Zacchaeus - a special encounter with Jesus (Luke 19:1-10)

1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through it. 2 A man was there named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich. 3 He was trying to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was short in stature. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see him, because he was going to pass that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today." 6 So he hurried down and was happy to welcome him. 7 All who saw it began to grumble and said, "He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner." 8 Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much." 9 Then Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost."

We have been on the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and the cross. His last stop on this road was in Jericho, some 20 kilometres NE of Jerusalem. Jericho was located on a highway where many commercial goods were transported, and thus where a huge amount of custom duties were collected (for the Roman government). Tax collectors would certainly be seen here.

So we read that in Jericho there was a man named Zacchaeus. How was he described? Two key descriptions ... (i) a chief tax collector, and (ii) rich.

A “tax collector” was seen by his own Jewish people as a gross traitor, as he collected taxes on behalf of the occupying Roman authorities, and thereby participated in a corrupt system whereby the highest amounts of tax possible were extracted from the citizens. A “chief” tax collector could well and truly profit above and beyond the amounts that he would pay on to the government (through taking a slice of the contemptible profiteering activities of his hired collectors). This institutionalised extortion especially hurt the poor, making their life unbearable. Such a person as this “chief tax collector Zacchaeus” was generally viewed in the worst category of ‘sinners’. His greed had led to great wealth being accumulated at the expense of those who suffered in poverty.

And in being described as “rich”, we are likely to recall Jesus’ earlier words, that due to the seductive nature of money, it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Luke 18:25). So there are two major strikes against Zacchaeus’ character.

These two strikes suggest that, in terms of his spirituality, Zacchaeus is in an impossible position. Yet the quote I began earlier, goes on to say, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God” (18:27). A ‘third strike’ may see Zacchaeus barring himself from God’s kingdom for all eternity. This ‘third strike’ might have taken the form of further resistance or opposition to God, yet instead, in Zacchaeus, we happily see a remarkably seeking heart.

Jesus came to Jericho, and suddenly there was a sense of hope for Zacchaeus. Such was the depth of his dark hole, without someone like Jesus there was no hope of a better life for Zacchaeus. There we have it, a picture of the worst of sinners, consumed by his wealth, heading nowhere when it came to faith. Yet when Jesus arrived, and he was sought out, there grew tremendous new possibilities.

By his actions, Zacchaeus certainly seemed desperate to see Jesus and find out more about him. Had he heard certain things about Jesus and wanted to know more? Would this Jesus hold the answers to the way Zacchaeus felt about himself? Or, was Zacchaeus just responding to the clamour of the crowd around him concerning the person who was coming through Jericho? Either way, this was evidence that Zacchaeus was ready for change. So much so that he rushed around to find a better vantage point, and finished up climbing a sycamore tree. But we might still have some ‘why’ questions!

What had Zacchaeus come to think about himself and his life, do you think, that brought such feelings of dissatisfaction???

·         Sick of everybody ridiculing and hating him

·         Regretting his social and religious isolation

·         Realising that power and wealth was not making him happy

·         A feeling of emptiness inside

·         Thinking that there must be more to life

·         Hadn’t ever quite escaped a religious upbringing

·         Just maybe experiencing feelings of guilt (regarding those being cheated)

·         Maybe he had heard about how Jesus befriended another tax collector called Levi (Luke 5:27-8), and that Levi (Matthew) was now following Jesus everywhere

·         Perhaps this was just an inner response that he wasn’t able to even explain himself yet.

For someone like Zacchaeus to rush around and climb a sycamore tree like this, also shows a humbling of oneself. This is the sort of humility which shows a readiness to respond to something new.

It’s a wonder that Zacchaeus didn’t fall right out of that tree with what happened next! Zacchaeus was only trying to get closer to Jesus, sort of like taking some tentative steps, but then Jesus spotted him and called to him by name. How did Jesus know his name!?! And what did he just hear ... Jesus wanted to come to his place for lunch!! This was something completely remarkable considering nobody else ever wanted to speak with Zacchaeus let alone voluntarily going to his home. Jesus could have received any number of invitations from ‘respectable’ people, but he was actually choosing Zacchaeus to spend time with and share some hospitality. And of course, in this culture, such sharing of hospitality was an acknowledgement of acceptance and friendship. Despite his shock and probably some trepidation (given his life choices thus far), Zacchaeus enthusiastically responded and “hurried down” from the sycamore tree ... ‘happy as Larry’.

Now do you see the power of Jesus’ invitation and willingness to spend time at Zacchaeus’ own home? Jesus didn’t suggest a meeting at the temple, nor even in a neutral place – Jesus went right into the heart of Zacchaeus’ life, despite his reputation! And what a personal impact this had!

