Luke 14:25-33

This passage occurs in Year C of the narrative lectionary, most recently Sept 4, 2022.

Summary:
Regardless of the great imagery used in Jesus passages, the word "hate" is the stumbling block to this passage. BDAG suggests a softer translation, as in "disregard." I think this is better than "hate" but this doesn't really save the day! Jesus words to disregard our family is difficult to understand.  I offer below a handful directions for preaching.

I have some notes on the verb tenses today.  They do not change, but amplify the challenge of the passage.

Key words:
μισεω (14.26; "hate") Hate may not be the best translation here. BDAG puts it, "depending on the context, this verb ranges in meaning from 'disfavor' to 'detest.' The English term 'hate' generally suggests effective connotations that do not always do justice, especially to some Semitic shame-honor oriented use of μισεω (שנא in Hebrew) in the sense 'hold in disfavor, be disinclined to, have relatively little regard for.' In fact, BDAG even suggests translating it "disfavor, disregard" in contrast to preferential treatment"

Note:  In previous years, I left open the possibility that Jesus calls for us to have emotional antipathy toward our family.  I do not believe this is the case, for Jesus calls us to love our enemies.  Three preaching possibilities then emerge

- I think Jesus is calling us to move toward him, forsaking all other priorities in our lives.  To what extent do we let love of not just things, but others, get in the way of our devotion to Jesus?

- Jesus will help us ultimately create fictive families, social groups that extend beyond blood lines (or extend into his blood line).  What are ways in which the church can function as a truer family for people?

- To what extent must we let go of someone in order to love them?  Ie, we can love someone so much that we make an idol of them, or seek to live vicariously through them or attach to much of our worth to the relationship.  Buddhism teaches the need for detachment.  To what extent must we detach ourselves in order to fully love? 

μαθητης (14:26, 27 and 33; "disciple", but read on)  The word μαθητης means literally student.  In Latin, student is"disciplus" and so we get "disciple."  The word disciple then, sounds like discipline in English.  There is indeed a discipline element of following Jesus.  Yet, the word in Greek does not imply discipline, but rather an intimate student, one who seeks to be caught up in the way of the master.  However, I wonder if in this case, we would do better to translate it as student.  How might this sound:

"If anyone comes to me and does not disregard his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life-- he cannot be my student."  

It is not necessarily less harsh, but it makes is clear -- Jesus is not seeking emotional aggression against our family, but rather we cannot learn from him unless we are willing to make him first in our lives.

I also appreciate the fact that Jesus distinguishes between those who are hanging out with him and those who will learn from him.  Are you hanging out with Jesus?  Or are you learning from him?

Some other interesting words:
* οχλοι (14.25; "crowds") This word does not mean leaders or elite, but really the everyday mass of people; can also mean 'mob'

* ψηφιζω (14.28; "calculate") I don't think it is important for this passage, but this is the verb that is used in Revelation to indicate it is time to "add" up the number values for a word such as "KASER NERON" (666).

* εμπαιζω (14.29, "ridicule") In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is the only one mocked (18:32;22:63, 23:11, 23:26)

* αποστασσω (14.33, "give up") This word means basically "say good-bye." This is a fun image, saying good-bye to one's possessions.

Grammar concept: present tense
A number of verbs in 14.25-27 are in the present tense. Greek does not distinguish between present progressive (I am running) and present like English (I run). Generally the present tense connotes present progressive. When I was taught Greek, I was taught to even add the adverb "continually" to present tense translations, "I am running continually." I am not sure if this is as helpful in all cases, but the basic point of my teacher bears itself out in Greek. The present tense generally signifies an action that is on-going. In this case, the verb of carrying the cross, following and (gasp) hating are all in the present tense. 

To put it simply:  All the important verbs in this passage are in the present tense, suggesting that renouncing our possessions, disregarding our loved ones, bearing our cross and following Jesus are on-going, life-long activities. That sounds difficult. Good thing the most gracious chapter in the entire Bible is next

Sentence break-down: 14.33

Greek: ουτως ουν πας εξ υμων ουκ αποτασσεται πασιν τοις εαυτου υπαρχουσιν ου δυναται ειναι μου μαθητης
"So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."

ουτως ουν: "Thus, therefore" or "Likewise." Two little words here. Don't change much; they appear a combined nearly 2000x in the NT/OT so its good to recognize them for that they are, namely, fill-in words that don't alter too much!

