Luke 3:7-18

This passage is found in the RCL, Advent 3, Year C (Most recently Dec 15, 2024).  Luke 3:16-17 and 21-22 also occur in the RCL, Baptism of our Lord, Year C.

Summary:  It almost seems ironic to the Lutheran preacher that Luke refers to John "evangelizing"; here for it seems all law.  However, this is a great Lutheran sermon.  It fully offers the listener God's law, both instrumentally (vocation) but also theologically (terror that leads us to Christ).  Furthermore, it defines the role of the church:  God's gathering of baptized sinners, where God justifies them (cleanses) and sanctifies them (puts them to use).  Basically, Martin Luther must have written this chapter.  Haha!!

Okay, a more subtle commentary -- sanctification requires sifting.  Does the church sift us or has life already sifted us?!

Key words:
προσδοκαω ("wait" or "expect"; 3:15)  A great Advent words!  Interestingly, Luke uses this word a whole bunch (6x in Luke; 4x in Acts), far more often than anyone else. In this case though, the people are not waiting for Jesus, per se, but rather the Messiah, and wondering whether John would be it. Perhaps a reminder and a challenge -- what are we waiting for?

καρδιας ("heart"; 3:15)  The people wondered "in their hearts."  In Luke's Gospel, the hearts is the place where thought occurs, much like Hebrew!

ειη ("to be"; 3:15) The word here for "is" is in the optative mood, a rare usage indeed. Gotta give it to Luke -- using Hebrew thought with advanced Greek!

αλων ("threshing floor") and συναγω ("gather"; 3:17)  God gathers in the wheat to do something good with it.  It was beaten, yes, but this had a purpose -- make the grain productive for wheat.  This is sanctification.  God taking away our crap so that we can be useful for our neighbor.

διακαθαιρω ("cleanse"; 3:17).  This word's cousin καθαιρω is more familiar -- Catherize!  The job of the church is to cleanse us.

Grammar Review:  Super easy participle:
μελλοθσηας:   The "coming" wrath.  This is a verb function as an adjective.  Easy as pie.  Remember, not all participles are hard!  Many have direct and easy ways to translate them into English.  In this case, you just have to identify it as an adjectival participle (how?  It has the word "the" in front of it and it describes the word immediately following it).

Luke 1:26-38 (Annunication)

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary during Advent.

Summary:

Many commentaries reading this passage display a hermeneutic of suspicion.  For example, the anchor Bible commentary was lamenting that Luke put everything in an OT style.  Strangely enough, this was proof that he was making this stuff up.  (Imagine, God works in a consistent manner over time).  The virgin birth becomes highly problematic within this hermeneutic of suspicion! 

I do not think Luke wants us to read with such cynical eyes.  First, Luke goes to great lengths here to give us names and dates, indicating he intends to write history, not fiction.  He even has the angel offer Mary a sign (the pregnancy of Elizabeth), reminding us of Mary's human need for proof.  While his characters may follow patterns of other Biblical characters, they seem to me to be real people with hopes and fears.  (Because the Bible characters, as it turns out, are real people with hopes and fears)

I think Luke offers us another hermeneutic:  belief in God's word to do miracles.  I use the word hermeneutic because Luke plays on the word herma in this passage; the word for "thing" in verse in 37 is "rema", but because of the heavy breathing on the "r", this comes into English "herma"; the word for "word" in verse 38 is also "rema" (herma).  We should read the Bible, not ready to doubt, but ready to be amazed at what God has done.  This hermeneutic, I believe, is what Luke intends that we might echo the angel and Mary in declaring that “All things (hermas) are possible through God”  and “Let it be done according to your word (herma).”

Key Words:
οηομα ("name"; appears throughout the section)  It is curious that the word name appears four times in this section.  In addition, every character has a name; even people not part of the immediate story, David and Elizabeth, are named.

καλεω ("call"/"invite"; appears throughout the section)  It is also curious that the word "call" appear four times in this section.  Clearly calling things a name is a vital part of this pericope.

παρθενου ("virgin" or "young woman"; 1:27)  Let's settle this debate.  Linguistically it is possible to imagine that Mary is simply referred to hear as a young woman and not a "virgin."  However, the word for virgin is parthenos (like the Parthenon building, to the virgin Athena).  Furthermore, Mary's very objection to the pregnancy is the fact that she has never known a man.

χαρις ("grace"; 1:28; 1:30)  In 1:28 this appears as a verb in the perfect passive form:  "Having been graced." It is interesting that the grace is in the perfect, in that the graceful event occurred previous to the angel's announcement.  What was the event that already gave her this grace? Perhaps her own immaculate conception?!  

Another tough thing about this idea of Mary's grace is found in the NET's translation notes.  They lament the Vulgate translation, "full of grace" because it presents the idea that Mary has grace to bestow on others.  While it is true that Mary's grace comes from God, it is hard to make the argument that Mary does not bestow grace on the rest of us through her role in the birth.  Catholics (and Orthodox) go too far, but we protestants have never quite done Mary justice!

συγγενις ("female relative"; 1:36)  This word has a cool etymology:  συν (syn) + γινομαι (ginomai).  These words mean "together" and "become/born."  The word γινομαι is where we get the word "gene" and "genesis" from.  συγγενις is a word that has a variety of meanings, ranging from family member to  a kinsman.  In short, it ranges from one who shares the same "genes" to one who shares the same "story" that is, the broader sense of relationship between people.

I find this interesting because in 2023, I observe that more and more, people align themselves less with the people of co-birth but co-becoming -- the people whom we develop as humans over time with.  This is especially true in the middle upper class, where people often move far away for education, career and child raising.  These become our friends in many ways!  Elizabeth and Mary have their stories brought together by an angel, not by true blood lineage.

Grammar Review:  Missing words
The phrase the "The Lord be with you" is not really what the Greek says. It simply reads "The Lord with you." (ο κυριος μετα σου)  This can be read as an imperative, as in it expresses a wish, "The Lord be or will be with you." Or as an indicative: "The Lord is with you." Interestingly, most translators translate a similar construction at the end of the Gospel of John (Peace to you) with an imperative/wish "Peace be with you." Using the same translation method they use here, that phrase in John's Gospel should read there "Peace is with you."  In this case, I would probably argue for the translation, "The Lord is with you" because a) the angel is standing right there and b) the angel says she is graced.

Luke 3:1-6

This passage is found in the RCL, Advent 2, Year C (Most recently Dec 8, 2024).

Summary:  A familiar text with many preaching paths. Once again we need to head to the wilderness, the familiar cry of John the Baptist, to restore our sights.  To put it another way, Advent remains a reason of repentance (whatever color we now use), but one where repentance isn't simply about personal sins, but a reorientation of our whole mind away from the crap out there about Christmas and toward the salvation of God unfolding in Jesus Christ.

Key words:
τετρααρχουντες ("rule as tetra-arch"; 3:1)  The word tetra-arch means rule as a piddly regional governor.  Luke includes a number of historical details in his Gospel, especially early on; Luke clearly wants to show that Jesus birth and life are actual events.

ρημα ("word"; 3:2)  This word means "word."  It will come into English the word "hermeneutic," i.e., the lens through which one looks at the data.  This is really interesting to read John's work like this:  "The hermeneutic of God came to John", which was forgiveness, baptism and repentance.  What if our repentance means viewing life through this hermeneutic!

βαπτισμα ("baptism"; 3:3). Originally, this word did not have religious meaning. It simply meant to dip. For your enjoyment, here are the Liddell-Scott Hellenistic meanings of the word. Wow!

I. trans. to dip in water
2. to dip in poison
3. to dip in dye, to dye
4. to draw water
II. intransitive the ship dipped, ie, sank

Try preaching that: Baptism as a dip in poison; as a dip in dye; as a drawing of water from God; as finally, a sinking ship!

μετανοεω ("repent"; 3:3) The Greek meaning of the word is "new mind."  In Liddell-Scott's ancient (and secular) Greek lexicon, "repent" means to change one's mind or purpose. We often put repentance together with sin, a fine thing, but perhaps we need to consider that repentance means often more than simply a struggle against temptation, but a paradigm shift, a transformation of our whole outlook, if not way of life and even being. In this case, there is a shift into the forgiveness of sins. Perhaps that is what Jesus ministry is really about, not simply our own forgiveness, but inculcating a world view that finally includes forgiveness.  Perhaps this is σωτηριον (salvation): when the world finally embraces forgiveness as the path.  Overarching point:  μετανοεω in Greek and in the New Testament means far more than forgiveness of sins.  (Or forgiveness of sins means far more than we think it does).

