Year C. Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany.
January 28, 2001
Lord of the Lake Lutheran Church
Web page http://lordofthelake.org
By The Rev. Jerry Morrissey, Esq., Pastor
E-mail pastor@southshore.com
Luke 4: 21-30
Heavenly Father thank you for Jesus’ unconditional love. Amen.
Title: “Conditional versus Unconditional Love.”
Jesus’ own townsfolk, after initially receiving him well, turn against him because of his teaching and, or, refusal to work miracles there. They attempt to kill him, but he walks away from them [performing a mystery by doing so].
This is the second part of a story begun in last week’s gospel, Luke 4: 14-21. There Jesus returned to his home town, announced the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah happening in him and was warmly received. Now, he tells them of the Gentiles being included in God’s plan of salvation and they reject him. The two stories together outline Jesus’ whole ministry and that of the Church. The story anticipates Jesus’ rejection by “his own” people, the whole nation, and the Gospel is preached to the Gentiles who accept it.
In verse 21 today: This is the punch line! It has profound meaning. Every Jew believed that God’s kingdom and his Messiah would come- in the future. That was rather easy to believe, compared with Jesus’ proclamation that the day has arrived in him and in their hearing. The word refers to that chronological day back then, but it has reverberated throughout history and sounds in every hearer’s ears whenever the gospel is announced. “Today” becomes real when heard and accepted in faith. The Old Testament and New Testament is fulfilled in the life of each person when that great event happens. Now, a “now” which has lasted for 2001 years, the captive power of sin is broken, communion with God is established, and God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven.
Everyone believed that God would establish his kingdom, but sometime in the distant future. This kept God in the picture, but at bay. Jesus believed God always acts “now,” in the present.
In verse 22 all spoke highly of him: The skepticism of the people is just below the surface. Later, it will emerge. For now, they have come out to see for themselves, to be convinced one way or the other. Jesus was “the talk of the town” and people were hedging their bets.
Were amazed: The verb, Greek thaumazein, can express astonishment, coupled with criticism, doubt or censure or admiration coupled with unexpected pleasure. The nuance here is one of admiration. However, it went no further. Their curiosity was aroused, but they did not take his words to heart. They wanted more proof than that.
Joseph’s son?: The same question was asked in Mark 6:3. There it was occasioned by Jesus’ teaching and miracles. Here, the miracles are absent, though demanded; his interpretation of scripture and claim of Messiah-ship are at issue. The question could be sarcastic or complimentary. For the moment, it seems it is still complimentary and favorable.
In verse. 23 physician, heal yourself: The mood has changed abruptly. Although we leave open the possibility that some time has elapsed. Luke is telescoping Jesus’ entire ministry in this scene. This is a form of a proverb, appearing nowhere else like this, but similar ones existed, similar to our “Charity begins at home.” The people had heard of his miracles in other places and expected he would do even greater ones in his hometown. “Yourself” stands for the whole town. They are saying, “Do your healing thing here, among your own.” There is a hint of rivalry here. The people did not want towns like Capernaum boasting of miracles Jesus worked there, but not in Nazareth. There is a challenge, too. “Put your money where your mouth is,” they say to Jesus. Prove what you are claiming. “Show us the money,” the miracles.
In verse 24 Amen: The Hebrew amen occurs only six times in Luke. It introduces an authoritative utterance of Jesus. Elsewhere, Luke omits it from his sources and replaces it with other phrases like “truly,” “indeed,” or “therefore.” So, this is really important.
No prophet is accepted in his native place: Another proverb. People are more ready to see greatness in strangers rather than in the people they know and live with. We have a similar proverb: “The man from out of town is the expert.” He is saying that he knows their familiarity with him is an obstacle to really listening to him and accepting what he is saying. We would put it this way: “Familiarity breeds contempt.” He will now go on to prove it.
In verses 25-27: Jesus uses the examples of Elijah being helped by a Gentile woman and Elisha healing a Gentile leper. The two prophets are linked because the tales about them recount miracles performed on behalf of individuals, rather than those done on behalf of the nation. Jesus’ individual miracles would remind people of Elijah and Elisha more than anyone else. God showed mercy to Elijah and hence to the Gentile widow outside Israel and through Elisha to a leper not of Israel. This was too much for them to take, and Jesus proves his point about non-acceptance. The message that God loved and cared for everyone was bad enough, but coming from a “native son” it was outrageous, adding insult to injury. It was heresy to their ears.
