Luke 12:13-21 The Rich Fool
Last week, at the end of the service two people told me they had found the sermon very challenging. Indeed one of them went so far as to say that she felt slightly condemned. I had a number of responses. First, I wondered if perhaps the ‘edge’ to the preaching was so striking because it is generally lacking. Second, I was glad that the ‘edge’ had been experienced because it was certainly intended by Jesus if only for those for whom the cap fits. There was my dilemma: after the crucifixion of Christ Jesus on the cross, there is no condemnation so I the preacher must have failed if that is what those who listened experienced. On the other hand, while there is no condemnation, there is most certainly the call of Christ to follow him in losing what we consider to be our lives if we are to find the real, eternal, fullness of life (Luke 9:23/24)
This is the tightrope that the preacher must walk. On the one hand, Jesus comforts the weak and heavy-laden and lifts their burden by his presence, his healing, his words and touch. On the other, Jesus confounds the self-righteous and pompous by his predisposition to fellowship with untouchables and sinners. Hence, it is critical to attempt to discern Jesus’ audience as well as his tone in his words and encounters. For example, when Jesus pronounces blessings upon the poor (Luke 6:20-23) and woes upon the rich (Luke 6:24-26) it is clear that he intends us to understand that those in society who are down-trodden and poor have already inherited the empire of heaven. In some mysterious way that confounded the generally held theology of his day, Jesus says it is not riches that are a sign of God’s blessing but their opposite. Conversely those who have status, power and financial means are under God’s condemnation for their passive enjoyment of their means while others suffer or their active financial abuse of the weaker and poorer in their community.
Turning to the passage before us today we can tell by Jesus’ warning “Watch out and be on your guard against greed” (v15) that again it is the Pharisees whom elsewhere Jesus describes as “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14) that he has in mind. Somewhat surprisingly perhaps, it is the sincere, Godly, bible believing/teaching, synagogue attending, pure, prayerful, fasting, religious Pharisees who also exemplify the greed that characterised the rich ruler (Luke 18:18-30), and the chief tax collector Zacheus (Luke 19:1-10). All have taken advantage of their position and other people to line their own pockets. As a result of their status and wealth, it is they who are in danger of the seed sown within them being choked (Luke 8:14) and of finding entry into the empire of heaven nigh on impossible (Luke 18:24).
Furthermore, we can detect Jesus’ tone in this dialogue from his response to the man in the crowd who demands that he “tell” his brother to divide their Father’s estate equitably, (vs 13), “Who appointed me judge and divider?” (vs 14) he retorts. The punch line of this parable “You fool” (vs 20) confirms that Jesus directs his remarks to those who are like the Pharisees whom he earlier described using exactly the same (rare) word ‘foolish’ (Luke 11:40). Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy (Luke 12:1). In this man’s case, he ‘demands’ justice, his ‘rights’ – Jesus underscores this pretence and calls it for what it is – greed. Nevertheless, as in all his encounters, Jesus seeks to enable this man to ‘see’ the truth or reality of his situation in such a way that he may respond and find rather than lose his ‘life’.
Jesus questions whether he is indeed a prophet like Moses, appointed as judge and divider (Ex 2:14) and if so on whose authority? (vs 14.). Luke in his choice of the unusual word “divider” anticipates that we will see in Jesus’ refusal that he has come not as a divider but a reconciler – there is only one letter difference in the two underlying Greek words. And that with this man, we might ‘see’ that the loss of a brother via the division of the estate as a regrettable necessity in the experience of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 13:5-7) which is a far greater loss than the loss of his rightful share. Much better in such circumstances that brothers should dwell together in unity (Ps 133.1) and not divide the estate and so be divided against one another.
