The Gospel of John is predominantly theological in comparison with the other gospels. His initial assertion--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us" (John 1:1, 14) declares that Jesus was no ordinary person. He was the incarnation of the eternal God, who chose that means of revealing himself perfectly to human.
In the gospel we see that Jesus was an inclusive messiah, one who came for all. Jesus broke the social barrier and went through Samaria. He proves that there are no Jews, no Samaritans, no higher and lower but all are equal in the sight of God.
Christianity and Islam:
No believing Muslims accept the idea of sources or human influence as having a bearing on the Quran, for he holds that it is, in its entirely, revealed by Allah. Not only do Muslims reject the historical-critical method of investigation of Quranic material, they similarly reject and oppose any attempt to explain the Quran and its contents in purely historical terms. . It is divinely revealed in its entirety and one doesn’t investigate God, it is accepted as Arab Muslim say “bila kaif” or without question.
Old Testament parallel in the Quran:
A. The One god:
Pre-Islamic poetry frequently used the term “Allah” not name only but the conception of his unity as well. Thus the unique designation of God was most probably not the result of Jewish or Christian teaching.
B. Revelation:
It’s a cause of wonder that there is only one direct quotation in the Quran that parallels a biblical reference and that is Psalm 37:29.
Four sets of scriptures are singled out in the Quran as being given by the divine revelation.
The Tawrat (Pentateuch) given to Moses, the Zabus (psalms) to David the injil(Gospel)to Jesus;and the quran to Mohammad. All are to be received and believed alike for all confirm one another.
C. The prophet are chosen by God:
The concept of prophet are closely parallel to Hebrew model but the Word was not the Judeo-Christian term “nabi:,prophet,but the Arabic designation “Rasul” messenger.
The prophet in Islam is the divinely appointed viceroy of Allah with even kings being a little lower in status. After many inner conflicts he was eventually convinced that he was Allah’s chosen spokesman and once set on this course, there was no turning back.
D. The Last judgment:
Quran stresses that on this fateful day each will stand or fall accounting to his own recorded deeds, also present the possibility of some awful calamity befalling that transgressor in the present life.
Application
Christianity and Islam share common elements about origins, worship one God who is benevolent, judgement, prophetic .there are elements where they differ too.
In view of the history of religion wars in the past, the present situation where Muslim brothers and sisters feel wronged by the Christian west, one walks in to a vitiated atmosphere.
Islam also denies that Christ died on the cross and questions the concept of the son ship of God.
Though we cannot draw absolute similarities, Jesus walks in to a location where animosity to him can arise from social, cultural and especially religious background.
Jesus draws the conversation into one about deeper meanings of life in terms of in quality, quantity and about an authentic worship of God that demands that one move beyond a handful of fixed rituals. Such a discussion bound to make one reflect.
Jesus also uses His ability to see in to a person’s life. In our setting this could mean that we use our own gifts creatively with discernment and sensitivity.
One cannot in the end avoid a discussion about Jesus himself. But the above themes can be useful rather than engaging in polemic from the outset.
Jesus had something precious to offer and he was not overawed by a potentially explosive and different situation. Instead John’ Portrayal of Jesus shows him engaging with sensitivity and honesty. The ending of the engagement is very positive- people realise that Jesus is the saviour of the world. Our hope is that we could learn lessons from this passage to share the precious gift- the Lord Himself in a way that will result in similar outcomes.
[This Bible study is Prepared by:Anima Samad, Sudhir Kumar Burh, Yacub Kumsr Mundu, Alex Das, Byju Eapen, John Allwyn, Dr.Samuel Sidhartha swamidoss, BD IV Students of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India]
The idea of us is to promote the new understanding about the passage (Jn: 9: 1-34) in the perspective of Dalit and poor. It seems appropriate to explain in such a way to bring out the pain and experience of a marginalized person because of his/her physical lack. There is a great note registered by William Barclay in his commentary on John Gospel, i.e. this is the only miracle having the declaration that the particular affected person (Born blind) is a blind by his birth. Therefore the person was known to the disciples at the time and familiar to the public. This incident took place to promote the Old Testament idea whence the sin comes and the consequence of the original sin, namely inherited sin. The demythologization of fatalism or karma which was much focused on the Law code of Judaism which completely discriminated the fellow human beings (in Indian context the Dalits) is the intension of our paper.
