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.

Romans 3:19-28

This passage occurs the week of Reformation Sunday, the last Sunday in October.

Summary:  SOOO many books have been written about these words of Paul.  I humbly offer that a previous or a future generation reading what I write here may shake their head at my misunderstanding!  Obviously all of the classic reformation themes are here:  justification, the cross, God's judgement and faith!

That said, I want to caution against using this passage as a proof text for Jesus as the sacrifice to appease an angry God.  Paul's language seems more invested in Jesus as the revelation of God's mercy rather than propitiator of God's wrath.

Key words:

ἱλαστήριον (meaning "mercy seat", 3:25)  This is a big one, so buckle up.  Most translations here translate this word as "sacrifice" or "means of propitiation."  There there is no evidence in Biblical Greek that this word actually means that.  In Biblical Greek, the word refers only to the Mercy Seat on the ark of the covenant, not that actual thing that was sacrificed.  

If so, this is explosive -- this means the cross is where God meets humanity, where God's mercy is accomplished, yes, but moreover revealed.  Jesus isn't the sacrifice, but the demonstration of God's presence. This allows the cross to become a statement of human sin rather than God's judgement.

So why are they translating it as "means of forgiveness" rather than "place of forgiveness"?  Basically, scholarship in the early 19th century got hung up on the fact that Paul did not use the definite article here for ἱλαστήριον as typical for the Old Testament.  Therefore, they argued, Paul cannot mean the place of redemption.  They also looked in other Greek sources and saw evidence that ἱλαστήριον referred to sacrificial offerings.  Also, at this time, the theology of substitutionary atonement was on the ascendant.  In short, theology got stuck around this word and this idea for about 200 years. 

However, by the late 20th century, some authors were seeking to chip away at this issue and offered that "place of forgiveness" - Jesus as the mercy seat - was a better linguistic translation.  They looked at biblical and Hellenistic sources to offer that Jesus as the mercy seat was a better translation.

I include here significant portion of abstract of a dissertation by Peter Bailey:  

Paul's predication of the term ἱλαστήριον of Jesus combined with his mention of Jesus' own blood leads modern interpreters to speculate that ἱλαστήριον was a term that could denote a sacrificial victim-hence: "whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood" (Rom 3:25, NRSV). But this is unsupported by the Greek sources...  Paul's use of ἱλαστήριον is rooted not in the Greek but in the biblical world. Here ἱλαστήριον refers most famously to the "mercy seat," the golden plate with the cherubim above Israel's ark of the covenant. Philo saw the mercy seat as "a symbol of the gracious power of God" (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Paul applies this symbolism to Jesus because it makes him the centre not only of atonement for sin (Leviticus 16) but of the revelation of God (Exod 25:22; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89). The terms δικαιόω and ἀπολυτρώσεως in Rom 3:24 pick up the language of the exodus (esp. Exod 15: 13) and enable Paul to present Jesus as the centre of the ideal sanctuary (cf. Exod 15: 17).  

Bailey, D. Peter. (1999). Jesus as the Mercy Seat : the semantics and theology of Paul’s use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25. [Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository]. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17213

In 2023, I did a podcast on this topic and arrived at a similar conclusion.  I wish I had read Mr. Bailey's research first!  He has much better evidence than I did!

If the cross is the mercy seat, than do we fall trap into an understanding of atonement in which Jesus just become a model?  I would say no, because Paul in Romans 6 makes it clear that we must die as well.

Less than key Words

κόσμος (meaning "world", 3:6 and 19) The word "kosmos" (world here) links back to 3.6, where Paul lays out the rhetorical question, is God unrighteous to judge the whole world.

πεφανέρωται (perfect of φανερόω, meaning "appear", 3:21)  Jesus has appeared (past event) but there is still a present implication (here that we are justified through faith). Also the word "testify" (martyre-oo) is in the present suggesting that the "law and prophets" still speak (L and P is used throughout the NT to describe all of the OT (Luke 24:44 is the only place that mentions the Psalms)).