πληρωθησται (πληροω, fill or fulfill, 3:5) and ταπεινωθησται (ταπεινω, fulfill, 3:5):  The English renders these words as "raised up" and "made low."  Yet Luke (and Isaiah) use the words here for fill and humble.  These then echo other parts of Luke's Gospel (the Magnificat; Jesus words on the road to Emmaus).  These represent key features of Jesus mission:  To fulfill and to humble.

Grammar note:  Lack of punctuation in ancient languages
Original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts lack punctuation; it was added later by monks.  So we really don't know if Isaiah meant, "A voice cries out, 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord'" or "A voice cries out in the Wilderness, 'prepare the way of the Lord'."  The monks thought the former...probably good to go with their instinct, especially given the need, in the Exile, to walk through the wilderness from Babylon to Israel.  If this is the case, it seems that the Gospel writers change the punctuation to fit their own program of matching John's work with the description in Isaiah. 
A few options:  The scholarly one: Preach or teach, in a despising fashion, about how the NT abuses the OT
The Christological one:  Preach and teach about how the NT rightfully abuses (reinterprets) the OT to make it fit with Christ!
Or the pastoral one:  In this case both punctuation possibilities are valid.  John the Baptist cries out in the wilderness.  Yet he speaks to each of us to get into the wilderness, away from all the chaos of the world, to focus on God and God alone.

John 18:28-40 (John 18:33-37)

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary Year 4 Lenten Cycle.  A portion of this passage, John 18:33-37, appears in the Revised Common Lectionary for Christ the King Sunday.
 
Summary:  Pilate's character in the Gospel of John is complex.  It seems that John wants to drive home the point that not even Pilate is in control of the situation, but only Jesus.  In John's Gospel, Jesus is never the one on trial; humanity is.  Pilate's interview haunts us with the question:  What is truth?  The answer is obviously Jesus, but what does that mean?  And yes, our answer should be slightly offensive.  It got Jesus killed; it should at least get us in a little trouble.

Note for Christ the King Sunday:  This is definitely a passage in which I would include vs 38 - "What is truth?"

μαρτυρεω ("testify", literally martyr, vs 18:37)  This word means to give a witness, like in court.  Jesus takes his place as the first Christian martyr, one who will be killed for the truth.  So many Christians died giving their witness that the word's meaning changed.

βασιλευς ("king", vs. 18:33,37)  BDAG define this as "One who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm."  Already this shows Pilate considers the whole trial as a sham.  Could Pilate really execute the king of the Jews?   Obviously not.

ἠγωνίζοντο ("struggle" or "fight", from ἀγωνίζομαι, vs 36)  Jesus says that his followers would be constantly fighting (ἠγωνίζοντο) if his kingdom were of this world.

• This brings into focus "Christ the King" Sunday.  What does it mean for Jesus to be king?!  Always a question.  Many shy away from "Christ the King" Sunday because of its patriarchal overtones.  Added to the church calendar in the 1920s, the Pope who installed it observed the many divisions and wanna-be kings.  The Pope chose to lean into this framework and then undermine it be claiming Christ to be the true King.  To that point, Jesus does not reject his kingship, he rejects Pilate's expectations that this brings with it violence.  As Americans, we continue to hear and perhaps fear that our 2020s mirrors the 1920s in Germany, in which a (pseudo-)Christian nationalism arose.  These verses open up a natural preaching door to reflecting on how (again and again) Christians reject the path of suffering and embrace the path of violence to achieve their ends.  So - do you walk away from the image of Christ the King or live into it?
• The word literally means "agony."  "If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would be agonizing."  Are we as followers of Jesus not expected to have any agony?  It seems that our life will have agony as we embrace the way of the cross...

κοσμος ("world", literally cosmos, vs 18:37)  Just a reminder:  God loves the world, but the world doesn't love back:

• It doesn't understand God (1:10)
• It doesn't give like God (14:27)
• In fact, it hates God (7:7). 

Yet God loves it still.

αληθεια ("truth", vs 18:37,38)  BDAG writes, "truth is a favorite word of the Johannine literature."  Certainly is a core concept:

• John 1:17  The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus
• John 17:17 God's word is truth
• John 14:6 Jesus is the truth
• John 16:13 Spirit leads to truth
• John 8:32 Truth sets on free

Βαραββας ("Barabbas", vs. 40)  This word literally means "Son of the Father."  Quite an irony that "Son of the father" is chosen and its not Jesus!  This also picks up on the irony that the Jewish leaders are concerned about ritual purity as they hand Jesus over to death (18:28)

ληστης ("thief", vs. 40)  The word means robber or "brigand" (a lovely word, right!).  But Josephus, a Jewish historian writing during this time, always uses this word to mean social bandit/revolutionary.  It clearly can mean this too.  If you totally cannot focus on your sermon, you can read about what Josephus says about Jesus here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Mark 13:1-8

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, along with Mark 13:24-37.
This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, year B (Most recently: Nov 2024)

Summary:  If I had to preach this text, I would prefer to preach on vs. 13:9-11, which talks about the Spirit's work in and through the church between the first and second coming of Jesus.  But hey, if 1-8 is what you have got, the Greek can still open up some fruitful preaching doors: First, what is the foundation of your life?  And second, what is the destiny of life?

Two key insights:

λιθος ("stone", 13:1,2)
The NRSV translates the second half of verse 13:2 like almost every other translation:
"Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down."   However, the text literally reads:
"A stone here will never be permitted upon a stone, which will never be destroyed."

The NRSV translators take this to mean that every stone of this building will be destroyed.  I think it means this, but I also think we can take Jesus a bit more literally at his words:  These stones cannot be laid on the eternal rock, who is him. 

You might say I am digging here, but consider Mark 12:10 -- Jesus refers to himself as the rejected stone which has become the cornerstone.  Jesus builds on this earlier statement and says these stones no longer mean anything in light of him, who is the true and eternal temple.

The basic point, regardless of translation, is that in light of Jesus, the true temple and rock, this temple and rocks are unimportant, finally heretical.  I just think we can safely add that Mark allows Jesus to refer to himself, subtly, as an eternal rock.  Regardless, it brings us to the real helpful preaching point:  What is the foundation in your life?  For 1st century Jews, the temple would have been a foundation piece of their life, a center of mystery and meaning.  Jesus says, this doesn't really matter, he does.  Rather than critique first century Jews, we should ask ourselves:  What idols -- even of our building spaces -- have we built for ourselves?

In fact, the disciples do not use an adjectives to describe the stones, although almost all of the translators use the words "large" or even "magnificent."  The disciples use the word ποταπαι (13.1), which is a question word meaning:  What kind of?  or "Where are they from?"  In short, they ask Jesus a deeper question -- what kind of temple is this in front of us?  It is one made of human hands!

τελος ("end", 13:7)
The NIV translates the second half of verse 7 like almost every other translation
"Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."

The question is, how do we interpret τελος, here translated "end."  It can mean "fulfillment", "destiny", "aim", or even "perfection."  In fact, the translators use "fulfill" when translating συντελεω in verse 4 (the prefix συν- does not significantly change the meaning of the word here).

All too often when we think about the end times we think about...the end...instead of the fulfillment of all God intended for us.  It is too bad this week we do not have the Micah 5 lesson.  How much might our collective imaginations be stirred if we instead thought of them as "fulfillment days."  What must happen for God to fulfill all of God's promises?  What does the fulfillment look like?  In fact, the word Jesus uses to summarize all of this is "ωδιν(ων)" meaning birth pangs.  It is the birth of something new!

A few other notes:
13:2 Jesus twice uses the emphatic "no" construction in Greek "ou mh" ου μη (ie never ain't gonna happen).  This strong negative reinforces my previous argument that the old temple will not rest on the new temple, Jesus Christ. This is what Jesus says anyway, but the actual Greek reveals this in a subtle way.

13:1 The word for "building" here is "oikodomeh" οικοδομαι which can mean structure, but also edification or up-buidling. For example, Romans 14:19, "Let us pursue what leads to peace and the UPBUILDING of one another."

13:3 The phrase here in Greek to describe the disciples is "kata idian," translated "privately" (lit: according to their own).  κατά ιδιαν  This is used throughout the Gospel of Mark; this is the last time anything will be said privately though.  

- Private time with Jesus is necessary for public witness about Jesus

- It is more comfortable to be the church in private than in public!!

Mark 12:38-44

This passage is found in the Revised Common Lectionary Year B (Most recently Nov 10, 2024)

Summary:  This is a case where the Greek does not alter the meaning, but simply forces us to slow down and examine Jesus' familiar words.  Jesus offers a strident critique of an overly consuming, self-aggrandizing and elitist clergy.  Yikes.  More generally, I think Jesus makes a comment on how all of us consume and how we give.

βλεπω (12:38; "see")  The word here for "watch out" is simply the Greek 101 for see; Jesus will tell his followers to "watch out" five times in this section (12:38, 13:5; 9; 23; 33).

