The Communal Nature of the Lord’s Prayer

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Lectionary Cycle C. In yesterday’s post we looked at the immediate and broader context for the Lukan teaching about prayer – in this passage most widely noted as “the Lord’s Prayer.”

The context for the Lord’s Prayer in Luke and Matthew (6:5-15) are quite different. Matthew is writing for Jewish Christians that share a common heritage of prayer.  Thus Jesus simply begins: “But when you pray…” They seem to know how to pray and the importance of prayer, but they need further clarification about prayer – especially vis-à-vis the temple and synagogue exemplar and the pagans. In Luke, the audience, (including the disciples,) don’t know how to pray (at least as Jesus’ followers). The disciples (and Luke’s readers?) ask Jesus to teach them to pray – and this seems to be in distinction from John the Baptist’s disciples (v.1). This introduction also suggests that we are defined by our prayers.

Continue reading

When Pharaoh’s Heart Grew Hard

In the readings from last week and today’s first reading, we are reminded of how obstinate and hard of heart was Pharaoh. In these confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh, it is good to keep in mind that it is really a showdown between God and the mere human (Pharaoh) who would make himself to be a god.

Who is Pharaoh? Pharaoh is not one single king in Exodus. If you pay attention, you’ll see that this royal title refers to a sequence of Egyptian kings over many generations. It raises the interesting question of why the author doesn’t actually name the Pharaoh who opposed Moses (was he Thutmose II or III, or Ramses I or II?). This was almost certainly on purpose. The author doesn’t want us to focus on one single king. Rather, he wants us to see Pharaoh as an archetype of the pattern of human rebellion that began in the garden and culminated in Babylon. 

This king, or sequence of kings, is the epitome of human evil. He embodies the strange and tragic turn the human heart can take when one person or society places their own values and well-being above another person or society. Pharaoh is what happens when an entire nation redefines good and evil apart from God’s wisdom. You get an Egypt building its wealth and security on the backs of an abused, oppressed, and enslaved Israel. As the story develops, Pharaoh even places his own reputation and pride above the well-being of his own people. This is a horrific situation, and it’s the Bible’s diagnosis of the human condition in corporate terms. The Egyptian empire and its Pharaoh is the Babylon of Genesis on steroids. God has to respond.

Continue reading

Luke on Prayer

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Lectionary Cycle C. The gospel offers Luke’s version of the “Lord’s Prayer” as well as a parable about how the paternal nature of God to provide the good things that are needed

With the geographical note, “in a certain place” Luke has separated this narrative from the immediate context of Chapter 10 (the conclusion of the mission of the 72, the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the encounter with Martha and Mary). Luke now presents three episodes concerned with prayer:

  • the first (Luke 11:1–4) recounts Jesus teaching his disciples the Christian communal prayer, 
  • the “Our Father”; the second (Luke 11:5–8), the importance of persistence in prayer; and
  • the third (Luke 11:9–13), the effectiveness of prayer. 
Continue reading

A Reflection: Rules and Boundaries

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time  and the story of Martha and Mary. In yesterday’s post we considered the gospel text and offered some thoughts about it as regards “place” in our culture. Today we offer a final reflection on this passage.

Part of Culpepper’s (Luke, New Interpreter’s Bible, 232) final “Reflections:”

In its own way, the conjunction of the stories about the good Samaritan and the female disciple voices Jesus’ protest against the rules and boundaries set by the culture in which he lived. As they develop seeing and hearing as metaphors for the activity of the kingdom, the twin stories also expose the injustice of social barriers that categorize, restrict, and oppress various groups in any society (Samaritans, victims, women). To love God with all one’s heart and one’s neighbor as oneself meant then and now that one must often reject society’s rules in favor of the codes of the kingdom — a society without distinctions and boundaries between its members. The rules of that society are just two — to love God and one’s neighbor — but these rules are so radically different from those of the society in which we live that living by them invariably calls us to disregard all else, break the rules, and follow Jesus’ example.