πας εξ υμων: "All of you" This you can literally translate word for word. The pronoun is in the genitive, but your brain figured this out automatically.
ος : hos is a relative pronoun. They behave a lot like in English. Relative pronouns start a relative clause, like, "I love the one whom I married." Whom I married is the relative clause here. The relative pronoun, like in English, is in the case that it functions within the relative pronoun. Back to my example, this would not be correct English: I love the one who I married. Who must become a whom because it is not behaving as a subject in the relative clause. This happens in Greek too. Greek relative pronouns behave a bit differently, or perhaps one could say, a bit more advanced. Because the nouns (and thus pronouns) have a gender, you can connect the pieces a bit more clearly in Greek, because the pronoun contains more information that will link it back to what it refers. In English, it is considered poor writing to move the "antecedent" (the thing to which the relative pronoun refers) far away from the pronoun. Greek has less of a problem doing this. Moreover, Greek can build massive sentences that continue to add relative sentences.

ουκ αποτασσεται: "is not saying good bye." Reminder here -- the verb is in the present tense. This suggests Jesus is not talking about a one time action.
πασιν τοις εαυτου υπαρχουσιν: "all your possessions." A couple of things here. First, it is all in the dative, because it is the object of the verb "αποτασσεται." This is a case where the dative takes the direct object (normally accusative). Don't ask why. Just accept that some verbs take a direct object in the dative! If it helps, think about it this way. To translate the dative, you often can add the word "to" in front of the word. In this case we add in, "say good-bye TO all your possessions." The only word here not in the dative is "εαυτου " which here is a genitive of possession (ie, belonging to you.). It is slightly out of order for our English eyes. Literally you get here: "to all the belonging to you possessions." Or more eloquently: "All your possessions."

ου δυναται ειναι: Not able to be! This is a case where to describe what is happening is complex (helper verb taking an infinitive) but translation is easy: "not able to be." (normally to translate an infinitive in English (from Greek) you need to add "to" in front of the verb).

μου μαθητης: Like with the word "εαυτου " we have a genitive possessive occur before the noun: "my disciples."

Luke 14:1;7-14

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, most recently on August 28, 2022.

Summary:
At first glance, this passage seems practical moral advice with a heavenly reward. Jesus' use of δοξα (doxa) and δοξη (doxe) suggest something deeper is going on. δοξη is a fairly uncommon word meaning "banquet." In fact, in the OT, the people who throw such banquets are normally Persian kings! Also unusual is the word δοξα, or glory. Although it is a fairly common word, here it is translated unusually as "honor." This is possible, but really stretches it. The word is not really a word one would associate with mortals. In fact, the last time we heard the word in Luke's Gospel was when the angels announced Jesus birth. These two words, in other words, are fairly out of place for a typical meal. Which suggests that what is at the stake (and not steak) is hardly a common meal, but the feast of the humbled yet exalted one! He is the one to whom glory will be given.

Key Words:
δοξα (14.10; "honor"): Normally we think of δοξα as glory (Think OT and the "glory of the Lord"). Here, however, it is translated as honor...well, maybe. Luke only uses this word three other times. When Jesus is born and the angels sing (2.9 and 14) and when the people cry out during Jesus' entry in to Jerusalem. The context permits translating δοξα as "esteemed." However, it has such divine implications that it points us back to Christ, to the one to whom glory is given.

δοξη (14.13; "meal"): This word is very rare in the New Testament; only used twice. The other time it is in Luke when Levi, the tax-collector, invites Jesus to his house. When this word is used in the OT, it normally refers to banquets put on by Persian kings. In other words, this is a big, rich party that few can actually host.

If you put these words together, you get a very surprising twist at the end of the story:  Who is invited to this feast of glory?  Jesus commends us to invite those on the outside.  Jesus here is introducing table fellowship to the unthinkable.

Other words worth pondering:
ταπεινοω (14.11; "humble"): This word is often paired with exalts (υψοω).  In Philippians 2 and Hebrews 12, we are reminded that Jesus humbles himself that he might be exalted.

μακαριος (14.14; "blessed"): This is the word Luke (and Matthew) use for the beatitudes, "Blessed are..."

καλεω (14.7; used 7 times in this passage!; "invite") This word is used virtually very sentence. It means invite and call.  If we think about this parable as a reference to God, then we get a new name for God in vs 10:  The one who has invited or called you.  God as one who calls!