In verse 28 they were all filled with fury: He has offended the “royals,” the kingly people of holy Israel! To which they say, “Off with his head!” The ramifications of his claim that he would have better results among the Gentiles than the Jews eluded them. Indignation blinds. The irony that he came to give sight to the blind escapes them. The truth that God’s charity begins wherever human need is found, irrespective of class or race, when faith is there, was too much for them.
In verse 29: The curious have turned angry; the interested enraged. The assembly is now a mob and the cry is not, “Let’s listen,” but “Lynch him.” And on the Sabbath at that! So much for Jewish Law! Nazareth was not built on top of a hill, but on the side of a valley, so the geography as given here is unclear. Perhaps “brow” (Gk ophruos) means “cliff” here. Whatever the terrain, the intent and intensity of it is clear. Luke tells the story not merely for its historical interest. It is a metaphor for the entire ministry of Jesus –one of both acceptance and rejection.
In verse 30 he passed through the midst of them: This is a metaphor for the later resurrection. For now, the miracle they were looking for they actually got, but did not recognize it. How Jesus eluded them is not told, but it was miraculous. The scene reeks with irony. He came to “free prisoners.” They tried to imprison him in death. He freed himself from their clutches, or God His Father did. His message eluded them and so did he. He came to give sight. They were blinded by their reaction to his enlightenment. They did not like the message and so “fulfilled” yet another proverb and tried to “kill the messenger.” The opposition to Jesus was and is diabolic, but it is not yet time for the opposition to succeed. In John this is expressed in terms of his “hour” not yet come. Jesus presented himself as a prophet. He was rejected. Ironically, the people’s reaction was itself prophetic. It looks forward to his death in Jerusalem. The shadow of rejection hangs over his ministry from the outset. In all this we have a commentary on the third temptation of Jesus in Luke 4:12 “It is said, “YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”
The people tried to put him into the position Satan had suggested. But he would not let them.
This reading, coupled with last week’s reading, gives us a telescopic preview of the entire ministry of Jesus. He will go on to be accepted by few and rejected by most and his message will be extended to the Gentile world. These readings are also a telescopic view of the whole teaching of Jesus about love. For love is about acceptance and rejection also.
Certainly, the progress of “in love” love is illustrated in this Nazareth story. A person begins to be infatuated with another person. There’s full acceptance. Then, the person begins to expect from the other person the qualities and behaviors that mere infatuation imposes upon the other person. When that person fails to perform according to the fantasy, often quite exaggerated and unrealistic fantasy, then disappointment sets in. Disappointment grows into anger, then into rage, and the person is totally rejected. All the positive unjustifiably imposed qualities of the formerly beloved turn into their opposites. While the formerly infatuated, now disillusioned person may not attempt to throw the no longer beloved over a cliff, as in the story here, that person certainly casts off the other person, casts him or her away, just as quickly as he or she formerly cast that person in the mold of his or her own imagination and expectation and exaggeration.
What is true of the progress of “in love” love is also true of the progress of many of our other relationships. These may not be so dramatic as “in love” love, but the steps are pretty much the same. We have heard about a person. We meet the person. We start to like the person. Then, our own expectations of who and what that person should be begin to take over. We imagine the person to be something the person is not and or cannot be. Initial good feeling turns into bad feeling and we reject the person. We might even try to destroy that person’s reputation among others. What we are really doing, in that case, is trying to convince others that these figments of our own imagination are not true and it is the fault of the person we did the imagining on. It is their fault they are not the person we imagined them to be. When we do that enough, to enough people and about enough people, we can get pretty miserable, disillusioned about all others, and become quite negative in both our speech about and actions toward others. Jesus simply did not meet, indeed refused to meet, the expectations of his own people and they rejected him, even taking to violence to express their anger at his failure to meet their demands.