Jesus teaches that our ‘life’ is more than just possessions (vs 15). Nevertheless, in the days of the Son of Man, just as in the days of Noah (Luke 17:26), there will be eating and drinking as well as making merry (vs 19). This is not a bad thing and not only does the wisdom of the Old Testament celebrate these pleasures (Eccl 2;24) but Jesus himself demonstrates by the reputation he has gained as a glutton and drunkard (Luke 7:34) that such wisdom is indeed known by its children (Luke 7.35). For when that which has been lost is found, there is much joy (Luke 15:7/10/23). Indeed feasting, or banqueting, eating, drinking and celebrating appear in both Jesus’ actions and words to characterise the empire of heaven both in time and into eternity. The Pharisees mutter and grumble that this is so (Luke 15:2) and to this day religion is more often accompanied by Pharisaical austerity, sombreness and duty, than by the freedom and festivity that Jesus clearly enjoyed and encouraged!
But the Fool in the parable is such a fool not because he enjoys all that God gives but because he believes that more ‘things’ will bring more enjoyment . Once again, Luke provides word play’ for the root of the words “bore more fruit/good crop” (vs 16), and “take life easy” or “enjoy myself” (vs 19) as well as the word “fool” are the same. This man could not be more wrong. It turns out that since we bring nothing into the world and take nothing out (1 Tim 6:7) that not only our lives (vs 20) but our possessions and our time and talents are gifts from God that we hold in trust and for which we are held accountable.
The foolishness of this man is compounded. He believes his possessions are his own. What shall I do with my crop? (vs 17). It is the ground that produced the crop (vs 16) not him. He does not consult like the wise with family, friends and community but decides himself. He does not like Joseph make provision for others out of his plenty but stores up ‘his’ wealth for himself (vs 18). He has no idea that his possessions and indeed his life are on trust. He seems oblivious to the coming day of accountability (vs 20) and most ridiculously of all, he believes that more and more things will increase his enjoyment of life.
The reason why this parable has such an ‘edge’ to modern-day Western readers is that we are all very rich comparatively speaking. We may not feel like it in relation to others in our society but the news regularly reminds us of just how well off we are. We therefore find a sense within us of both the world-view of the rich fool and the desire to assert our ‘rights’ at the expense of our brother. The parable and Jesus’ encounter are therefore a genuine challenge to all of us.
Nevertheless, to feel the challenge is at least the first step towards an acknowledgement of failure to walk faithfully, of permitting the thorns to choke the seed and of the need to respond like Zacheus to Jesus who in calling us away from greed is calling us into life. He has our interests at heart. He knows that to live dependently, relationally, in community and generously rather than selfishly is the way that leads to the blessing of eternal life both now and always. The paradox is that only as we relinquish what we foolishly imagine to be ours will we find the real life that he gives so generously to everone.
The final and possibly most remarkable aspect of the encounter and parable, is that it is set in a context where the issue is the coming ‘day’ of the Son of Man (Luke 12:8). When the thief (Luke 12:39) comes, will we be ready (Luke 12:47)? And Jesus provides a litmus paper of that faithfulness and that readiness in the passage before us. For what we do with our money is THE test of our relatedness to him and the empire of heaven! On that day of reckoning before the Son of Man we will be found to have been wise servants in the household of faith if we have lived communally, generously, dependently and as good stewards. Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear (Luke 8:8) the word of God – Jesus (Luke 5:1), for whoever hears and obeys his word is blessed (Luke 11:28)
Luke 17:20-37 “Where there is a body, there the eagles will gather”
At a particularly low point in his career, Eric Cantona responded to the journalistic pack of wolves baying for his blood with a waspish retort about seagulls following the trawler. The words of Jesus that we are not attending to today have just this same sense of irritated, frustrated annoyance at the fact that he is not being understood nor can he be and that the interview is about to be cut short before he really loses his temper. We will attempt some exposition of what he says shortly but first we must look at what leads up to his remarks.
Jesus is asked by his opponents the Pharisees, who from the beginning have been plotting his downfall and eventual murder (Luke 6:11), when the empire of heaven will come (vs 20). Jesus deliberately speaks many of his parables against these Pharisees (Luke 15:2/18:10), who along with the teachers of the law and the leaders of the people are ‘confident of their own righteousness’ (Luke 18:9) seeking to justify themselves before men’ (Luke 16:15). They ask Jesus how they might inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25) believing themselves to be capable of a limited obedience to the law in some extremely restricted achievable ‘field’ such as would merit the reward of God in the ‘after-life’.
