Maundy Thursday

Here is the transcript of the podcast version of my sermon for Maundy Thursday.

Maundy Thursday

Reading: John 13:1-11

For the sermons for Holy Week and Easter, I am thinking of our Lord’s death and resurrection in the light of four characters. On Palm Sunday, I looked at Judas. Tonight, for Maundy Thursday, I want to think about Peter.

Peter is an interesting character to look at after Judas. Judas betrayed Jesus; Peter denied him. In the eyes of many, Judas and Peter are essentially guilty of the same crime; the difference being that Peter found a way back after it. Their crime was that they both failed Jesus when it mattered. Their respective failure is seen as a matter of degree, betrayal being worst than denial, but, nevertheless, still of a similar nature to it. It is, I think, more complicated than that – isn’t it always? Despite it ending with his denial, Peter remained faithful to Jesus until the moment Jesus seemed to betray the faith Peter had in him, even then Peter didn’t so much lose faith in Jesus, as get lost in the confusion of what was happening.

Let’s go back to where it all first started.

When we think of where it all began for Peter, we probably think of Peter with his brother Andrew and their partners as fishermen, James and John (Luke 5:10), sitting by the lake in Galilee, mending their nets (Mark 1:16-20). Jesus seeing them calls them to follow him. In the way we often imagine it, this is the first time they meet. It is a sort of ‘love at first sight’ type of encounter. Again, it’s more complicated than that.

St John tells us in his Gospel that some of those who became Jesus’ disciples were originally disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:35). Peter and his brother Andrew were among them. St John tells us that they came from Bethsaida (John 1:44), although, by this time, their home is in Capernaum. Philip, another of John’s disciples who becomes a disciple of Jesus, also comes from Bethsaida. These are people who know one another and who share the same beliefs and convictions.

That these fishermen had already left their nets to follow John the Baptist gives us an idea as to what their beliefs and motivations were. John spoke of the coming Kingdom of God and the One who was to come. According to John himself, the reason that John baptized people was so that the One who was coming would be revealed to Israel (John 1:31). These disciples were, then, deeply devout Jews who were committed to the God of Israel and who were looking forward to the day when God’s Messiah would appear and the promises of God to Israel in the Scriptures would be fulfilled.

Believing in the promises of God to Israel, as I have said many times, meant looking for the ‘redemption of Israel’ (Luke 24:21) that is, her liberation from pagan forces and the restoration of the kingdom to her (Acts 1:6). When John identified Jesus as the One whose coming he had been talking about, these disciples of John left John to follow Jesus. St John writes that it was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, and another unnamed disciple who makes the move first (John 1:40). Andrew, although he is the first to respond to Jesus, is identified as Simon Peter’s brother, even though Peter hasn’t himself been mentioned yet. Andrew then, brings his brother to Christ with the words, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (John 1:41). It is a life-changing moment for all of them, but for Peter especially. Not only is Peter’s life about to change, his name is to be changed by Jesus too! Jesus says to him:

‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas (which is translated Peter).’ (John 1:42)

The name ‘Cephas’ is a significant one. Cephas is Aramaic for ‘rock’, which is petros or Peter in Greek. Jesus right away sees Peter as someone he can rely on and upon whom he can build the community of followers he intends to establish. Jesus makes clear that this is his intention later in his ministry (Matthew 16:13-20).

From the moment Peter becomes a disciple, Peter becomes the leader-designate of the disciples, and he will often speak for them. With James and John, the three will become the inner circle of Jesus’ closest disciples, known as the Twelve. Previously partners in fishing, they are now partners in faith. Peter, James, and John are allowed to share moments in Jesus’ ministry that even the other disciples who are part of the Twelve are excluded from such as the ‘Raising of Jairus’ Daughter’ (Luke 8:40-56) and the ‘Transfiguration’ (Luke 9:28-36).

Jesus not only relies on Peter, Jesus trusts him. He credits Peter with having unique spiritual insight (Matthew 16:17)). Peter, for his part, is rock solid in his support for Jesus. It is Peter who leads the disciples in remaining loyal to Jesus when many decide to give up and abandon Jesus (John 6:68).