The core idea of the reign of God
The core of our argument and perspective is mainly focused on the key verse of John 9: 3. “Jesus answered neither this man nor his parents sinned, he was born blind so that God’s work might be demonstrated in him,” this is the statement of Jesus which seems as a condemnation of the concept of Sin. Here he breaks the old ideas about the understanding about the original sin and its inheritance. Moreover the reign of God is present at the time and deeply the reign of God is understood by this miracle which performed among the marginalized. The goodness that happening among the Dalits is the sign of God’s reign. The immanent of the transcendental God is the comprehensible sign of God’s reign. The work of God is been demonstrating through Dalits and poor is a great sign of reign of God. This paper mainly invites us to understand the transformation of the blind man towards the new life or a restoration. We are called to concentrate upon this kind of transformation and restoration amidst Dalits and poor.
The Re-reading of the text
This is a story of how a man who was poor and marginalised sat in the darkness was brought to see the light not only physically but in his discernment to identify the light of the world. During that time dalits are characterised by those who were ignorant of the law and physically challenged.
Jesus after leaving the temple left to the peripheries where the outcastes are situated. Unlike the common passages of healing, here Jesus takes the initiative to heal the blind man, on seeing him. The impulsive response of Jesus speaks us the concern and care Jesus have to the people left in the peripheries. And with this immediacy to restore the lost dignity of this man, Jesus heals this man without asking anything to him.
The question of the disciples is typical of the outlook of the ancient world. The Jews colligated sin and suffering as they worked on the assumption that wherever there was suffering, sin is the cause of it. ‘The sins of parents could “visit” on children’ is the maxim contained in the Decalogue as we see in Exo20: 5, 34: 7, Deut 5: 9. This view strikes one who has in mind the Indian philosophical thought of Karma and Samsara. A logical thought of Indian philosophy which triumphed for ages to legitimise the living conditions and poverty of weaker sections.
But the answer of Jesus not only had in view human suffering generally but also this particular individual’s life in relation to his mission. Affliction, sorrow, pain, disappointment, loss always are opportunities for displaying God’s grace. First it enables the sufferer to show God in action. For Jesus it is not the sins of the man or his parents. This stands true with the life stories of dalits. They have suffered in the past and continue to suffer in the present. This is not because of their own sins or the sins of their ancestors. So this need not or should not subscribe to any describe of Karma and Samsara. The response of Jesus assures their place in the God’s economy of Salvation. Among the different meanings given to the term Dalit is ‘Manifested’. This passage reveals how much a life of Dalit in Jesus’ times becomes the space of manifestation of God’s glory.
By touching the man’s eyes Jesus profoundly speaks to us in the context of our dalitness and the dalitness of all our brothers and sisters. The use of mud to heal the blindness makes us remember that all human beings are ‘muddish people’ build out of mud. The use of saliva, mud and the water of Siloam for healing by Jesus implicate the negation of Jewish community towards the people at margins. The contempt of this community expressed through Human saliva is used as tool of healing. A symbol creating derogation is made the symbol of life assertion. Similarly the pool of Siloam is a powerful symbol of purity and pollution. Jesus turns the waters of division into waters of life giving.
The neighbour’s disagreement about the blind man’s identity and his healing (vv. 8, 9) positions the healed man to serve as his own witness and to provide his own attestation to the miracle. In v. 9b the man is depicted as repeatedly identifying himself through keep on saying (elegen, the verb is in imperfect tense) as the former blind man. People never expected the work of Jesus on this blind man as they considered him as lacking everything for God’s manifestation of Glory. For them someone like him can never be a site of God’s revelation, which is why they consider that this healed man is not the one who begged whom they know. Though they were continuously negating his identity as the man whose sight is restored, he was crying out loud “I am the man” (V.9b). The people who questioned the identity of this man also question the identity of Jesus. Which is why “for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen” (I John 4: 20). Today also the God of Dalits is considered decrepit and their God concepts are infirm to the mainstream religious thought and particularly among Christians. Their voices are unheeded and their voices are despised, grounding them as irrational.