Jesus sees through their hypocrisy (Luke 12:1) and despite their repeated invitations to meals pronounces woes upon them (Luke 11:37-54), highlights their self-seeking desire for honour (Luke 14:1-14) and deliberately contrasts their behaviour with that of a sinful woman. This woman weeps on Jesus’ feet, wipes them with her hair, kisses them and pours perfume on them (Luke 7:38). The Pharisee, Jesus’ host insults Jesus, his guest, by not having his feet washed on arrival at his house, the normal standard of hospitality. Jesus sees through the pretension of the Pharisees and their vaunted self-righteousness. He knows where their hearts lie for they are ‘lovers of money’ (Luke 16:4). Jesus is therefore in no mood to be messed about by some self-important Pharisees seeking to score brownie points before the crowd and with God. Jesus rebuffs their question. You cannot ‘see’ the empire of heaven with the eyes of your body, he says. You need the eyes of faith for the empire of heaven is within you and is in your midst already if you only have the eyes to see it (vs 21).
Jesus then turns to his own disciples who are equally apocalypse buffs, asking Jesus on another occasion “Shall we call fire down from heaven to destroy this enemy Samaritan village Lord?” (Luke 9:54). Jesus rebukes them as if that were any part of the plan of the Son of Man. Now in the passage before us, apocalypse buffs along with Jesus’ disciples seek to interpret his words as indicating a similar kind of destruction. For as it was in the days (plural) of Noah and Lot, so it is in the days of the Son of Man during his incarnation and especially his public ministry. Life goes on. People eat, drink and get married; to all intent and purpose everything is normal and yet the ‘day’ (singular) Noah enters the ark and the day Lot leaves Sodom, though just like any other day, is also like no other day. For apart from the elect family of Noah and Abraham’s nephew Lot, everything and everyone is destroyed (vs 27/29). So it will be on the day of the Son of Man, the day of his murder, burial and resurrection. Marvellous, we hear apocalypse buffs James and John declare along with the Pharisees in their blindness. They got what was coming to them – marvellous. ‘We’, the self-defining, righteous, God’s elect, no less, those who ate and drank with Jesus (Luke 13:26) will be saved, and all others destroyed – marvellous.
Does not Jesus confirm such apocalyptic and destructive interpretations himself? According to Jesus, there are only two ways to live. Either we build our house upon rock or upon sand. Either we will be wise and faithful servants or we will be unfaithful and foolish. But the clue to this false trail is set before us in this very passage. For Jesus says we will either seek to lose our life or we will seek to keep it (vs 33). Either we will realise that we are lost for only then like the grievous sinner Zacheus can we be found by the Son of Man (Luke 19:10). Or like the Pharisees, we shall imagine we have no need of a doctor (Luke 5:30). Either we shall be poor, blessed, least, last and as infants enter the empire of heaven singing and dancing, or we shall be rich, self-important, great, first and like the disciples, who shooed the children away (Luke 18:15-17), find ourselves in danger of missing out on the great banquet that has already been prepared (Luke 14:15-24).
This brings us nicely to Jesus’ last words on the matter in this particular debate. The inveterate apocalypse buffs, the disciples, ask Jesus where they, the self-defined righteous, will be taken and Jesus continues his consistent pricking of their systematic theological bubble, just as he does with the pretension and self-righteous Pharisees, .
For it is neither the righteous as defined by the Pharisees nor the righteous redefined by the disciples who are saved. Everything and everyone is destroyed. As Paul quoting the Psalms declares, “no-one is righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10/Ps 14:1). Only the foolish, unfaithful, disobedient, self-righteous could take Jesus’ words to flatly predict their vindication, salvation and resurrection when everything about Jesus’ life and teaching demonstrates his utter commitment to reversing all religious forms of classification of insiders and outsiders. If the Pharisees or disciples insist on such a classification they will tragically and painfully find themselves on the wrong side of their own classification. Jesus’ penchant for those who have no legitimate expectation of vindication, justification or resurrection is surely clear.
