1 The Ministry in and around Galilee (1:14 to 8:26)2 The Journey to Jerusalem (11 to 13)3 The Passion (14 to 15)

LISTENING TO MARK PART ONE

Three Parts: 

1 The Ministry in and around Galilee (1:14 to 8:26) Pages 1 to 7

2 The Journey to Jerusalem (8:26 to 13) Pages 8 to 14

3 The Passion (14 to 15) Pages 15 to 21

As we pick the Gospel of Mark as we did the First Sunday in Advent, we absolutely must keep in mind that this is not history. This is theology. We must avoid the temptation to wonder if Jesus really said this or that, if something really happened or if he really did something. For that matter, it is silly and waste of time to wonder how it did something. That is serious distraction that will rob us of the wonder and truth of what is being revealed. All of the Gospels owe their existence to the fact that the eyewitnesses were dying, and those who actually saw and heard Jesus speak were fast disappearing. Different from Matthew and Luke, Mark’s Gospel does not have time for Christmas. He is not writing a heart-warming story. In fact, you could say that he doesn’t have time for that sort of thing. It is a Gospel written in almost desperate haste, and you get that feeling right away. 

Mark is giving us a testimony to the church in crisis, and for me, this Gospel is as timely and important as it ever was. We may not be suffering great violent persecutions here, but there is plenty of it elsewhere. Yet, in my opinion, we are suffering persecution of a new sort. It is not violent, but it can be just as painful and distressing. Our persecution takes a different form. It is a subtle kind of emotional invalidation. There is little respect for what we believe and value most. Disregarded and blatantly ignored, we are sometimes simply dismissed as pious fools over looked and dismissed. It is a crisis if we care to take it seriously, and Mark’s Gospel speaks to that now just as he did to that early church in its suffering.

Rome, the center of Gentile civilization is the ultimate and final destination of Peter and Paul. Probably there, as a companion of Paul and a disciple of Peter, a man tradition has called, “Mark” set about the task of putting into writing what he could gather from Peter and any others who had actually heard Jesus speak. There is every reason to believe that Mark had some earlier writings now lost to us that would have recorded things Jesus said and things Jesus did. But for the most part, this is a one-source Gospel and the preaching of Peter is the source. 

As a piece of literature, it is short, blunt, and somewhat clipped in style. In some instances, the details vary from the other Gospels when describing the same incident. At first it seems to be a chronological report of the Lord’s life, but in the end, it is almost chaotic as it seems to dart abruptly from one location to another. Considering the source, what we have are the memories of the aging Peter. Mark, careful to leave nothing out, gives us Peter with no addition or subtraction. As a piece of literature then, it is a simple and direct record of what was remembered from what Jesus said and did. This is not to imply that somehow Mark’s Gospel is inferior to Matthew and Luke. On the contrary, he was actually a pioneer and preserved for us material that might have been lost had it not been for his writing. He selected, adapted, and presented traditional material, and he arranged it with great care. He wrote for a community with a firm Christian tradition knowing what he was about with great theological sophistication. 

This Gospel is written more as a sermon that serves to motivate. So, by telling the story of Jesus, Mark challenges readers to faithful discipleship. He wants to reveal God’s plan of salvation, and he presents that in and through the life of Jesus Christ. It is through human life that God saves the world. Ultimately it is a call to action that is most clearly heard at the conclusion as a call to action and conversion. His focus is on one’s personal choice to act.

When he wrote, a decision to become a follower of Jesus was very radical. It could mean disapproval and outright rejection from friends and family. It could require close fellowship with people previously shunned, slaves, Roman soldiers, Jewish nationalists, and public sinners. For the educated it could mean being laughed at for the absurdity of following a carpenter from a backwater village who was executed as a criminal. For some it could also mean imprisonment, torture, and death by the brutal Romans. Mark himself is one of these people whose life has been changed. He is excited about it, full of joy, and anxious to share his “good news”. 

He was writing for a mixed community with Gentile and Jewish backgrounds. Where they are is only a guess. Mark is not preoccupied with geographical precision. However, they are somewhere in the Roman Empire, probably Syria, which would be close to the events of the Jewish War. Because he is aware of the Gentile converts he takes great care to translate Jewish expressions, customs, and Aramaic expressions for those living in Rome. He wants to knit these two peoples closer together with Jesus as the bond of that union. Most believe it was written soon after or immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. This traumatic event raised a problem for Mark’s community which he had to face. Some believed that the destruction of the Temple would be followed immediately by the end of the world, and that did not happen. This makes Mark very conscious of living “between the times.” Victory is the destiny of the faithful, but life in the here and now is real, and it can be grim. 

Of special concern for Mark is the power of Imperial Rome as he stresses over and over again the deeds, the strength, and the determination of Jesus to overcome evil forces. Conflict is constant in Mark’s Gospel, and Jesus is the cause of it. He is in conflict with the authorities both religious and political. There is conflict with the disciples who are overwhelmed by Jesus and his demands. They are hard of heart and full of fear. They constantly misunderstand. In the end, they fail him.  As with Matthew, Luke, and John, the ultimate focus and the motive for writing is the Passion, which may have been written first with the other chapters, written later, leading and pointing toward the Passion. One third of this Gospel is devoted to the last week of Jesus’s life. 

“Who is this?” is the question that drives Mark’s Gospel from the moment Jesus brings calm to the sea up to the moment when Peter finally speaks up and expresses the faith of the apostles, and on to one final moment at the death of Jesus. One of the most striking elements in this Gospel is the reluctance of Jesus to reveal himself as Messiah. He only refers to himself as the “Son of Man”. Jesus calls disciples to faith that requires suffering, and so until they pass through the suffering, there is to be no talk or mention of who he is. This is what gives rise to what students of Mark’s Gospel call “The Messianic Secret.” Yet, we know the secret and so do the first readers of Mark’s Gospel. What unfolds in this Gospel by watching the characters who do not know what we know is an unfolding of what Jesus must undergo and what that means for those who follow him. 

Mark is a storyteller with an eye for detail especially in the miracle stories. Details are abundant and given in a vivid style, and one incident follows on another in an almost breathless narrative. He also shows himself to be a rare and fine theologian.

More than any other Gospel, Mark emphasizes the miracles, healings, and exorcisms of Jesus. There are 678 verses in Mark, and 1/3 (198) recount miracles. If you like numbers and statistics, there are 18 miracles stories. Thirteen of these are healing stories. The rest are exorcisms. In our day, these raise some questions: Did those events really occur by supernatural intervention? “Do demons really exist?” “Do miracles happen today?” In Mark’s day, these were not questions. Demons existed and troubled people, and there were miracles everywhere. So, Mark never addresses those questions. Supernatural intervention, while extraordinary, was common to the time, and attributing certain illnesses to demons was equally common. We cannot go further with this without my reminder, something I have said time and time again in these talks about the Gospels. “This is not history! This is theology.” It is ridiculous to ask “What really happened?”. That is simply a distraction from what matters, and why we have the Gospel. There is no way to answer that question. What matters is, “What did this happening really mean?” 

With that, let us step into the Gospel of Mark.

The opening verse provides the title: “The Good News,” and for Mark, Jesus is himself the Good News that God has sent his Son to rescue humanity by serving and sacrificing his life. There is no infancy narrative. Mark has no interest in what happened before the Baptism of Jesus. For Matthew and Luke, the identity of Jesus is the point of their Nativity stories. They want to introduce Jesus through a location, his family, and the witnesses (Shepherds in Luke, Magi in Matthew). Mark accomplishes that with John the Baptist.

This story of Jesus begins in the wilderness of Judea. We have no idea where that is on the map, but the location has profound theological significance. The Baptist appears like Elijah to prepare the way. At the ninth verse, Jesus is introduced, to be baptized, and to be tempted. This is Mark’s way of establishing the identity and the authority of Jesus with a hint about what is to come as Jesus moves into Galilee.

The ministry in Galilee is dominated by one question: “Who is this?”. A series of remarkable events and words of Jesus raise the question. Jesus never declares his identity. Demons know, but they are silenced by Jesus who simply offers himself and his teaching for individual decisions and commitment. “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

The ministry in Galilee has three parts, and the transition from one part to the next is marked by a response to Jesus. The first part concludes at chapter 3 verse 6: “The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.” The second part concludes at chapter 6 verse 3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.” Again, he moves on after recognizing their rejection. Part three concludes the Ministry in Galilee and leads up to the climactic moment when Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah. With that, everything changes, the pace picks up, and Jesus heads toward Jerusalem. That’s the end of the ministry in Galilee.

With that outline understood, it only takes Mark 9 verses to establish the identity of Jesus. It happens at the Baptism which, in Mark, is not a public affair. The whole event is simple and direct, it is the Epiphany moment in this Gospel establishing the identity and authority of Jesus of Nazareth. It occurs by a vision and a voice. A verb in the passive voice is used by Mark here: “The heavens were torn open.” It is the same verb used when the Temple Veil is “torn” from top to bottom. In both cases, what has been closed is now open. The mention of the Spirit descending suggests that Jesus is greater than John, and that Jesus will Baptize with the Spirit. Both the vision and the voice are intended for Jesus alone. There is no mention that anyone else was present or heard the voice. This is a secret epiphany. Jesus knows who he is by means of an experience that is not available to the public. They must discover his identity by listening to what Jesus says and by watching what he does. The centurion who watches Jesus die will confess publicly what is here revealed privately: Jesus is the Son of God. The entire story that follows is the story of Jesus and of what God did through him. We ought to think about this in terms of our own Baptism. It establishes our identity.

That Spirit descending upon him immediately drives him out into the wilderness. Mark says nothing about fasting, and there are no details about temptations. There is nothing said about the outcome of the struggle either. What matters here is the number 40 as a reminder of Israel’s forty days in the wilderness and the forty days Moses spent on Sinai. The wilderness is a place where the forces hostile to God are found. Yet, God is present there too. The Greek word translated as “tempt” can also mean “test”. It is not likely that Mark would suggest that Jesus was “tempted” to sin. On the contrary, since conflict is so much a part of Mark’s Gospel, it would be much clearer to say that Jesus was “put to the test” which is a very different experience.

Then, almost as though Jesus waits for the Baptist to finish his work, Mark simply says that Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God. For Mark, it’s all about proclaiming which includes preaching and teaching. In the first verse of Chapter One, it is the “good news of Jesus Christ.” Now in verse 14 it is the “good news of God”. Mark tells us about Jesus. Jesus tells us about God.

Announcing that “the time is fulfilled” has several dimensions of meaning. At that time and in that place, God stepped into human history in a decisive way. The time is fulfilled. Ours is an invaded planet.  Mark links the time of John’s arrest with the time when Jesus starts preaching the gospel. The time of the prophet is over. Now it’s the time of Jesus. Finally, when the good news of God is preached, it is decision time: The time is fulfilled. The other Gospels have Jesus speak of a Kingdom that is present, already here. The Jesus of Mark’s Gospel speaks of a Kingdom that is about to appear. So, it’s decision time, repent and believe. “Time is up!” 

It is hard not to answer a ringing phone, and that is a good way to enter into this first incident in the public ministry of Jesus. He calls. The memory of this among the earliest Christians was a treasure. This story must have been used in the earliest preaching of the Church. With it, the second major concern of this Gospel after Jesus himself is introduced: this group of fishermen. It is told with sharp details making it easy to visualize. It’s all vivid and fresh: five personal names, the Sea of Galilee, the nets, the boats, hired servants, casting, and mending. This is their first encounter with Jesus making their quick response so remarkable. The only words are from Jesus. He calls. They follow. We don’t know anything about them, about their work or how they got along. Mark is interested in only one thing: the authority of Jesus and the response of disciples. In other words: What does Jesus say, and how will they respond.

It can be said that one purpose of Mark’s Gospel is to allow us to participate with the first disciples of Jesus in the gradual and growing recognition of who he is until we reach the conclusion to which the demoniac points in the first of the conflicts. It happens in a synagogue. Jesus first confronts and defeats the power of evil in the place of worship of the people of God. The scribes belong there. The unclean spirit does not. The presence of Jesus is a confrontation with both the Scribes, who have no authority compared to Jesus, and the unclean spirit. What is affirmed here is the amazing authority of Jesus which shows itself in teaching and a special kind of healing that shows itself as power over forces hostile to God. 

There is a lot going on in Capernaum. First an exorcism in the synagogue, and then later that day at the home of Simon and Andrew there is a healing in Peter’s home. One involves a man and the other involves a woman. Then there are more healings in the evening that leads to the closing sentence: “He would not permit the demons to speak because they knew him. This is the first report of what is often called: “The Messianic secret.” With that day at an end, Jesus goes off to pray. The disciples track him down and want him to return to the crowds for more healing. Jesus insists that the goal of his ministry in Galilee is to preach. “That is why I came” he says.

Having established why he came and confirming his authority, a preaching tour begins, and with the first healing on this tour, the roll of faith is introduced. Mark gives us a glimpse into the motivation of Jesus who was “moved with pity” at the sight of a leper. However, more is being revealed in this episode. The words of Jesus, “I will” affirm that God wills healing, and that Jesus comes as the great physician. Then comes the stern command not to tell anyone because he wants to be known as more than a miracle worker. The crowds gathering are a hindrance to his mission.

With the first event in Chapter Two, the term, “Son of Man” is introduced, a connection between sickness and sin is raised, and the first rumblings of a conflict are heard as the scribes appear. The setting is important. Mark tells us that Jesus is “at home.”  Something different from other healing stories happens here. There is no touching and no request as a paralytic is lowered through the roof.  Jesus recognizes faith and says, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” With that the authority of Jesus is revealed and the fuse of controversy is lit. As proof Jesus then says, “Take up your mat and walk.” What we have here is a revelation of God’s forgiveness and the authority of Jesus. There is no evidence that the man had faith, but it is clear that the friends did. Their faith plays an important role.

As this first part of the Gospel continues, Levi is called, and Mark tells of growing controversy over eating with sinners and fasting. We know nothing about Levi, and he is never listed among the apostles. All we know is that Jesus calls him even though he is an outcast and therefore a sinner. Jesus eats with him. The episode provides us with a pronouncement: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” A controversy over fasting follows and provides another pronouncement: “Fresh skins for new wine.” We can only imagine how encouraging these pronouncements were to the early Church in its struggle between Gentile converts and faithful Hebrew converts hanging on to their old ways. It suggests something we know to be true but may need a reminder: Relationships are healed when people eat together. Then comes a sabbath healing of a man with a withered hand adding to the controversy. Growing opposition from religious leaders leads Jesus and his disciples to withdraw from danger. The crowd follows and Mark gives us a sense of that crowd by listing the places from which they come. It becomes a sort of “State of the Ministry” report, but the crowds have no idea who Jesus is. The unclean spirits do.

After removing Jesus from the crowd, Mark uses a verb that is translated in various ways: made, ordained, appointed, named, or chosen. The object of this verb is simply “twelve.” This is a tricky spot in the Gospel because the persons named are both disciples and apostles, “the twelve” in Mark means something more than “the disciples” but something less than the “apostles.” Mark gives their names, but three of them get surnames. They become an inner circle among the twelve. With that, this section ends as Mark writes: “Then Jesus went home.”

In Chapter Three, the Kingship of Jesus becomes the focus. What we see is that Jesus leaves his identity up to the crowds, the religious leaders, the disciples, and his own family. So, it begins in a “home.” The religious leaders accuse him of working with Satan. His family accuse him of being out of his mind. Two important pronouncements emerge from this episode: one comes from the family confrontation when Jesus says: “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” The second pronouncement concerns the “unpardonable sin.” That sin is to recognize a supernatural power at work in Jesus and yet to call that power unclean or evil. It is unforgiveable because it rejects the very agent of God’s healing and forgiveness. Mark uses the imperfect tense of the verb here, and that is significant, “Because they were saying he has an unclean spirit” suggests that this is a habitual action, a fixed attitude, a firm decision not just skepticism. It is deliberate, and that’s what is so sinful. It is the obstinate rejection of God’s Holy Spirit alone that is unforgiveable. Only those who set themselves against forgiveness are excluded from it.

Now he moves to the lake where he begins to teach in parables. There are three of these: two about seeds and one about light. Mark wants us to understand that there is a large crowd, and Jesus is presented as a “Teacher.” This is the first and longest of the teaching moments, and the location suggests that Jesus is “fishing” throwing his net broadly. 

The word parable in Greek is used more broadly than in English. We make a difference between “parable,” “allegory,” and “saying.” In the New Testament,” parable” refers to all sorts of comparisons, proverbs and riddles. After the first parable about seeds being thrown all around, there is an explanation. It is not likely that this is really Jesus explaining the parable. More likely, it is Mark interpreting the parable for the church. For insiders, parables serve as revelation. As he, probably Mark, interprets the parable, the purpose is exhortation – getting the listener to ask: “What kind of soil am I?” Consistently throughout this section there is expressed the need to “hear.” “Listening” is what Jesus teaches. Parables reveal the Kingdom of God, but reveal it as a mystery. They do this by drawing attention to the mystery and miracle in everyday activities and events like sowing seeds. It is an invitation to see and to hear God in daily life and in familiar texts like this one, to sit still and contemplate quietly until the commonplace wakes our minds and hearts to wonder.

Now remember where Jesus has been for this time of teaching: “The Lake.” As evening comes, a weary Jesus takes to a boat to escape the crowd, and a storm comes. Jesus is sleeping. Disciples are fearful. There is a pattern to the miracle stories in Mark’s Gospel: 1) a problem, 2) a solution, 3) evidence that a miracle has occurred, 4) a response of wonder. This calming of the storm fits that pattern. The command of Jesus is very strong. Many translations in English do not carry that sense. “Quiet Down!” or “Stop It!” would be closer to Mark’s Greek, and then he raises a question that is important at this point, the question of Faith.

Having crossed to the other side where the longest and most detailed exorcisms take place, the demon addresses Jesus as the “Son of God” giving us the main point of this event, that Jesus can heal because he is the Son of God. By his authority he sends the demons back to their place, the depths. This is Gentile territory, and we should not miss the message of the location. In this alien place, the authority and power of Jesus is just as great as in a synagogue and even more amazing. We might also notice that no one asks Jesus to do anything here. He operates on his own authority, and he will confront evil or sickness wherever and whenever he can. The people who witness this are afraid. Who wouldn’t be? The man who had been wild and confused now sits calmly and serene in the presence of Jesus. In the midst of a disorderly violent world, Jesus brings order and peace.

So, we’ve seen so far that Jesus can handle storms in nature and demons. Now we shall see that he can also care about more human woes. Mark employs a technique that creates suspense for us. Now back across the lake, he is headed to the home of a Synagogue leader named, “Jairus” whose daughter is dying. The trip is interrupted by an unclean woman who is bleeding. Suspense! Will he get to the home of Jairus in time? As we find out, he does not. She dies. But that is no problem for Jesus. Now he confronts death itself. What he says about her sleeping should not be understood to suggest that she only appears to be dead. The text affirms that in the presence of Jesus, death itself, real death, is but a sleep. With his command that they give her something to eat, a warm and human Jesus is affirmed. As often happens, the episode concludes with a warning to tell no one.

Jesus then goes home. Remember that his family have already tried to stop him, so what happens at home should come as no surprise. He goes to the synagogue and takes his turn at teaching, and it does not go over well, providing us with one more of his pronouncements: “No prophet is acceptable in his village.” Overfamiliarity is a hindrance to healing, so he can do very little there and leaves. It is not that Jesus cannot heal when there is no faith, but it has a restrictive, dampening effect on his work. Mark tells us that he left to continue teaching. This is his work and ministry: teaching. There is a message here buried in the details that God does not always chose to work with the exotic or “professional” but sometimes in those we know very well, our neighbors.

Mark now shifts to the apostles. It began with just four, then he named some of them disciples. Now, he sends the Twelve to extend the work of Jesus. These followers do not understand him. They do not share his way of obedience to the will of God. They are always, up to the end, never fully understanding. They vow to follow him, but they fail, and their failures are greater than their successes. Yet, Jesus does not wait. Flawed as they are, he sends them out, and we can hardly miss Mark’s message to a flawed and often failing church. This is the first and only time the word “apostle” (one sent) is used. Notice that it is a communal mission. They go two by two, not one by one.

Before they come back, there is an interruption. Suspense again? John the Baptist is killed, and Mark uses this to foreshadow what will happen to Jesus as well as those who assume his mission. When the Twelve return, Jesus takes them off to a deserted place, but the crowd chases after them setting the scene for the “Feeding” miracle, which is the only miracle of Jesus that is reported in all four Gospels. Mark has two feeding miracles. It all happens with five loaves of bread and two fish. Mark gives us a shepherd’s image as Jesus has the people to sit down on green grass telling the disciples that they should give the people something to eat. We ought not to miss how Mark widens the ministry of Jesus beyond healing miracles. Jesus is attentive to every human need. He feeds people. When it comes to the Church and its members doing what Jesus did, there is a message here. Even though Mark uses eucharistic language having Jesus look up to heaven, bless, break and give, this ought not be spiritualized. He is feeding hungry people.

Typical of Mark’s gospel so often reflecting a rush, he says that “Immediately” Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and head to the other side while he dismissed the crowd before going up on the mountain to pray. The pattern of rushing and then praying is already clear in this Gospel. Then comes a storm, and it’s almost hard to tell what frightens the disciples more, the storm or the “ghost” they see.

This is a classic Epiphany moment, a manifestation of Divine presence. The words: “It is I” confirm this, and the verb, “pass by” is another biblical way of describing a divine, saving presence. Not calmed by these words, Jesus gets in the boat with them. While the wind and sea are calmed, there is no hint that the fears of the disciples were calmed, and Mark makes it clear that they do not understand anything. In contrast to them, the people on the shore where they land recognized him immediately.

Into that scene comes Pharisees and some Scribes. Mark says that they come from Jerusalem, and that detail is like a storm cloud on the horizon beginning the final conflict with adversaries in Galilee. The controversy is over what is clean and what is unclean and the interpretation of the law governing this. The disciples had not washed their hands, but the question is really about lifestyle, and the formal rigid lifestyle proposed by the Pharisees allows the neglect of parents, and Jesus exposes this hypocrisy. Suddenly, a Greek woman, a Gentile is on the scene, and the question about clean and unclean moves from things to people. Even though Jesus refuses her at first, her attitude and faith open the mission to the Gentiles. This is followed by the curing of a deaf-mute, and it is the last of a string of miracle stories concerned with the question of Jesus’ identity. It concludes with another order not to tell anyone, but the crowd says: “He has done all things well. He makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

With that, chapter eight begins in this way: “In those days when there again was a great crowd without anything to eat.” The dialogue between Jesus and the disciples reveals their lack of understanding. How in the world could they ask the same question: “Where can anyone get enough bread to satisfy this crowd?” How dull are they? Did they learn nothing from the previous feeding story? Another feeding story is told. There might be two reasons. The first would be for the sake of emphasis lest we think that Jesus is just teaching and talking all the time. The second reason is that it introduces an interesting noticeable diminishing of power as the eighth chapter unfolds. Here he feeds fewer people with greater resources, and there is less left over. Do not miss the subtle image connection here between Jesus and Moses as people in the desert are adequately fed. We see him avoiding a verbal challenge from his rivals, the Pharisees. The crowd is still not comprehending no matter what he does. It takes two attempts to heal a blind man, and there is an inadequate confession from a follower. We begin to see some vulnerability as he faces his upcoming death. Then it’s back to the boat. The destination is unclear. Mark says Dalmanutha. There is no such place identified in history. Now we are in Gentile territory affirming the mission to the Gentiles.

