaged with the divine, part of the mystery of is peeled back. Not in the sense that you are left knowing more because of it, but in a more vulnerable, messy, human and lived in kind-of-way. For the critics the lack of objective content to this claim might be frustrating, and I get that. But unfortunately human experience is a crucial aspect of the Christian theological tradition. But if that’s where you stop, you end up with a pseudo-mysticism that tries to bridge the chasm of mystery via unification with God. Paul Tillich on the other hand said that “revelation is always a subjective and an objective event in strict interdependence.”

These are just a few thoughts. I could definitely give more attention to the mystery of God and his plans revealed in the person of Christ- Perhaps i’ll do a follow up blog.

Thoughts and Summary: The Pharisee and the Tax Collector at the temple (Luke 18:9-14)

Another quick summary with a few thoughts along the way.

Thoughts and Summary: The Pharisee and the Tax Collector at the temple (Luke 18:9-14)

Luke’s introduction and conclusion pictures a God who will reverse the position of the arrogant elite and the humble poor -David L. Balch.

This parable, unique to Luke, is one of my favourites because the way it demands a response. When you read it you either say “Thank God I am not like the Pharisee”, in which case you very much are like the Pharisee or you are empowered by the powerful, humble prayer of the tax collector and the outcome described by Jesus.

The People

The Pharisee-

Pharisees were a group of Jewish believers that were extremely pious believers who closely followed and study and followed the law (Torah.) Not only this but in addition to the written law they followed what an ancient Jewish historian named Josephus called “the tradition of their fathers” or as Mark 7:5 describes the “tradition of the elders.” This tradition seemed to add extra, more strict regulations to the law to help the Pharisees in their individual pursuit of holiness. The name 'Pharisee' most likely means “one who is separate” but it is not known whether this is a name they were called negatively or a name they called themselves and embraced positively. In this parable however, it is clear that the Pharisee perceived himself to be ‘separate’ positively-  considering himself to be righteous whilst holding others with contempt. Jesus critiques this view and instead the Pharisee stands out as “one who is separate” in a negative way.

Pharisees occur frequently in the gospels- more often than not in opposition and antagonistic towards Jesus and his teachings. Jesus frequently condemned them for their lack of humility, compassion and the hypocrisy and arrogance that seemed to be characteristic of the movement. Luke’s gospel presents them as self promoting and obsessed with self-righteous acts. Yet they held a deep respect for the law and being faithful to God. Rejoicing and participating in the law was not a bad thing and the NT does not always interpret the Pharisees negatively.  It is worth mention that generally, the Pharisees were staunchly anti-Roman and part of their obedience was in hope that God would provide a saviour to rid and free them from the Roman Empire. Tax Collectors worked for the Roman Empire and these tensions and beliefs sit behind the parable.

The Tax Collector

Tax Collectors had the job of collecting revenue for the Roman government. Most often there were private contractors that were required to pay a set fee back to the Roman government but were able to keep anything over the fixed amount as commission. As you can imagine, this led to a large amount of corruption and abuse. To make things worse, the contracts for tax collector were often given to wealthy foreigners. Often they picked on poorer farmers trying to sell or move goods to the markets. Needless to say they were not popular in first century Palestine. The Pharisees held them with such little regard they considered them unclean through there contact with gentiles. Often these negative views come across through the pairing of sinners with tax collectors (almost as if these words were synonymous) i.e. Luke 15:1, Matt 11:19, and Matt 9:11- “  When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

The Story

Audience

The introduction tells us that Jesus told this parable to “some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else.” Who is this audience? We don’t know.  The temptation would be to try and fill in the gaps and presume it was some exceptionally bad and hypocritical people (maybe some Pharisees). But who is to say he is not addressing the disciples? Who is to say it is not Jesus’ own followers that trust in themselves and despise others? We as readers, should not be tempted to exclude ourselves as being the audience Jesus in addressing here (Joel Green mentions this). Either way, the introduction makes clear that Jesus is about to make a connection and parallel the behavior and character of the audience and the Pharisee.

Where do I stand?

The Pharisee is described and being “by himself” while the tax collector is described as being “far off”.  The Pharisee is probably by himself because he considers others, and the tax collector to be unclean. To me though, it goes a bit deeper than that. He is also “by himself” in the sense he is reliant only on himself, and no one else. The Tax Collector however, is “far off”. This shows his reverence, humility and humbleness. He recognizes his short comings and takes responsibility. The attitude of the Tax Collector from the start is not to judge others or prove/justify himself in front of God.

The fact that the Pharisee notes he is glad he is not like the Tax Collector is actually his undoing. The parable illustrates that it is the tax collector who is justified. The Pharisee doesn't need to be condemned, because he has done that himself in his admission that he thanks God he is not like the tax collector.Additionally, Bailey notes he was probably praying aloud as per Jewish custom. He comments on this

Such a voiced prayer would provide a golden opportunity to offer some unsolicited ethical advice to the “unrighteous” around him who might not have another opportunity to observe a man of his stratospheric piety! Most of us in our spiritual journeys have, at some time or other, listened to a sermon hidden in prayer.

It is, without a doubt, a ‘loaded’ prayer with a focus on himself (note the repetition of ‘I’ in his prayer.) Whether it should even be considered a prayer is up for debate. What is certain is that his prayer lowers others and lifts himself up. But what Christ teaches is that we lower ourselves and lift others up. I really think the Tax Collectors prayer speaks for itself. There is no confusion as to what is going on (except maybe the beating on the chest which was an ancient form of mourning that you see often in the OT). The Tax Collector is simply humble, transparent, and genuine, and for that is justified because “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbles, and he who humbles himself will be exalted“. 

