The advent inaugurates the preparation for the coming of Messiah. It is a time when people plan best in order to celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ. With a hope to have the best times of merry making and feasting. The well decorated streets and echoes of children singing carol, exchanging gifts both young and old...it is not surprising that people keep themselves busy welcoming the festive season.
Isaiah 4:2-6 is the book-ends to the collection of materials in chaps.2 - 4, surrounding the section full of disaster but with the definite explicit language of Hope. This text is a response to the immediately preceding announcement of judgement on daughter Zion. The content of this unit moves a few steps from a prophetic to an apocalyptic understanding of the future, but formally it resembles prophecies of salvation. This description of future salvation affirms that the prophecies have been effective and that the goal was the purification of the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The section has a remarkable concentration of theologically significant expressions. It begins with a temporal phrase “on that day” which many scholars have taken to be eschatological. The context, in which the “branch” parallels the “fruit of the land” strongly suggest a hope for the fertility and fruitfulness of the land.
Christ is described by his names as the branch of the Lord and the fruit of the earth, and by proper epithets of him, as beautiful, glorious, excellent and comely. Christ is called ‘the branch’ but not as God, as human but not as a son, as a servant but not as mediator. A branch being tender denotes Christ’s state of humiliation on earth, he who grew up as a tender plant before God and was contemptible in the eyes of men: yet this branch became beautiful, being laden with the fruits of the divine grace such as righteousness, reconciliation, peace, pardon, sanctification and eternal life. These ‘divine grace’ are given freely to us in grace if the ‘branch’ grows in us. Thus, the advent season of waiting the Messiah is indeed a season of promised hope and blessings. In the text, the Messiah appeared to be excellent in his person as the Son of God and particularly in the fruits and blessings of grace, which grew upon him and come from him. The ‘survivor of Israel’ is the idea of a ‘remnant leftover from judgement’. It is possible that these escapees were thought to have survived because they were more righteous than those who were destroyed. They are accounted as ‘holy’ called with a ‘holy calling’ unto holiness.
Although destruction has been predicted against the filth of Israel, yet the writer had the confidence in God’s will to save. With this hope they persevere in godliness and holiness, we may call them ‘living and persevering Christians in Jerusalem’ whom shall be admitted to the new Jerusalem.
Likewise friends, as we welcome and anticipate for the birth of Christ in our hearts, it is imperative that we are reminded as to how we prepare ourselves to welcome the messiah? The season of Advent, as we see in today’s text, is a season of hope and anticipation for blessings. A blessing under one canopy of God’s love in Jesus Christ, all people will be drawn underneath it. A universal mission of God indeed! A season and arrival of peace where Jesus Christ will be our arbitrator and an era of peace where people will molten their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (cf. Isaiah 2:4). In today’s context where tension, hatred, conflict and war exist within and outside the community and between nations, the message of Advent gives us hope of the arrival of love, peace and life. It calls us to engage joyfully in the mission of hope and peace. It reminds us to be agents of peace and reconciliation. The more important question is: how can we be the image of peace and hope? OR, how can we be the witness of peace and hope? In contrary and unfortunately, we Christians engage in some of the unfitting and demeaning activities to our calling. Unless we ourselves are filled with peace and hope, it is clear that we cannot participate in the God’s mission of hope, love and life. For that reason, Advent season prepares us to welcome the blessing of God in Jesus Christ, in our hearts. It is the mission of God that calls us to participate in that universal love as persevere of godliness and holiness.
May God humbles us and gives us hearts to welcome this overwhelming love so that we can be channel and befitting to participate in the God’s mission of hope, peace, love and life.
[The preacher, Arenla S., is a first year MTh Student in the Department of Missiology in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute,Chennai, India.]
Natasha Walter in her recently published book titled, The Living Dolls: The return of Sexism paints a frightening picture of an erroneous sexual culture. Walter, a Briton, predominantly speaks about the western society, but she cautions that it is spreading globally too. This culture, what she calls as ‘’Hypersexualisation”, tells young women that the best they can aspire is to become a pole-dancing glamour model, and their gender preferences are biologically determined rather than socially constructed. This culture turns women into the primped and hollow dolls that are given to play with as children. Walter contends that though feminism has made determinative influences in the social order, a male chauvinism with antagonism towards women is fostering this culture to objectify female bodies as locales of exploitation. Let us go back to the text and search in it how Hebrew poetry views human sexuality.