γραμματευς (12:38; "scribes") This word has an obvious English cognate:  "Grammar."  The question for us today is, whom do we need to watch out for -- who are the grammarians today?  I struggle with this question a bit more personally -- how do I become a grammarian, who says "no" to the working of the Lord, either in my congregation or in my denomination?  How do I NOT become someone whom Jesus warns against.  The further description of Jesus' critique includes:

they wear στολη (12:38, "stole" or "robe")
and sit in the 
προτοκαθεδρια (12:39, "first seat").  Ouch. 

κατεσθιω (12:40, "devour")  As you guessed, the Bible uses this word in an entirely negative fashion.  It also comes up in the prodigal son, where the son has consumed the father's property (literally, βιος, used also in this passage in vs. 44).  One can read this passage as a narrow critique of 1st century Jewish leadership, more broadly of religious leaders over time, or most broadly, against all over-consumption.  In what ways does our whole culture "devour widows houses while praying long prayers."  A prophetic voice is helpful and perhaps here, but how can this be done so that its not simply an attack on others (or in an election year, people who voted differently), but a call for all of us to repent?

βιος  (12:44, "life"  The woman gives "the whole of her life" The word life here is "bios." So the sermon is not about stewardship of money, but stewardship of everything.  

περισσεύοντος vs ὑστερήσεως ("abundance" and "poverty" 12:44)  Generally the word for "abundance" does not refer to monetary surplus, but all sorts of abundance.  The word poverty (and its lexical sibling), however, generally focuses on a lack of material resources.  The idea of spiritual poverty shows up in lots of other ways in Scripture though, it just doesn't use this particular word.  Nothing too scientific here, just an observation that the Bible is willing to acknowledge both abundance and poverty in material and non-material terms.  This particular passage shows their mis-alignment.  How do you (and your flock) see these in alignment?

Grammar note:  Here we have a substantive participle "the ones who devour" followed by a participle "praying."  There are a couple of ways these two participles (devouring and praying) could be related.  I think the best way to translate the participle "praying" is as a circumstantial participle:  "the ones who devour widows houses while praying long prayers."  Ouch!  They pray while they sin.

Mark 10:46-52

This passage occurs in both the Revised Common Lectionary Year B and the Narrative Lectionary Year B.  (Most recently Oct 27, 2024.)

Note on Reformation Day and this passage

This passage will sometimes occur on the same Sunday as Reformation Day, a day when Lutheran churches and others often use John 8 (here is my commentary on this passage) .  Even when not on Reformation Day, it might make a very good text for a sermon on the Reformation.  You have a man crying out for mercy (Luther's search); a religious crowd opposed to him (sinful self and world); a display of Jesus compassion; Jesus' Word giving life; Proclamation that faith saves; lastly, new life in following Christ.
To review:
Salvation, even new creation, by faith alone
The mercy of Christ
The sinfulness of the world, even in religious matters
The redeeming Word

Or John 8, with landmines of antisemitism.  You make the call...

Words I found interesting

οδος ("road" or "way", from οδος, vs. 46)  This word has layers of meanings.  It is one of those words that can simply mean "path for travel" but more abstractly "way"."  Early Christians were called followers of "The Way."  In Mark 8, 9, and 10, Jesus has been on the way.  This journey in Mark is about spiritual blindness and sight.  It begins with a blind man needing healing; the stories display how the disciples are blind to Jesus power; it ends with blind Bartimeaus receiving sight.  It points toward the reality that any talk about spiritual journey without struggle, sin and setback is nonsense!

Βαρτιμαιος ("Son of honor", 46) We don't know many names of those cured by Jesus, but this one has a name -- Son of honor.  In this case, the son of honor is banished by the crowd, mocked and insulted.  Perhaps this is foreshadowing of Jesus, the true son of Honor, being mocked by the crowd.  Furthermore, it is ironic that James and John, the sons of Zebedee, ask for power and get the cross.  This man calls out for mercy and gets resurrection.  "Afflict the comforted and comfort the afflicted"

εκπορευομενου ("go out", 46)  Jesus is heading out of town, but a call for mercy changes his plans.  When is the last time a call for mercy changed your plans?  Jesus seems always to find time for compassion.

ελεησον ("mercy", from ελεεω, 48)  A key feature of Martin Luther's journey was the search for mercy.  It certainly is what Christ has come to bring.  Is this what people hunger for today?  

κραζον ("cry", 48)  Also worth noting is that the man is crying (κραζον) out.  The verb is transliterated "crazied."  Also, the verb is in the imperfect tense, indicating this is an on-going action.  Mark is painting a vivid picture here of suffering and lament.

στας ("stand", 49)  For the first and only time in Mark's Gospel, Jesus stands still.  He takes a pause from the journey on the road to have compassion on this man.  The story pivots on Jesus' action here (you could even do a need chaistic structure within the story with this as the fulcrum).  It is worth remembering about this story and really the whole Reformation, that Jesus' love and compassion are at the center.

θαρσει ("take courage", 49)  This word can also mean "be audacious."  Christ is calling us to follow him, over and against the cries of the world.

εγειρε ("raise" or "resurrect", 49)  Jesus has been proclaiming his eventual resurrection.  Now the resurrection is happening -- the kingdom of God unfolding in our midst.  What makes it possible?  The voice of Jesus -- the word of God. 

αποβαλων (participle of απο-βαλλω, 50)  The man has to throw something away -- to take something off -- in order to follow Jesus.  What must we give up to follow Jesus?  There is a risk in following our Lord; a willingness to get it wrong!  This is something I am thinking about a lot as a middle aged man.  We get so comfortable and set in our ways, that we lose sight of the fact that Jesus calls us again and again to follow him, even when this means getting it wrong and taking risks.

ιματον ("garment", 50)  The word ιματον will come up again the rest of Mark's Gospel.  The people will again take off their cloaks/coats for Jesus in his triumphal entry/Palm procession (next chapter); then they will put a pretend garment on Jesus to mock him; and they will cast lots for his garment.  You could say that Blind Bartimeaus is the first one to celebrate Palm Sunday :-)

αναπηδησας ("jump up", 50)  The man jumps up.  Mark, again, is creating is a vivid scene full of motion.  What is fascinating to consider is that man who jumps up and is walking is still blind.  Faith may lead to sight, but sometimes we are called simply to move...Ie, part of the journey of faith may not have as much a sight as we would like.  I reflect on Luther's own journey...and the journey of myself and others...where sometimes we sense God calling us but we don't yet see the light!

σεσωκεν ("save", from σωζω 52)  This word refers to both "earthly" salvation as well as heavenly.  Explosive term.  It can meal heal, but also save.  But basic point here:  Salvation is not simply about the afterlife, but life in Christ, which is everlasting.

Mark 10:35-45

This passage is found in the Revised Common Lectionary Year B (Most recently Oct 20, 2024)

Summary:  Don't get too lost in the Greek in this week's passage. The point is that two key disciples are asking really silly questions.  It proves Jesus an opportunity to say to them directly what he has been suggesting to them all along:  While they do not need to be crucified, to be a follower of Jesus means following him to the cross, to the suffering of the world, to the surrender of our will and to the death of sinner.  I focus a fair amount on the word "ransom," hopefully opening a different way of thinking about this.

ποτηριον ("poterion" (pottery!), meaning "cup", 10:38)  There are three cups in Mark's Gospel!  Can you name them?  The first is when Jesus says the one giving a glass of cold water will not lose their reward (9:41).  The second is here.  The third is the communion cup.  The cup which Jesus refers to here is following Christ.  This seems to be a good sermon, something like:  The first cup of discipleship is doing small things for others; the second cup is living/giving of our whole life; the third is receiving communion with Christ, as he comes to forgive us.  As Luther says in the small catechism: All this he did that I may be his own.

βαπτίζομαι vs  βαπτισθηαι ("baptize", 10:38)  I want to point out a distinction in verb tenses here.  When Jesus refers to the baptism of the disciples, he uses the aorist tense, suggesting a one-time event.  When Jesus refers to his own baptism, he uses the present tense, suggesting an on-going and present event.  Jesus literally says, "which I am being baptized right now"; he is in the midst of his baptism as he begins his long road to the cross.  Our Baptism may be a one time event, but living out of our baptism is an on-going process.

κατακυριευουσιν ("literally over-lord", 10:42)  Just a little note for preachers personally rather than for a sermon.  This verb shows up rarely in the New Testament, but it does show up in 1 Peter 5:3, as an admonishment to pastors not to Lord over their power!

οι δοκουντες ("the ones who think", 10:42)  Jesus does not say the rulers actually rule.  He says the think or seem.  

[Really geeky thought: For those paying a bit more attention, this is the same word 'seem' (δοκεω) that was used to describe a group of chief early heretics:  the Docetics, who said that Jesus only "seemed" to die.)

