LENT 2011: SELECTED PARABLES OF JESUS
March 13 - The Sower and the Seed
Matthew 13:3-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:5-15
March 20 - The Dishonest Manager
Luke 16:1-8
March 27 - The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19-31
April 3 - The Prodigal Son
Luke 15:11-32
April 10 - The Waiting Servants (Preparing for the Second Coming)
Luke 12:35-40 (41-48); Matthew 24:45-51
April 17 - TBA
********************************************************************
WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK!
Whether you attend the Bible Study, or simply read through
Pastor Alley's notes, we welcome your comments and/or questions.
Feel free to chat with Jim directly, or send him an email!
********************************************************************
NOTES FROM MARCH 13th SESSION
The Sower and the Seed
PARABLE IN GENERAL: Life stories which make or illustrate one point.
Most commonly associated with the Synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Mark has the fewest parables, perhaps because it is generally considered to be the first written gospel. Like most of the earliest Christian writings, including many of Paul's letters, the material is more concerned about who Jesus was and the facts of his death and resurrection, than about details of his deeds and teachings.
Matthew adds parables of judgment and is more apt to give them Scriptural context Luke adds parables of God's mercy.
Parables are constructed from aspects of the everyday lives of people of first century Palestine, in the conviction that true theology is not disembodied from the real world but grounded in it. Jesus was a product of his environment and upbringing; he knew and loved people. These stories were spoken to sophisticates and simple people alike - and, judging from the Biblical record, the people responded.
THE WORD:
Hebrew: Maschal - proverb, saying, comparison, wisdom sentences; Greek: parabole - parable, proverb, figure, symbol
FORM:
Simile - the K of Heaven is LIKE ...Metaphor - I AM the vine, you ARE the branches (parable equivalent in JOHN) Sometimes though not always allegorical - like the Sower;
OLD TESTAMENT PRECEDENTS: Nathan the Prophet II Sam 12:1-14; Isaiah 51:1-7; Judges 9:7-10; I Kings 20:35-42 - Psalm 78:2
THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER (Mat 13:3-23; also Mark 4:3-20, Luke 8:5-15) is unique in that the parable presentation is followed both by a general comment by Jesus on his use of parables in general, and by an interpretation of the parable.
Though centuries of familiarity with it among Christians might lead us to assume too quickly that we know its meaning, the points made by the story of the sower were not necessarily obvious to the first listeners. Who IS the sower? Is the seed Jesus - Jesus the Word - or the word itself? Or maybe all?
The sower is not just Jesus - but Jesus the Word is the seed, the sower the Father. The seed of the story has an inexorable power to it. Seeds are small and seem to disappear, but their power is independent of their environ. All the sower - and the rest of us - can do is welcome its power, and if we do, things happen. In ancient times, seed was broadcast before, not after, soil was ploughed or harrowed. But wherever the seed of the story falls, it leads to some sort of outcome, for better or for worse. It bears result wherever it is sown. And God sees that the Word arrives to every spiritual condition, receptive or not. Some commentators point out that the soil conditions - or spiritual conditions - represent the states not only of different people, but differing states of mind in the same person over time. Nevertheless, the Word has its power no matter WHERE it falls, or what its results appear to be at first.
JESUS ON THE USE OF PARABLES
To the disciples' questions about the Sower story, Jesus replies that they are given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of God, but to others he speaks in parables so that looking they do not perceive and listening they do not understand. It sounds at first as if Jesus were using his stories to crowd some people out and not give them a fair chance to learn from them. However, this response attributed to Jesus is based on Isaiah 6:9-10, which Matthew actually quotes: a description of the actual reception Isaiah the prophet had received after a lifetime of preaching and prophecy. It is not a question of intentionally confusing and misleading people by way of obscure parables, but an observation of the way too many people have reacted, throughout history up till now, to the message of God. Would people have reacted any differently to the message had it been given as a sermonizing lecture rather than the powerful, thought-provoking, true-to-life illustration of parables? I think not. Their passage into the gospels and through history in popular imagination are witness to their power. The most important issues of our universe - such as our relation to God, salvation, sin, human responsibility - may be simply and powerfully expressed, but can never be easy.
********************************************************************
NOTES FROM MARCH 20th SESSION
The Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1-13)
Most readers, including those who were present at the March 20 study, are concerned that in this story Jesus seems to be condoning corruption. In the reading itself, the praise of the lord for the manager in verses 8-9 does not seem to square with the lessons Jesus seems to teach in 10-13.
However, Luke's parables in general are of mercy and not reassuring to the moral purist (except maybe Luke 12): the placement of this parable among many in which the extent of God's mercy for some people of questionable merit (such as the Prodigal Son) may not be by chance. What EXACTLY did the manager do? It says only that he was ACCUSED.
It is worth noting that "was accused" is in the Greek original: dieblethen - same root as diabolos: Devil, "Accuser." The devil accuses, all of us humans of breaking God's law - and unfortunately he has a case!
Whoever he or it was, this accuser charges that the manager WASTED his master's property - the same word used to describe what the prodigal son did with the inheritance from his father.