For the Jews the identity of this man is an unanswered question and so seeks the opinion of the parents of this man. When they respond to this pertinent question, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he see?” (v.19) they try to escape. They agree that the man as their son but fears to acknowledge the God’s glory manifested in him, because of their fear towards Jews who threatened to outcaste all who confess Jesus as the messiah (v.22). This forces us to think that these parents also identifies with the dominant ones and the dalitness of this man lies clearly on his infirmity and not on his lineage. Today the Indian church easily identifies with these parents to negate the glory of God revealed in their sons and daughters who are dalits. Church is ready to accept them as the part of their fold but fails to recognise their dire needs and respond to them with the mind of Jesus.
Twice in the interrogation scene (v.13- 34) the Pharisees hold their knowledge to the man and expect him to accept their positions (v. 24, 29). Each time however, the man counters with his own knowledge (v.25, 30-33). The fact that the man holds his ground in the face of the Jewish authorities gives this interrogation scene a markedly different cast from the preceding scene of interrogation of his parents (V. 18- 23). The law keepers try to intimidate this man with their status and knowledge but he will not be intimidated. This makes the man an epitome of Dalit confrontation and champion with stern discernments about what sin is and who Jesus, his liberator is. Twice he publicly confesses that Jesus as the prophet (v.17b) and as the man from God (v.33) which made him an outcast again (v.34b), though Jesus restored his physical infirmity, the cause of his first. Again Sin as the cause of his birth defect is reiterated in v. 34a and they still cast him out. Their arrogance prevented them to admit the truth revealed in him and finds it incomprehensible to accept his teaching.
So to view the blind man as the Dalit of Jesus’ time offers us the prospect to empower our Dalitness when we feel wretched in the double standards of society and church. The Hindu philosophical thoughts are still prevalent in the mindsets as to the play of Karma and Samsara. Often in the philosophy of Karma and Samsara we relate the negative acts with negative results and positive acts with positive results. But we have to see that the rich and affluence is the result of oppressing of poor and stuffing themselves through snatching the wealth belonging to the poor also. So the poverty interlinked with dalitness and the blindness to this reality is the original sin of Indian Church and society.
Two questions now also arise from the margins, though Jesus meets the man casted out and welcomes into communion; wasn’t not your eyes He opened? (17b). Do you also want to become His Disciples? (27b).
Conclusion
The Gospel should reach people and they should be benefited. It is only possible by the Re-reading of the scripture in means of contextualization. Therefore we need to have such a consideration on the process of interpretation of the scripture. Theology to be meaningful has to be contextual and relevant; its task is to address particular situation in the knowledge of the Christ’s event. In fact the Bible itself is a compendium of contextualized theologies. Dalit theology rightly understood is not communal. It does not seek to promote the liberation of Dalits alone, thereby putting the non-Dalits outside the place of salvation. Rather, it does seek to challenge the tendency to legitimize caste oppression of the Dalits but at the same time seek to include all the really converted non-Dalits within its purview.
It is a duty for theologians to address the problems of marginalized and poor with an understanding of the scripture, which is so. The comparative study between the texts and people in reality is to be needed for the better understanding and a great hope for the Dalits and poor. It is again a problem among us by dealing such understandings of scripture, into equality is somehow lacking. The discrimination is still prevailing in our Christianity in order not to accept others or tolerate others’ growth if she/he would have developed or increased in God’s blessing. This is really a Christian karma and inherited sin among us.
[Prepared by: Daiju K.Joseph, Dalvin Kristi Dass A, Prince John, V.Prabhakar, Remalia Hembrom , & Uttam Kumar Rathinayak, BD IV students of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai,India.]
The focus of the text is mainly upon the act of adultery and the accused woman. The hermeneutical tools employed in the text reveals the intense play of patriarchy and the use of power relations in convicting a woman. The text speaks that the woman was caught in the act of adultery. Now where is the man involved in the act of adultery? Leviticus 20: 10 orders that the man and the woman who involved in adultery are to be put to death. The system of law which the crowd upholds sees the woman as a ‘sinner’ and to see the woman as a ‘sinned against’ is to didder the foundations of their patriarchal society. A community which convicts this woman as an adulteress easily escapes from accepting their corporate sin of the presence of adultery in their society. This community sees the woman as a sinner once she was ‘caught’ and when the ‘secrecy of sin’ was lost. Until the woman was caught, the act of adultery was not an issue for them.
