Second Sunday in Lent Year C
Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18
Psalm 27
Phil. 3:17-4:1
Luke 13:31-35
Luke 13:31-35
The Lament over Jerusalem
(Mt 23.37—39)
The Warning
31 At that very hour[a] some
Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill
you.”
The Response
32 He said to them, “Go and tell that fox[b] for
me,[c]
‘Listen, I am casting out[d] demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day[e] I
finish my work.[f]
33 Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must[g] be
on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of
Jerusalem.’
The Lament
34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [h] the
city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often
have I desired to gather your children together as a hen[i]
gathers her brood[j]
under her wings, and you were not willing! 35 See, your house is[k] left
to you.[l]
The Prophesy
____________________________________________________________________________
First, a few lines about the context of this passage.
Last week when we
saw him, he was being tempted in the desert by Satan and much had to be bypassed
to get him to this part of his journey. But such is the nature of following the
Lectionary system. We are in Lent now and the wilderness temptations had to
start it off, and the journey to Jerusalem has to be the guts of it. For much
of the middle of the gospel, the geography is secondary. It was in and around
Capernaum and Galilee, but most of what was said and done could have occurred
anywhere. But now, beginning with v. 22, just before this morning’s reading,
Luke tells us that Jesus “went through one town and village after another,
teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem” and from here on to the triumphal
entry, the story will be replete with references to Jerusalem as directional
markers reminding us of where he is going.
Here are the references (in case you don’t have time to
look them all up on your own)
·
In this chapter, v. 33-4: “I must be on my way, because it is
impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.’ Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent
to it!
·
In 17:11, Luke reminds us that “On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and
Galilee.”
·
In 10:31, he tells his disciples that “we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is
written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.”
·
And in 19:11, when he was about to tell a seemingly unrelated parable
(the one about the pounds), Luke says that Jesus is telling it “because he was
near Jerusalem, and because they
supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.”
Outline
of the section
The reading this week is in three parts (or maybe it's a brief narrative followed by two
pronouncements)
·
The first is a warning
from some unnamed (and relatively friendly) Pharisees about a threat from Herod Antipas (the son of Herod the king) to kill Jesus, v. 31. (This piece is unique to Luke.)
·
Second is Jesus’ response
to the threat: “Go and tell that Fox (meaning Herod) what I’m doing, yet, I must be on my
way because it is impossible for a Prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem,”
vv. 32-33. (Jesus simply cannot go away and hide, even if he would want to, because
it is a divine necessity that he die
in Jerusalem.)
·
Third is the lament
proper over Jerusalem, vv 34-35a. This closely parallels Matthew 23.37—39.
(The warning and the lament
don’t quite fit well together and see below on possibly why Luke linked them.)
·
Finally, “You will not see me until the time comes when
you say ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the lord.’” (This is
referring to what we call “Palm Sunday.” It is, in fact almost the exact words
that the people of Jerusalem shout out to him while waving palms when he enters
the city. )
Explanatory background
notes
You can’t use all of these, but bits and pieces of them will help your sermon
become more clear for your parishioners.
V. 31 The Pharisees: Their comment seems fairly well-intentioned
and there’s no reason to suspect that it is not, and Jesus’ caustic comment in
response was directed at Herod, and not at the Pharisees bringing the warning. Herod
Antipas may not have had the extensive power of his father (who also ruled over
a much larger land), but he was powerful enough to do things like kill John the
Baptist with impunity and he could do the same to Jesus. If they were in fact
sincere, then it shows that Pharisees were not monolithic in their view of
Jesus. It’s worth noting, that the Pharisaic community as a whole is not
as vilified in Luke’s
writings as in the other Gospels. He never has Jesus use the word “Hypocrites”
to refer to them[q] Examples of Pharisees who seemed open to Jesus
are: 7:36; 11:37. Craddock says that “Luke certainly gives no totally
unfavorable portrait of them.”[r]
Herod:
One thing that is always helpful to note for
your congregation is that the Herod of this
story is not King Herod, the one who tried to kill Jesus in the birth stories.