Thoughts and Summary: The Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11)

I recently scored a free copy of Kenneth Bailey’s Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes from Manna Bookstore and its inspired me to take a closer look at some of the stories and parables of Jesus. Here is my first post of the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Thoughts and Summary: The Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11)

“The scene...is...described with a perfection of skill: not a word to few or too many”-Rudolf Schnackenburg

Should it be in the bible?

Firstly, I ask a question that is common in scholarship but not so common for everyday Christians reading the bible. Should this passage be in the bible?

No matter how highly or inspired you regard the bible, when you turn to this passage it will most likely be sectioned off and say “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11.]”-as the NIV study bible does. This text is completely absent from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of John’s gospel. None of the Eastern church fathers mention it at all and is seems to be a largely western tradition that recognises the story.

The author of John did not record this story and it is not original to the gospel. There is simply no possibility whatsoever. However, some scholars (e.g Metzger, Brown, Bailey, Burge) suggest that this might be a part of an oral tradition that told a legitimate and historical record of Jesus, and was later inserted into John’s Gospel on these grounds (agrapha). This sounds like an evangelical cop-out but it actually holds some weight and has been argued well by some. I lean this way, although it enters into territory I am not skilled enough to robustly argue in. Not everyone shares this view though. I have a very good commentary on John by Kostenberger who devotes a few pages as to why this section of text should be considered apocryphal. He offers no commentary on the text as we have it today and even notes that it should “be omitted from preaching in the churches (not to mention inclusion in the main body of translations, even within square brackets).” Augustine thought that early scribes may taken this story out of the gospel out of fear that it lessened the sin of adultery. Calvin acknowledged the issues but generously judged it to be “containing nothing unworthy of the apostolic spirit” (Bruner). 

The Story

This story, that is called often called “The Woman Caught in Adultery” actually has very little to do with the woman, and more to do with Jesus’ response to her. While they teachers of the law could have brought the woman before Jesus privately, they want to make a scene of it- putting Jesus on trail. The Pharisees had set up a trap for him to which, as Bailey notes, they expected one of two outcomes

1.       He could have agreed to have her stoned, caused a commotion and been arrested by the Romans because of both the commotion it and the subversive act of execution outside of the Roman legal system (remember in John 18:31 we hear only the Romans have the power to execute)

2.       He could reject their clear application of the law, be discredited and seem like a coward.

As the ECB puts it, “Either he must appear to be against the Torah [Jewish law] or against Roman law.

But Jesus manages to turn these loaded expectations into their rightful place and respond in an unexpected and powerful way. His response “let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone” challenges the mob to reverse their judgement and recognize their own fallen humanness, outside of the religious and judgemental mob they hide behind. These religious leaders and followers belong to a tradition that recognizes human sinfulness. Ecclesiastes 7:20 comments that, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” And yet the Pharisee’s cannot claim that Jesus endorsed or refused to respond to the woman’s sin, with Jesus commanding “Go now and leave your life of sin”.

So, by the end of the story what Jesus has achieved is astounding (some of these adapted points from Bailey).

·         He has not, in this instance, been so subversive towards the Romans that he has been arrested, as the Jews would have desired at this time.

·         He has not shown a lack of understanding or care of the law.

·         He has not been discredited or had his authority successfully challenged .

·         He has not shown indifference to the sin of the woman, but did not let that get in the way of saving her (in fact he is the only one that seems to show any kind of compassion towards the woman).

·         He has not show indifference to the unwarranted hypocrisy and condemnatory motives steaming from the accusers.

·         Both the Woman and the accusers leave with a challenge to reform and adapt their lifestyles.

Of course this whole situation also points to something bigger as well- the cross, where undeserving sinful people are shown grace, love and compassion and are given a freedom that results in a different life direction.

Other interesting thoughts from the story:

• ·         Where is the man caught in adultery?
• ·         Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7 states that the accuser is to be the one to cast the first stone. Could Jesus be making reference to this in his response of casting the first stone? On this Witherington suggests that by “without sin” actual means, “without moral responsibility.”
• ·         What did Jesus write in the dust?

Burge- possibilities: buying time, a Hebrew verse that shapes his response, traditional view [endorsed by ancient interpreters such as Ambrose and Augustine] is Jeremiah 17:13 “those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water”. Thus some have said Jesus was writing the sins of the accusers in the dust.

Derrett says Exodus 23:1 “Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”

Bruner- thinks that Jesus was drawing attention away from the woman and/or buying time.

Bailey- Bailey comments that he is convinced that Jesus wrote , “death”, “kill her” or “stone her with stones.” Showing that Jesus knew the punishment- but who would be righteous enough to carry it out?

In Roman law a judge would write down a verdict before making it know, thus Jesus may have written an acquittal (Ridderbos discusses but thinks unlikely)

• ·         This passage has also been found inserted into some manuscripts of Luke’s gospel after Lk 21:38.
• ·         Some have argued that the method of stoning most likely indicates that the woman was engaged to be married rather than married (Deuteronomy 22:23), but this is not clear.
• ·         The nature of the story and the shortness of it may indicate that it once belonged to a longer collection of lost writings.