Moving on, the Pharisees show up and totally exasperate Jesus with a request for a sign. Back to the boat, and in that boat, Jesus teaches them about the sign of the feeding and the bread, and Mark records their lack of understanding in the words of Jesus: “Do you still not understand?” I suspect that the rest of the trip was made in silence. With verse 27 of chapter 8, the Disciples and Jesus set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asks the big question: “Who do people say that I am?”  After their report, the really big question is asked: “Who do you say that I am?”   Drum rolls, trumpet blasts, and flashing lights should sound at this point in Mark’s Gospel. It is the turning point as Peter says: “You are the Messiah.” Now mind you, this comes from someone who does not understand. He has no idea what the Messiah must really be like and what the Messiah must do. The next part of Mark’s Gospel will begin to explore that with the first prediction of the Passion followed by the Transfiguration. We will take up the second part of this Gospel when we return to Ordinary Time. With this much, you should be ready to listen to the beginning of Mark’s Gospel during this season.

Listening to Matthew 2022 + 2023

Part Three, The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

(Begin with singing Bach’s “O Sacred Head”)

As we begin, it should go without saying by now, but I’ll say it again: This is not History. What we are given is rooted in certain basic facts, but the intention of all the Gospel writers is to interpret history, not report it. In other words what is important is what it means, not how it happened. There are here powerful theological motives for writing. Frequently important texts from the Old Testament will weave in and out shaping the way the story is told to assure us that what happened to Jesus was always God’s plan. It was not some accident or the result of some terrible mistake or the triumph of evil over good. This is God’s plan. 

It all begins as each section of Matthew’s Gospel has begun with that formula: “When Jesus had finished these things….” This time another word is slipped into the signal phrase: “When Jesus had finished all these sayings…” Now there is nothing more to say.

Matthew’s desire to show the fulfillment of all the prophets moves Jesus toward his death, and so the Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel, knowing the prophets, knows everything that is to take place. This is not because he has some Divine foreknowledge, but because he knows the prophets. That is important to understand. If his Divine Nature interferes with his human nature, something is wrong. What we shall see in Matthew’s Passion is the great dignity of Jesus as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and King. This is Matthew’s statement about who this is, about the identity of Jesus. Around this Matthew clusters some other themes: the responsibility of the people of Israel for the blood of innocent Jesus, the founding of the church by the crucified and risen Jesus, the weakness of Peter and others in contrast to the strength of Jesus. Remember, Matthew is writing this Gospel to encourage and strengthen a church that is troubled by persecution, division, and betrayal. The failure of Peter, the fate of Judas, the failure of Jewish leaders all warn and challenge the Christians to whom he writes.

And so, it begins with Chapter 26. The fourth and final prediction of the Passion begins this section as an introduction. In the Greek, there is a change in verb tense that somehow did not get carried over into most English Translations, but I think it is worth noting. In the three previous predictions of the Passion Matthew uses the future tense. Now it is in the present tense saying: “The Son of Man is being handed over.” There is also great significance to the use of the passive verb “is being”. This is Matthew’s skill in making it clear that this is God’s doing. God is in control. God’s will or plan is being completed. In Matthew’s brilliant construction of this Gospel (Remember I pointed out earlier that some scholars refer to him as an “architect”) there is a “flash back” scene when he tells us that the chief priests and elders of the people gathered together conspiring to kill Jesus. That’s the same gathering with an earlier plot to kill Jesus in the infancy narrative. The Gospels do not agree on dates – another indication that this is not a history report. In Matthew, Jesus dies on Passover, the 13^th day of Nisan which fell on a Friday that year creating a theological connection between the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb and the prediction of his death by Jesus. Those leaders want to avoid arresting Jesus during the Passover fearing a riot because at this point the people are on the side of Jesus, and it was believed that the Messiah would appear at Passover. But, since God is in charge, their plan to avoid the Passover arrest does not work out as they planned.

The whole narrative for Matthew is like a great drama. So, after a scene with the gathering of the chief priests and elders, there comes another scene in which a woman with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment pours it over the head of Jesus. The clueless disciples don’t get it, but Jesus declares this as one more indication of what is to come, the anointing of his body for burial. But there is even more to this anointing since the Messiah was to be “The Anointed” one. Matthew affirms the role of Jesus at this point as the Messiah. It’s an affirmation that will be needed as Israel’s expectation of what the Messiah will be crumbles as the passion unfolds. All through Matthew’s Passion we ought to take notice that the women come off much better than the men. This is the first example of that, and there will be more. The women are more loyal and unselfish and certainly braver. The contrast is shocking. In this scene, the men quibble over the legitimacy of a generous act of love, while the woman manifests the true spirit of discipleship. Then the contrast gets sharper between the woman, who cannot qualify as a member of the Twelve because of her gender, and Judas who appears in the next scene bargaining away his teacher for a paltry thirty pieces of silver. She has just lavished her money on a gift for her master. This happens at the home of Simon the Leper, and we know nothing about him. In Matthew, this woman is unnamed. Jesus interprets her action for us as an anointing for his burial. In Matthew’s Gospel, there will be no report of women coming to the tomb to anoint the body, and there is no Nicodemus with spices for the anointing. It happens here.

This flows very naturally into the next scene which in contrast has Judas going into action. The amount of money is only mentioned in Matthew because it is a prophecy fulfillment (Zechariah 11:12). It is a demeaning sum. In the Book of Zechariah, a slave is gored by an ox, this is the amount in reparation to the master of the slave. In other words, he’s only a slave and not worth much. Matthew offers no motive for the treachery of Judas. While some may want to make greed the motive, the little sum of money makes that improbable. Some want to propose that Judas wanted to force Jesus to become the Messiah they wanted to compel some miraculous event. Matthew is simply not interested in that guessing game. I think Matthew is content to let the mystery of evil stand on its own. Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes good people do bad things. There doesn’t need to be some other motive. The Jewish leaders who had wanted to delay the arrest of Jesus lose control with the offer Judas makes to them. Now their plan to wait will not work.  Judas is in control of the timing and arrest. This along with the knowledge that Jesus has been showing all along affirms that this is the plan of God unfolding just as God designed not the work of some enemies. 

At this point, Matthew has the cast of characters on stage: Jesus, his disciples, his opponents, and the machinery of betrayal and death begins to turn. It is now the eve of the Passover, and with almost majestic solemnity Jesus, preparing for his last Passover gives precise directions to disciples on how and where the Passover will be celebrated. Following the instructions of Jesus, the Passover celebration begins, and the mood is filled with sadness and exaltation. It is also amusing to me that translations into English (like the popular New American Bible) from Matthew’s Greek mention a “table.” One commentary suggests that the translators were influenced by Leonardo da Vinci’s painting. There is no mention of a table in the original Greek. They were lying on cushions as the custom would have suggested. In that culture, any meal is a sacred moment at which a powerful bond of friendship is celebrated. Eating with someone means something beautiful, powerful, and sacred. When Jesus says: “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me is my betrayer” there is a disturbance not because this exposes one of them, but because they have all done that. In that circumstance, they all ate out of a common dish. So, when Jesus predicts that someone will violate that sacred bond of friendship, there is a disturbance that raises a question that can find an echo in every human heart: “Is it I, Lord?” As we shall see, they all betrayed him, not just Judas. Here is an example of a technique in Matthew I mentioned earlier. We know something the characters do not know. For us, the betrayer is revealed as each of the disciples uses the word, “Lord”. When Judas asks his question, he says, “Rabbi.” If they thought Judas was a betrayer, they never would have let him leave the room. In Mark’s Gospel, it is unbelievers who address Jesus by that title. Judas seems to fascinate Matthew, and there is more about Judas here than in the other Gospels.

Matthew assumes that his readers know how a Passover meal is celebrated, so there are little details until Jesus says something out of the ordinary. Imagine how surprised those disciples were when Jesus took the bread as was the custom but makes no mention of the ancient exodus as would normally happen. Instead, he says: “This is my body” leading Matthew’s readers to realize that a new exodus will occur. In the ritual, the second cup was filled with red wine symbolic of the blood of the Passover, the blood of lambs, sprinkled on the doorposts of Israelite homes so that the avenging angel would pass over. Again, the words of Jesus are a surprise. He makes no mention of the past, but speaks of the new covenant and the future. Here is that shift always in the shadow of Matthew’s Gospel. There is a new Israel, a new chosen people, a new covenant, and that people will be established by doing this in his memory. With a promise that they shall all drink the fruit of the vine in the Kingdom, they sing a hymn and depart. With that promise of a great reunion in the Kingdom of Heaven, the meal ends on a very hopeful note. They sing the traditional song that concludes the meal, the Hallel which is Psalms 113 through 118. These are psalms of praise. Taken as a whole, they are songs of deliverance.  They are joyful and grateful.

On the way Jesus speaks of their faith being shaken, and Peter speaks up with great bravado. Again, we know something he doesn’t know his promise to never deny Jesus will be broken, and then Peter sleeps. Matthew takes great care to affirm the humanity of Jesus with the Gethsemane scene. Jesus is free to rebel against God’s will, but he learns through prayer to say not my will but yours just as he taught us about prayer. The same three disciples who were with Jesus at the transfiguration are with him now. Then they fell on their faces. Now Jesus falls on his face and they sleep. With terrible irony, Judas is awake and leading a crowd to the garden. On the surface, it would seem that Judas has taken the initiative here and is in charge, but the way Matthew presents this scene, it is Jesus who is in control What happens Jesus could easily have prevented, but he chooses not to do so. Judas calls Jesus “Rabbi” again, and Jesus calls him “friend.” The kiss is really an insult because a student/disciple would and could never be that intimate with their Rabbi/Teacher unless invited to do so. With this detail, Matthew would lead us to see that Judas is repudiating the authority of Jesus. Violence erupts, a sword is drawn, and the disciples flee, and Jesus insists that violence is not the answer nor the greatest power. It is love.

Now begins the second part of Matthew’s passion, the condemnation to death. The charge is a threat to destroy the Temple, and that is serious not because it was God’s dwelling place but because it provided the priestly caste of their livelihood and status. For them, that is most serious. This threat to destroy the Temple was a threat to national identity, self-understanding, and national pride. It was sacrilegious and treasonous. In the end however, the charge is Blasphemy. At this point in Matthew’s Passion narrative, we run right into the fact that this is not history. There are all kinds of details here that are simply in conflict with history. For instance, the Jewish high court would not have convened at night, in a private home on the eve of a major festival. Add to that fact a law which said a capital trial could not be held at night. The only way to reconcile these events is to suppose that there was a quickly assembled inquiry at night with a formal verdict being passed in the morning. It could be argued that this conflict could be explained by the fact that this was extraordinary and required secrecy and haste hence the night trial. However, St Luke has doubts about this because he sets the trial before “the council of the elders of the people” on Friday morning at its regular meeting place. John’s Gospel has no trial of Jesus before a Jewish court. So much for trying to make history out of this. 

Matthew wants us to see more than a rather odd and clumsy effort to make Jesus look guilty and set the conditions for Pilate’s verdict. The focus and purpose of this scene is to provide Jesus with the opportunity to declare the purpose of his mission. This helpless victim is gradually revealed as the builder of the New Temple, the Son of God, the Messiah who sits at the right hand of God. The judges become the judged! The whole scene is framed by the report of Peter’s denial in the courtyard. As the cock crows and he remembers what Jesus had said, he recognizes that in spite of his denial he is loved and he weeps. Caiaphas, frustrated at the silence of Jesus asks a question, and we know the answer. “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?” Caiaphas ends up doing what Peter cannot do. Yet we could hear what Caiaphas says as bitter sarcasm: “Are you the Messiah”. It’s like saying: “Is this all we get?” The silence of Jesus up to this point is one more example of a refusal to stop what his happening. But he cannot remain silent. So, when the High Priest’s question touches on the truth about Jesus as Messiah, Jesus simply says: “You have said it so.” With that, by assenting to the title Son of God, they have all they need. It’s Blasphemy, and that required the death penalty. Leaving the scene, Matthew switches back to Peter.

When it does come to Peter’s denial, I find it quite interesting that Matthew never mentions his name again. The very prediction of Peter’s denial affirms once again that Jesus is Prophet just as the soldiers mock and taunt him calling him “prophet”. After Peter’s denial, there is another scene in which Jesus is transferred to the Roman Governor. Then it’s back to Judas who, like Peter is overwhelmed with regret and attempts to return the thirty pieces of silver to the leaders confessing that he has betrayed innocent blood. The two betrayers stand in contrast. One repents and weeps. The other does not have repentance because that leads to a change in life. He only has regrets, despairs and then he dies. 

Since only the Roman Governor could pass a death sentence, the “authorities” had to find a way to get what they wanted. Blasphemy would mean nothing to the Roman Governor. So, they switch tactics, and with the Roman Governor the charge is changed to suggest treason as Jesus is presented as King. Dreams which have an important part at the opening of Matthew’s Gospel are suddenly again used as the wife of Pilate intervenes because of a dream. She is only mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel. This whole scene is theological in that it carries the message that the death sentence handed down by Pilate is really the responsibility of the leaders of the people who assume full responsibility resulting in what is stated in verse 43 of chapter 21: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.” There is no real historical evidence that there really was a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover time. Luke’s Gospel never mentions this at all. That does not mean it didn’t happen, but the question pushes us to ask what it means. Pilate calls him “famous” The adjective Matthew uses, different from Mark’s is not so dark and threatening. Mark calls him a murderer. Matthew simply says he is famous which makes the choice of the people more interesting to all Christians still tempted to choose someone famous over Christ. Our present-day hero worship of celebrities is the point.

As I said, this whole scene is Matthew’s way of affirming the guilt of the Leaders. This is not something Pilate does, but he does recognize that Jesus could be used as a figurehead by a revolutionary movement. It is important when reflecting upon this and the words: “His blood be upon us and our children” as a theological conviction that Israel as a whole has rejected its Messiah in a final and definitive way and therefore deserves to be deselected as God’s special people. Matthew describes the crowds at this point, and it is important to recall that throughout the Gospel, “the crowds” were always on the brink of acknowledging Jesus as God’s son, but they have not been won over to faith in Jesus. They followed, they marveled, and they praised, but their highest praise, that Jesus is the son of David is inadequate. The crowds never called Jesus “Lord” or “Son of God”, but the disciples do. When thought of this way, as Matthew intended, this is less an attack on Jews as an explanation for the Gentile mission and for the church in which Gentiles are not predominate. This is about rejection not about murder. In a very real way, Israel (the Jewish leaders) hand Jesus over to the Gentiles (the Romans) in an ironic but clearly understood theological statement.

The abuse of Jesus as Matthew presents it leads to the crucifixion. These “soldiers” are not Roman legionaries. They would have been “auxiliaries” not Jewish inhabitants of the area. “Mercenaries” is what we would call them today. They had no love for the Jews, so having an opportunity to abuse the “King of the Jews” was all they needed. They mock the “king”. He gets a scepter (a reed). He gets a crown (of thorns). He gets the royal robe (a soldier’s red cape). 

When presenting the crucifixion, Matthew gives us very little by way of details. There is nothing said about nails or pounding. He simply says: “having crucified”. The details given are not about the victim but about the spectators in this Gospel. First there is Simon the Cyrenian. No details come from Matthew. We are not informed that Jesus is too weak. Simon is simply a silent spectator. There are the soldiers who fulfill a prophesy by offering sour wine to Jesus as they split up his clothing. The two thieves, like the soldiers are negative observers. They say nothing in Matthew’s Gospel. Just their placement on the right and left ironically suggests a royal setting. Since these observers have no lines, there are others who do speak, and that gives them some prominence. These are the people passing by who mockingly quote Jesus about the temple coming down and his messianic claim. For Matthew, this is a refrain from the temptation in the desert during which Satan tempts Jesus to draw on supernatural power and save himself. The leaders of the people are there too speaking about and actually quoting what Jesus has said and done. The message from Matthew through this scene is that those who became Christians had to face a challenge from family, friends, and acquaintances. Matthew’s crucifixion scene speaks to this by showing that the indignities Jesus suffered as Messiah were all in accordance with the prophecies. Israel had expected an all-powerful Messiah, but God had sent one who would renounce the use of force against his enemies and submit instead to suffering and death for “the Son of man came not be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The moment of crucifixion is an enthronement: Jesus, crowned, is surrounded by an improbable retinue of two others who die in the same way. The entire crucifixion story as Matthew tells it is one Old Testament Prophecy fulfillment after another. Nearly every detail has an Old Testament reference. The detail of the soldiers casting lots over the clothing of Jesus is just one obvious example. The first readers of Matthew’s Gospel would have understood and connected all these references, images, and details. Of the traditional “Seven Last Words”, Matthew gives us only one: “My God, My God, Why Have You Abandoned Me.” Men and women of faith at that time did not consider it inappropriate to argue with God. Scenes from “Fiddler on the Roof”, if you remember, should confirm that fact. It is not unfaith, but faith that permits Job to call God’s justice into question. What most scholars accept for this moment is that Jesus is praying Psalm 22 which begins by complaining to God. The faith of Jesus is seen by the possessive pronoun, MY. Did Jesus feel abandoned by God? Probably so, why not? Matthew may have wanted to make this point. Separation from God is the price or the consequence of sin. Jesus is paying that price on behalf of others is the point. The offering of the sour wine is refused. It was probably a cruel way of prolonging the agony, and Jesus will have none of that.

Matthew records three events at the moment of the death, an earthquake, splitting of the rocks, and the Temple veil being torn from top to bottom. These are all biblical signs of the end of the world. In a very true sense, the death of Jesus did mark the end of a world without hope and the beginning of new age of God’s Spirit. The tearing of the Temple veil is followed by a Gentile (Roman soldier) confessing faith in Jesus. We can assume that Matthew, is still addressing that community struggling with Gentile inclusion. He sees the torn veil as sign of universal access by all to Jesus. Unique to Matthew’s Gospel is the addition of the men who are with that centurion. They all say those words: “Truly this was the Son of God.” These are Gentiles, not Jews. With this detail, Matthew affirms the place and the faith of Gentiles among the newly chosen People of God. Women are also present leading to the scenes of the burial and the resurrection.

Matthew, as with all the other Gospels describes the burial of Jesus for one reason, to confirm the reality of the death. Remember, in Mark, there is a Centurion dispatched to pierce the side of Jesus to confirm that Jesus is dead. We do not find that in Matthew. He goes straight to the story of Joseph of Arimathea. His action of providing a family tomb is extravagant. Romans threw the bodies of the crucified on the ground as food for scavengers. Jewish law forbids this, but a criminal’s body was not allowed in the family tomb, so there was a common grave. We know from Matthew that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin who probably opposed this death. If he had his own tomb, he was a rich man, and with that detail, another Old Testament prophesy is fulfilled. (Isaiah 53,9 “They made his grave with a rich man.”). The Gospel accounts make it clear that there is something special here, and the clean linen cloth emphasizes that. 

Matthew’s concern is not whether or not Jesus is dead, he wants to confront the rumor that the body was stolen. For the leaders, an empty tomb would be an incontestable fact. If it were not empty, the leaders could easily refute any preaching about the resurrection by displaying a corpse. This is a dilemma. So, they come up with that rumor as a way to explain an empty tomb. The placing of the guard is only found in Matthew’s Gospel. It’s one more effort to refute the rumor that the body was stolen. The fact that this rumor existed is in itself an indication that the tomb was empty! Matthew shows the rumor to be false because it is based on the laughable testimony of witnesses who admit to sleeping through the whole event. Now the women come into the scene. There are only two of them this time. There is no way to guess or figure out why two and where the third woman was. Matthew is the only Gospel writer who tells us that the tomb was guarded. There is something ironic here when the Jewish leaders want Pilate to have the tomb guarded. It would seem that they put more stock in a prediction by Jesus that after three days he would rise from the dead. Meanwhile, his disciples seem to have forgotten all about that. Suddenly, these leaders want to join forces with the power of Rome to prevent the resurrection as best they can with a sealed stone and posted sentries. This is all part of Matthew’s effort to confront the rumor of the time that the body was stolen not brought back to life. These guards at the tomb, unlike the ones at the cross do not confess belief. Unbelieving, they became as “dead men.” Yet, like the magi at the beginning of this Gospel, they leave with the same great joy that filled the magi who came to see the new born king. In his appearance to these women, he sends them to his “brothers”. He does not say “disciples” because all is forgiven. 

As Matthew draws this to an end, there is nothing about the resurrection itself. All we get is the effects with two points of view: an empty tomb and the disciples meeting the risen Lord. Again, there is an earthquake. It’s the second one. The first one at the moment of his death when Matthew says, “The tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.” This second earthquake announces another opening. The women went “to see the tomb”. What is important to Matthew is not what they were coming to do, but what happened to them. An angel comes for the first time since the opening of this Gospel. Notice that the angel rolls the stone for them. There is no suggestion that the opening of the tomb is necessary to allow the risen Christ to come out. He has already risen when the angel rolls the stone. The women do not come to see him rising, but to see that he has already risen. The invitation to see the place where he lay is addressed to the same persons who watched the body being placed there, so there is no mistake. It’s not the wrong grave, and the stone was still in place when they got there. Then comes the instructions: to tell and go to Galilee, and with that note, Matthew, once more, emphasis the importance of Galilee making it the place where the story ends because that’s where the ministry of Jesus began.

The presence of Jesus after the resurrection is quite different in each of the Gospels. Yet, it is likely that a common story of the commissioning of the Twelve is shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. However, each of them relates this event from the perspective of their own theology. The location says something. Mark has it happen in Jerusalem, Luke and John have it happening in Galilee. Matthew, who is the focus for us right now places the appearance where?  On a mountain! Several times in Matthew, important events occur on the mountain: the final temptation, the transfiguration, and then there is THE mountain of the Beatitudes. These final verses are unique to Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus comes as the Son of Man to found and commission his church. While he sent his apostles only to the land and people of Israel during his public ministry, he now sends the eleven to all nations, with baptism, not circumcision as the initiation rite, and with his commands, not the Mosaic Law, as the final norm of morality. Here for the only time in this Gospel the address is to “the eleven”, a sad reminder that Judas is lost. What they saw there on that mountain is not given to us. Matthew is more concerned with what is said. All through chapters 24 to 26 “Son of Man” is the title Matthew uses for Jesus. Then he changes in Chapter 27 to “Son of God.” Finally, in this last chapter, the title, “Jesus” is the only one Matthew uses to make certain that there is a connection between the risen Lord and the earthly Jesus. Matthew tells us that when they saw him they worshipped him but some doubted. The word, “doubt” here means hesitation. Jesus approaches them Matthew tells us. He speaks first of himself, then to them with the words of commission, and finally the most comforting and reassuring words in all of the Gospel: “I am with you always to the end of the age.”