This is his son. When Herod the king died, Israel was divided up into four
parts and each part had a ruler assigned by Rome. This Herod, Herod Antipas, was one of those heirs and he ruled over
one of these four parts. His position was technically called “Tetrarch.”
Note that Jesus responds to death threats of
Herod by quoting the saying that “It is impossible for a prophet to be killed
outside of Jerusalem,” but Herod’s rule did not extend to Jerusalem. What does he
mean? Joseph Fitzmyer believes that Jesus is saying two things. First a
tradition that prophets for the most part die in Jerusalem. And second, he is
telling Herod, that while Herod may want to kill Jesus, Jesus’ destiny is not that Herod would kill him, but that
Jerusalem will. As Fitzmyer puts it, “it is not destined that Herod will kill
me, but that Jerusalem will.”[s]
If you are fast on your feet and would like
to flesh that point out verbally in your sermon, here are examples from
Fitzmyer of prophets who died in Jerusalem (or close enough to make the list):
·
the prophet Uriah
in Jerusalem by King Jehoiakim (Jer 26:20–23); or
·
the attempt on
Jeremiah’s life in Jerusalem (Jer 38:4–6)
·
also the attempt
on Amos’ life (Amos 7:10–17), though that took place in Bethel, not in
Jerusalem.
·
The
Jerusalem-slaying of Zechariah (2 Chr 24:20–22), who later becomes a prophet
(son of Berechiah, see Zech 1:1.
·
The story of King
Manasseh, who shed much innocent blood “till he had filled Jerusalem from one
end to another” (2 Kgs 21:16; cf. 24:4). This account becomes a story of his
…killing all the righteous people among the Hebrews: He spared not even the prophets,
some of whom he slaughtered daily, so that Jerusalem ran with blood” (Josephus,
Ant. 10.3, 1 § 38).
·
And there is a
later legend of the killing of the prophet Isaiah spoken of in the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho.[t]
V. 32 “That Fox”
Not considered a
major insult today, but was something awful back then. Today we are clouded by the
phrase, “sly fox,” or “clever like a fox,” concepts that were unknown in the Bible.
Words change meanings over centuries and even across present
cultures. In Guatemala, having a “good spoon” is a metaphor for being a good
cook, but in Venezuela, a “spoon” is a metaphor for a male sexual organ, and I’ve
heard a couple of horrifying stories of Guatemalans visiting in Venezuela and
trying to complement their hosts’ cooking and getting the metaphor disastrously
wrong. The Intervarsity Bible Background
Commentary says it is wrong to confuse “sly” with Fox. Jesus is not paying
Herod a backhanded compliment.
A fox was that awful reviled creature that ate your chickens. Many of your parishioners will know the Hebrew word for hell, Sheol. The word for fox was shu’al, which is very similar and means something that burrows down into the ground (and gets under the door to your hen house). They had particularly destructive effects on vineyards (Judg 15:4; Neh 4:3; Ps 63:10; Lam 5:18; Ezek 13:4).[u]
Reiling and Swellengrebel, in their handbook to help translators around the world
who are working on this Gospel, suggest finding a vile animal in the local
culture and translating it with that animal. That should do it. For example in Bahasa Indonesia,
they suggest a Jackal, which is a particularly hated, reviled animal. So they
say in Bahasa, have Jesus call Herod a jackal. In the Caribbean, they recommend
“spider.”[u]
Why was Jesus Killed?
As an aside, this
was one of the reasons why people wanted to kill Jesus. Jesus was one of those
who criticized his government using nasty, earthy, language, and that’s the
last thing one should do to endear oneself with despotic rulers. One cannot
overstate how the use of language like this was at least one of the (many)
reasons why they wanted to get rid of him. Jesus criticized the government and the wealthy elites and he had a big following. That was a real threat to them. If you are serving a church in which a good percentage of the
membership hate Donald Trump and would love to see him
impeached (if not shot), then dwelling on this might give them more
encouragement than you feel comfortable with. But if, on the other hand, you
are serving a church that seems cowed by government and helpless, and powerless
to affect change in the direction of the government, then a little riff at this
point on the attitude of Jesus towards his own rulers might be helpful. It’s
your call.