αισχυνη (14.9; "disgrace" or "shame"): One would expect to find this word quite frequently in the NT, especially given the 'fuss' about honor/shame societies. While this word appears quite frequently in the OT, it is rather rare in the NT. This might be an avenue for more reflection. Is Jesus neglecting this dynamic in his society?  Is it so much a part of the world that the writers do not need to mention it?  In this case, Jesus seems to be appealing to people's sense of honor and shame, telling them that seeking honor is itself shameful.

Aside: One of the places "shame" (αισχυνη) is used in the NT is Philippians 3:19 -- "their glory is their shame." Classic line.

Sentence deconstructed:
και εγενετο εν τη ελθειν αυτον εις οικον τινος των αρχοντων των φαρισαων σαββατω φαγειν αρτον και αυτοι ησαν παρατηρουμενοι αυτον

14.1 On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath, they were watching him closely.

και εγενετο : This is a typical way to begin a sentence. It simply means: "And it happened." It is unnecessary.

εν τη ελθειν αυτον : Technically this is an "articular infinitive with preposition." This means a couple of things. It combines a preposition (in) with an article (the) with an infinitive (coming). Literally: "In the coming." You have to translate the preposition as an adverb: "While he comes..." The problem with an infinitive is that it is, well, infinite. This means it is un-conjugated. You don't know who is doing the action. So, to indicate this, they stick the subject of an infinitive clause in the accusative. In this case, auton, or he.

εις οικον τινος των αρχοντων των φαρισαων: "into the house" is fairly straight forward. The rest is a genitive where we just put in a lot of "ofs": 'of one of the leaders of the pharisees.'  Worth contemplating that the Pharisees had leaders.  Those seeking holiness found a way to hierarchy very quickly...

σαββατω : The sabbath here is in the dative; here this is a dative revealing when something happens, ie, "on the sabbath." So you can combine this with the earlier infinitive (we are still in the infinitive phrase here): "When Jesus went on the sabbath into the house of one...pharisees...

φαγειν αρτον: Here we have another infinitive, which completes the other verb, "went" as in, "he went to eat." Oddly enough, the object of this infinitive phrase is also in the accusative, "arton" or bread. In an infinitive phrase, both subject and object can be in the accusative!

και αυτοι ησαν παρατηρουμενοι αυτον: Let's take care of the "autoi"s here. The first is plural, they; the second is mas. sing, him. 95% of "auto"s are not going to be translated as "self" or "very" but are simply pronouns.

ησαν παρατηρουμενοι: A really complex way of making a verb in the imperfect -- put an imperfect for of "to be" with a perfect tense participle. Used quite frequently with middle/passive verbs. But simple to translated: "were watching."

The two waves of secularization: A proposed response

Like all pastors, I have observed an increasing secularization of American culture over the past generation.  This process picked up pace during the past six years and then seemed to go into overdrive during COVID.  This has created challenges (and opportunities) for us as churches.

More than simply speed up over time, I offer that the contours of secularization have changed in the past six years.  Earlier we were going through (what we might call) secularization phase 1:  "People got busy."  Now people are going through (what we might call) secularization phase 2:  "People got disgusted."  I will describe them as a waves, because they kind of roll and crash into each other.  Furthermore, each presents churches with a different set of opportunities - ways to ride the wave - and challenges - crashing and undertow.  My sense is that both have been at work for some time, but I sense that for most churches, they will discover that the second wave is much harder to navigate than the first.

Secularization Wave #1:  People got Busy

In the first phase of secularization, people began to find meaning in other places besides church.  Andrew Root has masterfully examined this through the lens of youth ministry (and his series on the church in the secular age).  People filled their schedule and found ultimately their identity in all sorts of activities: travel soccer, marching band, social media, politics, etc.  While some of these had a more 'Christian' flavor to them, they generally meant that people spent far less time in religious activities than a generation ago.