Our scientific age and our need for scientific proof for something to be real or true crashes when it comes to the Resurrection and that Empty Tomb. So, we like to soften the reality that we cannot explain by suggesting that the disciples felt that Jesus was still with them in spirit. Add to this the fact that the details presented by all four Evangelists have huge discrepancies: who first discovered that the tomb was empty?  When did they do so? How and when was the stone rolled away? Was there one angel or two? Or was there any angel at all? Early Christians were not very concerned about detail accuracy. This is a faith story intended for believers. Non-believers will never be convinced of anything about an empty tomb. This is not so much about Jesus as it is about God.  To believers, there is no doubt at all that God could raise Jesus from the grave. The purpose is to ask a question: “What is this story telling us about God?”

The cry of Jesus on the cross is answered. At the same time, we must avoid thinking that the resurrection was just automatic because after all, Jesus was divine. That thinking deprives Good Friday of its significance. If the resurrection was because Jesus was divine, then the whole business of the cross was just an act a charade. Matthew insists that this is God’s act. To make that as clear as possible, Matthew uses the passive voice of the verb: “He has been raised.” The empty tomb is not proof of anything. It is a sign of the resurrection. The resurrection is not a carefully constructed myth but an inexplicable event. The story is only believable because God is believable. 

Part Two, The Mission and the Message

It is a peculiar fact that in age and at a time in human history when more people are literate that the Word of God has become more difficult to read. People born before the rational scientific revolution of the last few hundred years knew how to read sacred literature. They knew and they understood images, not photographs or paintings, but the kind of images found in time-tested mythology. They knew that the truth was passed on through symbols and stories. It is not that the stories were made up and therefore not true, but that the stories, the characters, their challenges, their failures, were told to reveal or convey the truth. What is peculiar, and very unfortunate is that we modern or post-modern people, however we want to call ourselves, have been infected with something more troubling that a virus. That something is best called “the scientific method.” Because of that, we have forgotten how to read sacred literature. We read the words all right, and there are countless Bible study programs to give evidence that people do read the Sacred Scriptures. The very fact that the Bible is still to this day is the most purchased book on the market.

Because we’ve been infected, we look for what we might call “empirical truth”. By that I mean, evidence, research, and reason. If there is no evidence, if there has been no research, and if it is unreasonable, it isn’t the truth. That kind of thinking will not allow the message, the truth, the revelation of our Sacred Writings to come through to us. The fact is, our ancient scriptures are full of mythical, symbolic images, and in order to understand our Scriptures, we must will willing to look for the symbols, to treat the sacred stories as powerful, truth-bearing stories, not historical reporting.

This bothers a lot of people, and that’s too bad because too often those who are shocked or upset about this fact are too afraid to move beyond the comfortable, and I’ll say, “lazy” way of just thinking that reading the Bible, especially the Gospels is like reading someone’s diary. Here’s an example. In Matthew 24 it starts with “Jesus left the Temple.” We think the Temple is a big building in Jerusalem, but not for Matthew. The Temple represents the entire system of life, faith, and economy. The entire verse says this: “Jesus left the Temple, and as he was going away his disciples came up to draw his attention to the Temple buildings”. The disciples are always doing things like that. It’s the end of the Gospel, the 24^th chapter out of 28, and they have not gotten the point! He’s leaving the Temple, and they are admiring the building. The disciples are stuck in the system the Temple represents, marveling at the structure, and the reply of Jesus is: “You see these stones? In truth I tell you, not a single stone will be left on another. It’s all going to fall apart. Stop putting your trust in it.” Jesus is talking about the end of the world, not about a building. He is talking about the end world as we have known it. And I’ll bet your sitting here thinking I’m talking about the apocalypse or the destruction of the universe or creation. No. I’m talking about the end of the world as we live it. Because when Jesus comes, when the Messiah comes, when the Kingdom of God breaks into our lives, the world as we knew it, saw it, and served it is all over. We cannot welcome the presence of Christ, the full coming of Christ until we have let go of the old. Too many live under the illusion that it is possible to worship this world order and at the same time say: “Thy Kingdom Come.” Yet, we can’t say, “Thy Kingdom Come” until we say, “My Kingdom go.”

Here’s the point in our discovery of Matthew’s Gospel and all scriptures for that matter. The story is always true, and sometimes it really happened. That’s the nature of all sacred scriptures. This is what I wanted you to understand in the first of these talks before Christmas, and you have to hang on to that as we go forward. Did three kings from somewhere in the east to Bethlehem? I don’t believe that really happened, and you don’t have to. But you do have to believe the truth that the story contains. Every nation on earth will come to adore the King. So, what does the virus of our age do to us, people spend hours and waist all kinds of time trying to prove by science and the study astronomy to see if there was some kind of special star. Those folks are done for when it comes to their ability to read the images and find the truth in the stories that may or may not be true.

So, let’s wade into the middle section of Matthew’s so well-structured Gospel. There is a signal phrase in this Gospel that signals a change. It’s like the “ding” in an elevator that tells you another floor has been reached. When Matthew writes this: When Jesus had finished these sayings…. it is the signal that one of the five divisions or books is finished. Sometimes these divisions are called, “discourses”. The sequence of events in Matthew matches Mark’s Gospel with groups of sayings inserted. An example is what we call “Sermon on the Mount.” Those sayings in Mark and Luke’s Gospels are scattered throughout but Matthew groups them together. So, Mark gives Matthew the structure, or sequence of events. 600 of the 661 verse of Mark are found in Matthew. Events from Mark have sayings added by Matthew. Then, unique to Matthew is great attention to the Old Testament. Remember that yesterday I spoke of Matthew’s audience being made up of primarily Jewish converts to the “Way”. Matthew wants them to feel OK about that conversion. Also unique to Matthew is his interest in Church affairs. This is the only Gospel that makes a direct mention of the “Church”. Much of it is directed toward situations that the Church of the first century was facing. With that said, let’s take up the five Books noticing that there is a progression that shows Jesus moving from his homeland in Galilee, to his rejection in Jerusalem, and then triumphantly back again to Galilee at the end.

The First Discourse: Chapters 3 to 7:28 concerns The Ethics of the Kingdom

Details tell us a lot. Jesus sits, the disciple’s approach, he opens his mouth and teaches. Those first two verbs suggest to us that Matthew wants us to see a king on his throne, and his disciples come like subjects in a royal court. Notice that the disciples are the ones he addresses. The crowd is just there listening in. This is not something private for an exclusive group. They can hear and potentially become disciples. Here is the Teacher addressing the learners.

In many English translations, the word Blessed is used which does not always carry into English the complex meaning of the word Matthew chooses in Greek. Congratulations would really be more accurate.

Congratulations to the poor in spirit. We should not miss the point that both Matthew and Luke open the Good News for the poor. Matthew adds “the spirit” leading us away from thinking about an economic condition. This is about the need for God.

Congratulations to those who mourn. This is not about the loss of a loved one. This is about sharing God’s sadness over sin and evil, war and injustice. It’s a longing for God to act and make things right. 

Congratulations to the meek refers not to those who are powerless, but to those who use power and strength for the right reasons. This is a description of Jesus who is humble. In Greek, the term Matthew uses refers to taming a wild animal. 

Congratulations to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. These people hunger and thirst for the right things – their deepest longings are for fellowship with God. They will know a comfort only God can provide.

Congratulations to the merciful. This is not about feelings. It is about action that leads toward helping another. These are people who have experienced God’s mercy and know it was given to be shared.

Congratulations to the pure of heart. This is about the very center of a person’s innermost being, the place where decisions are made. The condition of one’s heart determines one’s actions. The issue here is moral purity. It assumes that communion with God depends on purity of heart, not purity of cups.

Congratulations to the Peace Makers. These are the ones who leave the altar to make peace with another. 

Congratulations to those persecuted for the sake of righteousness. The “righteous one” is Jesus in the mind of disciples. He is also the “Just one” leading the disciples to see that there is a price to pay for justice in an unjust world.

Congratulations to you when people revile you and utter all kinds of evil on my account. 

There is a switch here from the third person to the second person that few people ever notice, but it is important. Matthew is now addressing the Christian community. They are congratulated because they share the same fate as the prophets.

We are all so familiar with the Beatitudes, that we often tend to think that the first thirteen verses of chapter five is the sermon. Wrong! The Beatitudes are simply the opening for this Sermon which really gets down to business as Jesus begins to clarify, describe, or define the vocation of a disciple in the world. Immediately Jesus makes it clear that faith and discipleship are not private matters. Thinking or saying that “My faith is a matter between God and me” is the opposite of what Jesus says. The salt and light instruction ought to make that perfectly clear. Why should we do this? To win rewards or acceptance? Jesus is not telling disciples that by doing good works, they would earn salvation. Those good works are to give glory to God.

Then comes a clarification about the Law. It is not abolished. It is fulfilled which means complete, and in this sermon, disciples are instructed to complete or perfect the law in six areas: Murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, revenge and love of enemies. Each of these are introduced by a lead-in phrase: “You have heard it said, you shall not commit murder. “You have heard is said, you shall not commit adultery, and so on. With this instruction for us disciples, comes the practice of almsgiving, fasting, and prayer. When Matthew has Jesus get to this final instruction, he provides the model prayer. As this first discourse draws to a close, Jesus tells disciples about what kind of treasures matter, reminds them that they cannot serve two masters, that they are not to judge, remember that God provides, so disciples must ask trusting that God provides what they need, and finally, the discourse ends with the news that those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This discipleship is about doing something. A disciple cannot just be a “hearer” of the Word. There must be action. With the last verse of this discourse, Matthew tells us that the crowds were astonished at his teaching because he taught with authority, not like the scribes. With Matthew, as I said earlier, it is not miracles that bring the people to amazement. It is the Word Spoken.

Second Discourse: Chapters 8:1 to 11:1 Concerns the Mission

The second discourse begins with the usual Matthean bridge saying: “Now, when Jesus had finished saying these things……. It is a reflection on the authority of Jesus and the need for disciples to submit to that power and authority. Now the authority that raised such amazement is confirmed with a series of miracle stories that lead disciples to understand the Mission of the Kingdom. Divine power goes on display through Jesus, and it’s all about healing. There are three sets of stories that concern the fact that each person has been excluded from participation in the life of Israel. There is pattern of triads in Matthew’s Gospel. You will see it again and again. 

The first is the cure of a leper, the second is a gentile centurion and his son, the third is Peter’s mother-in-law who has not be able to serve. We can see immediately Matthew’ all-inclusive vision of the Kingdom of God with a look at the Church for which he is writing. That Church must have been very comforted with a story about a gentile being included as well as a woman. After the cure of Peter’s mother-in-law, we see one of Matthew’s principal characteristics, connecting this to the Old Testament prophets – “This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, “he took our infirmities and bore our diseases.” Jesus has the power to restore and heal what is broken. It’s not just about diseases. It’s about the consequence of the disease, alienation from the life of the community.

The second set of three now show another kind of authority. Jesus gets into a boat, and the disciples follow him. Matthew says that Jesus wanted to go to “the other side”. That is a detail worth noting. It does not simply mean the opposite shore. It literally means the other side. It’s like a Democrat going to the Republicans. So, in those days, what is “the other side”? It is the Gadarene country. This was a pagan place, one of the ten Greek cities. That Jesus would head over there through a storm should raise an eyebrow or two. It’s not only a pagan place, there are swine there, but that does not stop Jesus. Then, another sign of his authority is given as he cures a paralytic and forgives his sins. The people were filled with awe not because he cured the paralytic, but because he forgives sins. It is what he says, not what he does that Matthew goes after, and he tells us that they glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. Matthew’s use of the plural reminds readers that this authority to forgive sins did not leave earth when he, the Christ, was exalted in to heaven. So, Jesus has authority over fear (the consequence of a storm at sea), over evil forces, and over sin. There is the triad again. Disciples of Jesus shall inherit that authority.

As a bridge to the third set, the story of Matthew’s invitation is told and Jesus goes to dinner with sinners providing the occasion for an instruction – a discourse that is summed up simply by saying it is mercy God desires, not sacrifice, and Jesus (and therefore his disciples) came to call sinners so he comes as a doctor to the sick.

The third set of miracles begins with a dead girl being raised to life and then a woman with a hemorrhage is cured. What unites these stories is faith. In the first, it is the faith of the father who asks Jesus to restore his daughter. Then comes a woman who just wants to touch Jesus.  Again, it’s about faith as Jesus asks two blind men: “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” Finally, there comes the healing of a death-mute. It takes four verses, but it is important because, for the first time it introduces conflict. The Pharisees say: “By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons.” The section ends with the final selection of the Twelve and their sending out to proclaim the good news: to cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers and cast out demons. They are to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. There is no universal outreach yet. Then, we get what must by now be familiar words: “Now, when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities.” You know what that means: Discourse Three.

The Third Discourse: Chapters 11:2 to 13:53 Ministry in Galilee & the Nature of the Kingdom 

Up this point, Jesus has been the sole missionary. Now he makes partners for preaching the gospel and healing. There is a somber mood to this Discourse as it unfolds in Matthew’s Gospel. Refusal to accept the gospel will be the rule, not the exception which leads to parables about judgement at the end of this third discourse. The negative response we first saw at the end of Discourse two will grow. This is a serious reminder that the gospel is not the story of a religious hero but of a dying savior, the final discourses lead us to the passion narrative.

This section begins with John’s disciples coming to Jesus to ask if Jesus is “the one who is to come.” True to form, Matthew links all of this to the Old Testament as Jesus declares that John is “Elijah who is to come.” Elijah’s task in the Old Testament was to prepare the people for the coming of God. It didn’t go well then, and that is what is happening now. After a thanksgiving prayer to his Father that reveals his relationship with the Father, he issues the Great Invitation: “Come to me all you who are weary and I will give you rest.” There is something very important being promised her, and it isn’t a vacation. The burden that Jesus wants to lift is the burden of the law being imposed too heavily. So, the next two episodes concern the Sabbath, and a conflict arises because disciples of Jesus pluck some grain while walking on the Sabbath, and Jesus cures a man with a withered hand in a synagogue on the Sabbath day. Remember, Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Yet, the law must yield to a higher principle: Mercy. More conflict is the result. So, Matthew says: When Jesus became aware that the Pharisees were conspiring against him seeking a way to destroy him, Jesus departed. 

This third discourse continues with a demand for a sign. Until this point, the Pharisees have been the source of conflict. At this point Matthew introduces the Scribes into the conflict. They are the ones who interpret the law. They are the professionals, so to speak. The Pharisees, are lay people who teach the law and show how it is to be observed like Catechists in our day. The opposition is growing. Finally, the focus of this discourse emerges with a series of parables about the Kingdom.

In the Greek language, the word “parable” comes from a verb that means “set side by side”, that is “to compare”. In Hebrew, there is slight change as “parable” begins to mean something hidden. Matthew is using the word “parable” with its Hebrew nuance which is why he speaks about “things that are hidden”. Jesus now uses parables to respond to the rejection he experiences. They all begin with the same phrase: “The Kingdom of heaven is like…” These parables do not describe the future or what the Kingdom will be like. They are concerned with the present

Finally, there comes three parables about sowing: (1) seed thrown everywhere, (2) someone sews weeds among the wheat, (3) Mustard Seed and Yeast. Deeply distressed about the mixed state of the Church, Matthew uses these parables to remind one group that just because they are church members is no guarantee of salvation. They need to change and bring a harvest from what God has planted everywhere. The general message is that those who receive the word of the kingdom and understand it not just intellectually but with commitment at the depth of their being, will be able to withstand temptation and tribulation. Those are the ones who will produce a bountiful harvest in terms of the good fruits of obedience to God’s will.

This discourse reveals that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a thing that can be acquired as a permanent possession. It is a life-style, a gracious gift of participation in God’s life. With that, Matthew writes: “When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place, came to his home town and began to teach the people in their own synagogue….”

The Fourth Discourse: Chapters 13:54 to 19:1Opposition & The Governance of the Kingdom

Jesus is now at home. When he takes his turn in the hometown synagogue there is amazement, wonder, and suspicion. At this point, Matthew tells us about the death of John the Baptist as one more reminder about the hostility disciples of Jesus will find in this world. He then reports the only miracle reported in all four Gospels which suggests that this is of unusual importance. This is the feeding of the multitude. There are two feeding stories in Matthew. Being the people that we are, infected with the “virus” of science, the question always lingers: “Did this really happen?” My response is as always: “This is not history. It is theology.” It does not make any difference. We have to ask what it means, not did it happen. Details give us a lead. Bread and Fish are the basic ingredients of a peasant’s meal in Galilee. Jesus provides no cooked dishes, luxurious fruit, and there is no wine. These simple details tell us that God can provide what is necessary for life. While not the “Banquet” we might expect in the Kingdom of God, what we see is that the Messiah is the host who supplies what his people need out of compassion. Matthew reminds the Church that they are to give, to share, to feed, and to serve with the further reminder that God uses what we bring.

Then something happens that again raises a question. Jesus walks on water. “Did that really happen? How did he do that?” Some might think of this as evidence of divinity confirming that Jesus is God since he can walk on water. But, Peter does the same thing which means this is something that comes from God. It is not God walking on water. This is not some kind of “show off” stunt. Details make that clear. The boat is far from land. The boat is in trouble. This is a story about Jesus coming to the aid of his threatened disciples. This is about a rescue not about the nature of Jesus. It is worth noting that Matthew refers here to “those in the boat” not to the Twelve or the Apostles. It’s about all of us dependent upon the savior. While the other Gospel writers tell the story of Jesus on the water, only Matthew includes the part about Peter exploring what it means to be caught midway between faith and doubt. Peter represents all who dare to believe that Jesus is Savior, taking their first steps in confidence that Jesus will sustain them. I have always found it very important to remember that in John’s Gospel, faith or believing is always a verb, never a noun. It is not a thing or a possession. It is an activity.

Suddenly, once on land, Pharisees come from Jerusalem. This is an ominous statement. Jesus only goes to Jerusalem to die. This presence of the Pharisees coming from Jerusalem is a like a dark cloud on the horizon. They come to start trouble, and it’s over the washing of hands and what is clean and what is unclean. Jesus never suggests that the law and the customs around the law should be done away with. He simply wants to remind his listeners of the reason for the law so that the law will be observed because of faith not obligation or fear. It would seem that he is also writing about these things to support the Jewish converts who are a minority in his predominantly Gentile Church. He seems to be protecting them from ridicule for wanting to preserve their life-style. We would do well to remember that in today’s multi-cultural and multi-generational church. Matthew is revealing that there are disputes in his church over life-style.

To affirm the presence of Gentiles among believers, there comes the story of the Canaanite Woman who begs for help. The response of Jesus seems harsh to our ears when he refuses at first and makes that comment about taking children’s food and throwing it to the dogs. The word Matthew uses for dog means “a household pet”. That’s not as harsh sounding as “DOG” in English. The whole scene is a test of her faith, and by responding positively to her, Jesus signals that the Kingdom is going to be wide open. It is this emphasis on faith that makes Matthew’s version of this story slightly different from Mark’s. Matthew takes care to show us believing Gentiles in contrast to the unbelieving Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. Jews reject Jesus. Gentiles come to him.

After this scene there comes a second feeding story. There is with this one a mass healing as well as a mass feeding, and importantly it happens on a mountain. This is theology not geography. This is about God’s people being gathered on the mountain of the Lord as Isaiah describes the end of time. What happens to them there is a theological expression of salvation: healing and feeding in abundance. Why two feeding stories? Two different messages. The first is about God providing what we need using what we have. The second includes details that have no connection to Israel. Instead of twelve baskets leading us think of the Twelve Tribes, this time there are seven baskets. At that time people counted seventy nations on earth. Then trouble comes again as the Pharisees return wanting a sign from heaven. Jesus is having none of this since he’s been working signs and wonders all along and they can’t see what’s right in front of them because what he says threatens their life-style and security, and they want none of that. In effect, what Jesus says to them is “No. You can’t see what’s going on here.” So, he takes to the boat and heads to the district of Caesarea Philippi. There, with one of the greatest cities the Romans had built high on an out-cropping of rock above them, he asks a question: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” He uses his favorite title, “Son of Man” which comes right out of the Old Testament (Daniel 7) meaning an exalted human like figure. In other words, the “Son of Man” is perfect humanity. At that moment, Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah, and at that point of Matthew’s Gospel, things change, the mood changes, and the whole energy increases.

The Fifth Discourse: Chapters 19:2 to 26:1 Jesus and the Future of the Kingdom

As always, the next discourse begins: “And when Jesus finished these sayings.” Now Jesus departs from Galilee and comes into “the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” well on his way to Jerusalem. Since Peter’s declaration, Jesus now teaches the Twelve even though the crowds follow him. The Pharisees are back now with their evil intent. They start with a mocking question about marriage and divorce. The response of Jesus makes even more obvious Matthew’s respect and concern for the law. While the Pharisees may be trying to trap Jesus into disregarding the law, Matthew’s Jesus interprets the law using other scriptural verses to back up his argument, and it works. They are humiliated before the crowd, and that makes them all the angrier.

As the journey continues there are three short scenes which reveal what it takes to become a child of the Kingdom. The first is the story is about children with which Jesus embraces and makes it clear that children have a special importance. Of course, in that culture, children were not valued, but in the mind of Jesus, a child is the perfect example of what it means to be helplessly dependent on the Father in heaven. It is not unreasonable to suspect that Matthew is also urging his church to include children in every aspect of the communities’ life. The second of the three scenes is about a young rich man who thinks perfection comes from doing things. The perfection Jesus expects is undivided devotion. He can’t do that. He has too many things. He’s rich. Then comes a parable that reveals a God of compassion rather than a God of justice. In that parable a vineyard owner pays workers the same wage regardless of how long they have worked. The climax of this parable is: “am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” Matthew is challenging some seniority claims among the early disciples as former pagans begin to assume roles in the community. The old-timers don’t like it.

Having arrived in Jerusalem, Jesus goes to the Temple. As Matthew tells the story of the “cleansing”, there is some refinement as judgement is tempered by grace. Because we often blend all of the Gospel events together, we can often miss some details that are unique to one or the other of the Evangelists, or we think that they all say the same thing. Not so. This story is a perfect example. It is unlikely that Jesus stopped the commerce of the Temple even for a short time one day. He would have been arrested on the spot. More than anything, this event is symbolic. Since it is told in all four Gospels there is probably some historical fact to this. With the other three Gospels, there is a mood of judgement. In Matthew, right in the middle of this Jesus responds to the blind and the lame who came to him in the temple. He cured them. Matthew does not give us some wild angry judge. There is a moment of compassion in the middle of it. The scene ends with conflict between Jesus, the Chief priests, and the scribes. Jesus then heads out to Bethany to spend the night.

In the morning he is hungry, and with the story of that cursed Fig Tree. It’s really not about the fig three however. It’s about faith and prayer. It is a symbolic gesture (remember, this is theology not history) with which Matthew uses the judgement on the tree as a symbol of what happens to people without faith or prayer. When Jesus gets to the Temple, they are waiting for him with more trouble. At this point, Matthew uses parables to further give focus to the Father Jesus has come to reveal. First there is the parable of the two sons, one who says no and then does what is asked, and one who says yes and does nothing. The second parable tells of an owner who sends people to collect his portion and the tenants kill them. The theological focus of this parable comes not from the cheating tenant farmers but their violent treatment of those the owner sends. Matthew includes this parable here to show the rejection of the Messiah – because of it, Israel is now decommissioned. It’s elect status as “light to the Gentiles” is taken over by the church. Now comes the third parable about the wedding Feast in which the defiant refusal to participate in the wedding feast matches the refusal of the tenant farmers to share the fruit.