The Strength of
Mother Hens
Probably there were two
meanings to the insult. First, that Herod called himself a “Lion of Judah,” and
Jesus is calling him a fox, a tiny (if disgusting) animal. The second is the not so subtle
implication that Herod is the one from whom Jesus is protecting the chicks with
his motherly wings (v. 34 b). Herod is the fox and Jesus is the chicken taking
care of the chicks that Herod is out to kill. On the one hand this doesn’t seem like
a fair fight. The Fox is, after all, much stronger and more vicious than a chicken. There were certainly a lot of big
strong birds in the Old Testament that Jesus could have said he was like, but for some reason, he picked a chicken.
Not a good balance
of power, when you think about it.
On the other hand, I’ve
heard farmers say that usually (though not always) when a fox invades a
hen house, it avoids the hen with her chicks. It will take down a horse, or a
cow or a pig or a goat, or a sheep, but not a hen protecting her chicks. One of
the most powerful forces in the universe is a mother protecting her children. And
if you’ve ever tried to take a woman’s kids away from her, you’d know that the
image is just about right. The fox may be
powerful enough to get away with it,
but he’d also have a real nasty limp for the rest of his life.
One time after I had
preached on this story, one of my parishioners pointed out that fire fighters
in forests often will come across a dead bird covering her chicks. The female
bird could easily have flown away, but she preferred to stay there and die and
protect her young. They just do that.
Barbara Brown Taylor
has a beautiful sermon on this text and she emphasizes this image of the hen
with her chicks:
Jesus won’t be king
of the jungle in this or any other story. What he will be is a mother hen, who stands between the chicks and those
who mean to do them harm. She has no fangs, no claws, no rippling muscles. All
she has is her willingness to shield her babies with her own body. If the fox
wants them, he will have to kill her first.
Which he does, as it
turns out. He slides up on her one night in the yard while all the babies are
asleep. When her cry wakens them, they scatter. She dies the next day where
both foxes and chickens can see her -- wings spread, breast exposed -- without
a single chick beneath her feathers. It breaks her heart, but it does not
change a thing. If you mean what you say, then this is how you stand.[v]
Vv. 31-33 are unique to Luke. The rest closely parallels Matt. 23:37-39,
so are both probably derived from “Q”.
v. 32 “The third day I finish my work.”
Does this mean that
on his third day in the tomb his work will be finished, or that here in Galilee
he has three more days to go before being finished and then off to Jerusalem?
My suspicion is the latter, though it clearly has overtones of the “passion.”
Reiling and Sevellengrebel, in their Translator’s Handbook, vote for the second
as well. Here is their argument for that. Following v. 32, and “the third day I
finish (teleioumai) my work,” verse
33 begins (in the nrsv) with the
word “yet” (plén, “nevertheless” or
“however”). That indicates that there is going to be a contrast between the two
verses, something like, “after the third day I will be finished, however,
following today, tomorrow and the next day I have to be leaving.” The meaning
that they suggest is “tell him he can’t frighten me by saying he wants to kill
me. I have three more days of work to do here and I will do it.”[w]
It might be helpful
to your listeners to note for them how closely this passage is linked to a second lament over Jerusalem in Luke,
19:41 ff., after he has reached Jerusalem. It clearly reflects back to this
one. You might want to point to it as a follow up to this one. Here is the text
(in case you don’t have a Bible handy):
41 As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42
saying, “If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things
that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 Indeed,
the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you
and surround you, and hem you in on every side. 44 They will crush
you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave
within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of
your visitation from God.”