The Aftermath of Wave #1

• What did this mean for churches?  Attendance declined.  The biggest victim was the pastoral size church.  A church that consistently had 125 in worship found itself struggling to worship 100 only a decade or two later.  While this was enough to pay the bills (barely), its attendance of young families was so lean that it could no longer offer a meaningful 'Youth group' and 'Sunday school'.  This meant that the remaining families wanting programming for their children, youth and family did two things:  one, they complained about the lack of programming (even as they chose to have their kids attend other events) and two, many of them migrated in the direction of larger churches.  This left many congregations with a fair amount of nostalgia  that impeded new ideas; in addition there was a lot of residual anger in the system that burned out their clergy.
• More positively, it often forced smaller (pastoral and family size) churches to be creative, explore inter-generational learning opportunities and consider partnerships with other congregations.  The happiest among these have accepted a smaller size and are finding their particular niche within their community. 
• Within larger churches (program to mega), this first wave of secularization put a huge premium on excellence and programming.  As young families with time on their hands for churchy activities became a scarcer commodity, larger churches had the opportunity and need to attract them (as well as the older folks (with money!) who wanted churches that still had kids).  While someone with more experience could point out how I am truly wrong about this, my sense is that the net effect of the first wave of secularization was to encourage big churches to work "faster, bigger and harder", doing what they had been doing in the 1980s and 1990s, albeit with far thinner results.  I also offer that this influx of people curbed the incentive of large churches to do real evangelism; they spent more of their resources on welcoming existing Christians into their midst (if not their sub-culture).  In short, their energy vector began pointing in and perhaps out, but was not going out in the same way. 
  

Secularization Wave #2:  People got Disgusted

The second wave of secularization, the one that I think is picking up speed, is different.  In this wave of secularization, people go further than saying that church is less important.  They move toward skepticism, if not fear and rejection of the church.  This is not entirely new; Gen-X is famous for rejecting institutions; also, the priesthood scandal in the Catholic church added a great deal of kindling to this fire!  

However, there is an acute wholesale rejection of the church by increasing numbers of people.  There is a sense that the church has wed itself, not simply to conservative policy aims, but to partisan political warfare and even flirts (if not cheats with) Christian nationalism.

An interesting article from Christianity Today offers that the rise of Christian nationalism is itself a manifestation of secularization.  The thesis is that as people become less engaged in actual church, they tend to gravitate toward pseudo-church.  I find the argument compelling.  Many of our churches have also been hit by this form of secularism, as we have seen people in our church ghost us over COVID-mask requirements, not to attend elsewhere, but simply to walk away from church.

But even if I cool down my rhetoric, the point is simple:  You have a significant number of people who are one or two generations removed from active participation in the life of a congregation.  (Consider this -- the last family on Television that went to church is the Simpsons!!)  When such people have religious or spiritual questions, the Christianity they observe, especially through the lens of typical media or social media presentations, is likely going to be a very socially conservative, if not even schismatic and heretical presentation of the Gospel. Such people are incredibly unlikely to show up at worship because they heard we have good music or good preaching.  There are far too many barriers. 

Trying to Ride Wave #2

My sense is that trying to ride Secularization Wave #2 is going to be really hard for most people.  It will require a different set of tools than Wave #1.  For many mainline pastor size churches, this officially ends their ability to continue business as usual.  The loss of an additional 10% of people post-COVID is going to mean they can no longer afford their staff, forcing cut backs.  It will be difficult for these congregations to find a way to celebrate who they are and discover where God is calling them without succumbing to bitterness.  Ironically, the family size churches may do better because they have accepted a smaller size; whereas the former pastoral size churches likely are reeling from loss.

For the bigger and healthier churches, I sense that they will need to rediscover evangelism.  By and large, 'evangelism' in such contexts meant attractional ministry, welcoming church people into our congregation.  The dynamics of wave #1 and the early phases of COVID-musical-church-chairs seduced many congregations into a comfortable sense that "bigger, faster, harder and ONLINE" will work.  But I sense moving forward, we will need to think beyond 'welcoming visitors' or even 'inviting people to worship.' 

My candid sense is that dealing with a society after two waves of secularization will force us to become missionary churches...Churches that meet people where they are.  Churches that find a variety of ways for people to form relationships, share stories and serve others.  As Bonhoeffer wrote:

The Church is the Church only when it exists for others . . . not dominating, but helping and serving. It must tell men of every calling what it means to live for Christ, to exist for others

Luke 13:10-17

This passage occurs in the RCL year C, most recently August 2022.

Summary:  I do not think our culture needs to hear words encouraging us to ignore the Sabbath.  Clearly we are in the entirely opposite place than the Jewish world of 2,000 years ago.  What is the consequence?  We are bound by our exhaustion, our stress and our love of our works.  Jesus comes to free this woman from Satan's chains and evil spirits.  I argue that if Jesus were around today, he would seek to free us from the chains that our lack of Sabbath structure imposes on us.