There is clearly a close bond between them. So much so that after the wedding at Cana of Galilee, where Jesus performs his first miracle in the presence of his disciples (John 2:1-11), that Jesus moves the family home to Capernaum with Peter’s house becoming a base for Jesus’ movement in Galilee (John 2:12; Matthew 4:13). We know that Peter was married with the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law being one of Jesus’ early miracles (Luke 4:38-39).

The only area where it seems there was a problem between them was that Peter had more faith in Jesus than Jesus seemed to have in himself. After Peter tells Jesus that he believes Jesus to be the Messiah, the One that John said would come, Jesus appeared to have a crisis of confidence in himself and shows signs of severe self-doubt. Peter tries to encourage Jesus to believe in himself, but Jesus will have none of it (Matthew 16:23).

We blame Peter for being spiritually dull, but Peter in his reaction to Jesus’ apparent self-doubt is simply reflecting what devout Jews had come to believe about the Kingdom of God and the Messiah who would inaugurate it. Jesus said he was going to suffer and die. That could not happen to the Messiah. We shouldn’t be too hard on Peter or the disciples for only believing what it was generally believed the prophets themselves had said.

Essentially, the difference between Jesus and Peter was over a matter of Biblical interpretation. It appeared that Peter believed in the Scriptures and Jesus didn’t. Jesus’ understanding of the Scriptures was new and novel. There was nothing new in how Peter understood them. Peter seems to have been able to live with Jesus’ self-doubt. He possibly thought that when it all kicked off Jesus would see that he, Peter, had been right and all would be well.

Again, we need to see that when it came to his understanding of himself and his mission, Jesus seemed to give people mixed signals. On the one hand, Jesus did everything that the Messiah was expected to do and more, and he encouraged people to believe he was the Messiah, the One that John the Baptist spoke of (Luke 7:22-23). But then, on the other hand, Jesus was hesitant in it being talked about in public as well as openly expressing his fears about where it was all going to end.

As I said in the sermon for Palm Sunday, Judas seems to have come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah after all and decided to cash in on it. Judas was to regret betraying an innocent man (Matthew 27:4), but despite regretting his action in betraying Jesus, Judas doesn’t appear to have changed his mind about Jesus not being who he had originally thought him to be. Jesus may have been innocent, but he was not the Messiah. In despair, Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5).

Peter, however, remained convinced to the end. The events of what we now know as Palm Sunday would have done nothing make Peter think otherwise. Jesus’ riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, as the prophet Zechariah said the Messiah would, must only have reinforced what Peter believed about Jesus (Zechariah 9:9; Luke 19:28-40). How could it not?

The atmosphere and tension amongst the disciples in the days after Palm Sunday must have been electric, and it all came to a climax at the Last Supper. The disciples must have been wondering what Jesus’ next move was going to be. When would he declare himself King of Israel and start the rebellion? Would it be during the Passover?

As they gathered in the Upper Room to celebrate the Passover and Israel’s liberation from pagan oppression in the past, they must have been incredibly excited. It would, then, have come as something of a shock to them when the one they believed was going to lead them to freedom in the present started washing their feet. This was something only the lowliest of slaves would do (John 13:4-5).

When Jesus gets to Peter, Peter refuses to let Jesus wash his feet. Peter knows how completely inappropriate this is. Jesus tells him that unless Peter allows Jesus to wash Peter’s feet, Peter can’t join with him. Peter’s response again expresses his absolute commitment to Jesus. His response is to ask Jesus to wash all of him, if it means they can be in this together. Jesus’ reply indicates he knows that he is about to be betrayed (John 13:6-11).

[The Meal in the Upper Room is described by all the Gospel writers with each adding details of their own (Matthew 26:20-35; Mark 14:17-31; Luke 22:14-38; John 13-17). St John does not have Jesus’ words over the bread and the cup, but he does record Jesus’ teaching during the evening in what is known as the Farewell Discourse (John 14-17). St Paul also gives an account of Jesus’ words at the Meal (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).]

As they sit down for the Meal, the disciples are in for another shock. Jesus reinterprets the Passover Meal to refer to himself. The bread, he says, is his body given for them. The cup of wine is his blood of the new covenant shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. They are to continue to do this ‘in remembrance of him’. For good measure, Jesus adds that one of them is going to betray him.