Jesus then leaves the Temple, and the final address concludes as Jesus speaks of the Temple’s destruction which was not some divine fore-knowledge. Anyone with any sense would have known that given the corruption, the lack of faith, the internal conflicts within Israel itself, there would be big trouble ahead that would probably end with the destruction of the Temple. Israel as it was then was destroying itself by refusing to listen to Jesus. Matthew now switches into a different style of writing here called: Apocalyptic describing the signs of the end of the ages. It must not be forgotten that this is not a prediction of the future. It is an interpretation of things already happening that mark not the end of the world, but the end of age. The last discourse closes with talk of the last things, the Judgement. The final parable concerned the coming of the Son of Man who is easily recognized as the “bridegroom”. The waiting maidens the are easily identified with “disciples.” But the condemnation of the foolish maidens raises the question as to who does belong to the group of “disciples.” The criterion for knowing who belong and those who do not belong is what people do or do not do. What one is to do is not the issue here. What matters is that something is done before it’s too late. Whatever is done must be done because of mercy and compassion, for no other reason. Because this is what the perfect human being (Son of Man) does. Then we hear the familiar words: “When Jesus had finished saying all these things….” 

Part One, The Infancy Narrative

Tradition has always called this great work, “The Gospel of Matthew”. As I said this morning, this man was educated well and uses Greek as though it may have been his first language. It is a much more polished Greek than what is found in his sources.  His language style suggests he may well have been in Antioch or Syria. Some call him a verbal architect because the work is actually “built” in a constructive and balanced way.

This the mission of Jesus, the whole idea of salvation in the mind of people gets brought into agreement with the mind of God. The earliest idea that springs from the Exodus and then the Old Testament Prophets is that the Israelites are the people of God and no one else. The public ministry of Jesus is restricted to the land and people of Israel, but they refuse him and his revolutionary ideas about God deciding to keep things just as they are. Then the great turning point comes with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What happens in this Gospel is that Church, not Judaism becomes true people of God because it is the people formed by God’s Son, Jesus Christ, the fulfiller of the Law and the prophets. For those early Jewish converts, this is a stunning new development. Their privilege place, and the authority they felt because they were Jews suddenly means nothing. They wonder if they have made a mistake, so Matthew carefully and consistently reassures them over and over again by helping see that the Old Testament was leading up to this time and that it was God’s plan all along. 

Some like to think of Matthew as an Architect, and it’s not hard to see how or why. A “blueprint” of the Gospel shows us that there are five pillars that hold it all together. These are five discourses or Sermons with the same arrangement. First there is a narrative that is followed by a discourse or sermon. Each of them is very distinct, and they all end with the same words: “When Jesus finished these words.”  What we end up with is five books all bound together. The five can be counted and named this way.

1. The Sermon on the Mount
2. The Sermon on Mission
3. The Sermon on Parables
4. The Sermon on Church Order
5. The Sermon on Things to Come.

But that is for tomorrow, and Tuesday we will take up the Passion.

We must always remember that this is not history! This is theology. It is a revelation. It is set in time and in place, but the where and the when do not matter nearly as much as the fact that the Gospel is a living expression, an ongoing revelation by God as a way of speaking to us, calling to us, and embracing us. There is one purpose here, and it is not historical. It is to communicate a faith to us either to strengthen the faith that we already have or to awaken readers a new kind of faith. What we can discover is the faith that Matthew held and led him to write. This faith is so important to him that he will take no risk of being misunderstood since this faith addresses the meaning of existence. So, to avoid misunderstanding, there is a pattern to his writing that will become more obvious. He states what he wants to say, and then he states what he does not mean to say. It removes all ambiguity and leaves us with: position and opposition. 

Of all four Gospels, this is probably the most familiar and maybe the most popular. It gives us the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Golden Rule. For older Catholics, it was Matthew’s Gospel that dominated the Sunday Gospel Readings before the reform of the Second Vatican Council. It was practically the only Gospel we heard with the exception of Luke’s Christmas story details and John’s Passion. This Gospel gives us a fusion of ethics, faith and morality. This writer sets himself in strong opposition against those who claim that accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is all that is required of them. His great concern is to convince followers of Christ that genuine faith must be demonstrated in daily obedience to the way of life he proclaimed. Faith and Ethics. These are two sides of the same coin.

As I just said, the structure with its five pillars or five books comes out of Matthew’s intense fidelity to his Jewish roots and his knowledge of the community or church for which he writes. It is often proposed that his intention was to compose something new modeled on the Five Books of Moses in which narrative and legal material alternate. However, reducing this Gospel to that purpose misses the point that this, like all the other Gospels is first and foremost a Passion Narrative. Most scholars believe that the Passion of Christ was written first, and then what comes before was simply a way of explaining why it happened and how. Perhaps, a way of avoiding or giving too much attention to the structure with its five books is to more simply see that this Gospel has three parts:

1. Who is this Jesus the Messiah?
2. What did he have to say?
3. What does he do?

The first part centers on the Infancy, the Baptism, and the Temptation.

The second part is preparation for the passion.

The third part is ultimately what it’s all about, the Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

The Genealogy

With all that said, let’s take up that first part and think about who Jesus is for Matthew. It all begins with what is best called, the “Royal Genealogy.” Matthew makes and takes a great effort to answer the question: “Who is Jesus Christ?” No other Gospel writer found it helpful to start this way. He digs into the family background just as we might do. Members of my family along with me have done some serious research into our origins, our family history, identity, and movements. It’s been fun and has been full of surprises. Here Matthew reveals his convictions about Jesus: his origins lie in the old people of God (Abraham), and Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s history. Unlike Luke who traces the ancestry of Jesus back to Adam, the father of the human race, Matthew traces it only to Abraham, the father of the Jews. This is what would have been important and of interest to the Jewish/Christians who were to receive this Gospel.

For Matthew, Jesus is a Messianic King, so his line must come through David and the kings of Judah. Again, I insist, this is a theological statement, not history or a biological report! To get an idea of how clever it is and how Matthew uses this genealogical tool to express faith in Christ Jesus, you could take notice of how he changes the verb in the genealogy. Various translations will be different, but the change is there nonetheless. It is an active verb like “begot” or so and so “became”. When it comes to the last, with the incarnation Matthew switches to the passive voice verb form saying simply: “of her (Mary) was born Jesus, who is called the Messiah.” 

This last statement announces the story of Jesus’ birth contrasting the ordinary conceptions of David and Joseph with the extraordinary conception of Jesus. The whole list of people can only raise questions. The inclusion of women in what ought to be a male genealogy should raise an eyebrow or two. Among them are two foreign prostitutes: Tamar and Rehab. Then there is Ruth, a Gentile and Bathsheba with whom David committed adultery.  It’s almost as though he can’t bring himself to say her name, so he calls her “the wife of Uriah”. This is clearly not real. There is a theological statement here perhaps slightly prophetic about what is coming. Including these women reminded the Jewish and Gentile readers that God’s plan of salvation included Gentiles, even unrighteous Gentiles. What happens through this genealogy is an affirmation that Jesus is an authentic King, a descendant of King David. He is not usurper, but a legitimate ruler of God’s people.

Jesus then is an authentic Jew. This is important for Gentile Christians to understand, and Matthew wants to make the point.  One final point that can escape us easily is that in the introduction, the very first line of the Gospel Matthew says: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.” He calls it a “book”, and with a subtle way that escapes us in English, there is a reference to the first book of the Bible, “Genesis”.  In Greek, genesis can mean “genealogy”, and it has other meanings, “birth” being one of them. Matthew’s choice of “genesis” as the key noun in the opening lines is worth some thought because he might have been promoting some association with the first book of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is likely that he wants to remind readers that in Jesus Christ, God had made a new beginning. Thus, the first Gospel could be called: “Genesis II, the Sequel.”

The Conception and Naming of Jesus

Joseph, in the genealogy, has already been brought forward into this Gospel, and as this narrative of the Nativity unfolds, he remains very much front and center. In Luke’s Gospel, Mary is the dominant figure. Luke emphasizes the essential passivity of the human response to God’s action: “Let it be done to me….” On the other hand, as we see here, with Joseph as the leading figure, the active component in the human response is important for Matthew. Three times Joseph is instructed by an angel in a dream, and three times he must DO something. This is consistent with Matthew’s understanding of Christian faith. It’s about action. Matthew makes that powerfully clear at the end of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus says: “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who DOES the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

When the angel calls Joseph “Son of David”, it becomes clear that it is Joseph’s continuity with King David that gives Jesus that royal identity. That is Joseph’s role here: to give legitimacy as a Son of David to Jesus. Matthew gives us a Joseph visited by an angel more than once. For his first readers, Jewish Christians, a Joseph who dreams is a familiar scene. Remember the Joseph with the colorful coat who dreams Egypt through famine? When Joseph takes Mary into his home, it is more theological than respectful kindness. By doing this, he provides Davidic paternity on her child inserting her child into his proper place in salvation history. His key role next is to give the child a name, a name God has already chosen, and it is a name that does not show up in Joseph’s lineage or genealogy. It is a common name that originally meant “God helps”. But by the first century the popular explanation of the name was “God Saves”, and this is confirmed by the Angel who says: “You are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 

The Visitors

In 1857 John Henry Hopkins was the rector at Christ Episcopal Church in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. He wrote a carol for a Christmas pageant in New York City, We Three King of Orient Are and with that, the first twelve verses of Matthew’s Chapter Two begin to lose every bit of revelation and meaning. In my opinion, he may have given us a catchy tune and sweet lyrics, but he sure did obscure Matthew’s intention with these verses. With his frequently used: “BEHOLD”, Matthew signals a new divine intervention, and that’s what we get here. The story as it goes in the second chapter has the “Holy Family” entirely passive. Joseph is not even mentioned. Mary is seen but no heard, and the child does nothing. The primary figures are nameless strangers from the east and Herod the King. In the original Greek as Matthew wrote it, he calls them “magoi”. It is a word with several meanings: magician, the Persian priestly caste, or a Zoroastrian. Scholars these days seem to prefer this last meaning, Zoroastrian or astrologers. It’s the best guess since a star has their attention.

They speak of “The King of the Jews”, and it’s worth remembering that this phrase will not be used again by Matthew until the Passion. He wants to plant that idea in our minds early on. Herod calls together the chief priests and the scribes, the very ones who will so violently oppose Jesus, and in stunning irony, they know exactly where the Messiah will come from, and they do not go! Only these Gentiles go to Bethlehem!

Matthew loves contrasts, and we get one of them in these verses as we see Herod “troubled” and the Magi “joyful.” And what’s Herod’s problem? He’s just been told that there is a “new-born king.” In other words, a king who is king by birthright. Herod is not. He is a usurper and a tyrant. He has no right to the throne and the title he got by murder. His trouble is really fear, and the contrast between joy and fear is going to show up again and again. The political and religious authority of these Scribes, Chief Priests, and Herod is now threatened, and they will go after the threat. You have to wonder, “What is the difference between the Gentile visitors and these local people Matthew puts into this story?” How is it that these Gentiles are on the move and the locals, who know as much as the Gentiles, do nothing? It’s the star. One group follows the light, the others stay in the darkness. For the first readers of Matthew’s Gospel, the image of the Israelites following the pillar of fire by night, light, the message speaks. Gentiles now get to see the light, and it leads them to something new.

So, these magoi show up with three gifts that Matthew mentions. The gifts have led us to think that there were just three of them which makes no sense because long distance travel would have required a lot of helpers. I blame John Hopkins for igniting imaginations, but there is nothing in all of the Scriptures that gives them names or indicates their country of origins. Such details and embellishments may help us enter into the Christmas Spirit, but they lead us far from the text, and the text is what matters. There have been all kinds of nice and pious meanings attached to the gifts, but the simple truth is: gold, frankincense and myrrh were nothing more than gifts fit for a king, and that is what Matthew is affirming. There is a King here, a king in the line of David. 

What’s with the star? All attempts to come up with some natural phenomenon are nothing but distractions from Matthew’s intent. He wants to report a supernatural phenomenon because something supernatural is going on. And then there is Herod. I’ll talk about him in a few minutes. Matthew is revealing a conflict that will continue in this Gospel. It’s like a preview. Gentile strangers (the Magi) accept Jesus. In contrast, there is the violent rejection of him by the Jewish ruler. It’s a hint about things to come.

From Bethlehem to Nazareth via Egypt

In the second and final half of this Chapter, Joseph is back, and in the mind of Matthew and his first readers there are always two Josephs. We need to have that in mind as well. If you are not really familiar with the story of Joseph in the Old Testament, you need to be if you want to listen to the first two Chapters of Matthew. Not only does Joseph act as a link to the Hebrew Scriptures, so does the story about leaving hastily in the night. This is a Passover story that reveals how God saves. In Matthew, God is saving the “New Israel”, Jesus.  This time, it is in reverse almost as though he was playing it back in order to play again with a different ending. Instead of going out of Egypt, Matthew has the New Israel (Jesus) going into Egypt. The killing of children by a tyrant takes place in Judea this time rather than in Egypt. Had he stayed in Judea, he would be dead. There is in this story the first hint of how important Moses is in Matthew’s Gospel, and how closely Matthew will identify Jesus with Moses. It almost begins to feel as though Moses was the ideal hero of Jesus. Remember how Moses ended up floating in a basket placed there by his mother when the very real threat of a massacre was happening?  That’s how Moses got to Egypt. He was spared the massacre of infants just as Jesus was spared the Massacre of infants. Joseph is informed that he can return with Jesus to his people because “those who sought the child’s life are dead,” just as Moses is instructed in Exodus 4, 10, “Go back to Egypt; for all the men who were seeking your life are dead.” Matthew uses the plural pronoun “those”. He does not say, Herod. Here is a perfect example suggesting strongly that the Exodus event is being repeated once again.

The whole purpose of writing this for Matthew is the identity of Jesus – now Jesus is identified as Israel, a “new” Israel. This whole sense of something new is developed by Matthew as he reverses the biblical themes. In this way he reveals his own faith conviction. Jesus is the son of David. Jesus is King. Jesus is Messiah. Jesus is the fulfillment of all the prophets and writings. One last piece of this identity is yet to be manifest, and it comes at the end of this chapter. Jesus needs to be designated as “Son of God” and this must happen outside of Judea so as to remove any hint that his authority might be based on power. His authority comes from being called out of Egypt, and the verb is the clue that leads us to understand what Matthew is revealing. Jesus is “called”. He has a vocation. His vocation is to be Emmanuel. That is to say, his vocation is to be the holy presence of God among us. This is why those Gentile visitors bow down before him. They are not bowing to an earthly king. They are in adoration of the divine presence.

Here is where Matthew presents his view of authority and how it applies to Jesus. Divine authority is not like human authority. It is not imposed from above by force, threat, or fear. That’s the kind of authority Matthew shows us in Herod. When God acts, it shows itself as an opportunity, something that happens in the normal course of human events. When God acts, there is then a call, a vocation by which humans accept or submit in order to carry out or complete God’s intervention. Matthew says to us, “Something new has happened. There is a new kind of authority that has taken flesh in this holy one. Joy is the result of finding this holy one. That is the response of those visitors, Joy.  Jesus is not to be found in places of power like Jerusalem or in the courts of the powerful like Herod. Confirming this, Jesus is called a Nazarene. Placing him outside of Judea because, the plan of God to save a New Israel has a new, wider, and more inclusive sense.

So, there is a final shift of geography from Bethlehem of Judea, because of its place in the prophecies, to Nazareth where everyone knew Jesus grew up and was at home. I have always found it strange that Matthew would think Jesus is safer in Galilee than in Judea because Galilee is ruled by Herod Antipas who murdered John the Baptist. This is quite different from Luke who has Mary and Joseph coming from Nazareth to Bethlehem where Jesus is born. Luke needs no reason for a return to Nazareth. That’s their home. For Matthew, Bethlehem was the home town of Jesus, and Nazareth in Galilee is a place of exile. It is there, in Galilean exile that Jesus will exercise his ministry. He will come home to Judea only to die.

One more time I must repeat the mantra of these sessions: This is not History. This is Theology. They are not the same.

So, what’s the Theology we get so far?

Were there three magi in history? It does not make any difference. It is irrelevant.

Matthew speaks of only three gifts, the traditional gifts for someone of royal birth. 

It’s not about Three Kings of Orient. It is about the birth of a King. 

Did the Holy Family really flee to Egypt in the night? It does not make any difference. 

What matters is that, like Moses, Jesus has a vocation and he was spared a massacre in order to fulfill it. 

To live this Gospel and listen to Matthew, we have to keep digging into the identity of Jesus and keep asking, “Who is this?” That’s what he is exploring with these stories. The truth about Jesus Christ. 

So far, in these first two chapters, we have this much Theology:

Jesus is the “Son of David”. Thank you, Joseph.

Jesus is the “King of the Jews”. Thank you, magi.

Jesus is the “Messiah.” Thank you, Herod’s scribes and chief priests.

Jesus is “Emmanuel”. Thank you, prophets.

Jesus is “Son of God”.  Thank you, John the Baptist and God the Father. (words heard at the Baptism of Jesus)

We shall also see

Jesus as A Teacher, “Rabbi”, and his disciples are learners. In Matthew, the teaching of Jesus is more important than miracles.

Jesus as A Story Teller (Parables)

Distinctive features in Matthew’s Gospel

Matthew’s Gospel is concerned with:

What followers of Jesus could hope for.

How followers of Jesus should behave in community

How the commandments of Moses and of Jesus relate (Is Jesus a Law Maker or a Law Breaker)

Matthew elevates the disciples who in Mark are dull and uncomprehending. Peter plays an especially important role in Matthew. (Peter walks on the water, he asks how many times to forgive, and only in Matthew is he the Rock.

Matthew makes villains out of the Pharisees who were really the spiritual leaders at the time. also (in)famously vilifies the leaders of the Jewish people, particularly the Pharisees. Some scholars have taken this harsh polemic as evidence that Matthew’s community had been expelled from the synagogue. Though the specific situation is difficult to know with absolute certainty, we can see clearly that there was serious tension between Matthew’s community of Christ-followers and the Jewish leaders with whom they interacted.

From John to Jesus

Now it is an interesting fact that only two Gospels begin with stories about the birth of Jesus, but all four begin his time of ministry with John the Baptist. That fact tells us that this is more important than angels, shepherds, and magi. Unique in Matthew’s Gospel is a conversation between Jesus and John. In fact, it is at his encounter with John that Jesus speaks for the first time in this Gospel. In this dialogue, Matthew sets matters straight over a dispute that arose between the followers of John and followers of Jesus. John’s followers think that if Jesus came to John for Baptism, Jesus was inferior to John; and if Jesus was Baptized, he must be a sinner. With this dialogue, that matter of priority is settled. It is thought by many scholars that the decision of Jesus to be Baptized was an act that gives him solidarity with sinners just as his death gives him solidarity with the dying, and his dining with sinners gives him solidarity with tax collectors and sinners. There is always this matter of “identity” going on beneath the surface in Matthew’s Gospel. In Luke’s Baptismal scene, John is preaching to “the crowds.” That is not the case with Matthew. Remember, as I said at the beginning, Matthew is addressing a growing crisis. He does not want the leaders of the Church to turn into a “brood of vipers” smug and secure in their privileged powerful position. He even makes his point more strongly by having the Pharisees, who are pious lay-people and the Sadducees who are the priestly nobility come together when in fact, at the time, they were in strong opposition to one another. Matthew believes that the leaders and the people of the Church he is writing to must not act like these Pharisees and Scribes who ultimately reject Jesus because they resist God’s plan for the church. “Do not act like those Pharisees” he says to lay people in his church. “Do not act like those Sadducees” he says to the priestly authorities in his church. “Look what they did!” he says.

The Baptism itself is passed over with one word making it clear that something more important is happening here than just someone coming forward in response to John’s call. It isn’t Baptism. If this scene were recorded for us as a musical or an opera, at the verse where Jesus comes up out of the water, trumpets would blast, lights would flash, and the whole chorus would sing out: “Behold in six-part harmony!” This is the event Matthew wants to be remembered. It is what we call, “a theophany” which is defined as the temporal and spatial manifestation of God in some tangible way. Another Gospel comparison tells us something more. In Mark’s baptismal scene, only Jesus hears the voice which says: “You are my beloved Son.” In Matthew, that fact has already been established. So, everyone hears the voice (not just Jesus) which says: “This is my beloved Son.” With that, we can say: “Thank you, God.” The identity of Jesus is complete. Yet, one more thing must happen to confirm his identity before Jesus begins his ministry. That is the temptation.

Both the location and the time are a direct link on the part of Matthew between the temptation of Jesus (the New Israel) and the temptation of the Hebrew people (the Old Israel) The location is the desert or the “wilderness” while time corresponds to 40 days and nights for the New Israel and 40 years for the old Israel.  We know who remains faithful this time around. We can easily be distracted by the details and the whole mood of this story. But for Matthew, the story is less concerned with the vanquishing of Satan than with the meaning of Jesus’ Divine Sonship. So, we have to get down into what Matthew is doing here. This is a “meditation” on what is implied by that heavenly declaration: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” The fact that the first two temptations begin with Satan saying: “If you are the Son of God” helps us get the point. The English translation of the Greek word, ei is misleading because it does not really mean “if”. A more accurate word in the translation could be “since” because Satan is not trying to prove something. The other option in translation would then be: “Since you are the Son of God.” Satan is trying to convince Jesus that being God’s Son is a matter of powerfully working wonders rather than understanding and doing God’s will as found in the Scripture and fulfilling that will in trust and obedience.

In summary then, Moses and the Hebrew people in the desert are always in the shadows for Matthew’s story. The three temptations in the Gospel match in sequence the same three temptations faced by the Hebrew people: hunger, trust, and idolatry. When we sit with this story for a while, it is easy to begin to wonder what this has to do with the temptations we face today. I leave you with this. The basic, underlying temptation that Jesus shared with us is the temptation to treat God as less than God. We are hardly tempted to turn stones into scones but we are much more likely to turn corn into fuel to drive our luxury cars rather than using that corn to feed the hungry. We are constantly tempted to mistrust and doubt God’s readiness to give us what we need to face our trials. None of us are likely to test God by jumping off a cliff, but we frequently question God’s helpfulness when things go wrong forgetting the promise, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (II Corinthians 12, 9) Pagan idolatry is no more a temptation for us than it was for Jesus, but compromise with the ways of the world is a never-ending seduction, and the gods of money, the gods of power are always lurking in the shadows. In all of these things, we would do well to be continually grateful that we have a great high priest who, tempted as we are, was able to resist all such temptation by laying hold of Scripture and firmly acknowledging that only God is God, and that God isn’t us. 

Earlier in this series I was exploring Luke’s Passion Narrative as if it were a drama. It’s an easy way to work through the narrative, and Luke’s style is very dramatic. To review and refresh out memories, there are Four Acts

Act One had two scenes:

1. Prayer 
2. Arrest

Act Two begins the Trials. The First is the religious trial before the Sanhedrin.