Jerusalem
Jerusalem is central to the Gospel and
Acts of Luke. Luke must have had some kind of larger than life passion for the
city, because he “refers to Jerusalem ninety times; the entire remainder of the
New Testament mentions it only forty-nine.[x] It is central to the meaning of his politics and theology.
“The metaphor of Jerusalem
as a mother and her inhabitants—or all Israel—as children is rooted in the OT
(Isa 54:1-8, 13; 62:45). The image of a bird mothering her young also appears
in various passages (Deut 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Pss 17:8; 36:7; 91:4; Isa 31:5).
Jesus, perhaps speaking as the Wisdom of God, has repeatedly offered Israel,
God’s people, his motherly love and protection, but they would not receive him
(cf. John 1:11-12).[y]
“To illustrate this
[nurturing, protecting] facet of God’s nature, the Bible turns to mothering images.
Jesus likens his desire for Jerusalem, as God’s emissary, to that of a mother
hen who instinctively draws her young under her wing when danger threatens. Her
love is steadfast (Ps 36:7;), and we are the apple of her eye (Ps 17:8). A
woman cannot forget her nursing child (Isa 49:15; cf. 1 Thess 2:7). How often
has she wanted to gather her young to herself? What more tender image could
describe God’s love?”[z]
“to gather your children as a hen gathers
her brood under her wings”
See my comments above on the
pairing of the Fox and Chicken. But it’s also interesting to simply emphasize
that she wants to comfort and protect the chicks under her wing. Jewish
tradition claimed that Jewish people were under God’s wings, and when a Jewish
person converted a Gentile, he or she “brought the Gentile under the wings of
God’s presence.” The Hebrew Bible also portrays God as an eagle hovering over
its offspring (Deut 32:11; cf. Ex 19:4) and protecting Israel under his wings
(Ps 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4), and similarly terrifying Israel’s foes
(Jer 49:22). Jesus here applies this divine role and image to himself.
V. 35: “See, your house is left to you.”
The kjv and some older
translations have “your house is left to you desolate (erēmos). But that word is not in modern
editions of the Greek. Probably a scribal attempt to force Luke to sound more
like Matthew 23:39 or like a prophecy from Jeremiah Jr 22:5. However, the adjective is textually suspect even so. The sense
of the verse still however implies that something destructive will happen to
your houses. Jesus is saying, “I tried to bring you in, I tried to teach you
what makes for peace, but you did not listen, so ‘something’ will happen to
your houses.” The implication is strongly that their actions are going to
result in something terrible happening to their “houses.” One could say that
because of Jerusalem’s sin, it was “left to its own devices” which in practice
could lead to destruction and perhaps desolation. They are left without the
care of God. Reiling and Swellengrebel (the
authors of the handbook for Luke for translators) suggest the ominous
phrase, “Your house will be abandoned
to you.”[bb]
God will pull away and they will suffer the consequences of having to survive
on their own.
Allan Culpepper, in
his New Interpreter’s Bible commentary,
says that “This allusion may be taken
as a reference to the Temple in Jerusalem, but it should probably be read as a
metaphor for Israel, as in Jeremiah’s warning, ‘But if you will not heed these
words, I swear by myself, says the Lord, that this house shall become a
desolation’ (Jer 22:5; cf. 12:7; 1 Kings 9:7-8). The use of the present tense
in the declaration of the verdict presents the future act as already
accomplished. Jerusalem would be destroyed, and by the time Luke wrote its
destruction had fulfilled Jesus’ words.”[cc]
A possible sermon outline based on the
lament:
1. 34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that
kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
In recent memory Jerusalem seems to be always fighting, always at war (though in recent decades
most of its “wars” have been with the Palestinians whose land the new Israel has been occupying since 1947).
Give an example from
the week’s news about tension, or fighting in Jerusalem. My unhappy assumption
is that when a preacher lifts this text for the next generation or more, he or
she will be able to find a recent example in the news about a Jerusalem (or
Israel) that “kills prophets and stones people who are sent to it.”