For many of us it may be awkward to hear these words from the pew; it is even more uncomfortable to speak them from the pulpit. Love poetry describing the erotic body and the description of sexuality within the confines of worship is beyond taboo. Yet we hear these words from within the canon, from the holy book that we claim as guide for our lives. Tucked in neatly between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah, the church has historically tiptoed gingerly over it.
The Song of Solomon has been interpreted as an allegory, a collection of pagan fertility cult liturgies and an anthology of disconnected songs extolling human love. The allegorical interpreters include the Jewish tradition which viewed the book as an allegorical picture of the love of God, for Israel. Church leaders, including Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Bernard of Clairvaux, have viewed the book as an allegory of Christ's love for His bride, the church. However, the Song nowhere gives an interpreter the suggestion that it should be understood as an allegory. I reserve the position that the purpose of this book is to extol the human love and any attempt to view it as an allegory is our shyness or incapacity to speak of sensual love and affection in the context of a church. This song is the beautiful portrayal of a priceless gift of God to enjoy and celebrate. Before going any further I feel I must honestly admit that I am not speaking coherently to my differently sexual oriented brothers and sisters as the further treatment is focusing on a heterosexual audience. Sexuality is the gift of God to enjoy and celebrate
The poetic form employed in the songs is called in Arabic as wasf, a love poem in which the lovers describe one another's bodies using images from nature and architecture. That is why we see lot of imageries from the nature in this passage and about the buildings in 4:4-5. The passage contains many words that are peculiar only to these passages and not seen elsewhere in the Jewish Bible and it suits the spirit of the book as a whole as there is no other book as Song of Solomon in the Canon. The preceding sections of the song seem to have a royal setting though outdoor scenes also were mentioned for example in, 1:14; 2:1-3. But the setting for 2:8-3:5 is the country side, where the lovers meet each other.
The influence of ancient west Asian art makes the portrayal yet more imaginative and rich in drawing the score for the song. Lover, asks his darling to go for a walk in the countryside. The elaborate description of spring probably meant to do more than simply emphasizing the beauty of the setting. It is likely that he was also describing their relationship. In a sense when one falls in love, the feeling is like spring and everything seems fresh and new. The world is seen from a different perspective, which is how the lover felt when he was with his beloved. Several statements refer to the beauty of the spring. Flowers appear in the spring, adding delightful colours to the landscape, inducing people to sing for joy. Doves sing, announcing spring's arrival. Fig trees put forth their early fruit. Grape vines blossom, giving off their fragrance just before the grapes appear. In total, spring stimulates the senses of sight, sound, taste, and smell.
These verses call upon to enjoy the sensual pleasures promised by the nature as nature gets ready to affirm the continuance of life. What a spectacular portrayal of nature’s joys intertwined with sexual union? The sexual union completes the sensual pleasures through the sense of touch. The culmination of their sensual pleasures marks the beginning of an authentic spirituality, where one gives oneself for the other. These verses bring to us the celebration of humankind's return to the Garden of Eden. In the garden, humanity was "naked and was not ashamed"; humanity was free to eat of the goodness of the garden, to live in harmony with the animals, and to walk and talk with God. Upon the expulsion from the garden, humanity found itself in a world of hard work and difficult life. The Song offers a glimpse of a return to Eden, to the innocent state that the world was created to be, a return to nakedness and no shame, to the utter joy of creation and being in the presence of God. Born to mutuality and harmony, a man and a woman live in a garden where nature unites with them to celebrate the one flesh of sexuality. Their love is truly the celebration of themselves being the very bone and flesh of the other.
We have to scrupulously evaluate whether the marriages in our families celebrate sexuality as portrayed in the Song. We often tend to adhere to the gender constructions of men with six packed muscular structure and with an attitude “I’m from Mars”, while women as pacifists, enduring all kinds of circuses by these machismos through internalising. We need a redeemed masculinity and femininity which consider both as complementing partners which stimulate mutual celebration of sexuality. Now why did this desirous celebration of sexuality become undesirous? Why is it for us difficult to talk and teach such a beautiful state of our lives in the context of a church? As v.15 says we have to catch those foxes that destroy this beautiful vineyard of our lives. Sexuality is precious and should be guarded against all vices
Foxes were noted for their destructive tendencies in crop fields, so the reference to those animals probably suggested metaphorically some problems in the relationship of the couple. Craig Glickman in his book, ‘A Song for Lovers’ comments that, I quote “the foxes represent the obstacles or temptations that have plagued lovers throughout the centuries. Perhaps it is the fox of uncontrolled desire which drives a wedge of guilt between a couple. Perhaps it is the fox of mistrust and jealousy which breaks the bond of love. Or it may be the fox of selfishness and pride which refuses to let one acknowledge his fault to another. Or it may be an unforgiving spirit which will not accept the apology of the other.” End quote Their willingness to solve the problems together is an evidence of their maturity.