As we move on to verse seven ... of course the people around grumbled, for they could not see beyond their own negative judgements. There was certainly reason for them to dislike Zacchaeus, but they failed to understand what Jesus had repeatedly said ... that he had come to “seek out and save the lost”. We should not get stuck in our mindset simply according to current realities, failing to see the possibility of (transformational) change. We can’t even afford to get stuck within any bitterness that has developed against those who have offended us. In the case of Zacchaeus, who knows what led or caused him to go down the track in life that he did! What sort of pain leads one to become a persecutor of others? The fact is, there is a chance for anyone, no matter how bad things have got, to experience freedom from what is oppressing them.

Jesus would have been deemed by many to have become ‘unclean’ himself through this interaction with a chief ‘sinner’, but this did not of course deter Jesus. Jesus showing acceptance for Zacchaeus brought about tremendous results. Jesus did not of course accept how Zacchaeus had been behaving, but rather accepted him as a person with a view to what he could become. Such acceptance and friendship as this, brought about such great outcomes, not only for Zacchaeus personally, but also for those that he would turn around to subsequently help. It was in this context of acceptance that Zacchaeus hurried to welcome Jesus (verse 6).

Sometime later, after there had been fellowship and conversation shared between Zacchaeus and Jesus, Zacchaeus acknowledged how he now viewed and responded to Jesus by referring to him as “Lord”, and then secondly committed to a new way of living, at least in the way he viewed money. First he gave away half of his assets to the poor, and then he set about paying restitution to all those he had cheated – unlikely to be a short list – and to give them four times as much as he may have originally profited – sincerely seeking to make up for some of the misery he had caused. This is pretty radical action ... but, given the circumstances, it was required action. This indeed would prove the sincerity of his new association with Jesus. This will also help Zacchaeus participate in the life of the community again, reducing some of his social isolation.

Whereas this is only a monetary example of a change of mindset, it does give a strong indication how a heart has been more holistically changed. Zacchaeus has acted on his guilty conscience with serious repentance, thus progressively moving from a selfish self-centredness toward following the Jesus way into concern and care for others. Zacchaeus decidedly left behind dishonesty and began embracing a whole new pattern of generosity.

As the crescendo of this narrative we read Jesus saying, “Today salvation has come to this house” (verse 9). This “salvation” results where someone responds to the invitation from Jesus to change their focus away from self ... toward God and neighbour. Zacchaeus had lost himself in his professional occupation and in his concern for the material things in life, causing much harm to himself and others. Yet he had found forgiveness through the grace of Jesus and turned in a new direction. In this way he re-entered the path of eternal life and the kingdom of God, and could be regarded as a true child of God. God will now restore the person Zacchaeus was originally designed to be.

What can we learn from all this???

·         Jesus is seeking the lost, no matter what dark situations they have fallen into

·         Many people are searching for something that will change their ‘fortunes’

·         Some people are not far from the Kingdom of God – they just need some of the ‘dots’ to be connected

·         Transformation is possible, as people encounter Jesus

·         Jesus took the initiative in connecting with Zacchaeus – we will need to be prepared to take initiative ourselves

·         And further, Jesus was prepared to connect with people on their own ground.

True Neighbourhood Engagement

Within my thinking, as I work through all the latest missional literature, I cannot get past two inescapable conclusions. We need the neighbourhood church if we are going to effectively see the coming of the Kingdom of God i.e. the church that is sufficiently focussed on the local community in terms of loving it and seeking its welfare. Secondly, we need, having gathered locals into our church gatherings, to send them back to their streets and neighbours, solidified and energised to share the good news of Jesus. This would be in stark contrast to the large church that extracts people some distance from their local contexts and keeps them closeted there in churchy busyness.

"Eternal Consequences" - a sermon (Luke 16:19-31)

1.     Reaction

How do you react to this text? What is it saying to you?

2.     A Dramatic Parable

Jesus tells a story – with two very contrasting characters, one extremely wealthy, and the other destitute. We should note as a matter of background, that this parable’s original hearers would have seen wealth as God’s undoubted blessing, and poverty and illness as God’s punishment on sin. The reversal of fortune in this parable would therefore have come as a bit of a shock.

Firstly there was a “rich man” who had everything he could possibly want in a material sense; and he flaunted it in public every day. He had more food than he could possibly need or eat, yet did not share it.

Then, outside the gate of his property was another man – a poor man named “Lazarus”. It is not clear whether Jesus was suggesting any connection with the Lazarus mentioned in John’s Gospel who Jesus raised from the dead, yet the last verse of our reading may indicate some connection. The more important factors about this name though are: (a) that this character was given a name when the “rich man” remained nameless; and (b) what that name “Lazarus” means. This naming of “Lazarus” is truly significant, for it is the only time a character is named in one of Jesus’ parables. We’ll come back to these matters.