δουλος ("servant" or "slave", 10:44) This word appears repeatedly in the New Testament as a model for Christian life and service.  As the Thayer Greek Lexicon reminds us, δουλος του χριστου (servants of Christ) are those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among [others]:  used of apostles, Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1; 2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; of other preachers and teachers of the gospel, Col. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:24; Jude 1:1; of the true worshipers of Christ.
Do we articulate, model and challenge our people enough to adopt a posture of servant-hood?

λυτρον ("redemption", 10:45).  This word is a loaded term.  It is often suggested that Jesus was the ransom whose death serves as the payment rendered for our sins, thus freeing us from this deserved punishment.  Both Exodus 21:30, 30:12 convey this sense of λυτρον.  I am not going to argue here against substitutionary atonement.   

However, the Old Testament also puts forward another sense of λυτρον that I think works just as well, if not better, in this case.  In Numbers 3, there is the (for most of us) relatively unknown story of the consecration of the Levites to the priesthood and how they are offered as a redemption (λυτρον).  A surprisingly helpful commentary summarized the logic:

"...when God slew the first born of man and beast among the Egyptians, he consecrated the first-born of Israel to himself as a memorial of the deliverance.  First-born animals were to be sacrificed to the Lord, but first-born sons were to be redeemed by the substitution of a payment of money.  Now the Levites are taken by the Lord as the redemption of all the first-born males in Israel, and their very office becomes a perpetual sign of Israel's deliverance.  The ministry of the Levites proclaimed to Israel the fact that all belong to the Lord, because he has delivered them.  (75, Mays; 1963 Layman's Bible Commentary.")

In short, in the consecration of the Levites, God turns the sacrificial system on its head.  God does not want sacrifices of first-born humans (and never did), rather, God wants the Levites to take the place of the first-born, not for death, but for service to God. 
I am still fleshing this out, but I think you can make the argument that "ransom" can be utilized in a way where Jesus frees us to serve God without needing God to be angry with Jesus.

Perhaps it is something like this:  Jesus is put forward as a ransom, but not simply for death, but for service to God.  What God wants - in the ransom sense - is not the death of Jesus, but the life, the service (which in his case, will include death).  As we are baptized into Jesus' death and drink his cup, we too are put forward, not as a substitute punishment, but as something precious to God, namely, servants of God, becoming the new priesthood, in fact, a very proclamation that the Lord has delivered us.  

Mark 10:17-31

This passage is found in the Narrative Lectionary Year 2
This passage is found in the Revised Common Lectionary Year B after Pentecost (Most recently October 13, 2024)

Summary:  "Clouded up" -- That is literally the words used to describe the rich young man's reaction to Jesus.  Jesus loves the man, but the man's love of his possessions obscure his vision so greatly, he cannot even embrace the love of God!  We may not be able to buy our way into heaven but today's passage suggests we can buy our way out of heaven!

Some words that might open preaching possibilities:

[added 2024] προσδραμὼν ("run" or "exert", form of προστρέχω; 10.17) The man is running to Jesus.  This can be seen in a positive light -- the man is eager to meet Jesus.  It can also be seen as "busy man", the person always moving, always climbing, yet not getting anywhere.

ζωην αιωνουν ("life eternal"; zoo of the eons, literally; 10.17 and 30):  It is interesting that eternal life enters into Mark's Gospel by way of a non-disciple (and practicing Jew).  Obviously this appears in John's Gospel numerous times, but makes a cameo or two in the other Gospels as well.  Perhaps one of the great misnomers of Christian thinking is that eternal life only begins after our physical death.  The love and fellowship of Jesus was available here, on earth, for the man (see note below).

κληρονoησω ("inherit"; 10:17):  The man may not understand that eternal life is a gift, but he does understand one thing: it is going to take a death to bring about life -- you only get the inheritance when someone dies!

αποστερεω ("defraud"; 10:19)  The NET Bible suggests Jesus inserts this because of the OT's injunctions about this, for example, Deut 24:14.  I would maintain that the word defraud is not accidental, but a great insight into the text. Jesus adds this commandment because he knows the rich young man is guilty of it -- the 11th commandment!  As my internship pastor preached on this passage -- what is the commandment that finally trips you or me up??  I don't murder...but what finally brings me to my knees in confession?

αγαπαω ("love"; 10.21)  This word means real, genuine, nearly, if not truly, divine love.  This man is the first one whom Jesus loves in the whole Gospel of Mark!  How sad then that the man cannot love Jesus back nor follow him!

κτημα ("possessions"; 10:22)  Our American context is very different than ancient Greece, where a very small number owned most things.  Yes, yes, the rich grow richer, but the average American still has enough possessions and toys at their disposal to last them for years.  We can make this passage about demonizing the truly wealthy, or realize the nature of our own possessions that cloud our own vision.  Side note:  The NET Bible

στυγναζω ("sad" or "cloud up"; 10.23):  The word for "sad" here is a less common Greek word, but it means gloomy, or clouded over, like the sky.  The man's love of possessions cloud up his vision.

τεκνα ("children", 10.24). Right after Jesus has told them they must accept the kingdom as a child, he calls them children.  Perhaps a sign of love?  Perhaps a call to humility?  I think it is fair to say that, at least within Mark's Gospel, the driving point is that the only way into the Kingdom is to realize we cannot get there out of our own power, as a child!

Jesus can both εμβλεπω (in-look)  (vs. 21, 27) and περιβλεπω (around-look) (vs. 23).  In short, Jesus has insight (literally) and around sight (literally).  Jesus can both look into people but also take a step back and look at the situation.  A rare skill.

καμηλον ("camel", 10.25)  The word "camel" here has been subject to all sorts of translation attempts to soften the meaning.  Some scribes changed the word to "rope"! (similarly spelled in Greek); others have said this sequence refers to a gate in Jerusalem.  No!  Jesus is trying to say that a) our wealth blocks us from God and b) we ain't getting into heaven our own merit.  Jesus is driving us to ask "How is this possible!"

[added in 2024] πλούσιον ("rich", 10.25)  In Greek, the word literally reads "rich."  We can't do in English what can be done here in Greek, namely, make a singular noun out of an adjective.  We can create a word like "the rich" to mean lots of people who are rich, but we cannot simply say "I don't like rich" and mean "I don't like that one individual who is rich."  Why does this matter?  Because Jesus does not say, as the NIV translates it as "someone who is rich."  He says "rich" as a singular noun.  What is at stake?  The truth is that when we are no longer a someone or somebody who is rich, but we are entirely identifiable by our possessions and wealth, then we have a problem with God's Kingdom!  We define ourselves and others by their wealth.  I don't think that Jesus sees us this way.  Still contemplating...

Some grammar tid-bits worth considering:

Subjunctive mood:
The subjunctive mood, which Greek uses to indicate various hypothetical situations, is difficult to translate. In 10.17 we find the filled-with-subjunctive phrase "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"  The Greek does not use the word "must" but simply uses the subjunctive mood. Luther's German translation, "What should I do" is probably a better understanding of what is meant here.

Imperfect tense:
The imperfect tense suggests repeated action.  In 10.17 The rich young man does not "ask" but in fact "asks," repeatedly -- the imperfect tense is used.  He really wants to know!

Future as perfect tense?
In 10.30, Jesus talks about the age "that is coming."  It is not "the age that came" or the "age that will come" or even "the age to come" but "the age that is coming."  Greek, like English, can use the present to suggest an indeterminate future.  "Coming" can mean "on the way" or "coming soon."  There is an ambiguity.  So the question is, does the eternal life age arrive after we die or while we live?  It seems that Jesus is referring to a pre-natural death event...but perhaps one that requires our spiritual death and resurrection.

It is also worth noting that Jesus says in that the present age the will receive things.  Again, all of the Gospels indicate that things will be made new/reversed/restored in their fullness in the age to come, but Jesus promises that the Kingdom breaks into this age as well.

Mark 10:2-16

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B (Most recently Oct 6, 2024).

Summary:  This is a very difficult passage, causing shame for many and perhaps even smugness for some.  Many commentaries have been written about it.  I'd like to focus on a few Greek words, especially some "απο" words, that might provide a framework for considering divorce and preaching about it.  Again, very tough because everyone brings so much personal experience and heartache on this topic.
 
Side comment:  Another helping tool for looking at these passages is to compare the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 and Luke 16 (if not 1 Cor 7).

πειραζοντες ("test or tempt", from πειραζω, 10:2)  We see this come up often in the Gospels, where the Pharisees (or some other group) are trying to test Jesus.  This case is a bit different.  John the Baptist was imprisoned because he spoke out against the marriage practices of Herod.  The Pharisees questions are intended to have Jesus imprisoned, if not killed.  Our society has great culture wars going on now about marriage; perhaps each one of us will face persecution for our views.  Lastly, if we wonder why Jesus is so harsh in his words, it is because the Pharisees are inviting him to his death.