Key words of interest for this passage:
λυω (luo, "free"; 13.15;13:16): "...untie his ox; should not this woman...be set free."  This word appears in two consecutive verses, however, we likely miss this.  First because the English translators translate the word differently in verses 15 and 16.  Second, it appears in a slightly more difficult form as λυθηναι in 13:16.  The verb, which many of us know from all sorts of conjugation charts, means "to loose, to set free." Jesus makes a play on words here: You set free your animals; I set people free. 

This passage puts this illness in terms of binding and releasing in two other places.  We are told in verse 12 that Jesus απολελυθαι the woman.  This word, essentially a linguistic sibling to λυω means "release."  Jesus even says that the woman was in δεσμος (chains, 13:16; also used as verb in this sentence).

ανωρθωθι (from ανορθοω, "straighten", 13.13): "...she stood up straight"  This verb comes from the prefix/preposition "ana" which means upright or again and the adjective "ortho" meaning straight. It simply means straighten up or restore. It is not an especially common word in the Bible, but it recalls the words from the book of Psalms: "The LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down (146:8)." [Technical note:  The Psalm translation is in a slightly different order.]

ασθενειας  ("weakness," 13.11)  This word does not necessarily mean crippled or hunched over.  It simply means "frailty, weakness, want of strength."  There is a certain power that we don't really know what her illness is.  It could be physical, it could be emotional, it could be spiritual, it could be communal.  It is unclear if the spirit was causing her infirmity; or she simply has a spirit that could be described as frail.  In the end, she will have multiple layers of healing

• Physical:  She stands up
• Spiritual:  She glorifies God
• Communal:  She is called by name, by Jesus, in front of everyone (Child of Abraham) and restored to a place of honor.

παντελες (13.11): "could not straighten up at all..." The word builds "pan", meaning "all" and "teles" meaning complete together for a 1-2 punch, like a baseball announcer shouting "it could...go...all...the...way."  The woman was bound up over herself so she did not have the power to stand up into her full measure.

Other words worth reflecting on:

διδασκων (didaskoon, participle meaning "teaching", 13:10)  A reminder that Jesus is teaching on the sabbath.  He continues teaching until the end.  Perhaps a reminder that good teaching isn't just about content, but about transformation!  (Also last time Jesus in a synagogue!)

χειρας ("hands", 13:13)  Jesus touches her!  A reminder that the word is embodied and incarnate.  He speaks, but he also touches.

αγανακτων (aganakton, meaning "indignant", 13.14): "Indignant because Jesus..." The word here has its root in "agony." The people watching are in agony over Jesus performing a healing!  How easy it is to get upset about mercy!

εθεραπεθσεν (from θεραπευω, "therapy", meaning "heal", 13.14): "healed" The word began in Greek by meaning service to the Gods; almost like worship! It became to mean, it seems, service that the Gods could render, namely, healing.

υποκριται (hypocrites, 13.15):  This word came right into English!  (The rough breathing mark over the υ means it is sounded hy.)  The word literally means "down judge-er/answer-er." It comes from theater, where the person has to speak to the people from a different height than the others. It came then to mean someone who pretends.

Total breakdown of 13:11
και ιδου γυνη πνευμα εχουσα ασθενειας ετη δεκαοκτω και ην συγκυπτουσα και μη δυναμενη ανακυψαι εις το παντελες

NRSV Luke 13:11 And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight.

The sentence begins with "και ", typical for a Greek sentence and essentially translatable by either "and" or a "period."  It can also mean but, even, more, also, etc...

The next word is "ιδου " This word, like the Hebrew hennah means "pay attention!" It does not describe what happens in the narrative, but it is a direction for the reader.

"γυνη πνευμα εχουσα ασθενειας" Before we parse this, let's just stick in the word-for-word translations: "woman spirit having weakness." The specific cases (accusative verses genitive) help here, but one can probably deduce this reads: "a woman having a spirit of weakness." For modern readers we'd like to take out the word "having a spirit" and replace it with "illness" but this limits the connection we will make later when Jesus says that Satan had this woman bound.