In the Egyptian love poetry foxes represent sexually aggressive men, who tamper the mutual intimacy expected in the conjugal relationship portrayed in the songs. 15th verse has a feminist intonation that sees male domination as the root cause for the vices in sexual relationships. As we read Matthew 5: 28 Jesus in his teachings about adultery, identifies men as the primary agents of adultery. His rebuke is addressing men who look at a woman lustfully. Natasha Walter in her book argues that the men in the hypersexualised society are encouraged to view female bodies as a mere object of pleasure. At the same time women are asked to make their bodies more sexually appealing to present themselves as attractive products for bargain rather than devote on intimacy, imagination and love. This reduces sexual intimacy to mere acts of performance where they are appraised completely based on their performance quotient. Our sisters, brothers and children who were pulled to the flesh trade making them commercial sex workers by this culture are indeed the sinned against. Their precious sexuality is stolen from them asking for compromises to be compensated with filthy money.
In the pretext of hypersexualisation there is a wider outcry that the younger generation is taking marital life lightly and engage in premarital and extramarital, uncommitted sex. Predominantly our response is a blatant ‘NO’. A Christian ethical response to this will be to educate that these casual uncommitted sex sells us short as relational beings, capable of inter personal love. It just involves two persons using each other’s bodies for individual pleasure without interest in and concern for the person, who each of them is.
The couple in the song is very much contrary to what is described about man-woman relationship in the hypersexualised societies. The relationship between the woman and the man is one of mutual desire and enjoyment. Neither one of the lovers nor the couple itself fits a gender-determined stereotype. They are fiercely committed to each other. Both of them use much of the same colourful and provocative imagery to describe each other and the love they share. These imageries are not used as means to bargain on their bodies rather to express their joy of self giving and love making.
The song certainly applauds the glories of lovemaking and more importantly, it celebrates the depth of the commitment shared by the woman and man. Chapter 8:6-7 has been described as the zenith of expressions of the entire Song. The woman maintains that their love possesses a force that can easily rival the power of death and Sheol the place of death. It can even withstand the chaotic primal and flood waters. Neither death nor chaos is a match for the love that joins these two. No power from the netherworld and no treasure from this world can compare with the strength and the value of love. This realisation about one’s sexuality and the mutual love they share enables the couple to engage in the sexual talk as a mark of protest. Sexual talk as a voice of protest
The final verses of the passage figuratively express the sexual union of the couple. Some translators consider the lilies mentioned here to be lotus flowers, which were symbols of sensuality and fertility in Egypt and Canaan. They were committed to each other and the woman knew that her beloved belonged to her and she belonged to him. Her thoughts of their mutual possession of each other naturally led to her desire for physical intimacy. So in her mind she invited him to turn to her like a gazelle. Gazelles are often portrayed as the companions of the goddess of love in ancient west Asian art. The original text refers to a mount of Bather in Hebrew al harē bather in v.17. The original site of this mount is not yet found. It seems preferable to take the mentioning of mountains as a subtle reference to the woman’s breasts. In an implicit way the woman wants that intimacy to last during the night till the day breaks at dawn and the night shadows vanish.
This language expressing the longing of the woman towards sexual intercourse is a clever interpolation of the writer to voice the sexual preferences of the women in a predominantly androcentric world, where a woman who speaks of her sexual desires is bringing shame to the honour of her man. The Song of Songs is telling to its readers of all times that the preferential passages that they would normally deem to be 'religious' or expressing God's will for them, is not the only way to talk about the manifold experiences of life. Even if the Song of Songs is interpreted as a metaphor, the reality of the language and its immediate 'real life' references imply how important are they to human life. All we need indeed, is a radical readjustment of our concepts on what should be deemed 'holy' and what should be ‘profane’. The song does not present a negative protest but a positive celebration that protests by implication.