“Lazarus” was in a pitiful state – covered with painful sores (probably ulcers), malnourished and starving hungry; and given that he “lay” at the “gate” suggests he was either physically disabled or extremely weak. Lazarus was hoping for gifts of food to come from the palatial home within the grounds, and probably was also begging from passers-by.

So we are given a graphic and dramatic picture of one man arrogantly feasting, while another just outside his front gate starved to death. There must have been food scraps at the very least, but these were not offered to people like Lazarus. The “rich man” could so easily help, but he does not! Here was something of a ‘test case’ – how would one so well off respond to a very presenting need right on his doorstep? Could such a “rich man” be far-sighted enough to make a difference in at least one other person’s life?

But, this “rich man” shows no concern or sensitivity or consideration towards poor Lazarus at all! And, he should of course have known better. He only had to recall Deuteronomy 15:7-8: If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of the towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbour. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. There are so many other texts like this – God’s priority on this could not possibly be missed (or could it)!

Jesus is not only addressing very personal one-on-one ethical issues (between one particular rich man and another certain poor man at his gate), but also making prophetic observations on the state of society ... straight to those who could do something about it but chose not to. We should pause to think about the implications of ‘richer’ nations holding out on ‘poorer’ nations. This would also bear relevance to how any nation addresses the real everyday needs of its most vulnerable citizens.

The name “Lazarus” means ‘God helps’. And, just as well ‘God helps’ in the case of Lazarus, because clearly the human community hasn’t done much!  God looks upon this scene with compassion and draws Lazarus into His care. The one who society has failed is taken up by the angels and brought to Abraham (the father of the Jewish nation) in heaven. The listeners to this story customarily believed that gaining a place of intimacy at Abraham’s bosom was the greatest honour imaginable (hence the song “Rock my soul in the bosom of Abraham”). At this point of the story, the shock starts to set-in for the listeners, as a poor and sick man finds intimacy with Abraham!

God well knows who society has failed, and who it was that was the cause of this! It was a decree of creation that we looked after the earth, each other and all its inhabitants. Who was it that said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (sic) do nothing”? That saying is attributed to Edmund Burke.

Do we consciously consider and understand that our sins of omission can be just as bad as our actual committed sins. These are those things that we haven’t done that we know we should do ... or should know that we should do. For we have the clear witness of Scripture. I fear that many who say they believe in the words of the Bible, actually believe in what they would prefer the words of the Bible to be.

It is not surprising that, given his condition, the “poor man Lazarus” died. And, as we have seen, far from rejecting Him, God receives Lazarus into His company. God often sees things and people differently to common thought.

But what of the nameless “rich man”! One day he died and his body was buried and his spirit was being tormented. The situations had been reversed. The last shall be first, and the first shall be last! The rich man’s name was deemed irrelevant – forgotten forever. His wealth had evaporated with his last earthly breath.

As we’ve said, most hearers would have expected a better outcome for this so-called “rich man” simply because of his wealth, power and position, but not so. In reality, the heaping up of wealth to the detriment of the poor has turned out to be a terrible miscalculation, even as a cause for eternal torment (Hays). As Michael Hardin puts it, “Judgement comes to those who live large without considering the needs of those around them”. Wealth, rather than being a blessing, often is a curse because of what it does to a person and where it leaves their soul. The pursuit of wealth fosters a God ignoring self-indulgence.

It turns out that God’s Kingdom is ‘too small’ for the rich and callous, but when it comes to the poor and humble ... there’s plenty of room. Most hearers would not have expected such a good outcome for Lazarus, for surely he must have deserved his earthly suffering – but again ... not so!

Now of course this is a parable and as such can’t be taken literally in every aspect, and we can’t build any sort of afterlife theology on this; especially as we see this strange communication happening between the two places. It’s purely a story of contrast, a literary device, to make a very clear point; and the point is this: we have to make the right decisions on earth here and now – in terms of our ethical conduct, for they will have eternal consequences!

This is not just a matter of believing in Jesus and receiving salvation, but also about how we apply that salvation in our daily lives. We can never think that we can ever accept Jesus and then go on living unchanged ... it doesn’t work that way. Making the decision to accept and follow Jesus involves being sincerely and seriously committed to God’s ways. In these terms, we ask ourselves about what our life will amount to; for we have seen in this text ... a spectacular example of failure.