The Scribes and Pharisees bring this woman to Jesus explaining that the woman was caught in the act of adultery. The word used for adultery in Greek here, Moikeuomene is the participle present passive nominative feminine singular of the verb moikeuo which means to commit adultery. The word Moikeuomene has a shade of meaning as ‘herself suffering adultery’. So it implies that the act of adultery was not the willful choice of this woman, rather a forced ‘play of power’ over her. From this vantage point we see the woman as not an adulterous but a victim of the abuses of the society.
The Greek word used to refer the woman is gunaika which refers to a married woman. The husband of this woman may have slyly arranged to abandon her by carefully prearranging that there are witnesses for her committing adultery.
The Greek word used in v.3 in bringing the woman to Jesus is agousin which means to “bring forcefully.” It itself shows how unlawfully is dealt with the woman, since they had a court for the trial for such a case and to bring her to Jesus just for a judgment and not to hear from her. She’s denied her right to have a just trial. Had there been such an instance the man who committed adultery along with her and her husband, also would have been revealed. But in that unjust system there was no chance for this.
In the passage we see Jesus saying “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her”. ‘Sin’, in John’s Gospel is described in terms of the response to the ‘Light’, ‘Life’, and ‘the Gospel’. Here Jesus identifies a definite sin, in the intent of the crowd, which exclaims for the death of the woman. Their wretched response to the truth, about the compelling factors that dragged her to the ‘very act of adultery’, shows their treasonous approach to the ‘Light’ that came to them. Their claim to take the life of the woman, shows the absolute negation of the ‘Life’, and the thrust of the ‘Gospel’. In this appraise the husband of the woman who denied her an esteemed way of life, the witnesses who found her being in ‘the act of adultery’ but refused to admit the presence of a man in the same, and the judges who denied the woman a lawful trial, were all ‘sinners’. Even their self-righteousness couldn’t promote them to throw ‘the first stone’ against her
Jesus tells the woman in v.11 “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way and from now on do not sin again”. The mutilated self respect of the woman is restored by Jesus when he assures that even he is not in a position to judge her. The Jewish law is created in the patriarchal society which condemns this woman as a sinner. This patriarchally constructed law dictates what sin is and what is not. Jesus here is not referring anything to the forgiveness of sin. Rather he says not to sin again. This means that Jesus is exhorting her not to make herself exposed to be convicted by this biased law as a sinner and further to resist the powers which try to make her a sinner. So Jesus finds a committed comrade who could be of much use to resist the powers that discriminate people as sinners and unjustly convicts them.
Gospel according to this unnamed woman.
Like many of the female characters of the Bible this woman also is unnamed. She is unnamed, voiceless and facing death closely in the initial verses of the pericope. She was never addressed by anyone in the crowd asking her response. Only a cruel death was talking to her all through those minutes. But the intervention of Jesus brought to her rather forgetful life, a ray of hope of remembrance. Jesus confronts the patriarchal law keepers and makes themselves their judges. This opens a way for critiquing the judgmental attitudes standing fast on the very attitudes they hold on to.
Jesus is the first person to address this woman. He breaks the conventional morality of a man not speaking to a woman in public and speaks to her. So the gospel according to this woman is that Jesus is ready to speak publicly to anyone whom the society may consider immoral or a sinner. And that Jesus counts on those people to enable those who are discriminated to stand up for their cause and fight for justice.
Social implications of the reading.
Men and women in the society need to be identified as dignified human beings, without the designation of the sin, in order to situate the constitutional sin. We need to free the society from the judgmental attitude, to assert that the society is self critiquing in its nature.
Even today in a patriarchal system we can anticipate the same response as that of that Jewish community, when such an issue arises. The same heat will be felt when it is a matter of ‘adultery’, and that same sex will be condemned to safeguard the esteem of the society. But today the Christian response to this ‘moral issue’ needs to be distinct, as Christ differed from the Jews. We need to re-consider the credibility of the accusations regarding morality when the condemned act is associated with the livelihood. What is wrong when the human body becomes a capital to earn the livelihood in a world where everything else could?
Unless and until a woman is in a position, to justify herself for what she indulges, she won’t be free from condemnation in a patriarchal society. One could not become a saint in a system where ‘the others’ determines the norms of morality. Can the freedom of Christian ethics authorize a sex worker to have the self-justification, which gives no room for any other moralizing intruders who condemn her?