There is no doubt that the Song of Songs was written within the circumstances of a patriarchal society dominated by the preferences of men, in the realm of sex as elsewhere. Though there are not much supporters to the argument of female authorship of songs scholars like S.D. Goitein asserts that the framework and the plot of the Song of Songs is authored by a woman. Another suggestion is that a woman was the author of Song of Songs perhaps one of Solomon's wives or a female sage from a later period of ancient Israel. The woman's voice dominates the chapters and verses of the book, fifty six of its verses are the voice of the female character, while thirty six are the voices of the male. In addition, the feminine voice opens and closes the dialogue of the book. Altogether the spirit breathed in the songs suggests a female authorship. This indeed registers the fact that women even in that patriarchal society were capable and imaginative to acknowledge their protest.
Tissy Mariam Thomas is a lecturer of Psychology, teaching in Christ College, Bangalaru, who authored a book in Malayalam titled ‘iranginadappu’ which means ‘walking outside’. She prophetically dared to write about the irritating and painful experience of a woman going out on the streets of Kerala. She says, I quote “each time when I sat down to write my column, scores of bitter experiences and a number of scars came rushing into my mind and it was deeply disturbing. But I was happy, overwhelmed, and proud and even felt a little more empowered as I could see people were irritated, shocked, hostile and surprised with the incidents narrated.” These are the voices of protests of bold women from our patriarchal society. What is our message today?
Our message for this day is that, we should be cautious when we too often stigmatise people who speak of their sexuality, about their preferences or their experiences by branding them as ‘immoral’. Immorality is a dubious term which does not have a definite meaning unchangeable over the time. Morality calls us for an adherence to the expected norms of the society. So to envision a change where everyone gets an opportunity to celebrate their sexuality responsibly in their words and deeds, beckon us to be ‘immoral’. It is risking us for the sake of authentic celebration of our sexuality.
Indeed the Song of Solomon removes the envelope, challenges the status quo, and empowers that our bodies are spaces for the divine to reveal in our frail attempts to love one another. While the theme of sexual relationships does appear in Proverbs and in Hosea, they are often associated with negative connotations of adultery, which is condemned. Hence we never find a celebration of the pleasures of physical love or an admiration elsewhere. Today we ourselves are puzzled in the mesh of finding out where we stand in understanding our sexual bodies under a huge span of extremes. We see that there is a growing fear in the church and society that the younger generations are getting hypersexualised. But at the same time there is a conscientious silence towards the discussions relating to sexuality. Many simple behavioural changes in adolescents are considered as severe mental ailments and called upon counsellors for a cure, while society itself needs more clear guidance on understanding such changes. This is a matter of grave injustice, which we are doing to the generations to come.
The male and female protagonists of the passage affirm to us that their sexuality and love is indeed divine, nurtured by nature and gifted by God. They realise in their intimate life that there can be obstacles they needed to overcome and to consider sexuality as precious and worthy and never allow it to get vitiated. Their bold talk on enjoying their bodies and sexuality reminds us to take our sexuality seriously, to be bold enough to address our desires and all the more to reject the Greek dualism that still rules us which puts Spirit as good and body as evil. If we trust on the biblical passage through which we went through this day, we have to stand our ground and say with boldness that these, our sexual bodies are indeed good, the gardens of authentic celebrations of life. May the divine love constantly challenge us to take this bold step and fight all forces that distort authentic celebration of our sexuality. Amen.
[Georvin Joseph, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year B.D student of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]
In August 08, 2006 a small story was printed in ‘India Today’ magazine. Once there was a rich man, who was living a luxurious life with all kinds of bliss and rich accommodations. He became rich without any experience of pains and strivings and struggling. He had only one son about 10 yrs of age, whom he loved so much. Once he took his son to his native village and showed him the poverty of the villagers. After the trip got over and returned back to his city, that rich man asked his son about the poverty. His son replied, “Dad, we have only one dog, they have four. We have a small swimming pool, they have a Long River. We have lights, they have stars. We have small piece of land, they have large fields. We have servants to serve us, they serve others. We buy food, they grow theirs. The boy’s father was speechless. Then boy said, “Thanks dad, for showing me how poor we are”. Later his father realized what was lacking in his life, even though he was blessed with so many riches. He gets to realize the pains of the poor who were really struggling for their livelihood.