We have here (from verse 23) an ‘after-life’ scene, where the now deceased “rich man” looks with envy from “Hades” toward Lazarus who is obviously in a much better and cooler place in the company of “Father Abraham”. As an aside, it’s interesting that the now deceased “rich man” is referred to as “child” (verse 25), which suggests that God still has a level of compassionate connection with this man. Yet the man’s arrogant and unsympathetic attitude on earth has become a huge barrier ... too big a barrier in fact!

And nothing much has changed as this man still expects Lazarus to come and serve him (with that little drop of water), even though he never lifted a finger to help Lazarus when he had ample opportunity and resources to do so. He expects mercy when he had offered none himself! “I am in agony” ... wasn’t Lazarus in agony!! He still doesn’t get it!

If only this “rich man” had extended this level of compassionate hospitality to the poor man at his gate. This “rich man” calls upon his religious heritage by calling Abraham “Father Abraham”, but due to his earthly inaction, this claim is a sham. Verse 26 reinforces that it is our decisions on earth that determine our destiny. The distance that the “rich man” had kept away from the needs of others on earth has become a distance that he now cannot cross.

This deceased “rich man” now turns his concern toward his family back in life on earth. Part of the rich man’s culpability, was that he had chosen to put boundaries around whom he cared for, to the exclusion of anyone outside his immediate family. Now he wants Lazarus sent back to them (like a slave) to warn them about where he himself has finished up. But again it’s too late! They have had ample opportunity in growing up in the religion of Israel to accept the teachings of the prophets but have failed to do so. No miraculous sign, not even a resurrection of a person from the dead would properly convince them if they have become so hard-hearted. The rich man’s family shouldn’t have needed a sign; they simply needed to follow what God had already revealed to them (Jon Lindsay).

3.     Response

It is time for all of us to make the right decisions! God has provided a free gift of grace ... which we only have to say “yes” to! There is a gift of mercy to accept, unwrap and begin to experience. No doubt then, when we see the face of “Lazarus” in need at our gate we will be prepared to help.

      4.     Postscript

This whole parable was of course originally spoken straight at the Pharisees who had decided to absolutely reject and destroy Jesus, despite all the evidence that he was indeed the Son of God. The sad fact is – Jesus’ own resurrection would not even help to convince them. Sometimes people are looking for a ‘sign’ or a remarkable turn of events to convince them to have faith, but we have already been given ample reason to embrace faith. And also, we have been given clear teaching concerning what to do with that faith.

"Provision for the Poor" (Leviticus 19:9-10) - today's message for the Harvest Festival Thanksgiving at Tarneit Skies Village

There is a clear concern in both testaments of the Bible for the poor and needy. The Hebrew prophets, followed by Jesus, then Paul, spoke and wrote about the fact that ethical and credible religion must address the needs of the poor. In effect, it is as blatant as this – if you ignore the poor, then you are turning your back on Jesus! From the earliest records of Israelite ethics and law, we read how important it was to care for those on the fringe of economic life (as well as those who were “aliens” i.e. foreign newcomers to the community just finding their way). Leviticus 19:9-10 gives one example of this.

The context of the chapter is ‘holiness’ (19:2), denoting that our attitudes to money and the poor cannot be ignored when assessing our spiritual maturity. ‘Holiness’ means being publicly set apart as God’s person. How is it that we can be increasingly seen as God’s person? True ‘holiness’ will imitate God’s nature and activity! And as this teaching in Leviticus chapter 19 was inclusively addressed ... to “all the congregation of the people of Israel”, the content of verses 9-10 were not something to be choosy about, as if it was an option to be selected (or not). So ... compassion and generosity are central features of ‘holiness’ that cannot be ignored!

Many people in history have not been able to ignore God’s call of compassion, even when this is against all odds: Mother Teresa in the streets of Calcutta, Father Damien in the leper colony of Molokai, William Wilberforce on behalf of the slaves being brought to England, Martin Luther King seeking equality for African-Americans in the civil rights movement. But all of us can aspire to such compassion as we are willing to see the face of Jesus in the stranger. And just imagine what it would look like if everyone who found themselves in need were compassionately and spontaneously helped! Here is a vision of a better community.

The people of God were not to be too pedantic, when harvesting their crop, about the bits around the edges and the pieces that were dropped along the way ... for these should be deliberately left for the poor and needy people who would follow behind later, who were collecting what they could for their family’s mere survival. There is evidence of this actually happening when we read Ruth chapter 2. There the landowner Boaz was quite generous in his interpretation of this decree, and the foreigner Ruth was able to glean quite a large amount.