αποστατιον ("divorce", 10:4)  This word "explodes" off the page if you look at it in the Bible or in the Greek language.  First, in Greek, this word meant leave one's station ("απο" means away; just read the letters in the word: a-p-o-s-t-a-t-i-o-n!).  It meant a military defection from your captain, the one ahead of you in rank.  Moses gave permission to write a certificate of defection!!  What if we started calling divorce defection??  Ouch.

Jesus actually changes the law here.  If you look up the word, you are taken to Deuteronomy 24:1, where a man is given permission to kick out his wife if she doesn't please him.  Jesus today is calling men to a greater level of faithfulness than previous generations ever did; men cannot simply leave their wives because they don't please them!  Jesus also even admits the reality that women might leave their husbands on their own accord, something unthinkable.  In this way, Jesus alters the law (a radical concept), even enfranchising women, but finally asks for greater commitment.  (Note however, that even though the Bible's teaching divorce shifts over time, the teaching on marriage remains the same).

απολυω ("free"; 10:4)  This word can mean "release" or even finally "divorce" but it is worth looking simply at what the word means:  to set free.  As a pastor, I have seen this, where divorce is a freeing of someone from an abusive and unfaithful relationship plagued by addiction and anger. 

So here is the million dollar question:  When is the divorce "αποστατιον", namely, a defection?  And when is it a απολυω, a freeing?

σκηλροκαρδια ("hardness of hearts"; 10:5)  The word here contains the root "σκηλρος" which means hardness -- an awful disease is "multiple sclerosis", the hardening of certain body parts until finally the person cannot move.  In a downward spiraling relationship, there is a hardening of the heart, until finally the person cannot love.  As Christians, we believe that God creates new hearts (Psalm 51); however, Jesus admits (see also Matt 19) that certain conditions, like adultery, grow out of, but also create such a hard heart, that the two are permitted not to be yoked any more.  I would add abuse and addiction, both forms of adultery, you could argue, to this list of permissible divorces.

αρχη ("beginning"; 10:6)  Jesus affirms that marriage is a long-long, committed relationship between a man and a woman, grounded in creation and the particular creation accounts we have in the Bible.  This means that marriage has a few purposes:  to offer companionship, to create new families and bring a couple into full intimacy, even union.  I think one could further argue that marriage is a tool of God's sanctification in us, in that we discover our sinfulness very clearly, need forgiveness and become of great use to God through the love given to us by our spouse.  Jesus returns the focus to God's goodness and intentions for marriage.

My haunch:  The Christian church needs to spend a great deal of time and teaching on what marriage truly is and what it is for.

PS  κατευλογεω means to bless -- literally a form of "good speaking."  What is interesting is that Jesus' blessing, like just about every biblical blessing, includes a laying on of hands.  To bless someone is not an abstraction, but a tangible entity.  When we bless a union, we do not simply offer words, but we should also lay on hands!

Mark 9:38-50

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), year B (Mark/John), most recently September 29, 2024.  I have another post looking at this passage, focusing on hell.

Summary:  This passage does seem like two different smaller passages, but perhaps they are linked in that they both deal with how interact with other people's faith.  In a day of partisan and even tribal politics if not religion, this passage can serve a powerful reminder of the need to be generous to other people's faith.  If someone else is serving other people; if someone else is following Jesus, then they are on our team!

Key words
τινα ("someone", 9:38)  The translations generally say "someone" or "a man" was trying to cast out demons. However, the Greek is a bit more vague. It simply is "tina" which can mean, someone, something, any, certain, a -- generally an indefinite marker.  In other words, the disciples have dehumanized their opponents!  The disciples did not stop to get the person's name or know his story!

εκωλυομεν (imperfect form of κωλυω, meaning "prevent", 9:38; 9:39)  The tense of this verb is imperfect, indicating on-going action:  "we continued to stop" or "we kept preventing." (The verb ηκολουθει "follow" is also in the imperfect tense).  The disciples are really putting effort into stopping this man.

[[Greek grammar: One thing worth noting is that the participle for cast out is in the present tense. In translation though, its tense is governed by the finite verb, in this case "we saw" which is in the aorist. So the action of the casting out is present relative to the action of seeing.]]

μη κωλυετε ("no longer hinder", 9:39) Another lesson on Greek imperatives; the "μη" + present imperative construction suggests that the person was doing this action already (as in "do not be afraid" implies that the person was already afraid]. To translate then, "No longer hinder..."

υμιν ("us", 9:38)  The pronoun is worth noting here: "υμιν" -- "not following us"!  It is not about following Jesus, but about following the disciples.  This can be a big trap for churches and denominations, worrying more about following us than about following Jesus!  We are called not to hinder the faith of others and there are times when other people can believe things that are false or incredibly unhelpful.  However, we must always ask ourselves -- not whether they have the doctrine all right -- but if they are following Jesus.

Note:  I get it that this is complicated.  Doctrine helps us make sure that when I say "I am following Jesus" that what we mean by "following" and who we mean by "Jesus" bear a) correlation to Scripture and b) have a common ground.  Some days, I honestly wonder if my co-religionists are actually my co-religionists.  

But I have also realized over time that most doctrinal disputes are really reflections of culture cloaked in fancy language.  People's different individual and communal experiences with life and other humans profoundly shapes their understanding and imagination around God.  To the extent this is true, this means that if I disagree with someone theologically, the issue is unlikely simply what books I've read, but what kind of home, neighborhood and church I grew up in.  To that extent then, when I begin to say that a certain Christian isn't a true Christian, I may simply be saying -- their economic, political and social background provides them with lenses on Scripture that produce a vastly different image of Jesus than my own.

κακαλογεω ("renounced", 9:39) The word for "speak against" is a great one: κακαλογεω, from κακα (bad) and λεγω (speak).  The word is more akin to blaspheme/renounce than simply slander.  I wonder how much time we spend as Christians κακαλογεω-ing each other!

σκωληξ ("worm"; 9:48)  The use of a worm here might seem like simply part of the grand hyperbole that fills this entire section of Scripture.  However, there is an old testament reference to a worm that eats the flesh of the humans that have been judged - the last verse of Isaiah.  While this is gruesome and terrifying, it sheds light on what Jesus is doing here -- promising that the vision of Isaiah will come to pass.  And this is a beautiful thing, for the center of this vision is not worms, but lions and lambs.  Remember -- Biblical Hebrew makes it main point in the middle, not at the end!!

εχετε εν εαυτοις αλα, και ειρηνευετε εν αλλήλοις (9:50):  Have salt in yourself and have peace among yourselves.  There is a bit of a parallel structure here:  εν εαυτοις and εν αλλήλοις; in yourself; in each other.  The second time the word εν is used it almost has to be translated as "among."  This doesn't change the meaning, I just wanted to show you how pithy Jesus made this ;-)  But here is the deal, salt by itself is fairly useless, in fact, it is caustic.  When it is used in proper doses with other things, it can be incredibly useful and flavorful.  Don't be a big salt block by yourself :-)  Share the love!

Some other little tid bits that one day I may work into a more coherent post:

9:43 The word for life (ζωη) has an article before it: "The life."  Interestingly Jesus here equates "the life" with "the kingdom of God."

9:39 Here we have a little play on words. The word for "deed of power/wonder" is "dynamis." The word for "able" is "dynamai" -- same root. If you do power in Jesus name, you do not have the power to speak evily of him.

9:41 The Greek text as "give a cup of water in name." What is missing? Jesus! It should read "name of Jesus" or "name of mine," which a good number of manuscripts have, including the classic case where editors were scribbling out each other's work. I think it is implied though!

9:41 Here we have the word from early in the call to discipleship: "Lose your life" (apollu-mi).

9:42 Both 9:41 and 9:42 describe to conditional events, namely, what happens to non-believers (or believers) based on their interaction with believers. Both cases are the "hos an" + subjunctive construction.

9:47 There are some fun words in here in these verses (skandaliz-oo; apokopt-oo) worth noting in this one is that Jesus returns to the exorcism and tells them that they should "cast out" (exball-oo) their own eyes...

Mark 9:30-37

This passage is found in the Revised Common Lectionary Year B (Most recently: Sept 22, 2024) 
 
Summary:  "Serving others" sounds like an exciting idea in high school - volunteering is "in" these days.  But serving others is actually quite difficult.  Jesus even ups the ante by commanding that we should be servant to all!  Here is what I find beautiful and hopeful in this passage:  Jesus follows this command to serve everyone by touching one particular person.  A reminder that service to world means service to individuals, often the very individuals the world forgets.