To judge from the story of the Samaritan, Martha should have been praised for her practical service to Jesus. Her action, in fact, is neither praised nor condemned, but she is challenged to consider her priorities. The whole gospel is not contained in loving service to others, no matter how important that is. Christian discipleship is first and foremost personal adherence to Jesus. There must be time to listen to his “word;” devotion to Jesus is the one thing required. This relationship shows itself in loving service, but without prayer, care for others’ needs may not be love.


Image credit: Jesus at the home of Martha and Mary | Diego Velázquez, 1618 | National Gallery, London| PD-US

Out of Her Proper Place

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time  and the story of Martha and Mary. In yesterday’s post we considered the gospel text and offered some thoughts about it. Today we consider the proper role and place of discipleship and service.

There are some things that are culturally amiss here.  First of all, Mary is not in her “proper place” according to the culture. In the gender-based division of space in that culture, it is very likely Mary who is sitting with Jesus in an area reserved for men (whether dining area or “living room” area). Second, it is not clear who is the elder sister here. Since Jesus interacts with Mary here and in John 11, perhaps Martha might have been the younger sister. But since Martha extended the hospitality into “her” (?) home, she is the elder sister.

In the Mediterranean cultural perspective on human activity men are expected to be spontaneous, to react to the challenge, opportunity, or invitation of the moment (see Luke 7:31-35). Women are expected to work, achieve, to be involved in purposeful activity.  Mary is spontaneously engaging Jesus when she should be involved in purposeful activity.  This can be seen when men are healed in Luke’s gospel, they respond spontaneously and run out to spread the word. When Simon’s mother-in-law is healed, her first response is the measured activity of serving a meal.

Continue reading

The Encounters with Jesus

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time  and the story of Martha and Mary. In yesterday’s post we took a deep dive into the biblical meaning and implications of hospitality. Today we will move from the welcome of hospitality to the scene most remembered:

“She [Martha] had a sister named Mary (who) sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Mary was listening to Jesus’ word or message (logos in the singular) when “Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.” 

Culpepper simply states: “Martha presumes to tell Jesus what he should do; Mary lets Jesus tell her what she should do.” Is that a bad thing?  As we shall see next week (Luke 11:1-13), Jesus is clear about the importance of persistence in prayer, e.g., the friend at midnight (11:5-8), the widow before the judge (18:1-8). Telling God repeatedly what we want God to do is not necessarily bad! However, Martha’s words, like the Pharisee’s prayer in Luke 18:9-14, indicate flaws in their motivations.

Continue reading

Hospitality

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time  and the story of Martha and Mary. In yesterday’s post we provided some points of contact showing how this story and last week’s gospel (the lawyer who wanted to know what he must do to gain eternal life), together portray a fuller picture of what it means to be a disciple of Christ. Today’s post is a long one – delving into the biblical meaning of hospitality

Hospitality in the Greek is philoxenia. The practice of receiving a guest or stranger graciously was common to all cultures in the period of both the Old and New Testament. The word most often associated with hospitality in the LXX and the NT is xenos, which literally means foreigner, stranger, or even enemy. In its derived sense, however, the term comes to denote both guest and host alike. Typically, the verb used to describe the extending of hospitality is xenizein (Sir 29:25; 1 Macc 9:6; Acts 10:23; Heb 13:2). In the NT one who receives visitors is said to be philoxenos, i.e., a “lover of strangers,” or to be practicing the virtue of philoxenia (1 Tim 3:2; 1 Pet 4:9; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2). 

Continue reading

Hospitality vs. Distraction

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time  and the story of Martha and Mary. In yesterday’s post we provided some context and raised the question of this gospel and the one in which the lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to gain eternal life.

Looking at these stories together, it suggests that the contrast is not between doing and listening, but between being anxious and not. Green (The Gospel of Luke) notes in a footnote (p. 436) that the contrast is not really between Martha’s doing or service and Mary’s listening, but between “hearing the word” (namely, discipleship) and “anxious” behavior (namely, the antithesis of discipleship). 