In the mystery of the atonement of Calvary, there is no more need for the way of the sword (22:49/50). There is only the taking upon himself of our human need for vengeance, bloodlust and murder. Upon the cross, the ‘day’ of the Son of Man, Jesus, renders all clean, righteous, free, justified and vindicated so that only through the gateway of his death all may be raised up.
Jesus’ last words then are deliberately paradoxical and parabolic designed for those who have the ears of faith to hear. All the translators and commentators have ‘vultures’ (vs 37), though they all acknowledge that the word is actually ‘eagles’. I want to retain eagle because of the rich Old Testament heritage that I believe Jesus fully intended us to see and hear. Vultures well expresses the feeding upon flesh that is most certainly an aspect of God’s judgement upon us. Even this is a beneficial judgement, whereby we are separated from our flesh, i.e. all that corrupts us and disables us from loving him, our neighbour as ourselves and our environment (Rev 19:21). Once separated, and as our true selves, we may gaze upon the destruction of the city – the symbol of our pride and independence (Rev 18:10) and weep and worship. However, “vultures” do not express the other side of God’s judgement falling upon the judge himself in Jesus on the tree. For God carries his people Israel from the grip of slavery and death in Egypt upon eagles’ wings (Ex 19:4). The eagle therefore expresses both God’s judgement and his drawing of his people to himself where the translation “vulture” does not.
So where the disciples ask, ‘Will the righteous be taken? Jesus replies, ‘Where his body is”, i.e. on the cross. That is where the eagles of God will gather in both judgement and deliverance of all those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear that this is already among, upon and within them in and through the person and work of Jesus finished on the cross.
Luke 4:14-30 Jesus rejected at Nazareth
I have chosen to use this title from my version of the Bible for a deliberate reason. For it seems to me, that despite the extraordinary encounter that day in the synagogue at Nazareth, despite the announcement by the greatest preacher in the history of the world that he has been anointed the Christ of Israel’s God, not only proclaiming but also establishing the year of the Lord’s favour, he is rejected. The people of Nazareth drive him out and seek to throw him down a cliff (vs 29)!
Jesus’ message of deliverance, freedom and release results neither in acceptance of the messenger nor in the change in fortunes he announces. The wicked King Herod seems to prosper; John the Baptist, remains in prison until he is beheaded and Jesus himself – similarly innocent – is likewise put to death. Whilst it is true that he is raised from the dead and draws all people to him, nevertheless, just as on that first great resurrection Sunday so today the Romans or their contemporary equivalents still occupy the Holy land and abuse their power in places such as Korea and Zimbabwe.
So what are we to make of Jesus’ first public sermon? First we must heed the warning and see the great danger of rejecting this paradoxical Christ and his message. As long as the reversal in circumstances he proclaims does not actually occur it would be only too easy to be complicit with the very powers that Jesus condemns – either by inaction or silence – and reject anyone who questions the status quo or rocks the boat of a self-satisfied or unjust structure that would keep some on the outside marginalised, disadvantaged and despised such as the Sidonian widow and the leper Naamen (vs 26/27), .
According to Jesus’ and as a result of his death and resurrection everything is different for those with the eyes to see and yet everything is exactly as it was. Christ says the poor, the least, the last and the lost are exalted, whilst the first, the rich, the greatest and those who think they have no need of a doctor are humbled. Exactly as Mary had sung in her joy (Luke 1:52). For those then who are encountered by this Christ, today is the day of their salvation (vs 21/Luke 19:9).
According to this preacher/prophet, the year of Jubilee is inaugurated. Liberation, freedom, rest, forgiveness for both the land and the people of Israel have arrived. Yet this will be experienced only in the suffering, rejection and murder of the Christ and therefore of the disciple. Unless we too take up our cross, unless we too journey to Jerusalem, unless we die today, we will never enter this kingdom of heaven or this acceptable year of the Lord’s grace.
The paradox of Jesus’ proclamation, incarnation, death and resurrection, is that he is made known to us and we can experience the life, sight, redemption, freedom, liberation he brings only when the bread is broken (Luke 24:30). Only those who are poor and who have nothing, have any chance of being found, only those who are broken have any chance of sitting at his table and feasting with him and only those outsiders who know the darkness they inhabit have any realistic chance of ‘seeing’ the light.