Key Words:
διακονος:  ("servant", 9:35)  The meaning of this word has come under great fire in the last generation.  Some background:  In post-Vatican II Catholicism and post-Holocaust Protestantism, there reemerged a strong desire and need for the church to serve the needy. (Not that this had ever gone away totally!)  This lead to surge in the interest of what it meant to "serve" under various forms, offices and theology related to "διακονος."  διακονος came into English as "deacon"; this office, often started or renewed in Western churches, came to embody the need for the church to serve the poor, especially those outside of its walls.  Often this idea of serving others became discussed and conceived of as a ministry born of the Word, perhaps sustained by the Word, but not tied to proclamation of the Word.  A generation or two later, some, including the previous Pope, have become concerned that we have replaced the ministry of the Word with charity.  If you research "Collins diakonia" you can read all about it.  Within the Lutheran context a rather pointed and academic article is here: http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/donfriedministry.pdf

The word διακονος does have a variety of meanings, from "waiter" as in someone who waits on tables, but also someone who acts as an agent on behalf of someone.  In Mark's Gospel the word describes angels and women who attend to Jesus.  In this way, Mark's usage attests to the idea of service to the needy, but the service always involves Jesus.

Without being overly argumentative, you can assert this: διακονος did not simply mean service to the poor but also service on behalf of Christ.  This week's passage shows a beautiful example of what διακονος might entail:  bringing the least in society to the arms of Jesus.  I think this is a challenge for any congregation and ministry -- how do we serve the needy, not just as a service agency, but in a way that leads them to Christ's embrace?

παιδιον ("child", 9:36, 37)  The word here can mean "kid" but can also mean "child" (as in my kid) or "slave."  In our culture, we have seen this passage almost exclusively in light of the idea of "my child," a precious offspring of someone.  We live in the era of "intense parenting" in which parents devote great resources to raising their children, often in smaller families.  However, the social context of the Gospels ought not to be lost -- children did not have great social status and were not the focus of parental energy.  In this sense, Jesus is acting toward the "least", namely, the people without voice, vote, income or status.

εναγκαλισμενος ("hug", 9:36 and 10:16)  This word is only used twice in the whole New Testament, both times in Mark!, when Jesus takes children into his arm.  This is also a reminder of what it means to welcome someone in the name of Christ, to bring them close enough that you can see their beauty, but also their warts, stinky breath and dirty fingernails.

Less important, but interesting

ηγνοουν ("be unaware", from αγνοεω, 9:31)  This word is literally: agnoeoo, which comes into English as "agnostic."  The disciples were agnostic toward the Word.  A reminder that Jesus words about death and resurrection have always been puzzling.

Grammar:  "αν"
This word is nearly impossible to translate.  It sort of means "if" but not really.  It is best just to learn all the ways in which it is used (ie, consult a grammar aid when you come to it).  In verse 37, it is used with ος, which always gets translated "Whoever."  This might not make sense, but this combination is a bit like:  "Who, who?,..." to make a "whoever."

Mark 8:27-38 (Confession of Faith)

Over time I've worked on three posts related to this passage.
- First, a smattering of Greek tid-bits that will one day become a more coherent post
- Second, an investigation into the brilliance of Mark's Greek tenses
- Third, an reflection on Mark's Greek to highlight the nature our confession (This post!)

I also have a longer post on this passage from Matthew's Gospel  that goes into more detail on Caesarea Philippi and the claim of Messiah.

Summary:  Mark masterfully uses Greek to emphasize the dramatic nature of our confession of Christ.  Our confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, will consume our life and finally consume us.

The Greek behind Jesus' question:
* Use of tenses: Mark carefully selects his tenses in this passage. When Jesus asks the question, he is using the imperfect tense, which implies repeated action.  Jesus repeatedly asks them:  "Who are people saying that am?" and "Who do you say that I am?"  In our life, we will repeatedly be asked who Jesus is.
* Use of pronouns:  In Greek, the verb conjugation contains the subject pronoun.  Thus, it is not necessary and it used primarily for emphasis.  Here Jesus adds in the pronoun "You"; as if to say, "You - I mean you -- who do you say that I am?"  In our life, we cannot simply say, "Christianity teaches XYZ" but each will have to say, "I believe..."
* Use of a town name:  Mark could have just told us about this confession, but he adds in the detail of its location.  Casearea Philippi was a major center of pagan worship:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Philippi

To put all these together, Mark lets us know about the confession of faith:  Where it will be done (in the face of paganism), when it will be done (again and again), and who will do it, we the disciples of Christ.

The Greek of Jesus demand:
* Play on words: οπισω ("after", verses 33 and 34).  Jesus has just told Peter to get behind him.  Now he commands Peter once again to get behind him.  Earlier Peter was told to get behind Jesus and become a fisher of men (8:33).  The invitation to get out of the boat (kind of fun and scary) leads to the invitation to die (very scary).
* Use of tenses:  The verb tenses are helpful here -- deny (απαρνησασθω) and carry (αρατω) are in the aorist tense, but follow (ακολουθειτω) is in the present tense.  Following Jesus is an on-going task.  So, to the Greek it probably sounded like: "If any of you want to follow after me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross and day-after-day follow me," (Okay day-after-day is a bit of a Lutheranism...)
* Use of verbs:  To translate απολλυμι in verse 35 as "lose" is perhaps one of the most watered down translations possible. The verb can mean lose but more likely it means destroy (as in Herod wanted to destroy the child). Something more active is called for here than simply misplacing our life.  (2024 addition:  Perhaps the fact that the word means both lose and destroy is fitting.  Few people seek to destroy their lives, but we can through our choices end up pretty lost pretty quickly).

2024 add on:  I find it interesting that both the words shame and honor show up in this passage

• ἐπαισχύνομαι - "upon-shame" meaning "ashamed", vs 38
• ἐπιτιμάω - "upon-honor" meaning "assessed", ultimately rebuked, vs 30, 32 and 33

I acknowledge that I was trained to see things within a sin-guilt-forgiveness framework, but I am coming more and more to understand how much of the world sees things within a shame-honor framework.  Peter believes that Jesus will bring shame to himself (and Peter!) by following his path.  Jesus shames Peter for thinking incorrectly.  

How much shame do we endure for things that actually don't matter?  How much more shame should we feel for the things that actually matter!  What does it mean to have honor restored by Jesus, in the case of Peter, but also our lives?

Grammar: Accusative cases in the infinitive
8:27 and 8:31 contain infinitive clauses.  Notice how the subject is in the accusative?  This is especially complex in 8:27

Mark 8:27-38 (Study of tenses)

Over time I've worked on three posts related to this passage.
- First, a smattering of Greek tid-bits that will one day become a more coherent post
- Second, an investigation into the brilliance of Mark's Greek tenses
- Third, a Tour de Force (haha!) on Mark's Greek to highlight the nature our confession

This is the second.
 
Summary:  Mark offers us a Greek 101 clinic in the power of verb conjugation.  He changes tense, voice and mood to portray key concepts.  Alas, because he writes in Greek (as opposed to English) he needs no helper verbs or adverbs, but rather can show mood/tense/voice through endings, which to us are very complicated.  Too often we throw in the towel when it comes to parsing verbs, but come along for the ride in these passages and discover Mark's point, adroitly conjugated:  We must always confess Christ; suffering will happen, no matter: Jesus is Lord.

Key concepts relating to verbs:
Tense: 
The tense of the verb in Greek not only indicates when the action occurred (past, present and future) but also the nature of the action (on-going or discrete event).  English also offers this distinction:  "I was running" implies something slightly different than "I ran."  In English, we normally need a helper verb/adverb to convey both the timing and nature of the event; Greek simply adds letters before or after the verb, much the dismay of the student. 

The present tense in Greek suggests an on-going nature of the action.  The aorist tense suggests a one-time event.  Grammar books sweat over these distinctions because in everyday usage, it is sloppier than this.  That caveat aside, a good example of this distinction is found in verse 34:  If anyone wants to follow me, they must deny (aorist) themselves, take up (aorist) their cross and follow (present) me.  The idea being that following Jesus is an on-going event, whereas taking up the cross was a discrete event. 

Theological disclaimer:  These verbs might make us move into decision theology; I don't think the point is that we only get one cross to bear in our lives or that we only have to make one choice to follow Christ.  The point here, which needs interpretation, is that Jesus points toward an event of denial, an event of taking up a cross and then an on-going activity of following him.

The imperfect tense connotes on-going action in the past.  In verse 27 and 29 Jesus asks his disciples "Who do you say that I am?"  The verb ask is in the imperfect tense, suggesting that Jesus asked this question multiple times, almost like he was walking around and in their faces.  They respond (aorist):  "Elijah...etc"  However, when Peter confesses "You are the Christ" the tense is present, suggesting that Peter said this more than once and that this confession will be on-going.