Act Three takes up the Civil Trial before Pilate who finds no guilt, sends Jesus to Herod after hearing about some Galilee connection. Herod does not pass judgement and sends Jesus back to Pilate. It probably is a little diplomatic game between the two rulers who are really at odds with each other but dancing around to keep the peace.

Act Four has two scenes:

1. The Crucifixion and Death of Jesus which now brings us to
2. The Burial.

This scene which we begin to night gives us two unique features for Luke. 

1. There is no mention of Pilate being surprised at the early death of Jesus. Luke feared that this would cast doubt on the reality of Jesus’ death which might give some credence to the late 1^st century denial of the resurrection that was developing among those opposed to the believers.
2. The role of the Galilean women and the reference to the spices and myrrh allows Luke to not only portray them as pious Jews but helps Gentile readers to understand why they waited a day to take care of the body.

Luke’s account of the Burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has two significant variations from the story on Matthew and Mark giving us some clues about what matters to Luke. He tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin who “had not consented to their proposal and deed.” In other words, he thought Jesus was innocent which is a theme heard all through Luke’s trial scenes. Pilate said it twice, Herod said it, a crucified thief said it, a centurion said it, and now Joseph of Arimathea is the final human witness to the innocence of Jesus. The second variation concerns the women (no surprise there since Luke has always been attentive and recorded stories of the women’s role in the ministry of Jesus). Luke indicates that some women saw where Jesus was buried but also specifies that they had come up with Jesus from Galilee and that they saw how the body was laid. Luke, as I said before is very concerned to establish that there was a dead body and that it was buried. This give credence to what is to come with the Resurrection and the Ascension. He wants to clearly establish a link between the church’s Lord and the one who dies in Jerusalem and the one who worked in Galilee by having Galileans present as witnesses to the Jerusalem events. Theologically, this means that the one who empowered is the one who died. The is real. It was through the suffering that the obedience of Jesus was perfected. It was only on the other side of these things that the one empowered entered into glory. To put it more simply: “There ain’t no glory without that cross.” Or, There’s no way to the Father except by obedience to the will of the Father.

We are now at Chapter 24 which concludes the first part of Luke’s work, Acts of the Apostles being the second part. This is really the most interesting part of our study and reflection on Luke’s Gospel because with one exception the material here is not found anywhere in the other Gospels. Luke began his Gospel with the Infancy Narrative that was uniquely his own, and he concludes with a narrative of the Resurrection that is also uniquely his own. Let us start by reading chapter 24 so it’s fresh in your mind without any interference from the other Gospel traditions. Try to blank out details we have all absorbed from Matthew, Mark, and John. Just concentrate on what is here. READ CHAPTER 24 1-12.

This much of the Chapter clearly draws on Mark 16: 1-8. Another version is found in Matthew with John’s being quite different. What present research suggests is that scribes who copied the manuscripts quite early permitted, consciously or unconsciously, the resurrection stories of the other Gospels to influence what they were writing. In some cases, they probably were remembering Mark or John while writing Luke; in others they may have intentionally been harmonizing. This does not mean that there was an attempt to deceive or to reduce the faith in any way. On the contrary, the general tendency was to enlarge the story. This “cross-fertilization” of texts is to be taken as evidence that the early church treated the resurrection stories as one story, and the blending occurred as it does with us, two, three, or four accounts of one event, even though each has its own accent and purpose, tend to become one account in the church’s memory. READ THE REMAINING VERSES (Point out the 5 events).

There are five major events: two empty tomb episodes; two major appearances; and the departure of Jesus. This is all located in Jerusalem or nearby, and it all happens in one long day. This exclusive focus on Jerusalem is distinct to Luke. Matthew and Mark have things happening in Galilee over a longer period of time. So much for the idea that Jesus hung around for 40 days before the Ascension! Once more, you see, this is Theology. It is not history. Details do not have to match.

Let’s just deal with the theology. Luke is passing on to us the early Christian understanding of the resurrection as a prototype of Christian existence. In earliest Christianity the resurrection of Jesus encompassed three different realties:

1. The Victory of Jesus over death.
2. The removal of Jesus from human time and space into another dimension (God)
3. The new function of Jesus as cosmic Lord.

Luke takes these realities and makes three separate events on a chronological time line. In other words, he takes this theological idea of what happened and he puts that idea into events that happen in sequence: the Resurrection, the Ascension; the Exaltation. By taking the three different pieces of a whole individually, he can focus on the meaning of each without distraction. What this means is that in Luke, the resurrection of Jesus refers only to his victory over death. The thinking of Luke is that what happens to Jesus is what his disciples may expect for themselves. 

Stick with me. This is complicated, but not impossible. The first empty tomb tradition which is the women at the empty tomb and the second appearance story which is the one after the Emmaus story when Jesus appears among the apostles affirm the reality that there is a body that has risen. There is no dead body in the tomb even though they saw it put there. An empty tomb means one thing. The body is not there. That’s all. If Christians are going to proclaim Christ has risen, there needs to be experiences of that Christ who was dead and is now risen. So, there is a body that eats something. More importantly this body has the wounds that were on the body they buried. This faith is based upon witnesses who saw and experienced something real. It is not based on how they felt or what they wished. Whatever the nature of this victory over death was, it involved the absence of that body from the tomb. 

Luke wants to give some real authority to this, so he mentions names and these are the same women of Galilee who saw the body being put in that tomb. They knew where it was Luke told us in the previous chapter. Then Luke tells us that when the women came to the apostles and the others, Peter got up and ran to the tomb. (There is no John in a foot race with Peter in Luke’s narrative.) Luke wants the witness of Peter so that there are two sets of witnesses. Peter’s witness is important to Jewish people at the time because women didn’t count. In order to be persuasive at the time, there had to be a male witness.  The detail of finding the linen clothes by themselves is Luke’s way of stopping the rumor that the body had been stolen. They would not have taken the body without it being wrapped. This is Luke’s way of celebrating the victory over death.

After the two empty tomb episodes, we come to the first of two appearances: a story unique to Luke and a story that really highlights his writing skills. It is what we have come to call, “The Emmaus Story.”  Luke now clarifies the nature of the Eucharist, and he uses the Emmaus story to do so at least for the Lukan community. The two are abandoning the Christian journey to God. In Luke’s wonderful story telling style, we get to know who the person is that joins them, and in an ironic way, we get to hear them talk about the death of Jesus to Jesus himself! We should notice (because Luke wants us to) that there are three units to the whole story: the narrative discussion, the meal and the journey back as a Mission of Proclamation. 

The meal is really what holds this together. It is the Eucharist as we know it.

It begins with an act of hospitality, an invitation to a stranger by those who prepared the table. It is the presence of Christ at a table opened to a stranger which transforms an ordinary supper into the sacrament. Christ is in a sense the guest, and yet he is the host who breaks the bread, blesses God and shares with those at table. It is in this act that that the disciples recognize the stranger as Christ. 

It begins then with the Scriptures as Jesus goes over the writings and the prophets. The one who is named in this episode, Cleopas provides us with a glimpse into the earliest preaching. It is Luke’s concise statements about Jesus, his mighty works, suffering, death, and resurrection. This is the content of Christian preaching. The description of Jesus reviewing the Prophets with these two is a kind of reprimand for their unbelief on the grounds that the suffering death, and resurrection of Jesus is set forth in the Scriptures that they should have known. All through Luke’s Gospel there is insistence that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Scriptures. They pointed to the very acts of his ministry, so his suffering, and his death. For Luke, the gospel of Jesus Christs continues and brings to fulfillment the law, the prophets, and the writings.

The Eucharistic ritual continues: after the Word comes the Sacrament, and then Mission. The time of day is significant because the evening is the time when the Christians would gather together for prayer and the eucharist. As the story goes, Jesus becomes the host, which confirms that Luke is describing a Eucharistic Meal connected to the Paschal Meal in the upper room. Luke tells us that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to them. This is ritual language that Luke has used before when he fed the multitudes, and when he sat in an upper room. On those occasions, they did not “recognize him”, but now, the risen one is recognized. When Luke says that their eyes were opened, it describes conversion. This story serves as a bridge between the meals the earthly Jesus had with his disciples and the later church’s Eucharist. It also says that at such meals the presence of the risen Lord was known. Jesus is alive and one place of his recognition is in the breaking of bread. The importance of knowing and experiencing the living Christ in word and sacrament cannot be overemphasized. 

There is a third part to this story that we must not overlook: the return of these two to Jerusalem where they want to spread the Good News. It is the perfect match or parallel to the Eucharist as the Church has known it: Word, Sacrament, Mission (Mass). Without the third part, the “Missa” something important is missing.

Now to the appearance of Jesus to the Eleven in Jerusalem. This also reinforces the theology that what rose was a living body.  They thought they were seeing a ghost. He shows them hands and feet with the wounds, and then he wants to eat something. They fed him and he ate in front of them. Angels and Ghosts don’t eat. Only humans eat. For Luke, the risen Lord is no less than the Jesus before he died. He eats and can be seen and touched. These two stories say the same thing about the nature of Jesus’ victory over death: it is not to be understood as an escape from the perishable body, but a transformation of it. That transformation is not into a spiritual being because Jesus remained flesh and blood though immortal and not limited by time and space. This is not the immortality of the soul while the body decays. It is something totally new. 

For Luke, there is here what we could call “Table Fellowship”. What was interrupted by the death of Jesus is resumed at the initiative of Jesus. From now on the disciples will continue to do this in remembrance of him. These incidents when Jesus eats with them serves as a bridge between the meals the earthly Jesus had with his disciples and the later church’s Eucharist, it says that at such meals the presence of the risen Lord was known. Jesus is alive and one place of his recognition is at the breaking of the bread.

At this point I think it is important to dig into what it means to “remember”. I believe that this issue is at the root of a great problem among believers when it comes to what we believe about the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no room for anything but a firm belief that what looks like bread is the very real Body of Christ and what looks like wine is the very real Blood of Christ. These are not symbols or signs. They are real. The root of this error probably comes from a failure to understand “remembering”. In this use and context, it does not mean to “recall”.  There are three times in which to know an event: in rehearsal, at the time of the event, and in remembrance. In rehearsal, understanding is hindered by an inability to believe that the event will really occur or that it will be important. At the time of the event, understanding is hindered by the clutter and confusion of so much so fast. But in remembrance, the nonseriousness of rehearsal and the busyness of the event by way to recognition, realization, and understanding. 

To understand this, we have to take the word apart: RE-Member. It means to put together, to join. Think of it this way. God’s response to sin which broke and still breaks the relationship we have with God was a gathering in. The formation of a People that today we call the “Church”. It’s a joining together what had been broken apart. In the Eucharist God joins us with one another and with God’s self in the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus gathered a people. He reached out and looked for those who were alone by sickness or sin, and he re-membered them to himself and to all the people who had been scattered by sin, self-centered, selfish, and alone. For a deeper understanding, we start with the Bible. 

John 6 is the place to start. First, we hear of the magnetic power of the presence of Jesus. Large crowds followed him everywhere. In that chapter, Jesus goes up the mountain – which is the place where one can get close to God. Once there, Jesus sits, the posture of a teacher there on that holy mountain. This is what happens in the first part of our Mass. Jesus teaches us. There he feeds that crowd by taking the little bit that we have (think of the gifts we bring to that altar). With that little bit, he can multiply it for the feeding of the world. We know how much is left over: twelve! There is the Mass.

Then he goes to Capernaum and the people follow him. He begins to teach again. He says don’t hunger for these passing loaves of bread but for the food that lasts for eternal life. “I am the bread of life those who come to me will never be hungry, those who believe in me will never be thirsty. I AM THE LIVING BREAD come down from heaven. If you eat this bread, you will live forever. The bread that I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world.”  The crowd balked at this. A first century Jew would be repulsed by the eating of flesh with blood. That’s forbidden to them. Given therefore every opportunity to soften his teaching or propose a symbolic meaning, he goes on to say, “Amen, Amen, I say to you. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. You have no life in you, for my Flesh is real food. My Blood is real drink.”  Now, the verb Jesus uses here is not the usual word for eating. He uses the verb (trogain) which means gnaw on. 

Something real strange is going on here. While the scriptures are full of symbolic thought and symbolic images, but when Jesus puts this out so clearly, many of his followers turn away and would not go with him anymore. So, he asks the twelve if they would like to leave. This teaching is a watershed, a point of division. It’s either you are against me or with me moment. If this was just symbol talk, why would anyone be upset. But Jesus does not compromise, soften it, or give in. This is the ground for the Catholic insistence that this is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Ignatius of Antioch in letter to Smyrna. (35 AD) “They abstain from the Eucharist and Prayer because they do not admit that this is flesh of the Son of Man. Justin Martyr (165 AD) For not as common bread or common drink do we receive, but we receive the real body and blood of Christ.” Origin of Alexandria (early 3^rd century) says: speaks about reverence and almost obsessive care for crumbs that fall from the sacred gifts.  St John Chrysostom says: “What is the bread but the body of Christ. What do they become who partake of it, the body of Christ? Not many bodies, but one body. This is the way we are Christified. Our bodies are Christified. We are prepared for heaven by bringing our body in contact with the body of Christ.  The early church never wavers from this.

In the 11^th century a Bishop in Tours proposes the symbol/sign language. He teaches that something is added to the Bread, some spiritual, but it is still bread with an added something. A great debate occurs that ends with a Council. That council insists that this is wrong, and that what is on the altar after the consecration is the Flesh and Blood of Christ. His opponent says that there is something more going on in the Eucharist than is going on in the other sacraments. This is not a spiritual addition to bread. In the other sacraments, oil is still oil and water is still water. In the Eucharist, something is different.

Aquinas in the 13^th century – a vivid personal relationship. He wept at Mass, and would often rest his head against the tabernacle begging for inspiration. At the end of his life after completing his masterpiece, he places the text about the eucharist at the foot of the cross, and it said that a voice came from the cross saying: “Thomas, you’ve written well of me. What would you have as a reward: I will have nothing except you Lord.” His great work has three parts: 1) About God and Creation 2) About human being and our moral life 3) About incarnation, Christ and the Sacraments. The last part he wrote is about the Eucharist. Baptism is the generation of Life. Confirmation is the augmentation of life. Communion is food of the life. Eucharist has three names in time 1 Past: Sacrifice 

2 Present: Communion with Christ 

3 future Viaticum the great name is Eucharistia. Thanks giving which is what we will do in heaven. 

Transubstantiation comes from Thomas. Substance is the deepest and core reality of something. When I speak of substance, I mean the deepest reality what something is. What stands under. What does it stand under? Accidents Appearance or Species

like spectacle. What you see. 

In the act of Consecration, the substance of bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Jesus even as the appearances (species) of Bread and Wine remain. This is how we bring John 6 forward.  The senses perceive bread and wine. The change comes at the level of substance not appearances. The disciples on their way to Emmaus see everything, but they don’t get it. They do not understand. If all we understand is what we see, we are lost. 

There was a great 16^th century Protestant/Catholic debate. Luther did not like Thomas Aquinas. Luther saw an addition to the bread. To speak in a general way, Protestants do not believe in transubstantion. The Council at Trent addressed the issue in response. 11 canons (summaries) Canon One: If anyone were to deny that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained truly and really substantially as a symbol – let them be condemned. We are to say that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is contained real, true and substantially not in sign or figure.

How does Christ become really present? Trent says, By the power of the Word. The words do not just describe reality. Language can also be active and transformative. Not just expressive or descriptive. A Baseball word changes reality: “You’re out”. Sometimes someone says something to us that changes your whole life. That’s creative and transformative. Or something the other way around something hurtful changes us for years. Our little words can change reality – think of God’s word! How does God make the world? By the power of a Word Speech! God’s word is not descriptive it is creative.

God speaks the world into being. In the beginning there was the Word – the Word became flesh, and What God says IS. Lazars come out! Pick up your mat and walk.  What God says IS. The night before he dies he took bread and said THIS IS MY BODY. Notice at Mass how the language changes.  This stuns me every time I pick up that host. The priest begins in the third person: “He Took Bread, said the Blessing, broke it and gave to them saying…”  Then it changes into the First person. We speak in persona Christi. With this final wandering away from Luke into John, we can see how closely the theology of the Gospels weave together the core of our faith resting upon the revelation given to us by each of the evangelists. Let me conclude by repeating what our Holy Father Francis has been saying over and over again as he allows the Holy Spirit to reshape this church of ours. Evangelization is what we do and evangelists is what we are by the command of Jesus and will of the Father. What Francis is reminding us over and over again is the evangelization is not a matter of words, or saying the right thing, or convincing someone by argument. Evangelization is a quality of life. People are won over to Jesus Christ not by arguments from history or propositions from a Catechism, but by actions of believing people. People came to Jesus because of what he did before they heard him say anything. People still today will be won over by the heart before the brain. Our study of the Sacred Scriptures, our study and knowledge of St Luke’s Gospel is to open our hearts so that we might live this gospel not preach it, because people will see what we do long before they hear what we say, and in the end what we say must come from the heart.

We are at Chapter 19 of Luke’s Gospel now as the Journey ends and Jesus enters Jerusalem. In the 28^th verse Luke writes: “After he had said this, he went on ahead going up to Jerusalem.” I am going to tell you right now at the beginning that this third part of Luke’s Gospel wore me out, and I am here to admit failure because I could not squeeze all of the material that makes up the Jerusalem Ministry, the Passion, and the Resurrection into one talk. So, I propose that you harass Colleen into scheduling a fourth session. Perhaps sometime near the end of Lent for some study of Luke’s Resurrection Narrative. It might be a good way to enter into Holy Week and Easter. 

Since I studied the Gospel of Luke at Saint Meinrad Seminary and in a summer course at University of Leuven, forty years have passed. In that time, a great deal of research and scholarship has uncovered more about this Gospel than I first learned. So, this experience has been something of a new discovery for me too. Tonight, there will be two parts. The first part should be called, “The Ministry in Jerusalem”. The second part would then be, “The Passion and Death of Christ”. Sometime in the future, God willing, we can study the Resurrection of Christ.

Part one contains Chapter 19 into 21, and it all takes place in the Temple area. This piece of Luke’s Gospel sets it apart from Matthew and Mark because of the central importance of Jerusalem and the Temple for Luke’s understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy, the end of the ministry of Jesus, and the mission of the church. The other Gospels do not focus on the Temple and Jerusalem as clearly as does Luke. In the other two Gospels, you could get the sense that had Jesus not been killed in Jerusalem, he would have returned to Galilee. In fact, the risen Jesus tells his disciples to meet him there. Not with Luke. Jerusalem has been the destination all along, and the disciples are to remain there until they receive the Holy Spirit. At the same time however, “Jerusalem” is not really a geographical location. The real destination for Jesus, and for that matter, for all of us, is God. That’s where he is going with this Journey. As a place, Jerusalem and the Temple are where God and humankind meet. 

We have no idea how long Jesus ministered in Jerusalem. The Church compressed this period into eight days, but there is every reason to believe that the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not for Passover, but more likely for the Feast of Tabernacles which occurs in the fall. It’s the harvest feast. The whole business with Palm Branches with the other Gospels is a hint that this could be the Feast of Tabernacles when the Hebrew people cut branches to make “huts” out in the fields where they stayed during the harvest. So, the stay of Jesus in Jerusalem may have been much longer that the one week we have imagined. The Church, that’s us, has over time compressed all three Gospel accounts into one image of the event. If you are not careful, this can be a problem when reading Luke, because there is not one mention of palm branches. Luke’s orderly account shifts to Passover so that everything will fit together.

The scene opens on Mount Olivet near Bethany which is less than two miles east of the city. The whole role of the disciples is important to notice. They get a colt. They set Jesus on the colt. The disciples call him the King who comes in the name of the Lord. There is sense that the whole city came out as a crowd. Jesus is honored and praised by his followers. This is not a group who turns on him days later demanding his crucifixion. Luke’s version is less crowded and more subdued. It is of and for believers. The meaning comes from their faith in Jesus. It does not mean that they got it all right, but at this point, they are moving in that direction.

There is not one Hosanna in Luke’s Gospel. That word and the use of palm branches was used for parades with nationalistic overtones. None of that here. There is nothing said about David or his throne either. Luke seems to be carefully writing this so as to give Pilate nothing to use in accusation. So, the Temple is the place where things get focused now. Luke’s Gospel began with the Temple and it ends with the Temple. Zechariah is in the Temple when it is announced to him that John the Baptist would be born. At the end, the disciples are in the Temple. As Luke tells us in Acts, the Christians are attending the temple together every day. Luke seems to respect and perhaps admire the Temple, that may be why his description of Jesus cleansing is more brief than the other Gospels. He purifies the Temple so that it can be the place of his own ministry. His attack is not on the system, but on excesses. 

As this section at the Temple heats up with controversy, it might help to know who’s who. We keep hearing about the “Chief Priests, Scribes, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, Elders, and Pharisees. It’s important to sort them out. At the time of Jesus, two religio/political parties within Judaism were represented in the “Sanhedrin”. So, the Sanhedrin was a council with about 70 members composed of High Priests past and present from the priestly families. It included also the Elders who were the tribal and family heads of the people, and the Scribes who were the legal professionals.

The majority of the members were the Sadducees and the Pharisees were the minority. Caiaphas, the priest we hear about here was a Sadducee. But, most of the scribes were Pharisees. The presiding officer of this council was usually the high priest. The council was the highest court of appeal. Therefore, the Sanhedrin’s authority was broad and far-reaching, involving legislation, administration, and justice. There was religious, civil and criminal jurisdiction. At the time of Jesus, the council had lost to the Roman governor the power of capital punishment. The council met every day except on Sabbath and feast days in rooms next to the Temple. In extraordinary cases, the council met at the house of the High Priest. One of the responsibilities of the Sanhedrin was the identification and confirmation of the Messiah. In fact, we read in the gospel that they sent a delegation to John the Baptist asking if he was the Messiah. There were about a dozen false Messiahs running around during the first part of this century deceiving the people making more important the responsibility of the Sanhedrin to sort it out. This is why Jesus eventually comes in contact with them.

The “Chief Priests” were drawn mainly from the ranks of the Sadducees. One of them was always the “High Priest”. We know that at the time of Jesus Caiaphas was the High Priest. His father-in-law was Annas also called, “High Priest” and he was the real power behind the high priesthood. The Jews saw the High Priesthood as an office for life. The Romans did not, and they picked and chose High Priests from time to time, probably to keep the whole system from getting too powerful. Since he was still living, Annas was really the senior at the time which is why Jesus is first brought to Annas during his trial.

The Sadducees were really the “ruling class” They represented the aristocracy making peace quickly with the Romans to secure their privileges, wealth, and influence. They were educated, wealthy and held themselves aloof, with the result that they were not popular. Jesus was a threat to them and the status quo. Their functions were associated with the Temple and the cultic actions that took place there. They maintained the place. This gave them a great deal of authority. They collected taxes, mediated domestic disputes and regulated relations with the Romans. 

The Pharisees were associated with the Synagogue which made them more associated with the common people in contrast to the Sadducees. They were considered to be the experts in the Jewish law. They interpreted the Torah liberally, and they believed in the resurrection of the dead in the future, the existence of angels and demons, all meaning they believed in an afterlife. This is contrary to the Sadducees. They were devout laymen, not priests. Where they conflicted with Jesus was over their hyper attention to the minutiae of the Law forgetting about the intention of the law. 