Friends, we are gifted with so many riches of life with what we are enjoying the pleasure of it ourselves, but not bothering about the needs of others especially poor, who are not able to meet their daily needs. Being selfish, we are neglecting and despising them. We are keeping them outside the gate and not inviting them to share our riches with them. They always remain in poverty. The following passage gives us a good example to the so called people who are lovers of money and not caring the poor.
In this passage, preceding verses and chapters, The Lord Jesus has been speaking to the crowds, among who are money-loving Pharisees. They are not at all pleased with what they have seen and heard from Jesus. They grumbled against Jesus for receiving sinners and even eating with them (Luke 15:2). In response to this, Jesus told three parables, all of which dealt with the finding of something lost in chapter 15. In chapter 16, we can see the grumbling of the Pharisees turned sour—to scoffing.
Jesus’ teaching in verses 14-18 is in response to the scoffing of the money-loving Pharisees. The Pharisees considered wealth to be a proof of righteousness (Deut 28: 11-13). The savior himself and most of his followers are poor, and rich men are very apt to despise what they consider the cheap Quixotism of the views of pious human concerning, the best use of riches, when those men are themselves are poor. Jesus startled them with this story in which a diseased beggar is rewarded and the Dives (rich man) is punished. He taught them to act in spirit and have the quality of neighborliness, and need to help others with their money and things.
“Having Neighborliness” as a Barometer of soul (19-26)
Jesus Christ introduced the rich man without any details respecting his age, place of residence and nameless too. He lived a life of royal magnificence and boundless luxury. His apparel seems to be purple and fine linen a royal precious thing scarcely used by princes and nobles of very high degree. Everything with him that could make life splendid and joyous was in profusion. In striking contrast to the life of dives paints the life of a beggar Lazarus, derived from Hebrew word “El-ezer” (meaning= god help) (should not be confused with the Lazarus whom Jesus raised from dead in john 11. This giving of name to person in this parable nowhere else recorded in any gospel records of parable teachings of Jesus. He is represented as utterly unable to win his bread. He was a constant sufferer, covered with sores, wasting under the dominion of incurable disease. The crumbs of bread from dives he ate signify the broken fragments which the servants of the dives toss to the poor beggar man as he lay by the gate (greek ‘pulon’). These dogs adds additional color to the picture of the utter helplessness of the diseased sufferer, there he lay, and as he lay, the rough homeless dogs would lick his un bandaged wounds as they passed on the forage.
At last kind death came and relieved Lazarus of his sufferings. His dismissal, as might have been expected because of deadly disease. He was carried by the angels by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. Some scholars interpret the words that body as well as soul was carried by angels into paradise. The term “Abraham’s bosom” (Gk- kolpos) was used by Jews indifferently with ‘Garden of Eden’ or ‘under the throne of glory’ for the home of happy. The idea of suffering does not live in those first words regarding Lazarus but, in ‘being in torments’. The very fact of the man’s being unhappy is gently represented. The home of the, loving, where Abraham was, would be no home for that selfish man who had never really loved or cared or considered as his neighbor. He saw for himself. Torments might or might not be the material flame. It is rather the burning never to be satisfied. In the case of dives, his delight on earth seems to have been society, pleasant jovial company, the being surrounded by a crowd of admiring friends, the daily banquet, the gorgoreous apparels and the stately house. But in the other world his soul seems to have been quite alone. Lazarus had sweet companion ship of Abraham. Some see this in relationship of child to parent (john 1: 18).
The rich man’s attitude to the great patriarch (Abraham) is deferential, for he addresses him as ‘father’ and words his request humbly enough. Unconscious arrogance in his attitude to Lazarus can be seen in asking to send a drop of water with finger of Lazarus. He assumes that he can have the poor man(Lazarus) sent across to him a service (unless his words mean no more than that he was ready to accept the alienation. He has not realized that earth’s values no longer apply. Abraham gives a reasonable refusal to the request his addressing dives as ‘child’ is tender. In life the rich man had had his good things. He could have spent time with the things of God and delighted in the word of God. He could have engaged in alms giving (Lazarus had been close enough). For him good things had been purple linen, daily merriment and feastings. Here the balance is redressed. Justice is done.
Friends, what’s the point here is….
Jesus is saying that riches don't count for anything after we die and our souls depart, but that isn't the thrust of this parable. According to me, he is making two points.