There is no question that the actions of the steward are not commendable. The steward, though only ACCUSED, makes no attempt to defend himself, excuse his conduct, or blame others for his situation. Instead, realizing that he will lose his situation, he uses what he still has as much as he can to prepare for the inevitable.
When he began to "cook the books," perhaps by the standards of the people involved, the managers' actions could be an attempt at penance, or restoration of wrongfully acquired goods. Was the steward correcting previous overcharging on the part of himself or of his master? Was he going to make up the difference from what he had already accumulated (which fits verse 9)? What about the attitude of the creditors?
Are any of the characters in this tale any better morally than the manager? Maybe few are. Certainly, like the manager, none of them, and none of us, have anything which will not be taken from us and accounted for in the end. At least the manager was thoroughly aware of this, very late in the game perhaps, but not too late. As a matter of fact, nothing WE have will last forever: money, circumstance, family, fame, health, achievements, our own bodies. How will WE manage them?
As unsettling as this parable can be for the high-minded, maybe we should not be too high minded to accept the mercy of God or the failings of others. Neither should we underestimate God's perception of what or who can be redeemed, or the reach of God's mercy toward all of us - if we do not take that grace and mercy for granted.
********************************************************************
NOTES FROM MARCH 27th SESSION
The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
The story gives the listener a picture of Life after death, which may or may not have to do with the ultimate heaven and hell of Christian doctrine. Some commentators think it reflected popular Palestinian beliefs of Jesus' time What role does it play here in the story and the lesson Jesus wants to teach, if any? Perhaps once it has underlined the seriousness of the error of the way the rich man spent his time on earth, and the terrible and eternal consequences to which it could lead, it may have served its purpose.
What WAS the rich man's sin or failure? He does not seem to have been spectacularly cruel or hateful - just self-absorbed, to the extent that the possibility of any human relationship good or bad with the beggar at his feet, a man in obvious need, never crossed his mind. For him, physical death changes his situation less than he might imagine. The cavern between him and Lazarus with Abraham in the afterlife is a visual symbol of the chasm that existed between them in earthly life. Abraham, whom the rich man claims as "Father," a claim which Abraham does not repudiate, tries to show this to him - but the rich man can think of no other response than to turn Lazarus into an errand boy through Abraham. Even in torment he does not deign to address Lazarus human to human. Evidently the rich man has learned nothing from his terrible post-mortem experience. For people like the rich man and his brothers, for whom Moses and the prophets did not suffice as guides away from the trap of self-centered materialism and complacency, miracles - even a Resurrection - will not shake them into repentance.
This is not an easy parable to hear. Jesus' warning to the "haves" of his time, and of ours, to open our eyes not only to the needs but to the mere human existence of our neighbors, is severe indeed.
********************************************************************
NOTES FROM APRIL 3rd SESSION
The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)
The late Henri Nouwen, in the book inspired by the Rembrandt painting of the Prodigal, pondered his own sense of relation to not only the younger son, but the older one and the father - for indeed, the so-called Prodigal Son parable is not simply about the wanderer. Perhaps in studying this story we should try to imagine ourselves in one or the other of all three roles.
The Prodigal does indeed seem to get off awfully easily. What he has done to his Father and the family fortune is beyond shocking by Middle Eastern standards of the time. Even so, his return seems to have been motivated less by a sense of real shame and repentance than by the desperation brought on by his famished physical state. He knew what awaited him at the hands of the typical Middle Eastern patriarch and the society of which he was a part, but his hunger drove him to risk it anyway. So on route back, he rehearsed a little speech of contrition which might temper the fury of what he assumed he had coming.
The Father is no typical patriarch, however. Has he no sense of pride or shame before the eyes of his society? Evidently not, when it comes to his family. He does not wait for the prodigal to crawl back and perform penitence - but runs a long way down the road (who is watching? does he even care?) to meet him, welcome him, and accept him back into SHALOM: the peace and restored soundness of relationship of the homestead. The Prodigal must have been startled by this unexpected reaction; even he could realize that it was not alt all what he deserved. But somehow he can accept the welcome back. As the Father declares at the end of the parable, he has FOUND his lost son - just as the shepherd found the lost sheep, and the woman the lost coin, in the two stories which immediately precede this parable.
But there is the Elder son - the one who has never left the house, who has followed all the rules. He is furious at the reception of the younger son back into the household. He indignantly rejects his father's welcome to the feast for the returned son - a public defiance of his Father's wishes which in itself would have merited stern punishment from any other contemporary parent. But he too is his Father's son; the Father seeks him, too. If the Prodigal was blinded and lost through foolish worldly pleasures and self-seeking, the Elder Son is blinded and lost in resentment and anger at his brother, whom he will not even refer to as a brother. Were the Elder to accept his father's invitation, he would also be accepting the restoration of the younger son. Will it be too much of a price to pay for the Elder to be "found"?
The story does not give us an ending. That we will have to supply ourselves. Jesus came for lost sinners. Some knew they were lost and welcomed him gratefully. Some thought they were not, and would not receive him, especially if it meant relenting toward others they felt were less worthy than themselves. And yet all of us without exception fall short. None of us deserve God's welcome back to us. Who are WE in the story? Can we cease our self-seeking and greed to torn toward God? Can we get past the resentments, grudges, and self-righteousness which harden our hearts towards our brothers and sisters? Can we even begin to love others with the love modeled by the Father?