It is there that controversy really heats up, and “authority” is one of the hot spots in the controversy. Anything going on in the Temple is under the control of the Priests who are from the tribe of Levi. God appointed them as priests, and the Temple is their turf. Jesus is not a Levite, but he is teaching in the Temple as though it was a synagogue where the lay people are in charge. Those in charge confront him with three questions. The first is about his authority. “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” Luke then says: “They discussed it with one another, saying, if we say, From Heaven, he will say, “why did you not believe him? But if we say, “Of human origin, all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet. So, they answered that they did not know where it came from.” With that, Jesus tells the crowd a parable about the Wicked Tenants. It is a parable about these Priests and Scribes, but he tells it to the crowd in their presence, and they get the point. No doubt even more angry, they come at Jesus with a second question. This one is about Taxes, and you know the answer he gives: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” It is a complicated response, because it’s not always easy to separate the two then or now. The third and final question concerns the Resurrection of the Dead. They are not asking a theological question. Their purpose is to argue or embarrass Jesus or force him into one school of thought or the other. It is a classic “what if” question. In his response, he just further angers them. His response comes from reason, or common sense, that conditions in this life do not constitute proof of conditions in the next, and then from scripture when he quotes Exodus 3:6 for the belief in the resurrection of the dead. His response ends up dividing his opposition because some of the scribes approve of his answer and begin to speak highly of him. 

With Chapter 21 Luke resorts to a new style of Literature, “apocalyptic.” As a kind of literature, it deals with revelation or a series of revelations usually by an angel which discloses a supernatural world beyond the world of historical events. The focus is on the end of the world as we now experience it and the beginning of a new world. In Luke’s Gospel, the apocalypses join historical events with descriptions of what is going on behind and beyond history. Often major historical crises triggered apocalyptic thinking like the destruction of Jerusalem. It is that historical event that triggers the Lukan apocalyptic writing of Chapter 21. What’s going on in the writing is mixed with what is really going on in history. It is laced with symbols, signs, and mysterious figures of speech. It is a remarkable witness to the faith of those who write this way. Amid painful and prolonged suffering, when there can be seen on the horizon no relief from disaster, faith turns its face toward heaven not only for a revelation of God’s will but also for a vision of the end of the present misery and the beginning of the age to come.

In this chapter, Luke describes the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem which had happened fifteen or twenty years before he wrote the Gospel. He seems to be concerned that believers not interpret the fall of Jerusalem as a sign the world is ending, and he continues to insist that the question of “When” is not answered because it is unknown. What Luke does through all of this apocalyptic scene is establish that the present time is the time for “testimony.” Chapter 21, 12-19 “But before all this occurs they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will give you an opportunity to testify. So, make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance for I will gives you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your souls.” Luke goes on to remind the church that the Son of Man will return. He tells a parable of the Fig Tree as a reminder that the church should be watching for the signs. In other words, living with hope. With one final word of caution, the Lukan Jesus instructs the faithful to be on guard, and not be overcome with worries of this life. “Be alert” he says “praying that you may have the strength to escape all these things and stand before the Son of Man.” We should pay attention to the title Jesus uses for himself. With the last two verses of Chapter 21, the public ministry of Jesus is complete. It ends beautifully: “Every day he was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives, as it was called. And all the people would get up early in the morning to listen to him in the Temple.”

Luke’s method of presenting the final instructions of Jesus for these apostles is the Supper. He shapes the tradition in the form of a farewell meal with a leader his followers. Luke’s Supper Narrative is three times as long as Mark and Matthew, and it is much less foreboding. There are words of warning, instruction and encouragement. There is a prediction about the apostles and Peter, but the tone is much more positive so that the conversation at the supper is tilted toward victory, where the disciples will sit on thrones in the kingdom of Jesus and Simon Peter will turn and strengthen his brothers.  Unique to Luke is the inclusion of the betrayer at the table. In Luke, Judas is there till the end of the meal, but it is important to notice that Judas is never named until the arrest scene.  In Matthew and Mark, he departs earlier. By including Judas in sharing the bread and wine, Luke emphasizes the forgiveness extends to tax collectors, a dying thief, soldiers with nails and hammers, and even Judas. What is perhaps important to Luke is that Judas not only betrays, but he breaks the covenant in the body and blood of Jesus. That is the issue.

There are two other interesting details in Luke’s reporting of the Supper. There are two cups. Listen to chapter 22 beginning at verse 14. “Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks, he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’” Research into this chapter suggests that Luke may have blended two oral traditions: one had the cup before the bread and another has two cups. The two-cup tradition associates this more closely to the Passover tradition which seems to be Luke’s purpose because the Passover Lamb was not a sin offering. The Passover lamb was the seal of a covenant, and the Passover meal commemorated that covenant offered to the believers by a God who sets free. This is the focus for Luke, liberation; not the forgiveness of sins. For the Hebrew people the forgiveness of sins was a completely different ritual. It had nothing to do with Passover. Luke’s concern here is not with forgiveness, but with unity in the covenant. Those who share in this covenant are joined to one another, life to life, as signified and sealed in the cup divided among themselves.

In this chapter, Luke takes an incident the other Gospels report earlier and inserts it into the occasion of this meal. That incident is the dispute about greatness. By including that here as well as by having Judas remain through the meal, Luke speaks very strong words to the church for which he is writing and for the church today. Betrayal of Christ has occurred and will occur among those who partake of the Lord’s Supper. Then, by taking the dispute from an earlier setting and putting it into the setting of the Supper, he takes what could be an historical event and makes it more than an ugly moment in history to a very real and present exhortation to those who share the table. Love of place and power was a problem for the first followers of Jesus, and it continues to be so. The instructions and the meal conclude with a dire warning about the danger and the threats that lie ahead. The disciples get the point. They know they are no longer in Galilee where welcoming crowds were everywhere. They are now in Jerusalem where danger is everywhere. Jesus contrasts the first sending of the disciples where they had great success without him to the coming time when they will be on their own and rather than success, there will be violence because the charges against him will spread to them. They respond to danger by instinct, sword for sword, weapon for weapon, blow for blow; that is, prepare for danger by becoming dangerous. This is, of course, not the way of Jesus, and Luke ends the whole report of the supper with powerful words of Jesus reacting to this sword talk: “It is enough.” With that, he goes off to pray in the garden.

With verse 39 in Chapter 22, the Passion Narrative begins. I think it is helpful to think of, pray with, and study over the Passion as if it were a Drama in Four Acts.

Act 1 has two scenes: Prayer and Arrest.

There are two verses in this chapter 22 that may have been added by a scribe later on because they are not present in the earliest manuscripts. They are 33 and 34 which go like this: “Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. In his anguish he prayed earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.”Without those verses, Luke does not portray Jesus in anguish, wrestling for hours with the will of God. The scene is more like the other occasions of Jesus in prayer. Luke does not portray Jesus in distress. He is much more in command, and he simply instructs his disciples to pray by way of an anticipating accompaniment to his own prayer. This Jesus is so at peace with God that he cannot be distraught by the sufferings that are inflicted on him. It is as though Luke would have Jesus revealed as a model to Christian sufferers and martyrs. Certainly, what Luke wants to do here is present Jesus as a model for all his followers in his prayer life and in the way he confronts a crises. In Luke, Jesus is always a man of prayer, and the prayer of Jesus at this point has a striking similarity to the prayer he taught the disciples. Luke has a couple of details not found in the other Gospels. Matthew and Mark have great details, and John omits the prayer scene entirely. Let me list the difference of things unique to Luke.

1. This scene which we commonly call, “The Agony in the Garden” is the shortest of the Gospels.
2. It takes place on the Mount of Olives, the place where Jesus had been staying. Mark & Matthew place it in Gethsemane. John simply says, “a garden.”
3. There are not 3 disciples in Luke. They are all asked to pray
4. Jesus comes to them only once, not three times and Luke explains that they were sleeping because of sorrow which softens the reprimand. He is not scolding or complaining. 
5. Luke has Jesus kneel in prayer not fall to the ground.

For Luke, the coming of that angel is all that Jesus needs for strength, and that is the answer to his prayer. With that, he goes to the sleeping disciples only one time and he is, as I’ve said several times, gentle with them. 

The best of the scholars believe that early Christians had a tradition that before he died Jesus struggled in prayer about his fate. No one knows whether they retained or claimed to retain accurate memories of the wording he used; more probably they did not. But they understood his prayer with terms like “the hour” and “the cup”, which in the tradition of his sayings he had used to describe his destiny in God’s plan. Each evangelist knew different forms of that tradition, and each developed it differently. 

Now the second Scene, “The Arrest”.  Luke again is consistently kinder to the apostles than the other Gospels. There is no suggestion that Judas planned to kiss Jesus. There is no young man who runs away, and the healing of the severed ear shows us a Jesus who is still gentle and healing even with those who would do him harm. In this scene, the presence of the “Chief Priests” and captains of the Temple and elders is unique to Luke. The whole episode in Luke is brief. It is only the third time in Luke’s Gospel that Luke mentions Judas: in the naming of the 12, and in chapter 22 when Luke tells us that Satan had entered him, and finally here when Jesus address Judas directly. There is about it an intimacy that some scholars suggest is one last attempt to touch the heart of Judas.  Luke never tells us that Judas actually kissed Jesus. It is Jesus who brings that up in their confrontation, and it’s almost as if Jesus was refusing. Luke explains the decision of Judas by saying that Satan had entered Judas, and Luke is the only Gospel that says that. It would seem that this is Luke’s way of referring back to the Temptation scene at the beginning of the Gospel when he says that Satan would return. Only John’s Gospel has Jesus speaking to the arresting crowd about his disciples. In John, he insists that the disciples should not be arrested. In Luke’s Gospel, they simply disperse without any suggestion that they ran away out of fear. Luke is always protecting the disciples.  Then, Jesus is taken to the Sanhedrin at the house of the High Priest. End of Act One.

Act Two

In Luke there are four trials

1. Sanhedrin
2. Pilate
3. Herod
4. Pilate. (Other Gospels have only three) This is a direct parallel to the trials of St Paul. There were four for him.
5. The first is the religious trial. The interrogation of Jesus begins. In the midst of it, Luke has Peter’s three denials all at once while Mark splits them up into different times. All of this happens in the night. In the morning Jesus is before the assembly of the elders with chief priests and scribes present. Two questions make up this interrogation, and the issue is his identity.
6. Are you the Messiah?
7. Are you the Son of God?

This is a preliminary trial to establish cause. Luke says nothing about false witnesses. The only witness is Jesus himself who answers their questions by simply saying: “You say that I am”. They do not condemn Jesus to death. Closes Act Two

Act Three

Chapter 23 and what I like to call, Act Three begins with the second trial before Pilate. This is the civil trial. Luke, different from the other reports adds that the “Council” sends him to Pilate with three charges.

This is a good example of Luke’s effort to be “More Orderly” as he promised in the opening of the Gospel.  It’s also interesting that these charges are the same charges raised against St Paul when he is brought before the prefect Felix in the 24^th chapter of Acts. The charges:

1. We found this man perverting our nation
2. Forbidding us to pay Taxes to the emperor
3. Saying that he is the Messiah, a king. 

Pilate has no interest in two of these charges, but he is focused on the last one. He asks the question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” And Jesus answers Pilate exactly the same way he answered the Sanhedrin. Pilate finds no guilt, and when he says so, the accusers insist that Jesus has been stirring up trouble in Galilee, a place that at the time was a hot-bed of revolution. With this, we have a major piece unique to Luke. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time and had expressed interest in seeing Jesus. The trial before Herod is unique to Luke. Again, Jesus is found not guilty by the Jewish ruler and he is sent back for the fourth trial. This is a sequence that makes Pilate want to set Jesus free. The same pattern is found in Acts of the Apostles with Paul being sent by the Roman Governor to Herod Agippa II only to have Paul found not guilty. It is at the court of Herod that Jesus is mocked and robed. In Luke, there is no explanation about a custom of releasing a prisoner. Probably because Luke, who knew a lot about Roman customs did not think it was true. Luke simply has the people wanting to make a trade. Jesus for Barabbas. Act Three ends with Jesus being “handed over” as they wished.

Act Four, Scene One.

Luke has four additions not found in other Gospels at this time.

1.  Lamenting women
2.  Prayer of Jesus for his crucifiers
3.  Mocking of Jesus on the Cross (Authorities, Soldiers, Crucified Thief) Notice the pattern of 3. That pattern shows up a lot in Luke’s Gospel. There were three “Not Guilty” statements as well. Missing in this scene are Mark’s “Bystanders” since Luke is always careful to see the Jewish people in a favorable light.
4.  After the death of Jesus, Luke adds a note that the crowd of bystanders were striking their breasts, the Centurion and the women at a distance (another Triad). 

The Christology of Jesus in Luke is very striking. The Jesus he presents to us is Divine, the Son of God. Therefore, while Mark has Jesus praying psalm 22 “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Luke has Jesus praying Psalm 31 “Father into your hands I commend my Spirit.” Luke gives us a Jesus who is at peace with himself. The final substitution Luke adds is to have the Centurion call Jesus a “Just Man” rather than “The Son of God” which is what Mark adds.

Luke views the killing of Jesus as a martyrdom, the unjust murder of an innocent man by the authorities which is a model for disciples. Luke avoids any connection between the death of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins. For Luke, the forgiveness of sins comes from the Risen Christ. For Luke, Jesus stands at the end of a long line of martyr/prophets just as the prophets of old were all murdered. For Luke this death is the fulfillment of prophesies. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus dies quietly, full of trust, a model for Christian martyrs to follow. That calm assurance at death was enough to convince the centurion of the innocence of Jesus. Instead of saying, “Truly this man was the Son of God”. Luke’s centurion confirms once more what we all know: “Certainly this man was innocent.” With that, I will stop for now. Sometime as we near Holy week, we can take up Act Four Scene Two: “The Burial of Jesus” 

Before we examine the middle part of Luke’s Gospel that is often called the “Journey Narrative” it might be helpful to point out a few principals about the Gospel texts. 

The collection of literature or writing that make up both the Old and New Testament is called the “Canon.” The word comes from a Greek word meaning “Rule” or “Measuring Stick.” By about 115, Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, writes about the “Gospel” as he knew it in four parts or versions. By 180, the Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus writes about the “Gospel” as a fourfold text. By this time, Luke’s work has been split into two, and the portion that continues after the Resurrection is separated from the Gospel. What I want you to understand is that the development of the New Testament as we have it today, was a very slow process that did not really come together until the work of Saint Jerome in the fourth century as he worked to translate them all from what original texts could be gathered together.

For all of the Gospel there are two major sources:

1)        Oral Tradition, which is the stories passed on by memory from one place to the next and from one generation to the next. This tradition came first.

2)        A collection of the Miracle Stories seems to have been passed around from one community to the next.

From these two sources, Mark assembles a Gospel which may have depended upon Peter as one of his sources. It would have been oral. The writers of both Matthew and Luke both seem to have had all three of these sources at their disposal, and blended them together depending upon their focus, the audience, and the circumstances for which they presented the Gospel. 

As I said in the first of this series, this third gospel is anonymous, as are the other three canonical gospels. This makes it quite different from the writings of Paul whose name appears through his writing. We can tell from the Gospel that the writer was not an eyewitness. He depends on the testimony of others. He is a second or third generation Christian, and he is scarcely a native Palestinian. His knowledge of the geography and customs seems inadequate suggesting he did not live there. This Gospel avoids the use of Semitic words, and it omits gospel traditions about Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisaic understanding of the Low and about what is clean and unclean. He is obviously a rather well-education person, a good writer acquainted with both OT literary traditions and those of the Greeks. The Luke of this Gospel is probably not an apostle. He is an apostolic evangelist.

By the latter half of the 2^nd century this book we all know as the Gospel of Luke was

being attributed to a Luke who was a companion of Paul. Three references speak of him as a fellow worker and beloved physician who was faithful to Paul in a final imprisonment. Many scholars believe that when Paul speaks of “we” implying that he was not travelling alone, it was Luke who was to be included in that “we.” At the same time, there are things in Luke’s Gospel that do not match with things in Paul’s writings which would suggest that Luke and Paul were not exactly together all the time. In the fourth chapter of Colossians, Paul mentions Luke in a list of those who are with him, and Paul divides the group into those “who have come over from the Circumcision” from others implying that Luke is not a Jew. We know this much: he was a physician, or least more than the other gospel writers Luke pays more attention to the medical matters that occur in the Gospel, for instance, the description in the Good Samaritan story or the comment about many physicians unable to cure. A sometime companion or collaborator of Paul, a disciple who had not witnessed the ministry of Jesus, he wrote his Gospel for Gentile converts after the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and began his work with Chapter Tree and probably later added the Infancy Narrative as I said in the last talk.

We do not know where he was from, but his language (Greek) and some other clues suggest he was a native of Antioch in Syria. That does not mean the Gospel was assembled there. Scholars agree that it was not written in Palestine. Those same scholars believe it was written after the year 70. His constant pessimism in Luke about the fate of Jewish leaders and Jerusalem makes it likely that Jerusalem has already been destroyed. At the same time, it was before the year 100 because he writes in the second part (Acts of the Apostles) about the Church in Ephesus because he only seems to know about the church structure of presbyters. There is no sign of the developed pattern of having one bishop in each church, which is clearly noted by Ignatius in the decade before 110.

It is commonly believed that he was writing for Gentile Christians in a Gentile setting. There are all sorts of indications that support this. He eliminates materials that are predominantly Jewish preoccupations from what may be his source. Mark. He substitutes Greek names for Aramaic names. He traces the genealogy back to Adam and God not just to David or Abraham as in Matthew. When he quotes the Old Testament, he uses the Greek version.

With Chapter Three we read what scholars believe to be the original beginning of Luke’s Gospel. Read aloud, the first six verses have the character of an Imperial Edict. The chapter establishes the identity of Jesus with his unique emphasis on the Holy Spirit. Of all the Gospels, this is the one that brings the Holy Spirit into the tradition and faith of the Christian Community. The Spirit is there at the moment of Baptism when the voice says: “This is My Beloved Son.” Then right after his revelation of divinity of Jesus as                   

God’s Son, Luke inserts that genealogy and lists the ancestors of Jesus to affirm his humanity. There is no going forward without this distinct affirmation of the Incarnation. And the divine/human nature of Jesus. Then, as the fourth chapter opens, Luke tells us that Jesus was led by the Spirit to the wilderness where he is tempted by the devil. The temptations themselves are each worth a lot of prayerful reflection, but that’s not for tonight. Luke moves on as Jesus begins his ministry in Galilee. He goes home. Now remember what Luke said at the very beginning: this is an orderly account of events. That does not mean it is historical. This is theological, and so the “order” has to do with theological order or perhaps theological priorities. THIS IS NOT HISTORY!

Jesus would not remain alone in the Gospel Mission, and it would not cease with his death and resurrection. Having presented the identity of Jesus, the message, and the mission of Jesus, Luke focuses on the disciples and shows how their own life, work, and mission is rooted in a special call. This part opens (again Luke’s dramatic style) by the lake of Gennesaret where Jesus calls Simon Peter and his companions to missionary discipleship. Then, the scene shifts from the lake to a city where Jesus demonstrates his healing power, a power exercised with due respect for the law and religious legal authority (5:15 “Go show yourself to the priests). This event reveals the basis for the developing conflict between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees. There is a triple challenge concerning their integrity and relationship to the Law.

1)    In a home: the healing of a paralytic reveals his power to forgive sins. (Open the roof)

2)    At a banquet hosted by Levi forgiveness is related to the call of disciples and a new way of life

3)    Two sabbath day incidents:

a.    In grain fields and

b.    In a synagogue present how this new way of life with values transcend the Pharisees’ interpretation of Sabbath observance.

Through this whole section, the focus is on the identity of Jesus (Who is this?). Yet this provides the bases for the identity of disciples. Once you know who Jesus is, you know who you are. Once you know what Jesus does, you know what you must do. The work of reconciliation is our work. It is the work of the Church. As the identity is focused, the whole issue of a new way of life begins to surface. Conflict develops in that home cure, in the meal, and finally over the sabbath observance. Then, in the 11^th verse of Chapter 6, Luke says: “They were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.” Now, for the first time in just six chapters, Luke uses one of his dramatic techniques to change the scene. He has Jesus withdraw “to the mountain to pray.”

Peter has already been on the scene, but now it’s time for the others. It is Luke’s way of emphasizing the primacy of place held by Peter. From the very beginning the status of Peter is affirmed. So, by way of summary, from Chapter 3 till Chapter 6, incident by incident, Luke develops the hostility of the scribes and Pharisees. They are watching, and gradually, they begin to pick up a pattern they don’t like. Fasting is called into question. The Sabbath is not observed the way they like. Meals are shared with tax Collectors, and Jesus is in the company of sinful women and even a Roman Centurion The last straw comes for them when he begins to speak of and proclaim the forgiveness of sins. Furious at being completely undone and unwilling to change, the scribes and the Pharisees have no alternative. They must find a way to rid themselves of Jesus.

Now, Jesus begins to establish the new Israel whose leaders would later be formed and actually sent on the mission. This new Israel will have twelve tribes just like the old Israel. Instead of tribes there will be Apostles, and he calls them from among the disciples. Then comes a description of life in the New Israel. The Lukan Beatitudes, an instruction on love, a warning against judging others, the need to bear good fruit, and the importance of a solid foundation. Then Jesus responds to the plea of a Roman Centurion and raises the son of a woman form Nain, making it clear that the new Israel will be very inclusive. A resolution of the relationship with John the Baptist ends this section with more examples of this inclusiveness as several incident with women are included.

With all that by way of introduction, Jesus calls the twelve together (Chapter 9) gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. When they return with the glowing report, Luke, almost as an aside or maybe a warning, inserts the news that Herod was perplexed and asks the question; “Who is this?” Meanwhile, Jesus has taken the apostles aside for some talk, and a huge crowd found them. At the end of the day, the crowd is hungry. The disciples recognize this, and Jesus tells them to feed the crowd. When the don’t know what to do, Luke resolves the matter with what can only be described as a preview of the Last Supper and the Holy Eucharist quoting Jesus, he took, blessed, broke, and gave. Then, the scene closes as Jesus goes off to pray alone. This time the disciples are near. Jesus asks about his identity. If Luke were writing stage directions as well as a dialogue, there would be a drum roll as Peter proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah of God! Trumpets would sound, lights would flash. Then, Jesus tells them what lies ahead: suffering and death. Lest they be discouraged, he takes them up a high mountain and the Transfiguration occurs. Again, a voice from heaven speaks to the witnesses: “This is my Son, my chosen one; listen to him.” They come down and again he warns of his betrayal. With verse 51 now in Chapter 9, it says: “He set his face to go to Jerusalem.” With that the Journey narrative takes off.