Quite what the disciples made of this at the time, we are not told. Given that believers since haven’t been able to agree on what Jesus meant, the disciples probably wouldn’t have known quite what to make of it either. St Luke records that they then had a discussion about who was the greatest (Luke 22:24-27). Jesus reminds them that he is amongst them as one who serves, and they are not to think of greatness the way the pagans do.

Having seemed to have ruled out being the sort of Messiah they thought he was, Jesus then, as he does consistently, goes on to say something that suggests the disciples are right in the way they are thinking, after all. St Luke writes that Jesus says:

‘You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ (Luke 22:28-30).

The Kingdom, of course, would first have to come if the disciples were to eat at Jesus’ table and sit on thrones in it. We can perhaps begin to understand why the disciples were confused!

But Jesus has another shock in store, this time for Peter himself. Peter has expressed 100% commitment and devotion to Jesus. When Jesus says that one of them will betray him, Peter says that even if all the disciples abandon Jesus, he will not. He is ready to go to prison and to death for Jesus. Jesus tells him that before the cock crows later in the morning, Peter will deny him three times.

Jesus said more at the Last Supper, and St John, in particular, writes that Jesus said a lot more. Something that St John records Jesus as saying, though, is, I think, especially interesting. Jesus speaks of how ‘sorrow’ has entered the disciples’ hearts because Jesus has said that he is going to leave them (John 16:6). As the Last Supper draws to a close, do the disciples at last begin to see that Jesus really is going to die and that things are not going to work out as they had hoped and expected?

Jesus and the disciples leave the Upper Room and go as was Jesus’ custom to the Garden of Gethsemane, a place where he often met with his disciples (Luke 22:39; John 18:2). It is a fatal move. The Jerusalem authorities have been unable to arrest Jesus because they have been unable to get at him without a crowd being present, and they fear a rebellion will break out if they try to arrest him in public (Matthew 26:3-5). Judas, however, knows Jesus’ movements and, with Judas’ help, this gives the authorities the opportunity that have been looking for. Jesus, meanwhile, also knows that this is the moment it has all been building up to. It doesn’t, however, make it any easier for him and, as is well-known, Jesus is in great distress at the thought of what lies ahead.

Of the Gospel writers, St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke each describe what happens in the Garden of Gethsemane before Jesus’ arrest each again adding their own details to the account (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39-46).

Jesus has taken the disciples with him to the Garden of Gethsemane, he now takes with him just the three who are closest to him, Peter, James, and John, and moves some distance away from the others. Jesus tells them to stay awake with him and to pray. Jesus then moves away from them too and prays on his own. When he finishes, they are sleeping. St Luke says they are sleeping ‘out of sorrow’ (Luke 22:45). It is same word that St John tells us Jesus uses to describe how the disciples were feeling at the end of the Meal. The disciples are overwhelmed and exhausted. The events of the past few days, and of this evening especially, have caught up with them.

The evening, however, isn’t over yet, and events are about to take a very serious turn for the worse and for Peter, in particular.

As Judas arrives, and those he has brought with him move to arrest Jesus, St John tells us that it is Peter who leaps into action. Peter draws his sword to defend Jesus, cutting off the ear of the slave of the High Priest. St John tells us the slave’s name was Malchus (John 18:10). We don’t know what was going through the mind of Peter at this point. Did he think that this was the beginning of the rebellion that would lead to the coming of the Kingdom of God or was it the last desperate fling of a man who could see that things were going against them?

Whichever it was, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away. Jesus heals the servant’s ear and goes with those who have come for him without any struggle or resistance whatsoever. Psychologically, this must have been devastating for the disciples. This was not how it was supposed to have ended and not how they thought it was going to end just hours earlier. And the fact it does end this way means that Jesus can’t be the one whom they thought him to be. They leave Jesus and flee. If Jesus won’t fight and he won’t let them fight, what else can they do?