2. “How often have I desired to gather your children
together as a hen gathers her brood under her
wings,
What a symbol. In
comparison with the symbol of Herod as a fox. Why such a paltry, weak image. A
chicken vs. a Fox. Hadn’t Jesus ever heard of the old image of the Fox in the
Hen house? Didn’t he know what Foxes do for a living? But on the other hand,
I’ve heard that when foxes invade a henhouse, they seldom attack mothers with
baby chicks around them because they know they’ll get their eyeballs scratched
out. There are few forces in the world more powerful than a mother protecting her
children and that is the image that Jesus is reaching for.
3. and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you.
Denying the comfort
and love of God is a disease that has stricken most of humanity for most of our
lives on the planet. And when left to our own devices most of what we are left
to is wars and distrust and oppression and grief. This is a description that is
public and political and also private and individual. All of us, nations,
races, and individuals, have at one time or another rejected the love of God and
suffered the consequences.
I don’t have the
wisdom to understand how it works, but I know personally that in those times
when I have felt close to God, I could experience tremendous pain or loss (or
both) and survive intact and stronger. And during those times when I felt
distant from God, I could have a hangnail and think the world was about to end.
Surrounding the medallion
on the floor of the chapel on the Mount of Olives are the words “Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to
it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers
her brood under her wings,” and then outside
the circle, is the rest of the verse: “and you were not willing!" Outside
the circle, in a pool of red, underneath the chicks’ feet.
And haven’t we all.
[a] “In that very hour” (en autēi tēi
hōrāi). The kjv has “That
very day,” but the best modern mss. say otherwise. The net has “at that time.” Vincent calls this, “Luke’s favorite
notation of time.”
[b] “That
fox” (tēi alōpeki tautēi).
Figuratively, could be someone who was either cunning or destructive, a
destroyer (see, for ex, Eze.13:4; Lam.5:18; 1 Enoch 89:10, 42-49, 55). Here,
Luke seems to be emphasizing the destructiveness meaning, and Herod did, after
all murder John the Baptist,
[d] “Casting out” (ekballo), to eject,
throw, bring forth, cast out, drive out, expel, send away. See. Mark 1:43,
where the same verb is translated, “sent him away.”
[e] “On the third day.” “Translators differ over whether this means on his
third day in the tomb his work will be finished, or that here in Galilee he has
three more days to go before being finished. Reiling and Swellengrebel say that
“since plen (however) at the
beginning of v. 33 (which refers to Jesus’ death) suggests a contrast between
v. 32 and 33, it seems better to interpret teleioumai
as not referring to Jesus’ death.” (Translator’s
Handbook to Luke). Perhaps the meaning is, “tell him he can’t frighten me
by saying he wants to kill me. I have three more days of work to do here and I
will do it.”
[f] “I
finish my work” (teleioumai, present
pass. indicative of teleioō, from teleios, to bring to
perfection. It’s one word in Greek but many in English because in Greek the direct object
(“my work”) is understood, and must be supplied to make sense in an English
translation. The kjv has “perfected.” Could also be, "I
reach my goal." “I have reached my end.” “Tελειόω (teleioō) is
common in the NT for the completion of God's plan. Used in Hebrews 2:10
of God’s purpose in the humanity of Christ. In John 19:30; it has the additional
meaning of "to perfect." See also, Luke 12:50; Luke 22:37; Heb 2:10; Heb 5:8-9; Heb 7:28" (NET). “I finish my work” “The
actual words of 13:32 are ‘I am being perfected’, which uses the divine passive
and means ‘God is perfecting me’. Jesus, for Luke, is the eschatological
prophet of whom Moses spoke (Deut 18:15) and, since he is the agent of God’s
renewal of Israel, he must like so many of the prophets suffer, and that
nowhere other than in Jerusalem. Luke’s gospel begins and ends in that city” (John Barton and John
Muddiman, eds., Oxford Bible Commentary
[New York: Oxford University Press, 2001]).