There are no measurements given as to how far in from the edge the crop should be left, or how many grapes should be left on each vine – for this was no doubt designed to motivate the right heart attitude much more so than legislate particular percentages. There should be an everyday concern for the needs of the poor (that reflects a central core character concern of God)! There was the idea being promoted here that any such harvest was a blessing originating in God, which could and should be shared with the wider community, rather than exercising any right of personal, private and exclusive ownership. Taking the majority share of the harvest would be way enough for the farmer ... to be overly worried about the remaining 5 or 10 or 15 percent showed greed and a callous attitude toward the poor.

Christopher J H Wright (“Old Testament Ethics for the People of God”, 167) puts it this way:

The important thing is not whether you feel compassion, but whether you act with compassion. So, whatever you may feel, you are to avoid reaping your fields, vineyards or orchards to the very last grain, grape or olive. There are those whose needs are more urgent than your rights of ownership, and on whose behalf God commands very practical compassion.

It is true that every blessing and good resource has come to us through the Creator of Heaven and Earth. We are, generally speaking, in this country well and truly fortunate – with our climate, and with the availability of food, housing, education, employment and health services. We should be ever grateful. But we should not only be grateful, but recognise the responsibility relative wealth brings.

There will be many, some of which due to no fault of their own, who do not have enough through which to survive life. We should also, especially in a spiritual sense, realise the danger we are putting ourselves in if we give too much emphasis to the material side of life. Material possessions can distract us from God, and begin to even possess us! Material possessions tend to devalue or disappear anyway, and in the end we can’t take them with us into eternity. This is why we should tend to only hold onto such things lightly and loosely. Holding on too tight overvalues any given material thing.

And so not being overly worried about those crops at the edges of the field, nor the few grapes missed on the vines, given that there will certainly be needy others collecting them up, was the way for the people of Israel to have everything in the right perspective. Sure this type of provision could be exploited by the one who is too lazy or irresponsible to take up their own load in society, or by the one who would cheat the system by taking more than they need and profiting from the kindness of others. Yet just because such provisions are vulnerable to abuse, this does not counteract the necessity of making them available.

Right across Melbourne, people present themselves to welfare services, seeking food for their family. There are many factors involved in this – unemployment, rising interest rates, physical and mental health issues, relationship breakdown, rising prices. Need within our society presents itself in various ways, and there are many good community responses to this situation. We are all called to be part of this effort, especially as we understand the equality of all humanity under God, and dignity in which God would want us all to live.

The question occurs as to the extent to which we have to go? Where do any boundaries lie? I don’t have any easy answers to this one. Basically, we should not become weary of doing good (Galatians 6:9). I have often said that giving in to compassion fatigue is not an option for a Jesus follower. But at the same time, we are human and we do get tired! Sometimes our resources, including our emotional reserves, can get very strained.

Also, no one should be allowed to become totally dependent upon anyone else (apart from God) lest they lose their humanity, and their capacity to grow, altogether. There is a point at which people do need to take responsibility for themselves, and part of our support of them should be aimed at that goal.

The best international aid projects, rather than mere hand-outs, are those based around community development, facilitating self-determination at some point in the future. So ultimately our offer of care, rather than building greater dependence upon us, has to target a person’s own potential for self-care.

Yet often, in the first instance, it is just plain material and practical help that is required. We do have to protect our own well-being against being dominated by certain people. Yet, we also have to guard ourselves against being too easily apathetic, hardhearted or distant (sometimes letting past bad experiences get in the way of new opportunities).

We have to be able to follow our heart on this – a heart that has become so attuned to God that we readily appreciate God’s heart of compassion, and thus get it right more often than not. We need to pray that we get our various judgement calls on this more right than not.

When I was an inner-city pastor (at West Melbourne), I had to sort through these judgement calls on a daily basis as people presented at my door looking for money or various types of help. It may be likely that increasingly we will all be called upon to respond to needy situations and make such judgements more often than we would like. The question is: what will guide our decision-making?

We do need to have positive attitudes toward others. Even though life has shown us that some hearts have become dark and deceptive (through their experience of life so far), we have to continue to see people through the eyes of Jesus, and indeed see Jesus in other people (Matthew 25:34-40).

"Open-ended Hospitality" (Luke 14:15-24) - TCBC message of 4th March

     1.     Introduction

This parable is told by Jesus in the midst of a dinner at the home of a Pharisee. At this particular dinner, Jesus has already given lessons on the need for humility (rather than feelings of superiority) and the need for hospitality to be given through basic kindness (rather than thoughts of what could be received in return). Jesus had probably detected that the host on this occasion had a very preferential mindset and a real reticence to expand his social contacts.