Continue reading

A Contrast

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time in Lectionary Cycle C. This week we will encounter the well known story of Martha and Mary. Our pericope (story) has an immediate context:

  • Jesus sending out on mission the 72 other disciples to proclaim the Kingdom of God
  • A scholar of the Law who quizzes Jesus, who in response tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, asking who acted as neighbor?
  • Our passage herein, the oft told story of Martha and Mary
  • Immediately followed by Jesus teaching his disciples to be persistent in prayer

38 As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. 39 She had a sister named Mary (who) sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. 40 Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.” 41 The Lord said to her in reply, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. 42 There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.”

Continue reading

Why a Samaritan? 

This coming Sunday our gospel is the well known story called the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In yesterday’s post we see the “Good Samaritan” coming to the aid of the beaten man who was left for dead on the roadside. In this parable, why would Jesus choose a Samaritan to be the “hero” of the story? Brian Stoffregen has interesting insights into this answer: 

If Jesus were just trying to communicate that we should do acts of mercy to the needy, he could have talked about the first man and the second man who passed by and the third one who stopped and cared for the half-dead man in the ditch. Knowing that they were a priest, Levite, and Samaritan is not necessary.

If Jesus were also making a gibe against clerics, we would expect the third man to be a layman — an ordinary Jew — in contrast to the professional clergy. It is likely that Jewish hearers would have anticipated the hero to be an ordinary Jew.

If Jesus were illustrating the need to love our enemies, then the man in the ditch would have been a Samaritan who is cared for by a loving Israelite.

One answer to the question: “Why a Samaritan?” is that we Christians might be able to learn about showing mercy from people who don’t profess Christ. Stoffregen comments, “I know that I saw much more love expressed towards each by the clients at an inpatient alcoholic/drug rehab hospital than I usually find in churches. Can we learn about ‘acting Christianly’ from AA or the Hell’s Angels?”

Green (The Gospel of Luke, 431) comments:

“The parable of the compassionate Samaritan thus undermines the determination of status in the community of God’s people on the basis of ascription [Green had noted earlier that priests and Levites are born into those positions], substituting in its place a concern with performance, the granting of status on the basis of one’s actions.”

This approach highlights some of the Luke’s themes: Since the man in the ditch had been stripped of anything that might identify him by social class, or perhaps even nationality; he is helped simply because he is a person in need. There should be no distinctions about whom we are to help. In addition, the help involved the use of one’s resources. For Luke, wealth is not necessarily evil, it depends upon how it is used.

The Man in the Ditch.  Scott (Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom, 29) summarizes the parable as follows: “The parable can be summarized as follows: to enter the kingdom one must get into the ditch and be served by one’s mortal enemy.” He expands a little later: “Grace comes to those who cannot resist, who have no other alternative than to accept it. To enter the parable’s World, to get into the ditch, is to be so low that grace is the only alternative. The point may be so simple as this: only he who needs grace can receive grace” (31).

Funk (Parables and Presence, 33) adds to this image.

A Jew who was excessively proud of his blood line and a chauvinist about his tradition would not permit a Samaritan to touch him, much less minister to him. In going from Galilee to Judea, he would cross and recross the Jordan to avoid going through Samaria. The parable therefore forces upon its hearers the question: who among you will permit himself or herself to be served by a Samaritan? In a general way it can be replied that that only those who have nothing to lose by so doing can afford to do so. But note that the victim in the ditch is given only a passive role in the story. Permission to be served by the Samaritan is thus inability to resist. Put differently, all who are truly victims, truly disinherited, have no choice but to give themselves up to mercy. The despised half-breed has become the instrument of grace: as listeners, the Jews choke on the irony.

He concludes his comments on this parable quite succinctly (34) :

… the parable of the Good Samaritan may be reduced to two propositions:

  1. In the Kingdom of God mercy comes only to those who have no right to expect it and who cannot resist it when it comes.
  2. Mercy always comes from the quarter from which one does not and cannot expect it.

An enterprising theologian might attempt to reduce these two sentences to one: In the kingdom mercy is always a surprise. 


Image credit: Parable of the Good Samaritan by Balthasar van Cortbemde (1647)  | Royal Museum of Fine Art, Antwerp | PD-US