To drive this all home:  We are always asked and must always confess Jesus as Lord.

Voice: 
English has two voices, passive and active.  Passive means you got it done to you; active means you do it.  Greek has a third, middle, but this is rarely used and more just makes everything complicated because it was used by Homer.  By the time of Jesus, generally the middle voice is less common. 

Anyway, in vs. 31 Jesus discusses his suffering, arrest and death and the entire thing is in the passive voice, meaning he is not the agent, but the one having the action done to him. 

This helps shed light on picking up our cross.  Jesus does not find his cross, but rather it comes to him.  In life, to quote, however vaguely, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we don't need to find our cross, we simply follow Jesus and it comes to us.

The verb rise (αναστημι) is active, suggesting that Jesus has the power, even over death, to raise himself!  The cross will come, but resurrection is on the wings...

Mood: 
English and Greek have a bunch of moods for verbs.  They can be infinitives, indicatives, imperatives, participles...and subjunctives.  Subjunctive in Greek means different stuff than in English, but the basic idea of subjunctive would be "hypothetical."  In vs. 35 and 38 Jesus uses the words ος εαν to mean whoever and in vs. 35 uses ει to mean "if." 

While I want to reassert my caution about simply saying subjunctive = hypothetical, Jesus makes it clear that following him is not necessarily automatic.  There is something unsure and uncertain about our willingness to follow.  Jesus does not say we have no hope of following him; nor does he say all will follow him.  Obviously choice and faith are a tricky matter.  We can debate how to put these together; we cannot debate that Jesus uses the subjunctive and in this case, this means following Jesus is an uncertain reality.  (And yes, I did phrase that ambiguously).

Mark 7:24-37

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B, most recently September 8, 2024
 
Summary: Okay, this passage is really hard.  Mark goes out of his way to show how much "other" this woman is.  What do we make of this?  That Jesus is less compassionate or (gasp) more bigoted than we are today?   I don't think we want to go there; although many do enjoy speculating in this direction!  Luke dropped this story, unable to stomach it; I think many of us want to drop it as well.  But Mark included it, so here we have it.  A few possibilities for preaching

• Jesus entered a world with real cultural divisions, not the new creation.
• We have to be persistent in prayer.
• Sometimes when working with people of another tribe/race/nationality, it can feel like even God is opposed to us; this is not the case.
• If you can find a common language, you can solve all sorts of problems.
• Jesus did ultimately consider gentiles in his family, but this was not the natural state of affairs.

Again, the Greek offers no easy way out of this passage.

Key words:

Τορου (Tyre, 7:24) First reminder that we are away from Jewish territory. To give an example of how "bad" it was for Jesus to be there, recall the words of  Matthew 11:22 "But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you."  We almost wonder if Jesus wanted it kept secret that he was there because a good Jewish Rabbi should not have been going in that direction!

What is interesting is that in spite of all the cultural differences, they still speak a common language...

ερχομαι (απερχομαι and also εισερχομαι, numerous forms "ερχομαι" which means to go, 7:24)  There is a lot of movement in this text -- variants of ερχομαι are used throughout the text. The first movement is out into Tyre (απερχομαι ); then in to the home (εισερχομαι); the demon goes out; the woman leaves the house; the demon again has gone out; Jesus leaves the town.

Note on Greek:  ερχομαι is a very common verb, but it often appears in its aorist form: ηλθεν, or as a participle or with attached prefixes (απο (away) εισ (into)).  Learning to recognize the myriad forms of this verb can definitely speed up one's Greek reading.

ελληνις ("Hellenic" (note the rough breathing mark over the "e"; meaning "Hellenic" or "Greek"), 7:26). For what is worth, the word Gentile should not be used here, but Greek should. (εθνη is not the word used; ελληνις is).  It is odd that such an amount of information is given about the woman.  Mark wants to drive some that this person is the embodiment of "other."

ηρατω (imperfect form of ερωταω, "beg/ask" 7:26)  What is significant here is that this verb is in the imperfect -- she was continuing to beg.  Jesus did not respond to her first request, it seems.  Keep praying folks...

χορτασθηναι (from χορταζω, meaning "feed", 7:27) The word here for feed is χορταζω.  This word will be used in chapter 8 to describe Jesus feeding all of the gentiles...So here Jesus says he ain't gonna feed the people...but shortly after this, this is exactly what he is doing.  Which means, that when Jesus feeds the gentiles in chapter 8, Jesus is considering them children!

εβαλεν (aorist form of βαλλω, meaning "throw", 7:33)  The word translated as "put" as in "put" his fingers is βαλλω which means throw or cast.  This is normally used as a verb to describe Jesus "casting" out the demon.  In this image he casts his fingers into the man.  Kind of gross!

εστεναξεν (from στεναζω, meaning "groan", 7:34)  It is hard to say whether Jesus "sighs" here in frustration or effort.  This word will appear in some other powerful verses in the New Testament:

• Romans 8:23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
• 2 Corinthians 5:4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

Cross-cultural ministry -- working with people who are different -- can be hard work!!  A happy ending?  The woman is recorded as going back to see if the child was okay.  Someone actually followed up with this woman to learn if the healing occurred.  Somehow she became part of the family through this experience. 

Mark 7:1-8; 14-15; 21-23

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B, most recently September 1, 2024
 
Thought/summary for 2024:  It is easy for us to agree with Jesus here in critique of ancient Jewish food practices and customs.  But we cast the first stone too quicky.  We obsess over the food we eat; our choices about what, when and where to eat have become a marker of identity, character and even politics!  We live in a world in which we signal our environmental virtue and intestinal sophistication by ordering almond milk in a latte whose container we proceed to throw away ten minutes.  What does it mean for Jesus to say to a culture obsessed with both signaling and determining virtue based on that food - that food is not the center of our life together?  Especially coming after the weeks of Jesus being the "bread of life"?

Previous summary, 2015, far closer to my time in Seminary: 

This is a grand set of verses for Lutherans.  It shows a bunch of unclean people eating bread and learning from Jesus; it rebukes the piously proud; and intensifies the law so greatly that we all must confess our sins.  As easy and good sermon is clear.  I wonder if the challenge is helping people understand how to distinguish between the commandments of God (which Jesus does not abrogate) and the dictates of men.  To put it another way, I think we will all preach a good sermon on law, Christ and forgiveness.  But what about that thorny issue -- in the religious soup we call consumer Christian America, what is from God and what is from humanity?  And how can we tell?

Key Words:
κοινος  ("common" or "defiled", 7:2, 5 and 15 and 20 as a verb)  This word can have a range of meanings.  "Koine" Greek, for example, refers to the Greek everyone held in common.  "Koinonia" means Christian fellowship of the highest degree.  κοινος in this case means common, as in unsanctified -- common to the point of being unclean and unfit for duty. 

It is worth pointing out that Jesus does not abolish the idea of common/holy.  He disorients the previous understandings and then reorients it by including a (laundry) list of sins.

συναγονται ("gather", from συναγω, 7:1)  I love this verb!  It will come into English as "synagogue"  The image here from Mark them is a bunch of people, unclean sinners, gathering around Jesus to hear his teaching and eat bread.  There is a congregation here of sinners.  The pious are rebuked, but all recognize their guilt.

βαπτιζω ("baptize"/"wash", as noun and verb in verse 4).  The word baptize has a host of meanings in ancient Greek related to washing.  In this case, it means a ceremonial washing to cleanse something for a holy purpose.  What is worth remember here is that the baptism does not simply confer a status but prepares for use.  In the same way, our baptisms do not simply confer a status but prepare us for use.

κρατουντες ("hold", from κρατω, 7:3, 4 and 8)  This word will come into English in words like "democracy"; it means "hold" but even "seize" or "rule."  We certainly have met people who cling to the law.

παραδοσις ("handed over", 7:3,5,8,9, 13)  This word also literally means give over!  It can have a generally positive sense of tradition (that which has been handed over); it can also mean betray (again, something handed over).  The idea is that tradition is passed over from generation to the next.  And lest you think the Bible doesn't like tradition, our whole Communion ritual, Paul declares, is tradition handed over to him.  Also haunting about Holy Communion, is that it remember the night in which Jesus was "traditioned", that is "handed-over."

υποκριτης ("hypocrite", 7:6)  The root of this word is theatre, that one answers from stage.  Jesus doesn't want us to be actors of the word, but doers.

Translation:  meaning of Greek uncertain
The phrase:  εαν μη πυγμη νιψωνται
means little to the Greek translator.  It literally means "except by washing with the boxing fist."  We have no idea what ritual is described here, other than some form of washing.  Even with big complex lexicons, sometimes you just don't know what the author of 2,000 years ago meant!  Fortunately in this case, the meaning of the passage is not altered.

Where will our next pastor come from?