Now, one of the dinner guests spoke up and said, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God”. Now on the surface this sounds good, and perhaps the speaker is looking for Jesus to simply agree. But instead, Jesus speaks a parable. Whatever the dinner guest meant by what he said, was about to be challenged by one of Jesus’ challenging scenarios. If we are to be counted with those who truly dine at the feast given by God, what sort of attitudes should we truly hold? And further to this is the question: What is God’s style of hospitality?

     2.     The  Original Invitees

Within Jesus’ parable, we see in verses 18-20 three varieties of excuses for not attending the dinner. The customary practice of the time would have been for the dinner invitations to have gone out some weeks beforehand, but without specific details as to date and time. On this basis the invitations would have been accepted and this would be a binding arrangement. When the dinner-party drew much closer, a messenger was sent out to tell all those who had already accepted that everything was now ready and that they should now come.

Yet we see that something has changed since people accepted the invitation and the occasion arriving. What do think about these excuses??? There was buying land, buying oxen, and getting married!

These are pretty lame excuses – they are meant to sound ridiculous and insulting!

·        Would not the new landowner have gone to see the land before he bought it! And given that the contract had been completed, any further issues could certainly wait another day.

·        Would not the new owner of the five yoke of oxen have tried out these animals before he invested in them! To have not done so would be like buying a second-hand car without driving it.

·        Would not the newly-married invitee have known that he was getting married way before the first invitation went out (which had been accepted)!

Even if you were to buy into any of these excuses, such non-attendance would still be viewed as gravely dishonouring to the host. Material acquisition and business dealings were being put up as more important than fulfilling an appointment that they had been very privileged to receive. It was likely that the marriage excuse was the most bogus of all, relying on the cultural instruction (from Deuteronomy 24:5) of staying home with a new wife for the first year of marriage. Even this was a misuse of the Torah, as it was really only to excuse a man from military service within the first year of marriage (not social interaction).

The point is: these are hopeless excuses! “I cannot come” (in verse 20) should really be read ‘I choose not to come’. The fact is: attendance at the dinner had become inconvenient, and any excuse would do! Other priorities, or perhaps complete apathy, had taken over! In the culture of the time, to refuse to go having previously accepted, was a very serious insult. The honour of being invited should have been enough to ensure their participation. This was the breaking of a very binding covenant, which would have hurt the host. Even just changing one’s mind or just ‘going cold’ on the idea of attending, showed careless unconcern for the host – they have thrown the invitation back in his face.

Yet perhaps the host learnt something too. Those a host might naturally think would attend such a dinner (maybe the more ‘respectable types’), may actually not be the most receptive or willing to come. Perhaps there are others who might more happily respond.

3.     The New Guests

At any rate it would be understandable that there would some sort of reaction from the host. There had been plenty of food made available at significant expense, so another invitation would have to go out. And when there was still more room and hospitality available, a further invitation, even farther afield, would go out. The first invitation, it seems, had not reached the “poor, crippled, blind and lame”, nor had it reached out into more distant regions.  But now, with such rich resources available, the host’s servants had to be sure to offer hospitality in the most open-ended way.

For some of these new invitees, this offer would be coming out of ‘left-field’ as they had never before been treated with such generosity, so they might have needed quite a bit of encouragement. They may feel nervous about coming to where they would have previously felt out-of-place, so they would need to be reassured of their sincere welcome. As the servants went out with their big bag of invitations, you might have thought these were increasingly less likely to be accepted; but in they came [and there was still more room]!

It is interesting that the word translated “compel” was used in verse 23. Other translations have “make” or “urge”. It wouldn’t be the case that it was compulsory to attend, but the case would have to be so strongly put, that people would feel it almost necessary to come. Perhaps what was required was some gentle insistence, not so easily taking ‘no’ for an answer – the invitation was to be presented attractively and persuasively with integrity and sincerity. And the servants were not to be deterred.

4.     Meaning

The first part of the parable reflects on those who toy with God (and take God for granted). Jesus would be drawing from Israel’s sad history of an on-again off-again relationship with God (represented in the Hebrew Scriptures – Old Testament) – crying out to God in bad times and ignoring God when they felt secure. The prophets’ call for the nation to exhibit faithfulness and justice was regularly ignored. Jesus’ own true identity was currently being denied by the religious elite.

And this stares in the face of anyone today who treats God so lightly. This is not those who haven’t heard or haven’t responded, but addressed to those who have initially responded but then let other things get in the way. Such as these will miss the blessing, the spiritual peace and joy, because in their own minds they were too busy or too successful or too important to bother anymore. God, and the way in which God wants to interact with people, can be treated very lightly, even by those who seem on the outside to be quite committed.