As we see, when the environment of the condemned woman has got modified, when the condemning voices descended, she came to a position to take a decision, which was assisted by the reminder from Jesus ‘let your actions not be condemned to be sin anymore’. Are we prepared to modify the environment of our sisters who are under condemnation, to free them from the threat of accusation, to enable them to take their own decision?
[This Bible study was prepared by: Ajay T Oommen, Binu John, Dasari Kamalakaran, Georvin Joseph, Liju Raju, Nirmal Soren & Shaijukumar K. S , BD IV students of Gurukul Lutheran Theolgical College an Research Institute ,Chennai, India]
This Malayalam folk song says that all are one in the sight of God. God came to this world not to save some selected peoples, but to save all people without any color, race, cast, culture etc. Luke gospel and Acts of the Apostles mainly focused on the mission to the gentiles. In chapter 10:1f and 11:18 we can see that Luke has narrated the story of the conversion of Cornelius with considerable details. The passage explains about Holy Spirit comes upon the gentiles and they are filled with Holy Spirit. Caesarea was dominated by gentile population. It was the head quarters of a unit of roman army with 100 soldiers headed by a roman officer holding the title of centurion, whose name was Cornelius. The meeting of apostle peter and Cornelius in Cornelius home was gods plan.
This event can be interpreted as the repetition of the Pentecost day on which the apostles and other disciples were empowered with the power of Holy Spirit. But these recipients were not those believers, who considered themselves as chosen people but those who were always considered outside the frame of Gods plan of salvation.
This is the only incident recorded in NT that Holy Spirit fell on non baptized peoples. This incident reveals baptism is not only for Jewish Christians but also for the uncircumcised gentiles. On the Pentecost day Jews filled with Holy Spirit likewise here gentiles received the gospel and at the same time they baptized with the Holy Spirit.
‘The wind blows were it wills, so also is the spirit’. As in the case of Cornelius those who open there hearts to Gods word will be filled with Gods spirit. Here the gift of Holy Spirit is connected to the hearing of Gods word. In v 47 “can anyone withhold the water for baptizing this people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” here peter raises this question to himself as well as to those believers who were with him. The answer was quite clear. They were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Then peter and his companions were staying some more days with them is the further proof of breaking the social barriers. This demonstrates a new Jewish gentile solidarity which Christ envisioned.
Here Cornelius is a welcome example of Gods willingness to use extraordinary means to reach those who desire to know Him or Her. God does not play favorites and God does not hide from those who want to find Him or Her. The coming of Holy Spirit even to the gentiles shows that they are also part of gods plan and all are equal in front of God. There fore the mission of god is for all.
This event teaches us that the gospel is beyond the practice of purity and impurity. God select and give vision for everyone by breaking the human made social boundaries. This can be visible in the life of Jesus Christ also. Christ is a true revolutionary who destroys all types of isolation, who protests against the evil orders and who restores the isolated one in to the social life.
How can the present days Christians avoid the mistake which peter made before he met Cornelius, by seeing one part of Gods creation as holy and another part as unholy. God united all through the gift of Holy Spirit. But today we are making separate churches in the name of cast and color. And still alienation and isolation exist among us. Here what bold theological vision we have? “Conversion is not just turning to God from sin. Turning from narrow God concepts to God who is the lord of all humans is a real spiritual conversion”.
May the god almighty help us to become the true ministers of God who can treat everyone as equals. Amen
[Philippose John, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year BD student of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]
Text: James 1:9-11
James writes about the rich and the poor in today’s reading, but it is important to remember that James is writing primarily to Jews who are facing some very serious trials and tests. He tells them to consider it pure joy when they face different kinds of trials because they are learning to trust God and become complete in God. Some of their trials may have included social persecution for their faith, or possibly living on the short end of favouritism from some of the people in their own church family.
So James writes to encourage the poor and to correct wrong attitudes about those who overlook or mistreat them. He did not miss the emphasis on money and possessions in teaching of Jesus. We will find that in four different passages James discusses the issue of money and possessions. Today we will consider the first of these passages in James 1:9-11. In this passage, James addresses our attitudes related to wealth and poverty. He challenges us to view people and possessions through Christian eyes that see things through the framework of godly values.
The standard view during the days of James was that spiritual standing was indicated by material standing. The poor were ignored or punished by God and deserved no special courtesy. The wealthy were blessed by God and should be shown favour. So, the wealthy were viewed as spiritually blessed and worthy of special treatment while the poor were considered spiritually poor and treated poorly. (See James 2:1-4). James uses the example of the wild flowers which appear for a time and then are scorched by the arid winds and die.