1. Wealth without active mercy for the poor is great wickedness.
2. If we close our eyes to the truth we are given, then we are doomed.
In the context, Jesus is condemning the Pharisees not only for their love of money but lack of mercy for the poor and not having the sense of neighborliness. Once he has already commented about their scrupulous tithing? "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rues and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone" (Luke 11:42). It isn't their piety that he is condemning, but what they aren’t doing i.e., showing mercy to the poor, seeking justice for the downtrodden. It is ironic that the Pharisees who prided themselves on being such Bible scholars largely missed the spirit of the Old Testament i.e., mercy and justice. As the teachers of the scriptures they need to have neighborliness towards poor. Thus, they can be called as spiritual preceptors but not so. We are also in the same situations. As bible toting Christians we need to recognize the lord and his love in the poor
“Recognizing the lord in poor” as the scriptural perception (27-31)
For the first time in the story the rich man (Dives) shows some interest in others (though still not of the poor, he sticks to his own). He asks that his 5 brothers may be warned. In his deep seated sense of superiority remains. In contrast is Lazarus impressive silence throughout the parable. He does not speak at all. He neither complains of his hard lot on earth, nor grudges over the dives after death, nor is expresses resentment at the latter endeavors to have to have him sent on errands. Throughout he accepts what god sends him. Abraham points to the scriptures Moses (writers of law) and prophets (16v). The scriptures give the brothers all they need. There is an implication that the rich man’s unpleasant situation was due not to his riches, but to his neglect of scripture and its teaching. But the rich man does not agree. He knows how he had reacted to the possession of the bible. So he says that if someone goes to them from the dead things will be different. That will bring them to repentance. Such is the fallacy of the natural man.
The parable concludes with Abraham’s solemn affirmation that the appearance of one risen from the dead will bring no conviction to those who refuse to accept scripture. If a man (Jesus) cannot be humane with the Old Testament in his hand and Lazarus on his doorstep, nothing or neither a visitant from the other world nor the revelation of the horrors of hell will teach him otherwise.
At the end of the gospel, we are told of two, whose hearts were “strangely warned” when the scriptures were interpreted to them. They were walking on the road to Emmaus. A stranger joined them and began to explain the law and prophets. When evening came, the two insisted that the weary stranger share their table with them. Then, as they shared their bread with the stranger, they recognized their lord in the stranger. Perhaps if the rich man had tended Lazarus needs and invited from the gates into his home and share a meal with him, he too would have recognized lord in the poor Lazarus who had always been a stranger to him.
Did the 5 brothers ever get the message? We are not told; for that is the question the parable leaves us to answer. Each of us needs to write our own ending to the story.
The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats teaches similar lessons.
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:41-46)
Friends.... Wealth is not bad. After all, Abraham was wealthy. But wealth brings with it certain responsibilities, a certain stewardship. We will give an accounting for how we handle the wealth God has given us. We have relative wealth. Perhaps not relative to our own culture, but relative to the global village that we can affect with our giving. We will give an accounting.
We are Scripture-toting Christians who have the benefit of the scriptures. If we don’t notice and minister to the poor, what excuse will we have? In the final analysis, the rich man's punishment is not for riches, but for neglect of the scriptures and what they teach. That doesn't mean we should give out of guilt or give unwisely or give to whoever cries the loudest. Instead, we are to give out of the love of God within us. Not selfishly to assuage our guilt, but selflessly to care for someone else's needed.
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about Money, wealth and self-centeredness. At the same instance, it is especially a parable about mercy -- mercy now!
I go back to the story what I told in my introduction. The son of the rich man who made his father speechless, become the inheritor of his father’s property after his death. Immediately, he spent half of his income for the upliftment of his native village. Just imagine if each and every one of us have the same motto.
Friends............... What are we doing for the Poor?
As disciples we are asking: What should we learn from this? Jesus, what are you saying to us today?
In a sense, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus teaches a similar lesson to that of the Unjust Steward (16:1-9). We can use our money in a way that secures for us secure eternal damnation, or in a way that secures us friends in eternal habitations who will welcome us. But there's more. William Barclay titles this passage, "The Punishment of the Man Who Never Noticed." Lazarus was at his door and the rich man didn't notice or invite.
Who is at our door that we as a Christians and as a church don't invite?
* Needy illegal aliens who avoid the social welfare system for fear of being deported?
* Divorced moms with kids who are living below the poverty level but are too proud to ask for help?