[g] "Must" (dei), or "it is
necessary." In Luke, this usually indicates something that is a part of
the Divine plan.
[h] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Ierousalēm, Ierousalēm).
"In Matthew 23:37 Jesus utters a similar lament over Jerusalem. Plummer
considers it 'rather a violent hypothesis' to suppose that Jesus spoke these
words twice. It is possible that he put the words here because of the mention
of Jerusalem. The language of the apostrophe is almost identical in both places
(Luke 13:34; Matthew 23:37-39). In Luke we have episunaxai (late first
aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew episunagagein (second aorist
active infinitive), both from episunagō, a double compound of late
Greek (Polybius). Both have “How often would I” (posakis ēthelēsa).
"How often did I wish."
[i] “Hen” (ornis). A bird (as rising in the air). In the NT, only of a “hen” (Matt. 23:37; Luke
13:34) could also refer to any female domestic fowl.
[j] “Brood”
(nossia). Matthew has “chickens.”
[k] “Is.” Note the present tense,
not future. This was written by Luke after
the destruction of Jerusalem, and that is subtly reflected in Luke’s wording.
[l] “Your
house is left to you” The kjv and
other older translations have “your house is left to you desolate
(erēmos). But the
word is not in modern editions of the Greek. Probably a scribal attempt to
force Luke into a parallel with Matthew 23:39, but the adjective is textually
suspect even so. The sense of the verse can, however, still intend a
destructive end. One could say that because of Jerusalem’s sin, it was “left to
its own devices” which in practice could lead to destruction and perhaps
desolation. They are left without the care of God. “Your house will be
abandoned to you” is suggested by Reiling
and Swellengrebel.
[m] "You will not see me until the time comes
when..." Matthew's version has "until the time comes again..."
Luke probably intentionally leaves "again" out because it didn't fit
with his chronology. In Matthew, these words occur after Jesus has been in
Judah for some time and is about to enter Jerusalem. So it makes sense that
people of Jerusalem or Judah could see him "again." But for Luke, the
event occurs on the way, but not in Judah, so, when they see him
at the triumphal entry with the palms, they will be seeing him for the first
time. Therefore, he had to take out the "Again" in a phrase that is
otherwise exactly as Matthew had it.
[o] “Blessed? (eulogeo) Verb Participle Perfect Passive
Nominative Masculine Singular. Bestow a blessing upon, act graciously toward
(with God or Christ as subject). When God is the object: praise, as with Luke 1:64, “Immediately his
mouth was opened and his tongue freed, and he began to speak, praising God.”
[p] “Blessed
is the one who comes [in the name of the Lord].” From Ps. 118:26. Clearly a
not-so-subtle reference to his Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where this verse
is chanted by the onlookers almost verbatim (Luke 19:39-44). “By placing it so
early in Jesus’ ministry, perhaps Luke is saying that though Israel’s house is
forsaken, there is yet time for repentance and for joining in the expectation
of redemption. It is late but not too late” (Harper’s Bible Commentary, [New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
Inc.] 1988).
[q] Though he does in 12:1, say
to beware of the “yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy.”
[r] Craddock, Interpretation:
Luke, p. 173.
[t] Adapted from, Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV, vol.
28A, p. 1032.
[u] A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke, (Brill: United Bible Society),
1971.
[u] John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016)
[u] John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016)
[v] The Christian Century,
09/19/06, http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2006-09/barnyard-behavior,
retrieved, 02/15/16.
[x] Craddock, Interpretation:
Luke, p. 174.
[y] Alan Culpepper, New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX,
Luke-John (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), p. 282.
[z] Culpepper, Luke, p. 283.
[aa] Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New
Testament.
[cc] Culpepper, Luke, p. 282.
[dd] Taylor, http://vaumc.org/ncfilerepository/MinServices/BarbaraBrownTaylorSermon.pdf,
, retrieved, 02/15/16.