In his teaching about love Jesus makes a crucial distinction between acceptance and approval. He tells us that God always accepts us, but does not always approve of our behavior. He tells us that we must reflect this way of God’s loving in the way we love everyone. We need not approve of everything other people do in order to accept them as they are, in order to love them. Jesus tells us that we can and indeed should disapprove of immoral behavior, but that a person is more than their faults, even their sins. Jesus got people to change their behavior not by shaming them, but by loving them, by accepting them as they are, where they are. Jesus accepted the prostitute Mary Magdalene, though he disapproved of her behavior. He accepted her in her being, while disapproving of her doing. When we reject a person’s being, when we decide that a person has no right to be, we feel justified in killing that person, either physically or verbally or emotionally. We destroy or try to destroy that person’s life, or that group’s life. Isn’t that the whole basis for ethnic cleansing, for gay bashing, for racial enmity, for abortion? Don’t stronger humans set themselves up as the judges of who is allowed to live, or prosper, or just be?
When Jesus’ own townsfolk received him back home, he was like the hometown boy who made good. Externally at first it looked like they were accepting him. Then, later, it became clear that that acceptance was contingent upon approval. Now, Jesus did not do anything wrong. He merely spoke. They did not approve of what he said. He said that God loved all people, even Gentiles. He quoted instances from Scripture to prove his contention. That made them contentious and angry. They took back their initial acceptance, even trying to kill him. What happened to Jesus in this story telescopes the entire history of humanity and the personal history of all of us. No wonder we need God himself to save us from ourselves. The “human problem” begins with the difference between acceptance and approval. Uncorrected by Christ, it ends with the “final solution” of a Hitler.
Conditional and Unconditional Love: Conditional love says, “I will love you if…” Unconditional loves says, “I love you because…” Conditional love is ‘approval” love. If you meet my conditions, if you do things the way I approve of, if you eat all your peas and wash your hands before dinner, and gets “A’s, then and only then will I love you. I reserve the right to withdraw my approval love at any time, without prior notice, without negotiations. I may or may not re-instate you into my good graces. Even if you change and meet my conditions, I still may withhold my approval, since you disappointed me once and there is no forgiveness for offending his or her royal highness, me. A person may do ninety-nine things we approve of, but if that person has just one thing wrong with him or her like wrong skin color, wrong gender, wrong age, wrong sexual orientation, wrong political party, wrong language, the list is endless, then I feel justified in rejecting that person. However, rejection has to do with ‘acceptance” love, not unconditional love. Unconditional love accepts a person for being, not for doing, as the person is, with or without approving of that person’s doing, acting, behaving. Conditional love, when moderated by unconditional love, might disapprove of a person’s behavior, but not reject the person doing the misbehaving. Unconditional love says, “I love you because you are.” You are made by the same God who made me, loved by the same God who loves me, valued by the same God who values me. This God always loves me, but does not always like what I do. The same is true for you. He loves you as much as he loves me, no conditions on that, no question about that. At times, he may disapprove of my behavior, but he does not kill me for it, does not even reject me for it. So, why should you or anyone else? Everyone has a right to be, even if we do not do right. That’s God’s rule. We do not get to decide, unless we kill. And most killing, be it killing the body or killing a person’s good name, stems for the mistaken belief that the killer is the arbiter of who lives, who is worth it, who is approved. God loves us both ways. He loves us unconditionally. At the same time, he loves us so much that he does not want us to stay the way we are. He loves us into changing. So, he also loves us conditionally. He puts down conditions, things he wants us to do. However, with God if we do not meet His conditions, he does not withdraw his unconditional love, he simply disapproves. One day it will be time for us to live out the consequences of that disapproval, but not today, not now. He is banking on us to love him so much in return that we will meet his conditions freely, because, because we also love him unconditionally, that we want to please him. Once we get this crucial distinction down between accepting unconditional love and approving conditional love, we can deal with our own emotions. We can admit what we do not like in a person, even in ourselves, without going to the extreme and killing all hope of change by rejecting others or self on the flimsy excuse that our feelings ache or that the challenge to change our minds about people is too great.
People-pleasing: Jesus would not perform miracles to please people. He did not crave approval so much that he would sell off his integrity. He also knew that miracles only produce the desire for more miracles, like possessions, and that, like the potato chip ad, “You cannot stop at just one.” Miracles do not produce faith, any more than pleasing people or trying to produces approval, at least, not for long. The indignation people feel when their will is not done, when people do not perform according to their script, blinds them to any goodness in the “offending” person. Then to any goodness in themselves and they behave like arresting officer, accuser, judge, jury and executioner all at once. It all proceeds from not “getting it right,” from misunderstanding love as God has revealed it and shown it. Amen.