* Families where the breadwinner is sick or shiftless or missing?
* The poor in third world countries who are out of sight and out of mind?
Don’t forget that we are living in an unexplained world, where the poor walks miles and miles to gain food. And the rich walks miles and miles to digest the food. Let us act and invite poor from the gates of poverty to wealth. Let the doors be shut with no one remaining outside. Amen
[Jaya Jesudas Pudi, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Instiute, Chennai, India.]
The Author of the book introduces himself in the opening sentence of the book as “God’s servant John”. He frequently refers to himself in the work most commonly as a prophet, but never as an apostle. In this respect he differs markedly from Paul.
In the book of Revelation written by John, the second and third chapters deal with the letter to seven churches. The portion assigned for today’s meditation is Ch: 3.7-13. This text deals with the letter to the church at Philadelphia. Philadelphia was located 28 miles southeast of Sardis. Both Sardis and Philadelphia suffered extensive damage in a great earthquake in AD 17. The message to the church at Philadelphia is most probably an assurance of the entrance into a new age. Philadelphia gained a position of certain commercial importance in the politico-economic context of the Roman Empire. Yet it had many contradictions as some of the typical Greco-Roman cities. The actual town had few inhabitants but the majority lived as farmers in the countryside. Because of the rich volcanic soil available, the farmers of the place heavily depended on viticulture. Their lives were in fact a life of great endurance, for which they are highly commented in the letter. The whole letter is dominated by the sure and certain prospect of life in the Kingdom of God.
In this passage I focus only on one verse i.e. verse 8 “I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut”. This statement which describes how the exalted Christ has used his power of opening and shutting on behalf of the Philadelphian community may be an allusion to the introduction to the oracle about Cyrus in Isa: 45.1, signifying God’s ultimate dominance over the course of history in creating hopes for the broken and repressed people. This reflection is going to be focused on the question of the meaning of this “open door” metaphor?
There are essentially 2 possible meanings.
Opportunities for effective evangelization, especially the conversion of Jews
Guaranteed access to eschatological salvation i.e. entrance into the messianic kingdom.
The metaphor of the open door is found twice in the undisputed letters of Paul (1 cor. 16:9, 2 cor.2:12) and also occurs in col.4:3 and Acts.14:27.In all these contexts it means that opportunities to proclaim the gospel have been made possible. It is therefore probable that the metaphor has a fixed meaning among the Christians and refers to opportunities for evangelization. However, the fact that missionary activity is never mentioned elsewhere in revelation and hence such an emphasis does not allow us to take this meaning as granted.
It is an open door that will introduce a new dimension of John’s vision. That privilege afforded John to enter, to see, and to enjoy the glory of God is now accorded to the least promising of the churches. It is a promise from Christ to a church which is weak. Christ is an open door to all people mainly for the weak, oppressed and marginalized. As disciples of Jesus we should imitate him in being an open door to help people have entry into God’s glory. When we examine the history of our communities we can see several men and women of God who have acted as open doors inviting people to come and share in the glory of God. Francis Assisi, Ambedkar, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mother Teresa etc...Etc…They helped the poor people by uplifting them from the marginal existence to a life with restored human dignity. Because of their willingness to offer themselves as a medium, revealing God’s will through their lives the poor could break all sorts of bondages. They in turn became open doors for others to reveal messianic kingdom experiences in our world today.
Let me conclude with an incident that happened in the life of the renowned saint by name Francis Assisi. One day he went to visit some leprosy patients. There he could see people who could not sleep, walk or even eat because of the severity of their diseases and rotting ulcers on their body. So he started going there every day and helped these patients by giving them food and cleansing their wounds. After some days of his visit many of the patients were getting cured. One cured person came to him and asked “Are you really the risen Christ”? Because he felt God’s healing and comforting presence in St.Francis Assissi. Do anyone, ever ask us a similar question? If the answer is no, why is it so?
So this passage challenges us to become open doors to other people who are weak oppressed and marginalised. We had such a person in our midst, who lived out his life as an open door showing people way to God’s liberating glory. It was none other than our former Director emeritus Dr. K. Rajaratnam, who as we all know was a champion of Dalit liberation. Let us all decide to follow Jesus as being open doors to guide people to realization of God’s kingdom in our midst.
[Rev.Fr. Zerah Paul, the leader of this meditation, is a third year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]