The participle "εχουσα" looks like an aorist because it has an "s" toward the end, but this is a feminine marker! Sigh! How does one translate this participle? Because there is neither a "the" (definitive article) nor a helping verb anywhere near by, you can assume it is a circumstantial. If we then use the formula "A woman, under the circumstance of having, an ill spirit" we see we can toss out the formula and just roll with it, "A woman having a ill spirit."

"ετη δεκαοκτω" 18 years.

και ην συγκυπτουσα ; Here we come to a supplementary participle. You will come to love these because your brain in English already thinks this way.  If you see a form of a "to-be" verb (ie, ην) next to a participle, you can read it like in English -- just stick in the basic translation of the words -- "The woman was bent over." This is the very complex way in Greek of forming the imperfect tense!

και μη δυναμενη ανακυψαι: This is a train wreck by Luke! He basically continues to leave the helping verb, here δυναμενη (to be able) as a participle. This means he must use "μη " for a negative instead of "ou" (all non indicative no-s should be μη and not ou). He then connects it with an aorist infinitive. Ouch.  At the end of the day: "was not able to stand up"

εις το παντελες: This use of εις here basically makes the adjective, παντελες, an adverb because it now describes the action of standing up straight.  The way Luke writes this little tidbit here though leaves a very poetic end to the sentence:  "She was not able to stand up into completeness."  Her not standing up had an impact in her life beyond simply being hunched over.

Luke 12:49-56

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C.  Typically this passage occurs late in the summer, when pastors are on vacation or in the midst of a summer preaching series.  In short, no one likes to preach on this passage.  Most recently it occurred: August 14, 2022

Summary:  This is my 5th time (?) seeing this passage as an upcoming passagre.  Each time I cringe, especially in our current political environment.  I've included some thoughts about how we might understand Jesus difficult words about division.

Key words:
πυρ ("fire", 12:49)  Throughout the Bible, fire is associated with God's judgment.  Here are few verses that put them together, but you can find this over and over.

• Isaiah 66:16 For by fire will the LORD execute judgment, and by his sword, on all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.
• Amos 7:4 This is what the Sovereign LORD showed me: The Sovereign LORD was calling for judgment by fire; it dried up the great deep and devoured the land.
• Revelation 18:8 therefore her plagues will come in a single day-- pestilence and mourning and famine-- and she will be burned with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.
• Hebrews 10:27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

The dominant and most natural interpretation here is the reminder that Jesus has come to bring judgment.

While this may seem strange in our society, which seems on the verge of civil war, I wonder if we too quickly throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Judgement is necessary, even for the ultimate goal of unity.  For until all realize that they have fallen short of God's glory, that the only line in the sand is those who have sinned and those who have not, we will always find ways to create other divisions in our culture.  As a family and marriage therapist I recently met offered:  "I need to create disorder to disrupt the current stasis to help bring about a new and healthier one."

διεμεμερισμενοι  (from διαμεριζω, meaning "divide", 12:52, 53).  Divide can mean divide like Rome: Divide and conquer.  But maybe divide has a different Biblical sense.  Especially when connected with fire.

Fire is not only used for judgement, but also commissioning, specifically the call of Moses (burning bush, Exodus 3:2), Isaiah (burning coals, chapter 6) and the call of Ezekiel (firey chariots, chapter 1).  In each of these cases, the fire produces a division, but this division is more of a setting aside.  The fire indicated a holiness that transforms the one who experiences it.  

This really comes full circle in the book of Acts, where the tongues of fire, divided (same word) rest on the apostles.  In this case, the early followers of Jesus have been divided from everyone else, but for a purpose, to share the good news.

Could we read this verse here as Jesus is saying he has come, not simply to judge, but to divide us from the rest, to call us into a new way of being?  This initial division will produce further division, but ultimately it serves a broader and unifying goal.

Lastly, I find it noteworthy that this whole section of Luke begins with a question about division, namely two brothers fighting over how to divide an inheritance (12:13).  Perhaps Jesus is reminding us that the real division isn't over money, but over loyalty to him.  Just like all other allegiances, this will cause division.

βαπτισμα ("baptism", 12:50)  It is interesting that the two times Jesus twice refers to his baptism, it refers to his suffering, both here and Mark 10

• "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" (Mark 10:38)
• Or even in Paul's letter to the Romans:  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (6:1)

Any real talk of Baptism that doesn't deal with suffering and the cross doesn't seem New Testament, frankly!