Yet God will not give up, not with so much love and grace to be gifted to people. The second part of the parable reflects on the open invitation that needs to be shared broadly across the community and the world. In some places the depth of the offer will fall on deaf ears, but there will remain a  great harvest field to be involved in. God actively and compassionately seeks those who will respond to this invitation to receive Divine hospitality.

5.     Conclusion

So, what of the dinner-guests statement – “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God”?? Jesus’ parable gives a proper interpretation   of what this might truly mean. Fulfilment in life will be found by those who wholeheartedly receive God’s hospitality and are open to broadly share such hospitality with others. Anything short of a wholehearted response to God will be found to be disappointing.

Church Planting - being the "aroma of Christ" and a fragrance on the breeze (thoughts from 2 Corinthians 2:12-17)

     1.       The fragrance of the frangipani

As soon as you get off the plane in Hawaii at Honolulu Airport, you smell the beautiful fragrance of the frangipani. It just lingers in the air, and drifts gently on the breeze from place to place. Wherever you go through the islands of Hawaii, you smell frangipani, so much so, that the frangipani and the Hawaiian Islands are synonymous with each other – the two are connected as one.

Imagine then, the stunning potential of the “aroma of Christ” on a whole neighbourhood! Picture a group of people completely sold out to the notion of following Jesus ... collectively in a largish group, then in various relational small groups, also in families and pairs, even on their own, wandering around their local neighbourhood ... living and acting in ways where people smell the sweet ‘perfume’ of Jesus. Over time this just must have a positive effect, both on the community itself, and then as a result, on the building of the Kingdom of God.

2.       Church planting in Corinth

Paul was the greatest church planter and missionary in history. Maybe we could come up with some other strong examples, but what Paul has in his favour, is that nobody had done this before – Paul was the pioneer of strategic church planting. So he had to make it up as he went; or more to the point, Paul had to be acutely in tune with God’s Holy Spirit to be able to successfully spread the good news of Jesus across modern-day Europe and Asia. Paul would plant churches, and then, guided by the Holy Spirit, move on to the next area. One such locality was Corinth.

Following planting the church in Corinth, a tenuous relationship developed between Paul and the church there. Certain behaviours in the church did not fit the Jesus pattern. Other people (referred to as ‘false teachers’) sought to bring their own influence according to their own agendas (and were having some negative effect). In an earlier letter Paul had had some strong things to say to the Corinthians in response to some of the information that had been fed back to him. Paul’s strong letter, of course, came out of his immense love for the church that he had initiated; he wanted the people of God in that locality to be the best witnesses that they could be to the availability and transforming power of God’s grace. And when he looked at that church, there were many areas in which they were falling short; many areas from which you could see no appreciable difference to the general society around them.

Paul wondered how that letter had gone down. He was very keen to meet up with Titus and find out; so much so that it seems from verses 12-13 that Paul was a bit preoccupied by this desire to know how he stood with the Corinthian Christians. Much like recent political debates in Australia, Paul was aware how he was being character assassinated by his opponents. A feeling of unease had developed, and we might even say that Paul was suffering anxiety about all this. So much so, that he left another “open door” in Troas to seek to find Titus over in Macedonia. Paul seemed overwhelmed and his decision-making was under pressure.

This all shows how a church planter and missionary can see their work like a parent sees a young child. The early moments of nurturing have a significant effect on how things will turn out. We shouldn’t see this in any way as a weakness in Paul, rather a natural outcome of following Jesus on the edge, and continually grappling to experience the peace of Christ. And Paul, I feel, rather than being self-focussed, was genuinely most anxious for the well-being of the Corinthians, both those inside the church, and also those yet to embrace this church. A good outcome meant a lot to Paul.

3.       Never fear, God is working!

But, as Paul relates these concerns, thought processes and changed itinerary in a later letter (that we call 2^nd Corinthians), there is now a shift in the narrative, to a statement of optimism and positivity. [Paul will return to his focus on finding Titus and hearing the Corinthians’ response to him at 7:5.] Perhaps this new mindset (from verse 14) is exactly what Paul needs to have every time his confidence is rocked, or every time it seems that nothing good is happening. God is working!! God’s Spirit is out front opening doors and using the most meagre human efforts to build an enduring witness to Jesus. And as Paul says, “thanks be to God [for that]”. Paul gives himself a talking to, which we can beneficially tune in to. Let us not get bogged down by disappointment, or let frustration get the better of us, for God is calling us forward.

Now you might see how this would be an encouragement to me, and this is something I seek to share with those who are part of our small church beginnings in Tarneit. “But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him”. For me this is a grand vision of the followers of Jesus making a difference for good in every place they go, from the local supermarket to the community centre, from each person’s workplace to their place of recreation, from the doctor’s surgery to the restaurant, from their home to the school and back again. This is also a grand vision of investing yourself thoroughly in the neighbourhood in which you live.