Circumstances may remain the same but the way we see them, ourselves, and those around us may be radically transformed once we but ‘see’ through the eyes of the Christ who presents himself as the suffering servant of Isaiah. This is the key to our interpretation of Jesus’ sermon consistent with our exposition of the rest of Luke’s gospel and it does justice to Jesus’ quotation from the prophet immediately prior to the words – “the day of the Lord’s vengeance”.”
Jesus, the suffering servant, is not the winnowing fork that Israel had hoped for. The powers that be who kill him are indeed vanquished, but not visibly so. The kingdom of heaven is an invisible present, an already established reality everywhere present, but not obviously so. The new creation is already completed and inaugurated but only to the eyes of faith. It is not as many suppose that Jesus cuts the quotation short because one day he will return to fulfil the condemnation and damnation aspects of the prophecy. It is not, as many would suggest, that the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep and who seeks every last, lost sheep and brings them home rejoicing will one day return as a ravenous wolf to devour the unrighteous. For all are unrighteous. It is that Jesus announces forgiveness (vs 18) as the rule of his kingdom, consistently dispenses it (Luke 5:20/7:48), teaches it (Luke 11:4) at the heart of the form of prayer to be used by his disciples and finally in his dying breath establishes an everlasting covenant with his Father, even for those who have him put to death -–”Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). There can be no split between this Jesus, found on the pages of Luke’s gospel and the one we will encounter on the last and great today of Jubilee.
The judgement that Israel mistakenly imagined would fall on the unrighteous within the nation and on all other nations, fell upon the suffering servant himself so that all God’s children, both near and far, might be reconciled and brought home together rejoicing. The danger – let us reiterate – is that we will mistakenly imagine ourselves to be the ‘righteous’ and in the great reversal of Jesus’ heavenly kingdom will discover that where we thought we had a claim on him, he will say that he never knew us (Luke 13:27). We must beware the danger of presumption of which the Nazarites were guilty lest we find ourselves rejecting the Christ because he does not fulfil our expectations!.
Luke 13:35
Jesus said “Look your house is left desolate to you“
This verse comes at the end of a paragraph in which Jesus has been responding to Pharisees (vs 31) who come to ‘warn’ him about Herod’s murderous intentions. As they themselves had had the same intentions from the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (Luke 6:11) we might view the sincerity of their warning with some suspicion. On the other hand, as is Jesus’ wont he eats with the Pharisees and accepts their hospitality on three separate occasions in Luke’s gospel (Luke 7:36/11:37/14:1). So it is possible that the Pharisees’ words issue from genuine respect.
On balance however, Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees’ rudeness for not washing his feet (Luke 7:44) on the first occasion, his utterance of six woes on the second (Luke 11:37-54) and his telling of two parables against them on the third, one concerning their thirst for honour and pride of place (Luke 14:7-11) and the other their presumption of inclusion at the heavenly marriage supper of the lamb (Luke 14:15-24), suggest that we would be wise to see Jesus response to the Pharisees warning as being aware of their greed and, hypocrisy against which he had warned the disciples at the beginning of the previous chapter (Luke 12:1).
I want to suggest again that the way we read Luke’s words will be significantly affected by their context and by our grasp of the underlying relationships within which all Jesus’ encounters are embedded. The sympathy, love, understanding, and gentleness that Jesus exhibits towards Martha, Mary and their bother Lazarus, must govern our reading of Jesus’ ‘rebuke’ of Martha. In the same way the enmity between Jesus and the Pharisees must govern how we read the passage before us.
Jesus is fully aware of the fickleness of the Pharisees. In his response he is telling them – not asking them – to inform Herod that he not Herod is in charge of his own destiny – “I will reach my goal” (vs 32). Both he and they are in no doubt that there is no lack of clarity between them. The pointedness of his remarks makes it clear that he knows their hearts, that they want to get rid of him and will have their murderous way. Nevertheless, the power of decision as to when and where he will lay down his life lies with him not them. “Surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem” (vs 33). Well, yes actually they can and usually did but Jesus here lets it be known who is calling the shots. He will continue his ministry and then he will lay down his life at a time and place of his choosing – Jerusalem!