Beloved Pastor X retires.  Pastor X did her best to ensure a good foundation in her last years.  When she walked out the door after her last Sunday, the church's finances and building were in good shape.  No debt!!  Admittedly, attendance was down compared to pre-COVID, but it was starting to come back.  There seemed a good nucleus of young families and there was a hope that with the new developments on the edge of town, growth could occur.  Pastor X had given the denominational representative a year's notice and the leadership in the church a full four months to prepare.

Yet, the congregation is now on their third (part-time!) interim.  The one pastoral candidate whose name they were given clearly wasn't a good fit...

Sound familiar?  I've seen it again and again with vacancies in my area -- and not just in my denomination.

It isn't just your church that has trouble finding a pastor

For the last two generations (or more), mainline churches that were healthy could have confidence that after their pastor left, their denomination would provide them with candidates for ministry who were:

• Trained theologically, typically with a Master of Divinity degree
• Experienced with basics of leading worship and preaching
• Vetted for emotional and psychological health by the denomination

I acknowledge that rural, especially remote, urban and poor areas have often struggled to attract and maintain clergy.  But if the congregation (and zip code) were healthy, typically congregations would be able to find not just any clergy person, but one who fit their demographic and even political preferences.  

This is no longer the case.

There is simply not enough clergy to fill open calls

Simply put, most congregations have far more open calls than clergy.  This is true in mainline congregations; it is becoming true even in more conservative and evangelical denominations.  It is true in rural, urban and suburban contexts.  

The ELCA - my denomination - has been and will continue to retire 500-600 clergy a year for most of this decade.  We will graduate 75-100ish pastors per year.  In short, we will see a reduction in the number of pastors by 50% within 6-7 years.   Even if we close a quarter of our churches over that time, we still would see a massive number of churches without a pastor.

Politics amplifies the shortage

Denominations are often theologically mixed.  The allegiance to historical confessions has waned over time.  This means that congregations cannot be confident that a given pastor will hold the same views on the sacraments, liturgy, the particular traditions, etc., as they do or the last pastor held.  This has always been somewhat the case.  People were able to exist within big "tent" denominations; typically left of center clergy successfully ministered to typically right of center congregations.  The liturgies, social ministries and pastoral care kept people united.

What changed?  First, the denominational leadership within mainline churches has increasingly become aligned along a progressive social orientation.  Furthermore, congregations and clergy are less likely to "restrain" their political beliefs.  This means that while most congregations remain a political mixture of folks, clergy - especially new clergy - are often (stridently) progressive in an environment in which moral pressure is exerted on people to imbue their theology with politics.  This increases conflicts and burnout.  It also reduces the number of potential matches for clergy and congregations.  

Other demographic realities matter too

While politics is king in the US...lots of other factors influence the capacity of clergy to take calls.  Housing right now is expensive in most communities, demanding that most people have two incomes, especially if they are to afford child-care.  This brings up the reality of not simply having a good call, but availability of work for a spouse...who has his or her own career trajectory.

In addition, a number of women and definitely LGBTQ+ candidates feel (know!) that congregations will not accept them, even if the denomination has authorized them. 

In short, even if a denomination produced as many clergy candidates as it did 30 years ago, this would likely still produce challenges for congregations to find a match.

How are denominations responding to this?

Since we expect (mainline) denominations to supply pastors for churches, we can start here.  Why aren't denominations doing more to address this problem?  The simple (and not cynical) answer is that denominations simply lack the ability to address the issue.  

First, a pastor typically takes decades to make.  The erosion of children, youth and young adult ministries limits a quick turn around.

Second, most denominational offices spend most of their time on three things, none of which really help produce new clergy

• Dying congregations
• Misbehaving clergy
• Social issues

Third, most denominations are a cobbled together network of congregations, seminaries, social ministries and camps.  Even if a denominational leader wanted to move in X direction, getting all the pieces on board to move in sync is nearly impossible.  Can you imagine, for example, how many separate endowments exist in the Episcopal church?  My denomination, the ELCA, is such a crazy mix of interconnected pieces, they actually refer to it as an "eco-system."

In short, even when denominations want to change it, the leaders face systems that are dying, grieving and complex, confronted by too many short-term problems to address long-term opportunities.  Sometimes mid-level bodies (a diocese or synod) are more able to develop certain programs that attract, train and sustain clergy.  But generally, this has not been the focus of most mainline bodies.

How are congregations responding to this?

Churches are increasingly confronted then with an uncomfortable reality -- they simply cannot find a "major league pastor", i.e., someone in their denomination who is educated, certified and ordained...even when they can afford such a candidate!  (And again, this ignores the political reality that congregations face in terms of matching a candidate with their congregation's political temperament). 

When this happens...

• Congregations become open and hire pastors/deacons/elders/ministers of different theological traditions.
• If they are larger churches, they likely start hiring pastors from other congregations who are successful but feel stymied by the smaller church environment. 
• People begin to weaken their demand for theological education.  They accept

• Seminarians, who are given way more permission than previous generations to lead congregations during their education.
• People who will not go to Seminary, but are open to some modicum of training and will get special permission from the denomination to serve.  (In my denomination, this was invented for rural and ethnic minority congregations, but now has become approved for churches that can pay, but cannot find a clergy person).
• Fourth, they look within.  Every church has them -- people who have talent, but who have neither gone nor could go go to Seminary; or perhaps someone who is willing to go for some training, but would not be able to finish an masters degree.  The former or existing pastors in that congregation authorize or even ordain this person for ministry at that congregation.
• Fifth, they are invited into coops or multi-point parishes.  Why this could work but often doesn't is a whole other post!

All of these have happened for decades, if not centuries.  The difference is that they are becoming common, rather than a small minority.

How can I lead my congregation into this reality?

• Define core values around pastoral leadership

You might have to let go of your previous expectations that a pastor must have an MDiv, have board certification and ordination from a denomination.  Something is going to give.   For Lutherans, this is forcing a very hard conversation about our core theology, specifically certain articles of the Augsburg Confession.

Ask yourself - what do we want in a pastor?  Is a pastor the most important thing?  What is of fundamental importance for us to have moving forward?  Our building?  Our community?  A full-time pastor?  An X denomination accredited person?

• De-pastorify as much as you can

Ask yourselves now -- what have we asked clergy to do that others can do?  If you only get 1/4 time clergy or have to share clergy, what can they alone do that others cannot?

• Train-up pastors, deacons and elders

Ask yourselves -- whom can we ask to take some seminary classes to prepare for a semi-pastor or bi-vocational role?  Who might God have given gifts for congregational leadership?  For preaching?  For leading worship?

How are you called to pass on the fundamentals of the faith and the skills to lead? 

• Find partner churches 

Increasingly, churches will need to return to previous models of ministry in which there was one pastor for many churches.  But for various reasons, returning to this model is very difficult for churches.  Re-consider!

• Find partner churches, not for clergy, but clergy education

Lastly, there is a good chance that your next pastor will come from within your ranks.  However, this can create problems in terms of having clergy with too narrow of experience and not enough separation from their flock.  A better solution might be finding partner churches with whom you can raise up leaders so that people can "cross-train."  This is essentially what the whole denomination did, but given the present state within denominations, this becomes increasingly hard.

This article breaks my heart to write (and to read!)

I have a lot of grief writing this.  I loved my seminary education and graduating with a ton of young clergy.  It felt like a Hogwarts experience!  I loved growing up in a robust denomination that had lots of folks, ministries and programs.  I lament that it is dying. 

I am writing this because I had so many conversations about this over the past six months and wanted to organize my thoughts.  I also want to point people toward the painful reality that resuscitation is unlikely.  Scaling down an organization to a previous size is infinitely harder than scaling up, which is in itself, a big challenge.  If people are passionate about helping their congregation move forward, they will need to embrace a very different reality when it comes to clergy than the previous two to three generations lived with.

What about resurrection?

I do believe in resurrection.  I am not worried about the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.   I see all sorts of evidence of Reformation (and Lutheran) truths continuing to change people's lives.  I see all sorts of ministries flourishing and bearing witness to Jesus.  I also see many congregations finding ways to die with generosity and faith.  I also know that God continues to create the congregations from the margins and the seemingly most unfertile soil.

God is always doing a new thing.  That said, I have avoided too much theological language here.  Because simply, I do not know fully what God is doing with the mainline churches.  Are the changes at work making these congregations less clerical in a good way...or speeding up the demise of low-church protestant churches?  Are these changes wiping out more progressive congregations or freeing up certain denominations to embrace fully a progressive agenda?  My gut is that rather than know what God is doing, we would simply be declaring our own preferences.  But yes, this is always fascinating to consider -- what is God putting to death and what is God bringing to life?  And what in me must die to move ahead in this new reality as I think about how to serve as a pastor, relate to other pastors and train up future leaders?