Verse 14 offered the original readers a picture of a Roman general leading his victorious troops in procession through the city before a crowd that is applauding and burning incense and spices and lavishly sprinkling perfume (in thanksgiving to the gods who gave them victory). In view would also be their captured prisoners (from the defeated army), brought up at the rear, facing public ridicule and enslavement.

Where would we see ourselves in such a procession? With the victors? Or with the captives? I asked this question some time back with our group at Tarneit, and they wisely answered ... we could be seen in either place at different times. Sometimes our creative witness to Jesus and practical service of others will be well responded to and a sweet “fragrance” will emanate from this. On other occasions, when we are in a much less happy or advantaged place, the sweet “fragrance” will emanate from how well we deal with our disappointment, frustration or trial.

This “triumphal procession” is not ‘triumphalist’ in the sense of denying the pain we and others often carry, but rather joyful and peaceful in the knowledge that God goes with us through both good and bad. It is a “triumphal procession” because it is based on our faithful and sacrificial service to our neighbour, following the example of Jesus. At the end of verse 16, Paul asks the rhetorical question, “Who is sufficient for these things”? In other words, this question could read, “Who can possibly pull this off”? Well of course the answer is ‘none of us ... in our own strength’, but ‘all of us ... through God’s work in us’!

4.       The aroma of Christ

Verse 14 states that If we know Jesus, we inherit his “fragrance” – which can be experienced by others in a variety of situations. It is worthy to note here that to know Jesus means to be in relationship with Jesus, and to accept Jesus as both our Saviour and our Lord ... the one we daily follow.

Verses 14-16 go on to depict this sweet “aroma of Christ” being noticed right across the public sphere. Such a “fragrance” should create some level of interest. In a way, such a ‘perfume’ would be wasted unless it was given an opportunity to be smelt by others. This sweet “aroma” will be appreciated by those who are already on the journey towards God. This sweet “aroma” could also be a new injection of hope for those who are struggling, and for those who Paul says are “perishing”. Some will continue down a negative path (“from death to death” v.16), but this will not lessen the quality of the perfume! And while the sweet “fragrance” doesn’t necessarily work for everyone, it still remains available to everyone.

Larry Richards writes on this point, “The Gospel message stimulates conflicting reactions. Some who hear respond like a child who smells his mother’s chocolate chip cookies baking. [On the other hand,] some who hear react with wrinkled noses and expressions of disgust, as though a skunk had just passed by”. While some people will remain in their experience of “death”, others will be well and truly illuminated in their experience of “life”.

Some people will remain disinterested and perhaps even laugh or become aggressively resistant, and some will show interest for a while but then drop off; yet there remains the great possibility of many who will stick and join in the “triumphal procession” (and move from “life” to “greater life” through their growing contribution and emerging leadership).

So, as I said in my introduction, imagine the potential of the “aroma of Christ” on a whole neighbourhood! Picture a group of people completely sold out to the notion of following Jesus ... living and acting in ways where people in their local neighbourhood smell the sweet ‘perfume’ of Jesus.

5.       What could our particular sweet-smelling “triumphal procession” look like?

What could our particular sweet-smelling “triumphal procession” look like? How could this be experienced by others? In a wide variety of ways I suspect. And I say these to the man in my mirror first and foremost.

·         Followers of Jesus hold true to their commitments and become well-known for their well-founded priorities.

·         Followers of Jesus who are suffering duress, doubt or confusion, will be prepared to seek and accept help (rather than bottling it up).

·         Followers of Jesus are more likely to work collectively for the common good through sharing their giftedness in the church community (rather than individualistically focus on personal agendas).

·         Followers of Jesus will be neighbourly and community-minded (rather than forming tight boundaries around themselves).

·         Followers of Jesus will bring companionship to those, both close to us and in the crowd, who cannot cope and are showing signs of caving-in.

·         Followers of Jesus will be more interested in simply sharing the wonderful grace of God (bringing freedom), rather than defending old traditions (like the Pharisees of old).

·         Followers of Jesus will be more inclined to share their resources, rather than celebrate how successful they have been.

In conclusion, I float another question: What is the mark of a church’s success? I have read recently a report of how the church planting scene is going in Europe. It was interesting how the church planters were evaluating their effectiveness. There was a remarkable lack of consideration for one of the most important questions they could ask ... ‘what does the local community think about you’? As verse 17 goes on to say, as we genuinely seek to follow Jesus, the “fragrance” that we emit will bring a very public integrity to the positive words we wish to express about God.