More remarkable, however, than either this claim to such personal authority, over and against the secular or religious leaders of his day or his likening of himself to God in wanting to gather Israel under the protection of his wings (vs 34) is that Jesus should want to shelter those who seek his death. This is where and why our grasp of Jesus’ relationship towards Israel, Jerusalem and her leaders is so important to our reading of the final verses in this dialogue.
At first reading, Jesus could easily sound simply condemnatory: “Your house will be left desolate to you”. Like the prophets of old, this is read by many as God’s judgement upon Israel. Such interpreters often go further to suggest that this is not just another judgement on Israel as experienced many times in the past but the final judgement with Israel then being replaced by the ‘Christian’ church. Such a reading is utterly anachronistic and completely contradicted by Paul in his letter to the Romans. Did God reject his people? By no means! (Rom 11:1). Has Israel stumbled so as to fall beyond recovery? By no means! (Rom 11:11). For one day all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26)
T he clue to a more inclusive and less simplistically harsh reading of this text is in the word translated as “desolate”. This word is used by Jesus in the parable of the weeds. The servants of the sower ask him, “Do you want us to uproot the weeds?” And he replies “No, let them grow with the wheat until harvest” (Math 13:28/30). The same word is used by Jesus in the Lord’s prayer – the word ‘forgive’ (Luke 11:4). Now, I fully appreciate that those who delight in apocalyptic fire like James and John (Luke 9:54) view the burning of the weeds as determinative of our interpretation of the destruction of Jerusalem. In my view that is to remove the Son of Man from the flames where he stood alongside Daniel’s three friends and turn him into Nebuchadnezzar.
Whilst at first reading Jesus appears to be prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem only, the fulfilment (vs 32) of Jesus’ work on earth is most fully manifest not in AD 70 but on the day of Calvary when Jesus himself says “It is finished” (John 19:31). And also on the third great day of his resurrection (vs 33) to which he has just alluded. In and through his death and resurrection, Israel is judged and vindicated, condemned and absolved. Then indeed those with eyes to ‘see’ will acclaim “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (vs 35), albeit that they remain blinded for now by all that passes for the house of their own religious construction at the centre of their sacrificial worship in Jerusalem.
The narrow door of Jesus’ death and theirs and ours is eternally open to those who hear him knocking and let him in (Luke 13:24, Rev 3:20), If they or we determinedly seek to enter on the basis of our goodness, righteousness or our self-presumption, we will be eternally disappointed and shut out (Luke 13:27). The door of our house, our attempts at self-justification, has been firmly closed (Luke 13:25) once and for all by Jesus’ death on the cross just as assuredly as the temple and the city in which it stood has been destroyed (Rev 18:2).
If we will but see ourselves not as we imagine in our self-importance to be – first (Luke 14:7) but rather as God knows us to be – equally last then will we discover that the host himself will exalt us (Luke 14:11). If we allow ourselves to be taken up with that which occupies us in our wealth on earth we will find that we have run into the most terrible danger of all – self-exclusion from the eternal banquet. For all are invited to that great banquet from East and West and North and South (Luke 13:29). For God’s house must be full (Luke 14:23).
Those who in their lack, their dependence and their inability to even imagine that they might have some leverage with God will find themselves compelled to enter in (Luke 14:21). They will find that such bare trust, such a sense of personal incapability to be what they might imagine the host would expect of his guests are the very things necessary to guarantee them enjoyment of the eternal banquet. It was just such bare trust in God’ promise to bring life from death (Rom 4:19-24) that brought even Abraham to his seat at the table (Luke 13:28). Neither his nor our goodness or badness has anything to do with our salvation which is all of God’s grace. Thanks be to God that he has divorced us from our house, separated us by death from our life so that in death we might experience his resurrection and enjoy
St Paul's Church, Cambridge, UK 