It begins in Galilee and it moves toward Jerusalem. That movement is constant in Luke’s Gospel, and it is easy to call the middle of Luke’s Gospel between the Infancy Narrative and the Passion, “The Journey Narrative.” Jesus is now on the move, and as he begins, he picks up those we call, “Apostles.” Everywhere he goes, he stops at the Synagogue. Luke is always anxious to give us a Jesus who is faithful in prayer and observant of his traditions. Think how many incidents occur in that context from the Presentation of the infant in the temple by Mary and Joseph to the final observance of the Passover. Jesus prays there, and a lot of things happen there. It is clear early in the journey that he is gaining favor and a reputation that brings great crowds not only following him, but looking for him. One by one, the miracles or cures that he works get listed: and unclean spirit is cast out, and in the episode, even the unclean spirit proclaims who Jesus is, “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” says the demon. While the unclean spirits seem to know, the people just wonder. At Simon’s house, the sick are brought to him and they are cured. In another town a leper is cleansed. Then a paralytic. As Luke presents each of these individual cures, the signs that prophets said would point to the Messiah are checked off While we know what’s happening and who Jesus is, the people in the Gospel drama still are wondering.

Through this first section with the focus on the crowd, three major groups of people seem to emerge: the crowd, the disciples, and the apostles. What now becomes clear is that Luke is sensitive to the distinct historical phases of the life of the Church. There is the crowd of the curious and the needy, there is the Church (Disciples) and among them are apostles. Luke is already, even before Pentecost and Acts of the Apostles shaping the Church.

By the sixth chapter the disciples are all accounted for, and the mission begins. Luke affirms again and again that the Gospel is for everyone. So, once the Twelve have been sent out on a successful mission, and once the identity of Jesus is confirmed by Peter, the example of the twelve motivates the sending of the Seventy lest the “Disciples” think that evangelization or the work of Jesus is only the work of the twelve. So, what’s up with the number? Two pieces of history probably shaped this detail. Moses chose seventy elders to be his helpers (Numbers 11: 16-15). Scholars suggest that more likely a stronger influence is the report of seventy nations in Genesis 10. With this Luke anticipates the mission of the nations began at Pentecost. Luke is anxious for us to see how the Church originated in the life and work of Jesus.

Now comes the great journey to Jerusalem, a journey that would lead Jesus out of history in the heavens. This is also the journey of the church which accompanies Jesus on his way to God. The idea, the whole concept of Journey recalls the Exodus during which time the disorganized, tribal people led by Moses gradually by trial and error finally become God’s people and reach the promise. This kind of journey story is nothing new. It is a theme used in ancient myths, and finally it is one made holy by the Word of God. The Journey has four stages:

1. Villages of Galilee from which the group of apostles is drawn and expanded.
2. From Galilee the setting shifts to Jerusalem
3. In the Temple of Jerusalem where Jesus teaches various groups that either rejected or struggle with his challenge
4. From Jerusalem to the Father – the Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

Tonight, it is that first and second stage that we are focused on.

Again, this is not history. You cannot trace the journey on a map. There is no sense of organization for the route because it is not geographical. The destination is the Ascension, not really the city of Jerusalem. In fact, as you may notice, the narrative never says that Jesus got to Jerusalem. It simply says he entered the Temple. It never says anything about Jerusalem. The point is the Ascension is not some place. 

In the summer of 2001 I was at the Cathedral of Our Lady in Oklahoma City. I had been through the Gospel of Luke five times during that assignment of fifteen years. I was not looking forward to the summer preaching once again for the sixth time with the Gospel of Luke. One of the great benefits of staying in one parish for a while and of being the only priest there is the opportunity to really teach consistently and progressively with the Word of God. I miss that in retirement, and sometimes I am frustrated that I never get to be in the same place and the same time with the same people two Sundays in a row. It is my opinion that for the congregation, that’s a loss because there is no way to develop and really explore consistently the Word of God. In other words, none of us here can every say: “As I said last week…” Or “As we heard in the Gospel last week…” At any rate it was 2001 and I was dreading the summer months simply because I had been through those summertime gospels five times and was feeling out of ideas. One evening, I speaking with Father Stephen Happel, a life-long friend and priest companion. We were comparing notes about the summer preaching when he called my attention to the obvious fact that these chapters from nine to nineteen of Luke’s Gospel are actually a unit that ought to be treated as a whole. With that, the Holy Spirit which is so prominent in Luke’s Gospel turned on the lights. Some might think of tongues of fire, but fire always brings some light.

Beginning with verse 51 in the 9^th Chapter, it begins. What we have here is a course in discipleship. What the Lukan Jesus is doing as he wanders around taking a long time to get where he is going is teaching and proposing a set of virtues that are essential for discipleship and must be at the heart of the Church Luke is forming.

The first is Poverty. Those who would follow Jesus and the Church (people) that continue his mission must be poor. The poverty Jesus commends to his followers is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved. It is not some ill to be solved, cured, and wiped out by an economic system. That kind of poverty is an issue of justice. One kind of poverty come from injustice. This virtue of poverty comes from a life style with a new way of relating to things. It has to do with what can be shared. If anything you have cannot be shared, you are in Gospel trouble. If your computer is too delicate or your car too expensive, you are not poor. God is poor. God share the sun and the rain on the good and the bad. God even shares God’s only Son. 

Then moving into Chapter 10, Jesus teaches his disciples about joy. We shall have joy as disciples because we are free of anxious concerns and worries that have nothing to do with us. In the Gospel, Jesus sent out the disciples instructing them to take nothing – to be poor. Then with nothing to worry about, nothing to lose, nothing to pack, carry, or slow them down, they are free. That quality of freedom from worry and possessive concerns that seems to weigh down the rich whose stuff is too good to loan or share is called Joy. Next, in the same chapter Jesus reveals that Mercy is a virtue of discipleship with the story of the Good Samaritan. This is a quality of generosity and compassion not just at exceptional moments or a response to disasters, but a quality that is consistent and present all the time. 

As the chapter continues, so does the formation, and hospitality becomes the next virtue. The story of Martha and Mary develops this virtue, and there is a way of looking at those two as really one person, the disciple whose life is in balance between being and doing. It is a call to keeping work and prayer in balance, and being hospitable is characteristic of God reminding us to be good guests and gracious hosts in the spirit of Abraham and Jesus.

Chapter 11 begins in a different place where Jesus teaches disciples about Perseverance which is the real secret to effective prayer because it preserves the relationship no matter how things are going. After teaching them about prayer, Jesus teaches disciples about worthy priorities as a challenge to greed. It is way of relating to things that is independent and free. This makes disciples rich in wisdom, purpose, and usefulness.

In the 12^th chapter, there is a lesson of ear, with the assurance that we are never alone. The fear of abandonment is probably the greatest of all fears; and with it, the fear that there is not going to be enough of everything leads to thinking that we had better take care of ourselves because no one else will. Having the gift of freedom also means being free from fear which allows the disciple to look ahead not for something bad to happen, but for the master’s return and treat us like friends not as servants. Later in that same chapter, zeal is proposed by Jesus as a quality of discipleship. Those who have zeal in their lives are people who have a clear purpose, who know who they are, where they are going, and what they have to work with. This gives them a vibrant quality that is eager, and expectant, vigilant and ready for the Lord’s coming.

Chapter 13 raises a question to which Jesus does not respond. He never answers the question about how many or who will be saved. He simply launches into that talk about entering through the narrow door which we immediately decide means admission to heaven. The whole question comes from a world which saw reality as limited. For most people of the first century there was only so much to go around including salvation. Competition was endemic to the religious as well as the economic sphere. In the end, Jesus instructs that disciples are saved, and saved disciples live at home in the present because they have been given bread. They know the comfort of forgiveness because they have forgiven each other.

In the 14^th chapter, the protocol for the Banquet of Heaven is being set, and the way Jesus sees it, there is to be a radical departure form the system used in the ancient world an not entirely out of use in our own. It’s about Humility, a virtue rooted in truth. This virtue does not mean being a doormat. It means know one’s rightful place in the reign of God, and it means knowing that it is a gift. The humble find their sense of self and their identity in God, not in comparison with others. As the chapter moves on, the Lukan Jesus speaks of prudence for disciples. This a quality of life rather than behavior. Remember, first discipleship is about being something, then, from that come the doing of something. The disciple always asks what kind of person shall I be, not what shall I do. Some think that Prudence means being cautious, timid, frightened or mediocre. These are not the qualities of Prudence. In fact, they are just the opposite. Prudence seeks the best way to do the right thing. The point is the Doing. It is a virtue of action not of passive caution.

The journey and the lessons continue on with Chapter 15 when Jesus insists that a disciple is watchful. It’s those three stories about a woman sweeping the house looking for something, about a shepherd leaving 99 behind to look for just one sheep, and ridiculous father who does not go back to “business as usual” when his son takes off, never giving up hope, never living with that final and self-justifying attitude about a another that says: “They’ll just always be that way.”

The next chapter finds Jesus insisting that his disciples will be wise, that they will have a quality of Wisdom seen in faithful attention to frequent and familiar tasks of each day not matter how small and insignificant they may seem. What Luke suggests is that life consists of a series of what seem to be small opportunities like a cup of water. “Whoever is faithful in little things is faithful in bigger ones” is the way he puts it. Wise disciples will know what is of lasting value and what is fleeting. They will also know that they can only serve one master. Further into the chapter there is a story we could all tell without the book. It is the story of the rich man and the poor man who has a name, Lazarus. What Jesus reveals is that awareness must be a quality of his disciples. It is about an awareness of others. Never listening to the prophets, that rich man found himself in unending misery. Never listening to Jesus, we can run the same risk. Disciples of Jesus hear the master’s words. Aware of His presence and his Gospel, they become aware of injustice.

Chapter 17 an interesting parable raises another virtue, Duty, and the parable tells the story of someone giving what is due, which is the meaning of the word, “duty.” The parable is a somewhat “back-door” way to remind disciples that they are servants. Fidelity to the duries of discipleship provides no grounds for feeling superior, and it should not bring ideas of honor or appreciation. In discipleship there is no “look what I have don” attitude. In fact, there is no time for that because there is always more to do. When the apostles cry: “Increase our faith” which begins this section, they are aware of the great task that lies ahead and what Jesus asks of them. What we learn in this section is that it is not the quantity or extent of a person’s faith that is at issue. It is not a matter of ore faith, but a life consistent with the faith we already have.

As an example of how Luke’s work is not factual history, in this chapter, he has Jesus headed to Jerusalem through the region between Samaria and Galilee. That would be like going to Miami through Tallahassee. None the less, along the way, Jesus gets to another profoundly important virtue for disciples: Gratitude. In Luke’s thought the grateful recognition of God’s initiative that brings healing and salvation is the surest sign of faith. Gratefulness confirms one’s faith. Disciples recognize what God has done for them. It’s the story of the 10 lepers that unfolds this virtue. Disciples return again and again to the feet of the master speaking his praises. This is not a passing emotion, but a way of life. It is not private either. It is public, and real gratitude is contagious. 

In the 18^th Chapter Luke pulls a switch with another parable about a nagging woman who comes before a judge. Probably when Jesus used this parable, it was, like all his parables, about God his Father. In which case, the focus of the story was the judge, and the listener would be drawn into a reflection upon the surprising figure who is moved by this persistent widow to provide the justice for which she pleads. When Luke tells the story, it is not so clearly about the judge. The widow emerges as the story’s focus. She is the focus not because she is a widow, not because she is alone, not because she is an uneducated outcast without a name, wealth, land, or power. She emerges because, unlike others of her kind, she is persistent, constant, steady, and unbending in the face of any obstacle. Her strength of persistent prayer is the virtue that must be found in a disciple. In this chapter another parable is told that we know very well about two men who go to the Temple to pray. With that parable disciples are brought to recognize that they are justified. However, this is not because of what they say or what they do, who they know or where they are, but that they are justified by God. In the parable, there is nothing wrong with the prayer of either man. They are both reciting psalms: the Pharisee is using Psalm 15 and the Tax Collector is using Psalm 34. The problem is not the prayer, the problems is the focus. All the Pharisee can do is recite what he has done. His prayer is all about him. What the tax Collector does is make God the center of his prayer. One has no room for God because he so filled with his own accomplishments. The other acknowledges God as the source and ground of his life and hope. He is justified, not the other one. Disciples of Jesus are justified, not because God owes them something but because the stood in truth before God and acknowledged their need and how useless their own deed are to save them.

In the new order Jesus came to inaugurate, it is an era of salvation and justification experienced as a gift, not as a right. In such disciples then, righteousness is never about self, but always about the God who saves with mercy, forgiveness and love.

Chapter 19 begins with these words: “He entered Jericho and was passing through it.” He is now near Jerusalem, and before the chapter ends, he enters the city and with that his Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension are about to take place. Armed with the virtues he has presented along the way, disciples, his church, will be ready to move forward without him because of him by the power of the Holy Spirit as the second part of Luke’s work, Acts of the Apostles will reveal.

In Part Three the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus will be the focus.

There is some hesitation on my part as we begin exploring Luke’s Gospel which will be our guide through this Liturgical year until December of 2022. The hesitation comes with this first part of what will be three talks on Luke’s Gospel. About 100 years ago, I got in a lot of trouble for telling my little sister that there was no Santa Clause. I felt it my duty to tell her because I had just come to realize that the Santa sitting in our living room was one of my aunts. Her perfume was the giveaway. As the family story goes, one of my uncles was supposed to take on the annual role which was passed around from year to year among the four brothers. That uncle got drunk, and failed to show up. My aunt, in her usual “take charge” mode promptly ran to the garage and put on the outfit and came to the door. My hesitation comes from the fact that tonight and maybe in the following talks, I’m going to upset some long-held beliefs, some treasured images, and who knows what else.

So, let’s get into what we know and admit what we don’t know adding the truth that sometimes when we don’t know something, we make stuff to cover that lack of knowledge. There is a set of questions that ought to guide us whenever we begin to explore something: Who, When, What, Where, and How.

So, who wrote this Gospel? Luke is the name used consistently from the second century. He was a companion of Paul, a native of Antioch in Syria. That information comes from the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and the Epistle to Timothy. There is no contrary information anywhere, so we can let that be. He was not an apostle or an eye-witness. He simply suddenly appears at Paul’s side during Paul’s second Mission. We can say that, because in Luke’s second part which we call “Acts of the Apostles” chapter 16, he suddenly switches to the first-person plural. He says, “We.”

When: The years 80 to 85 are generally accepted as the time. However, from the fact that Luke’s writing stops while Paul is still in custody around the year 63 and the fall of Jerusalem in about 70 would push it a little earlier. Here is an example of contrary data that leaves us to simply say: “We don’t really know exactly.”

It is fairly certain that Luke had at hand a copy of Mark’s account. Sixty-percent of Mark is incorporated into Luke. Probably another collection of quotations from Jesus was probably available to him and these would have been written in Aramaic. There were certainly some oral sources available from John, the deacon Philip, and Mary.

Luke’s Gospel, when it comes to literature is a masterpiece. He is very observant of mannerisms, psychological reactions, and hidden motivations. He favors minorities, segregated groups, and the underprivileged. Watch how often Samaritan, lepers, publicans, soldiers, public sinners, ignorant shepherds and poor show up. All of these people get special encouragement from this Gospel. He is writing for Gentiles. We know that because of the way he omits Semitic words and finds substitutes for them. For instance, he explains in his Gospel the meaning of “Abba”, “Rabbit”, “Ephphata”. He seldom quotes the Old Testament. This Gospel was written in Greek. It was good Greek, not easy street language. Luke is educated, and he writes to people who speak good Greek.

Finally, before we dig into the Infancy Narrative, you must keep in mind this is not History. It is theology. They are not the same. Luke makes no claim to have been an eyewitness. He tells us that he is giving us a well-ordered narrative so that we may know the truth. He says he is writing to Theophilus. He calls him “excellent”. That adjective/title was reserved for Roman Procurators. It was also a very common name, so there is no point in making a lot out of it.

At the time of Luke, there were two problems or “crises” that may have prompted his writing. 

The first was the Gentiles, and with that came concepts or ideas about God.  The whole Mediterranean world was very parochial, and there were as many ideas about God as there were communities, and with that then, there were different cults. That’s hard for us to understand, but it was a great challenge at the time. Rome made it even more difficult with Emperor Worship. As Rome spread across the region, the parochialism was overcome. With this came an overwhelming sense loyalty and security that drove people to side with the powerful. If you understand that world, then you can see why the message of humility and the ideas expressed in Mary’s Magnificat are seen as a revolutionary threat.

The themes of Greek plays at the time would have thought humility to be silly. The nobility of persons was the theme of their plays captivating theatergoers. Meanwhile the Christian community expected the world to believe the story of a man who died the death of a rebellious slave.

The second crises was over the Jews. The descendants of Abraham even earned the respect of Rome as it recognized that the history of these chosen people made it clear that no power could shake their fidelity to the law of their fathers. This people, reared with a profound respect for the law, their traditions, the experts would find shocking the stories of Jesus who flaunted the accepted ways and seemed so arrogant toward his religious superiors. He seemed to be encouraging social, economic, and religious sedition.

The construction of Luke’s Gospel suggests that originally the Gospel began with Chapter 3, and the Infancy Narrative was added after Acts of the Apostles was finished. The presence of the genealogy in the third chapter is hint of this possibility. Listen how it begins and see if you don’t think is the beginning. “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was ruler of Galilee and Philip his brother ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

In Acts of the Apostles, Chapters 1 & 2 serve as a transition from Jesus to Church with the Apostles as the figures. In the Gospel, Chapter 1 & 2 serve as a transition from Israel to Jesus with the characters as the figures. There may be three sources:

1. A source for hymns: 
   1. The Magnificat
   1. The Benedictus
   1. The Gloria
   1. The Nunc Dimits
2. A source for parts of Chapter 2 which could stand alone
3. A source for John the Baptist and the Jesus stories of Chapter 1

Think for a minute how Luke organizes Chapters 1 & 2. There are seven episodes.

1. Annuniation of John the Baptist
2. Annunciation of Jesus
3. Visitation
4. Birth and Circumcision of John
5. Birth and Circumcision of Jesus
6. Presentation in the Temple
7. Finding in the Temple

There are obviously two parallels 1 & 2 and 3 & 4. The hymns fit in, but may have been added later. Episode 7 serves as a transition or story/passage.

I cannot emphasize this enough. 

The Infancy Narrative is a Dramatization of Theology. It is NOT history!

It all begins with a self-contained story of a Divinely prepared conception of John the Baptist. It is so similar to the one that follow that it cannot be an accident.

With the annunciation of the Baptist’s birth we get four pieces of information:

1. It is during the time of Herod the Great
2. The names of the Parents are Zechariah and Elizabeth
3. They and he were of Priestly descent (Tribe)
4. They were old and Elizabeth was without child

Luke probably did not invent the first item because it also is supported by Matthew

The second and third items are more difficult. These are probably pieces of tradition that came to Luke perhaps from the Jerusalem community or from former followers of John who came over to the Church. With the fourth item, it is more likely that Luke is trying to establish a connection with the Old Testament rather than writing intimate family history, because there is a parallel between the parents of Samuel and John.

Now, let’s examine the Annunciation.

Gabriel shows up. The only other time in the Bible that we hear of Gabriel is in the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel. In verse 15 Gabriel is sent to explain a vision Daniel has just had, and Gabriel scares him so much that he fell to the ground. The Book or Prophecy of Daniel proclaims the coming of everlasting justice – the final time.

In the Annunciation scene there are five steps:

1. The appearance
2. The fear
3. The message
4. The objection
5. The giving of a sign

As the story goes, Zechariah should have come to the steps to give a blessing, but he cannot. In Luke’s drama, the blessing that cannot be given at the beginning is given at the end of the Gospel when Jesus ass Jesus led his disciples out to Bethany, lifted his hand over them, and blessed them. Watch how often Luke marks the end of a scene with a departure.

There is a struggle in Luke to fit John the Baptist into the schema of salvation history as part of the process of Christian self-understanding and to persuade unconverted disciple of John.

Annunciations have eight components

1. The visionary is addressed by name
2. A qualifying phrase describing the visionary
3. The visionary is urged not to be afraid
4. A woman is with child or about to be with child
5. She will give birth to the (male) child
6. The name by which the child is to be called
7. There is an interpretation of the name
8. The future accomplishments of the child.

Luke follows this patter with one exception, the name of Jesus is not explained.

The whole concept of a Virgin Birth is unheard of in the Old Testament. So, when it springs up in the Gospel, it is an entirely new idea that brings with it the sense of a “New Creation”. This is the introduction of the message and identity of Jesus as God’s Son.

The angel’s words are a free interpretation of II Samuel 7 and give the child the character of a Messiah from David’s line. 

Remember what I said about departures being a way to end of scene. So, with the Visitation story, the scene of the Annunciation is complete. The Visitation itself is a bridge passage that brings together two characters of this drama: John and Jesus. As I said earlier, the addition of the hymn (Magnificat) was probably a later addition. We don’t know where they came from, but they have very deep Old Testament roots, and probably were hymns sung by the early Jewish/Christians.

Then we get two birth stories. One is of lesser importance than the other obviously by the details. John’s birth only takes two verses. In Chapter 3 Luke describes the whole career of John including his imprisonment by Herod before he narrates how John Baptized Jesus. Do you see something odd here? The Baptism of Jesus had to have happened before John was imprisoned. Again – no history here, so do not expect things to “add up”. This is Luke’s way of shifting all the focus onto Jesus.  Another example is that Luke describes the growth of John into manhood before he describes the birth of Jesus which, if this was history, should have taken place only a few month later. Again, a shift of attention.

Now, that Census. It is probably the result of a confused memory of the events that brought about two Herodian reigns and the consequent political trouble around the time of Jesus’ birth. The census itself seems to be a way of explaining the presence of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. This is a literary device that provides a solemn beginning. It is ironical that the Roman Emperor, the mightiest figure in the world, is serving God’s plan by issuing an edict for the census of the whole world.

Augustus is the peaceful ruler, the one who pacified the world. Greek cities of Asia Minor (perhaps not far from where Luke was writing) adopted September 23, the birthday of Augustus as the first day of a new year, calling him a “savior.” It is hardly accidental that Luke’s description of the birth of Jesus presents a challenge to this imperial propaganda. 

The birth, Swaddling & a Manger. Luke is more interested in the details than in the birth itself. Swaddling and manger are more important any anything else if you just look at the information. The manger has nothing to do with poverty, but an odd location caused by circumstances.

There is a reversal going on here. In the first chapter of Isaiah it says: “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey knows the manger of its lord; but Israel has not known me. My people have not understood me.”Luke is saying that this is repealed. The shepherds have been sent to the manger to find the Lord who is the source of joy for all people of Israel.

Like the manger, the swaddling is far from a sign of poverty. It is a sign that Israel’s Messiah is not an outcast among his people but is properly cared for. In Luke, Jesus is not born like an alien in an Inn, but in a manger where God sustains and feeds his people. This is Theology. The details lead us deep into the mystery of what God is doing.

The Annunciation to the Shepherds. There is nothing sentimental intended here nor any effort on Luke’s part to identify with the common man.

This episode is tied to the Jewish idea that is much more deeply involved. It is drawing heavily from images in the Prophet Micah which anticipates and for-sees the triumph of Jerusalem by a ruler from David’s place of origin. Remember what David was? This detail ties in with a King descended from a shepherd image: David the King.

This Annunciation follows the pattern for the most part.