So it is with possessions and their possessors. They are here for a very short time and then they are gone. The point is that we cannot place eternal significance on that which is temporal. Material wealth does not last. We cannot depend on it to secure eternal blessing.
The issue of money has been a prominent one from the inception of the church. Jesus had a lot to say about poverty and riches. 16 of 38 parables dealt with money/possessions. 1 out of every 10 verses in the gospels i.e. 288 verses deals directly with money. The Bible has 500 verses on prayer, fewer than 500 verses on faith, but more than 2000 that deal with money/possessions. So the way we use whatever wealth we have is pretty important to God.
James speaks about the Lofty Status of the Poor – lofty in the sense that the Lord is the defender and provider for those who live in poverty, who do not know how their basic needs will be met. The Bible shows us very clearly how much God cares for the poor. Exodus 23:11 says during the seventh year let the land lie unploughed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it.
Leviticus 19:15 Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great but judge your neighbor fairly. Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed toward your brothers, sisters and toward the poor and needy in your land.
The NT also tells believers to remember to treat the poor with love and do something to help them when you are able. This is very pleasing to God! Selfishness and greed, however, have no place in the heart of a Christ follower.
Riches can also test your faith in God. Wealth has a tendency to so confuse a human being’s perspective that it can lead to eternal consequences. It takes deliberate action to keep our priorities straight in this culture. The trial that rich people go through is that they tend to believe to be self-sufficient. They tend to trust in themselves so much that they can’t bring themselves to trust in God. When a rich person trusts in his wealth and applauds himself for earning such a fortune, it must sound kind of silly to God.
James talks about the Low Status of the Wealthy. For a wealthy Christian this could mean low in the sense of servant hood- using the resources God has blessed you with to serve the poor and needy. Also low in that the wealth is only temporary. The economy of death and dying renders everyone penniless. James uses the example of the wild flowers which appear for a time and then are scorched by the arid winds and die. So it is with possessions and their possessors. They are here for a very short time and then they are gone. The point is that we cannot place eternal significance on that which is temporal. Material wealth does not last. We cannot depend on it to secure eternal blessing.
Jesus indicated that it was very hard for a rich man to enter God’s kingdom (easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle). Matthew 13:22 “The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. It is unfair to say that all rich people are selfish and bent on evil. Several Bible characters like Abraham, Job, and Esther were wealthy, but they used their wealth to honor God and to help those in need around them also, they did not put their trust in wealth to give them their sense of value. They overcame all the temptations of wealth. True worth comes only from the One who is worthy – worthy of all that we are and do.
George Barna conducted a survey that showed 50% of Christians consider money to the primary indicator of success. 19% of Christians believe you can tell how successful a person is by examining what they own. It is difficult to avoid being products of our culture. However, the Bible offers us guidance and answers to how we should view wealth and poverty. Some of the richest people on this earth have nothing to show for themselves financially! Some of the most impoverished souls are those who have exchanged what really mattered for what amounts to a temporary permit.
There are some believers who abandoned all their riches and possessions and live in celibacy. They don’t care what happens around them but target on eternal life by living spiritually. God doesn’t want this from his children. Use your wealth and time to empower the oppressed and poor. As Matthew 25: 40 depicts “Just as you did it to one of these who are members of my family you did it to me”. It clearly indicates that the poor, sick and the down trodden are the members of God’s family and engaging them in their need and suffering is the will of God.
John D. Rockefeller Jr. wrote "The poorest man I know is the man who has nothing but money".The prosperity doesn’t determine the value of a person. The final measure of a man or a woman is based on their response to their Creator and neighbour. All human beings have value because God created them. Paul writes in 2 Cor. 8:9, “ For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich”. Jesus identified himself with the poor, sinners and oppressed and paved a path to follow in his foot steps. Rich should not boast of their wealth and prosperity but should be humble and poor in spirit. Christian’s response to poverty is to be kind to the poor, defend the poor and share Christ with the poor. The question now is where are we? And how are we to respond? May the comforting God be with us to discern our ways. Amen.
[John Haide Manukonda, the preacher of this Sermon, is a final year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute Chennai, India.]