Question for thought: Is there a MOTHER in the story? What would she have said? Or is this "Father" perhaps at least as much like a mother - even a mother hen (Luke 13:34) - as the stern Near Eastern patriarch of Jesus' time?
Reference: feature article of Christianity Today, October 2008; Nouwen volume referred to above
********************************************************************
NOTES FROM APRIL 10th SESSION
The Waiting Servants (Preparing for the Second Coming)(Luke 16:19-31)
These admonitions to the followers of Jesus to "be ready" for the future, as collected in the passage from Luke, are found in Matthew and Mark as well - but with different emphases and in different contexts. Once again we have teaching or sayings or stories from Jesus collected and used differently by the gospel writers. Two parabolic elements are found in the Matthew and Luke selections: the servants awaiting the return of the master, and the example of the thief in the night, which may have been based on a current event. They may originally have been told on different occasions by Jesus, but drawn together by Luke and Matthew (though not Mark, in which the thief story is absent) to give the general lesson that the time of crisis and judgment cannot be predicted.
For whom is this message intended? The bystanders of Jesus, or the leadership of the church at the time the gospels were written? Luke alone of the gospels includes a question attributed to Peter: "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for everyone?" Note that the "parable" immediately preceding the question consists of not one but two elements, the servant comment and the thief example. Jesus does not answer with a simple "yes" or "no" but further parabolic expansion on the need for the listener to be ready at any time for an accounting by the master. All the Synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - include a section of teaching toward their ends referred to by some Bible editors the Little Apocalypse: the discourse given by Jesus on the end times preceding the return of Christ, given at the request of the disciples when, on their marveling at the splendor of the temple complex, Jesus predicts its utter destruction. Interestingly, Luke alone does not place this material in the Little Apocalypse warnings of the end times, but in the context of general teaching in the temple.
So - Jesus of Nazareth, as he walked the earth, may have presented this material as a warning to the Jews in our out of leadership not to be too comfortable with things as they are: the Kingdom is at hand, and at hand now - and that we must be ready for the moment of judgment. By the time of the writing of the gospels, it could also be seen as giving a similar warning to the leadership of the early church: "Peter" was often understood as a representation of church leadership, having been the leader among the disciples, and then later in Rome. At the time the gospels were written, many were wondering at the apparent delay of the Second Coming - the Parousia, as the Greek world termed it. The message: Jesus' return may be delayed, but it is sure. There is no reason for complacency!
We ask ourselves in today's Bible study: what about us who thousands of years later read the New Testament? Does the warning apply today just to church leaders, or to everyone active in church leadership, or those who study God's Word? Or to the world at large? I would suspect, certainly to anyone to whom it would occur to ask this question. and probably to everybody as God's creation. The lesson of accountability stands then and now. We are accountable to serve God and minister to others with whatever opportunities and resources we have been given by the Master. Whether through disaster, accident, general mortality, or the actual Parousia, our time on earth will some day end with no more warning than these words of Jesus in the gospels. We could at any time find ourselves faced with an accounting for what we have done before God. We must do the best - today - with whatever we have been given.
********************************************************************
APRIL 17th - REFLECTIONS ON LUKE 7:36-50
(coming out of our discussion in our Last Lenten Bible study from a video shown)
This account of the anointing of Jesus at a dinner party by an intruding woman is given in all four gospels (Mat 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8). It is unusual for an incident recorded in all the canonical gospels, in that rather than the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) being in general agreement in their presentation and interpretation of the incident, and the Gospel of John differing, it is Luke who differs in his presentation and in other significant details from the other gospels.
Matthew, Mark, and John all place the story at the end of Jesus' ministry and describe the action of the woman as a foreshadowing of Jesus' death through the woman's anointment of the body. In their accounts, nothing is said about the status of the woman, except that John names the woman as the sister of the resuscitated Lazarus. The onlookers specifically criticize only the extravagance of the woman's action (John attributes the chief criticism to Judas).
In Luke the identity of the woman is not given; she is described only that she is a notorious sinner, and thus not welcome at the dinner not only because she is a woman but because she has a bad reputation as a sinner. No longer in the context of the impending death of Jesus, the incident in Luke becomes a lesson on the forgiveness of our sins by God. Jesus, in response to the judgmental attitudes shown by the host and the other guests at the party, does not indeed condone the sins of the woman but commends the response of the sinful woman to the forgiving grace of God offered through Jesus himself. His parable about the two debtors makes the point that those who know they have had much to be forgiven can respond to the forgiver more generously than those who do not have that awareness of their own need for forgiveness.
The parable shows us how to understand Jesus' statement in verse 47: the woman's forgiveness PRECEDES rather than follows her loving action. Her sins, WHICH ARE MANY, have been forgiven to her; THEREFORE (not "because") she has shown great love (to me in her anointment of my body). We do not DESERVE our forgiveness - it is already there; But we can RESPOND to it!
CLICK
HERETO RETURN TO PASTOR'S PAGE