The core message is written in the style of an Imperial Proclamation. I like to think that this is Luke’s counter-propaganda that Jesus, not Augustus was the Savior and source of peace whose birthday marked the beginning of new time. Probably however, Isaiah 9: 5 seems to be the source: “For the boots of the tramping warriors and all the garments rolled in blood shall be burned as fuel for the fire. For a child has been born for us, a son given us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Then Luke gives us the final hymn: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among those whom he favors”. Like the other hymns, added later, it was probably composed by a community of Jewish Christians using the same kind of poetry. It is used to hail Jesus as the Messiah at the end of his ministry, something the angles knew at the beginning of his life. Luke is telling us that the angels of heaven recognized at the beginning of life for Jesus what the disciples came to know only at the end; namely, the presence of the Messiah King comes in the name of the Lord. 

And then, after their visit, Luke says: “The shepherds returned glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen as it had been told them.” With that, they depart, and what does a departure mean in Luke? End of the scene.

Luke was a pastor and he wrote to comfort, encourage, and renew a community that was stumbling, disconnected from its roots and facing new challenges. The purpose was not so much to speak new things, but to present old things in a new way, old things which the readers knew from the very sources and traditions Luke used in his work. He chose a familiar form, “narrative.” This form is to literature what story telling is to the spoken word. It communicates in such a way that the readers enter the story and discover that it is their own. He is a master at this, and he uses details told as if they were absolutely unique in order to engage the imagination. The narrator is important because he always knows more than the people in the story, and he shares some of this information with the readers. The readers are privileged participants in the story. So, they know how a situation that is a problem for the characters in the story will be resolved but not how it will be resolved for them. Gifted with knowledge, the readers little by little learn how the characters in the story arrive at the knowledge which they already have but what that truth really means.

The whole thing is an invitation to keep these things in our hearts, to wonder at them as their meaning is gradually unfold in the story.

So, what do learn from Luke in this season? 

Jesus is human, born of a woman. Jesus is Divine, born of God. Luke is concerned to put both of these issues together. Born of God, Jesus would return to God, and Christians must accept the end of his live and his consequent absence from history as an individual figure. The Narrative is like a painting with two panels:

The first has Zachariah and Elizabeth. We are like them. We believe yet we doubt, and what does God do? The promise of biblical history in the prophets is fulfilled in spite of us, the barren past become fruitful.

In the second panel the scene shifts from Jerusalem (Temple and Zachariah) to Nazareth. Luke is concerned to show that the origins of Jesus are much more significant than those of John. Nazareth is a no-place. Jerusalem is power.

The role of Zachariah and Mary are parallel, but it is Mary, not Joseph who names, who receives a message and brings things to pass. John’s birth is about overcoming the inability to conceive. The birth of Jesus introduces a whole new order and we are pulled into the realm of creation by the working of the Spirit which is a powerful theme in Luke’s Gospel as we will see in the next talks.

The visitation story invites us to see the New Testament, Mary reaching out and transforming the Old Testament, Elizabeth.

Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth of Galilee. This is clearly held by Christian tradition without contest. At the same time, a clear theological tradition held that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew handled it one way, by beginning at Bethlehem. Luke another way by beginning in Nazareth. Luke had a problem of getting them to Bethlehem. The whole issues of showing the Church and Jesus as being just and legitimate when it comes to Roman Law begins here and is a concern all through Luke.

It’s all a journey, a long pilgrimage to Jerusalem in Luke’s Gospel just as it is for us. As we conclude this, remember the story of Jesus being lost for three days only to be found again. It’s all part of Luke’s plan. The loss of Jesus creates confusion and consternation and Jesus explains the divine necessity which called for his absence; the Father’s business. He must be with the Father. This is his ultimate destiny, and we, the church through him, and with him, and in him are on the same journey to the New Jerusalem.

Matthew 12, 1-8

This incident in Matthew’s Gospel is very troubling, and it is the first of two stories unfolding and revealing an important part of the Gospel’s Good News. The second story which comes right after these verses tells of Jesus curing a man with a withered hand in the Synagogue on Sabbath. It is as though Matthew wants to drive home the point. The Pharisees are growing more and more furious and impatient with Jesus. The rhetoric is heating up and the hostility can no longer be disguised as curiosity or interest. This man and his teaching are a direct challenge to their very way of life; he poses a threat to law and order.

 

Now there is a big difference between external and internal realities. We know this to be true, and we feel it sometimes when they get out synch or do not match up. It causes a lot of dis-ease in us. We like things to be in balance. “What you see is what you get.” This is comfortable and we like it to be so. We do not feel right when the way we look is not the way we feel, unless we are hiding something or living in denial. We do not trust or like to be around others who look good, but somehow do not seem to be good. Most of us like order and the predictability that it provides. We like rules. We make them all the time. We pride ourselves on being a nation that finds consistent stability in the “rule of law.” That is, of course, until that law is inconvenient. Then we begin looking and hoping for loop-holes. The Pharisees were the rule keepers and sometimes the rule makers. They were “church police” who went around teaching the rules and enforcing them. They liked the rules. It was for them, and for that matter, for everyone, the way to be perfect, to be saved, to be holy and to be identified as a good person and a Son of Abraham. The problem was that there were so many rules that hardly anyone who had a real job could keep track of them all; but never mind, the Pharisees could do that for you. Breaking the laws meant you were out. Keeping the laws meant you were in. There were 39 laws or rules about the Sabbath! Moses only had Ten Commandments, but the Pharisees have 39 laws about just one of the ten! This is serious rule inflation, and it was a serious matter that led to a lot of fear and guilt, judgment and probably way too much condemnation. The Joy of the Covenant established by the Commandments of Moses, which revealed so much about God, was reduced to a great deal of anxiety on the part of the people, because of power and threat, fear and control on the part of the Pharisees. Into this steps Jesus of Nazareth.

 

What the law actually forbids was harvesting on Sabbath. Now you look at this scene and wonder if picking a grain of wheat and chewing on it constitutes the harvest. This is ridiculous, we can say from this distance, but we are not caught up in this system. The Pharisees use the law as a means of judging and condemning others which has become for the people a heavy burden. The Pharisees judge people. It puts a burden of guilt upon the guiltless. Jesus comes along and his judgment is on actions, not people. He is about setting people free, forgiving sins of people who do not keep the rules as the Pharisees see them. This begins to raise an important question: what are the rules for? For Jesus, the law is to be used to establish one’s vocation, to discover what one should do in a specific circumstance in order to fulfill God’s Will. The law, as God intended it, was to help us know who we are and know what God asks of us. From the behavior of Jesus, time after time, and episode after episode, we see that all God wants is mercy.

 

Here is where the conflict arises between external and internal realities. Jesus did not approve of keeping the law when doing so brought one into conflict with God’s Will and God’s desire for mercy. The scriptures are full of those stories: the man left on the side of the road by robbers, the woman taken in adultery, the next story of a man with a withered hand. During that incident Jesus brings up the example of an ox falling into a pit on the Sabbath. An ox was essential to one’s life and livelihood. By leaving it in the pit, he risks losing the ox. It could die. Without the ox, the man could not cultivate the field and feed his family. Leave it in the pit because the law says so, or get it out. There is the external and internal conflict.

 

Jesus comes proclaiming mercy. When mercy and keeping the rules collide, which one informs our decision? This is what Matthew is working through at this point of his Gospel. It is an essential issue for the privileged disciples of Jesus. Superficial external compliance to the law makes one pleasing to God is what the Pharisees say. They are always making judgments, and their error is that they judge people instead of actions. Judgments, my friends, must be about acts, never about people. Mercy takes us completely out of the business of judgments which is external. Mercy, on the other hand, is an internal reality requiring a new attitude of mind and heart. It looks to the person not to the rule. Eleos is the Greek word for mercy. It is the same word for “compassion.” Eleos means looking kindly on the sufferings of others. This is exactly what God is, Mercy. God looked upon the misery of our separation from God, saw our sin and its consequences, and sent His only son to become like us, to suffer with us (com-passion), and lift us up into his mercy.

 

The purpose of the Law was to restore the relationship between God and Man that had been broken by sin. What is revealed in these verses is that Jesus is the new Law. It is Jesus who restores the relationship between God and Man. This is what he means when he says: I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. The Temple, until the time of Christ, was the place on earth where the human and the divine met to commune. Now they meet in Jesus Christ. “There is something greater than the Temple here,” he says to them. But they like it the old way. They do not want to think about mercy and compassion, they want the rules. It is a lot easier. It is a quick and easy way to self-justification. “I kept the rules” is all they need to say. Yet we all know deep down inside that just keeping the rules does not really accomplish anything. It’s like the child who says: “I didn’t do anything.” It is almost a self-condemning claim. “I did nothing” is the message!

 

Now with Jesus, the law is no longer the standard of perfection or the way to holiness. We all know how it is possible to be rule keepers and yet be cruel and selfish, self-justified sorry representatives of God’s mercy and love. Failure comes from what is not done while keeping the law. This is the risk of becoming nothing more than law-keepers. Those called to follow Christ have something more than the law motivating a moral life. They have a constant living awareness of the goodness and the mercy of God, desiring to live a worthy humble response to God’s presence and God’s call. A truly moral person is not someone who keeps the law, but someone who seeks to discover the will of God. “What would you have me do?” This is the question they ask in the face of every decision. These people no longer turn to the rules to determine what is right and what is good, what is just or what is best. They discern what it is that God wills and wishes for creation and for those who live in God’s presence.

 

We can go wrong by following the rules, but we can’t go wrong be discerning the will of God. The law is not enough. It is not that the law is wrong, it is simply not enough. Without a Spirit filled life that seeks to live in God’s presence and seeks to fulfill God’s will by the decisions of that life, one cannot be good and pleasing and perfect.

 

One can offer sacrifices all day long and never experience a change of heart, because external actions do not produce internal transformation even if that is their intended purpose. Our behavior must be a sign of an interior love of God and our desire to do God’s will. That brings a merciful heart.

 

We who live by the Spirit are being transformed. We are not conformed. Being conformed to this age leads us to avoid what is difficult and troublesome, to avoid service and sacrifice. Transformation leads us into Christ, into Christ’s way which was to do and follow the Will of the Father. It is the only way to holiness, asking what God desires. It is the only norm for morality, doing what the Father wills. It becomes then the only way to distinguish those who belong to this age, and those who belong to the age to come. When you do something just because you can that is a suspicious sign that you are conforming to this age, which never considers anything except what it wants to do because we can. However, when we do something because we consider it to be the will of God and what God desires for us, we have begun to discover what it means to be called by Christ.

 

So what is it to be for us? The easy way to nowhere: keeping the rules and not being troubled by mercy or the suffering of others? This is where Jesus steps in. He troubles the rule-keepers who question his judgment about Levi, a Tax collector, or about disciples picking grains of wheat. What he teaches and how he lives is a morality rooted in mercy, not in law, because the face of God which he reveals is the face of mercy.

 

This lesson bears frequent repetition until we get it right. In our retelling of these stories of mercy, we find ourselves reliving this behavior. We have no business hiding in the kind of superficial morality that is self-protecting and self-serving. As I just said, it is easier to keep the rules than look past them or look into the face of suffering. Easier to just go to church, get it over with, and go home rather than learn the meaning of mercy. It is easier to lock up drug offenders and single moms than figure out the cause of their misery and suffering that led them to the drugs in the first place. It is easier to say five Our Fathers and five Hail Marys than make a significant change in one’s life, attitude, or thinking. It is easier to throw some pocket change or a couple of bucks in the collection than make a life changing, loving, grateful commitment to stewardship and tithing. It is easier to break up families and deport the so called “illegal” than to do something about the misery, fear, and danger they flee.

 

The Jesus we find in these Gospels is Mercy incarnate. “Go and learn the meaning of it,” he says to us. To Peter, Andrew, James, John, Levi, you and me, he says: “Follow Me.” It is not an invitation to take a walk. It is an opportunity to learn mercy. What we must learn is that mercy is not a single act. It is a way of life for privileged disciples of Jesus. It gives hope when it seems like there is none. Mercy is not something we ask for nearly as much as something we give and something we become.

 

We are Levi people, like the man in last night’s story, busy at our jobs, sitting at our desks, moving money around, taking all we can get however we can get it. I think Levi was just waiting for Jesus to come by. He gets up all too quickly, if you remember the story. I think he was ready and waiting for the call, and when invited to follow Jesus it was no invitation to go somewhere, but an invitation to learn the meaning of mercy, which is not an intellectual exercise or a rational argument. It is a matter of following along watching and listening to Jesus in action and then ever so slowly become mercy-filled ourselves. When that day comes, and this could be it, we will never be like those Pharisees standing around a woman, accusing and judging her. We will put down the rocks with which we might righteously stone others. We will stop the laughter that sometimes mocks mercy as “soft”, remembering that we all are in need of mercy and there is plenty to go around if we will just give what we expect and so desire to receive. The harvest we must reap in this vineyard, which we are so privileged to tend, is a harvest of mercy.

 

As we close tonight, I would ask you to pray with me repeating after me this prayer:

 

“Divine Savior, do not let me be conformed to this world, but transform me into yourself. May my hands be your hands. May my words be your words. Grant that everything I do may serve to glorify you. Above all, transform my soul and all its powers, that my memory, my will, my affections may be the memory, the will and the affections of you. Open my eyes to see your face beside me, open my home to be your dwelling place, come to my table and feed the hungry. Teach me mercy, and sustain my hope. Take from me all that is not of you. Grant that I may live only in you, by you and for you so that I may say in faith: “I live now, not I, but Christ lives in me.”

 

MARK 2, 13-17

As last evening’s reflection concluded, I was speaking about “privilege” and the extraordinary gift we have in faith when we recognize and acknowledge who we are as laborers in God’s vineyard. We turn to Saint Mark tonight whose whole Gospel is, what I like to call, a short course in discipleship. It is somewhat like those yellow and black books you can find in book stores (if you can find a book store any more). You may know the series: “Accounting for Dummies”, “Cooking for Dummies”, “Windows 7 for Dummies”, and there is course, “Catholicism for Dummies” which isn’t half bad. When I read it, I thought, “I wish I had written that!”

It is only Chapter Two when we come upon Levi’s encounter with Jesus. Mark skips the business of the nativity. It is not important to him. What is important is the proclamation of the reign of God and that begins with the public ministry of Jesus. According to Mark, Jesus did most of his work in Galilee away from Jerusalem. That place was the center of Judaism, and since Mark was writing to Gentiles, he keeps Jesus out of Jerusalem until the Passion. In a very subtle way he is telling his early church that they do not need to look to the Jerusalem Christian Church as the only or best community.

As Mark’s Gospel unfolds, Jesus is baptized, goes into the desert of his retreat, then returns to call Peter, Andrew, James, and John, his privileged disciples, first. It is not a casual meeting that happens in passing. It is an example of the power Jesus possessed to create disciples. From the way Mark writes about it, you would think that they simply gave up their livelihood and abandoned their families. That silly and uninformed idea is a great excuse for not responding with your whole heart to your privileged call to discipleship. The point is that discipleship means a great change, a question of priorities. For disciples, the reign of God comes first. Then, there in Capernaum, there is quite a scene in the synagogue when an evil spirit is the first one to recognize Jesus as the “Holy One of God.” From the Synagogue Jesus goes directly to Peter’s home where he cures the mother-in-law. You see, in becoming a disciple, Peter does not abandon his family. On the contrary, he brings Jesus Christ into it! Even more interesting to me is that Jesus brings the other privileged ones into that home.

For Peter, before he followed Jesus, his job came first. After the death of Jesus, Peter significantly goes back to fishing. He goes back to putting his job first; he gives up his discipleship. Then when he believes in the Resurrection of Jesus, he once again puts his discipleship first. He becomes a “fisher of men.” Jesus isn’t opposed to fishing. If he were, he would have been hungry and stuck with that big hungry crowd when he worked with five barley loaves and two fish! He never suggested that discipleship and placing the reign of God first means leaving your family to take care of itself. But to be a disciple means we must put the reign of God first regardless of job or family. It means that the reign of God motivates, informs, and guides the decisions and choices one makes at work and at home. That episode also provides another dimension of discipleship: namely, service to others. When Jesus makes a disciple, that person immediately serves others, as did Peter’s mother-in-law.

This event in Capernaum causes quite a stir. The crowds are excited, and the thing is turning into a side-show so, in spite of the fact that Peter probably likes this growing popularity, Jesus splits and heads out early in the morning for a quiet place to pray. Already the crowds are seeing his power, but not the message. So he goes to pray about that, which is a good thing for any of us to do when we’re confused and being pulled in opposite directions. When his prayer time is over, he begins to call other disciples. This now gives us the story of Levi, which is as much about the ongoing conflict with the Pharisees as it is about a man named Levi. Those Pharisees are afraid of Jesus. He is a challenge to their thinking that the only way to avoid sin is to keep every one of the laws exactly. He embarrasses them by playing their own legal game and beats them with a reminder that even David violated the law when circumstances demanded. Law is not unimportant, but faith is more important. The Sabbath is not unimportant; but man is more important. With this, the opposition to Jesus reaches the inevitable outcome as they begin to plot his destruction.

The story of Levi belongs in parallel with the miracle in the synagogue at Capernaum. What is at stake is the presence of one who forgives sin and cures the sick who are, in the mind of the Pharisees, “sinners.” “Sinners” were those who had been expelled from synagogue. The fact that Jesus associates with sinners is a sign not only of the remission of sins but the presence of the one who can forgive sins. When Jesus refers to himself as a “physician” he is using an Old Testament description of God who is the “Healer.” Healing in the Old Testament is a sign of the Messianic Age, so this behavior and this choice of the word Physician is a very important message, one not lost on the Pharisees.

The symbolic sign of the Messianic age is the table fellowship, the banquet, so this description of what happens at Levi’s home is very important to us not only because again, Jesus comes into a home full of sinners,  but because others are invited by Levi to meet this man. I think we should not miss the point that even though each call is by name, the call is always an invitation to enter into a relationship with others.  There is no solo salvation. There is no individualist reign of God. In the calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John, we are not told whether these fishermen had previously enjoyed their work or detested it, whether they were prosperous or impoverished. We do not know how the two pairs of brothers got along with each other, nor how the sons of Zebedee related to their father. The sun may have been bright and the breeze off the lake fresh, but Mark does not say so. The only thing we know is that he called. They answered and came together. I always imagine that they felt the way we do when the phone rings. It just seems like we have to answer it, and you know what it’s like when you don’t. You begin to imagine what it was about, and before long you wish you had answered.

It must have been like that for Levi. There are no details about where he sat, what kind of taxes he collected, how much money he made or why he followed Jesus. We are told nothing of his identity or of his importance later. His name is never mentioned again in this Gospel. All we know is that he was a sinner and he became a disciple on the basis of an invitation: “Follow me.” So we can get the point: it is not about him as much as it is about Jesus and what happens when he is present. This is an act of forgiveness and a crossing of the boundary that separates a sinner from God. The consequence of this forgiveness, of this reconciliation of an outcast is the table. The one excluded is not only now included, he invites other outsiders to come to the table. That table fellowship is an unmistakable sign of an answered call and of forgiveness at work.

This story was treasured by the early church, those Christians who were violating the kosher laws with their indiscriminate association with those who were not clean, who were sinners, who did not keep the law. The answer of Jesus comes with that common sense proverb about who needs a doctor. The self-righteous are exactly that, self-justified; but the truth is only God can justify and only God can make one righteous. We can’t do it ourselves. When we look at ourselves in the light of this episode, we can hardly miss the fact that we cannot accept Christ as our Savior if we do not recognize our need to be saved.

Back in another age, hundreds of years ago when I was in the seminary, we had assigned seats at table in the refectory. Once every semester there was a new seating chart published, and it was a great moment of excitement gathering around the bulletin board. We had little else to be excited about except another paper to write! If we wanted to eat, we sat where we were assigned. I think that custom is the root cause of my unhealthy habit of eating very fast. It got us out of the place as quickly as possible. The only thing that made it possible and bearable was the fact that we followed the old Benedictine custom of eating in silence while someone read an article chosen by a faculty member. It kept peace. This memory is one that keeps me conscious of what is going on with this story. The most unlikely people are gathered around a table at Levi’s home. They are there because of Levi’s faith in Jesus. Not coming to the table because you do not like who is there does only one thing. It leaves you hungry and alone. It leaves you outside while everyone else is inside.

First Levi is invited to follow. When he does, Levi becomes the one who invites. This sequence is very revealing, and it speaks to us just as powerfully as it did to the early Christians. Everything about our culture and society suggests that we should be selective about who we eat with. It shames me to admit it, but sometimes when I am invited to dinner I wonder who is going to be there. If it is people I would rather not eat with, I don’t want to go. Jesus says to us through this story: “If you want to be with me, you have to learn to be with each other.” But look at how we live these days. Our culture and society is nowhere near becoming a sign of the reign of God. Segregated or gated neighborhoods are a counter sign of accepting the reign of God. They may keep us safe, but they don’t make us saved. They may make us look privileged, but they are not a privilege. The secular world in which we find ourselves struggling to live our faith and bear witness to our faith by bringing the value of our faith into our decisions insists that this is silly. The secular world keeps saying: “It’s mine. I earned it.” The secular world, when confronted with the Gospel and the presence of Jesus Christ says: “I would just as soon do it myself. Thank you very much”.  You see, the secular world wants to save itself. It is always self-justifying, which is why it might be true that there is no justice today for any of us. The system is broken. We downplay difference and we avoid conflict because we have not remembered what it means to be one.

In the center of this unlikely collection of privileged people, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Levi, a leper, and a paralytic stands Jesus Christ. He is the transforming unity for all of them. Levi invites his former “professional” colleagues as the story of the dinner illustrates. Levi’s call to discipleship somehow included the duty to invite others to new integrity and justice. This scene at Levi’s dinner part stands in marked contrast to the way we live way too often, and quite frankly, it frightens me to recognize that it is in contrast to the way we sometimes worship. It offers a totally opposite perspective, a perspective that demands the obliteration of barriers, all barriers: color, language, sexuality, job, and age. This episode compels Jesus’ followers to dialogue with and befriend those who do not share their theological outlook. To refuse to talk is to refuse to throw open the kingdom to less than beautiful people. Believers must recall that the community is always an aggregate of sinners who must reach out to other sinners.

The reason that the Lord mixed so freely with this stratum of society was because their need was so great, because they, unlike the religious, were conscious of their need and thus responsive to His message, and because He desired to change them. It was a constant complaint that the Lord was not particular enough in choosing His friends. “This man welcomes sinners and shares the meal-table with them.” Without a sense of need, there could be no healing for them for they were unwilling to come to him, the sole source of healing and forgiveness.

My friends, relationships are healed when people eat together. It takes nerve and courage, faith and a vision of the Kingdom to pattern our eating habits after those of Jesus, for any challenge to exclusivism still produces controversy as well as healing. There are no snobs among believers. No one looks down upon another. We all simply look up; up to Christ, up to the Kingdom of God. I don’t think that God knows anything about or cares anything about passports or green cards. God only cares about persons, and so must those privileged people entrusted with this vineyard and the mission of the Lord. We are so privileged, and living that privileged call to discipleship never implies that we leave home or family, but simply that we alter the way we live at home, at work and with our family. It means that with every decision we ask first what God would want us to do. It means that we invite God into our homes and that around the table in our homes we experience exactly what we find and experience around the table in this church. What an amazing privilege this is! It leaves me stunned to silence.