Peter, however, still hasn’t deserted Jesus. Peter and another disciple follow those who have arrested Jesus to see where they are taking him. Where else, but the High Priest’s house? This is not a good place for Peter to be given that he is Jesus’ right hand man and has just attacked one of the High Priest’s slaves. The other disciple is able to get them both into the courtyard. Peter is brave to go there. Before we criticize Peter for what happens next, we need to see how dangerous a situation this is for Peter.

All Peter’s hopes have been dashed tonight. Jesus has failed him and let him down badly. Jesus refused to put up any fight and has put them all, as his followers, in great danger. Peter is now in no state of mind for bravery, particularly not bravery that will get him killed. So, when Peter is challenged about being one of Jesus disciples, the inevitable happens: Peter denies knowing Jesus three times and the cock crows. St Luke writes:

‘The Lord turned and looked at Peter.’ (Luke 22:61)

We can’t know what was in either man’s mind at this point. It is, however, a desperately sad moment for them both. Peter leaves and weeps bitterly, as did Judas when he realized what he had done.

There is, however, a difference. Judas had stopped believing in Jesus. Peter, despite everything, hasn’t. He is confused. He is not capable of publicly standing by Jesus. But he still loves Jesus. He loves Jesus, but he is helpless to know what to do. Jesus had failed him and now, he has failed Jesus.

What, then, can we learn from Peter? Normally, when we look at the life of Peter, the message we take away from it is that even if, like Peter, we fall and fail, there is hope and forgiveness. In other words, we are quick to move from the story of Peter before the crucifixion to the story of Peter after the resurrection. We do this seeking to find reassurance for ourselves as we see Peter forgiven and restored to be once again the leader of the Jesus movement.

But this a story for after Easter. Where we are tonight with Peter is still before the resurrection. What can we learn from Peter before he finds his way back?

The Devil is Behind Him

Firstly, we saw with Judas that there was a satanic dimension to what Judas did. There was with Peter too. When Jesus seems to be having doubts about what it means to be the Messiah by talking about how he is going to suffer and die, Peter tries to reassure Jesus. Peter rebukes him with the words:

‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ (Matthew 16:22)

Jesus’ response is well-known. Jesus says to Peter:

‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’ (Matthew 16:23)

Satan, however, doesn’t leave either Jesus or Peter alone. At the Last Supper, Jesus tells Peter and the disciples:

‘Simon, Simon, pay attention! Satan has demanded to have you all, to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. When you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.’ (Luke 22:31-32)

Jesus says that Satan has demanded to have all the disciples to sift them like wheat. Jesus tells Peter, using Peter’s original name, Simon, that he has prayed for him. Looked at positively, what Jesus says means that Jesus hasn’t lost faith in Peter, and Jesus expresses confidence in him and his conviction that Peter will be able to find his way back after his denial and spiritual collapse.

What Jesus says, however, is a warning to us of how real the influence of Satan is, even amongst those who follow Christ. The early Church was aware of this and frequently warned against it. They took the Devil seriously. We, however, do not.

Jesus tells the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane to ‘stay awake’ and to pray that they do not enter into temptation (Matthew 26:41). This sounds like the Lord’s Prayer that we pray regularly. We pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’. The phrase ‘deliver us from evil’ comes from the prayer Jesus teaches his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:31). It can be translated either ‘evil’, as we say it today, or ‘evil one’, meaning the Devil. Whichever way it is translated, Jesus teaches us about both the reality and the danger of evil. St Peter will write to believers after the resurrection:

‘Be sober and alert. Your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, is on the prowl looking for someone to devour.’ (1 Peter 5:8)

St Peter knew how that felt!

When we think of the Devil and of being tested and tempted, however, we naturally think of specific sins and weaknesses that we might have and how we are tempted to do things that are contrary to God’s Law. Sin is serious, but, truth be told, we don’t need much help and encouragement from the Devil when it comes to being selfish and doing things we know to be wrong.

The key to understanding the way the Devil attacks us, both as individuals and as a Church, is to realize that, when the Devil can’t snatch away the Word of God and prevent us from coming to Christ (Luke 8:12), he will always want to get us either to deny Jesus or to have a wrong view of him.

Many find doctrine, teaching, and thinking about our faith boring. It’s too much like hard work. We would rather be doing things or having experiences that focus on how we feel. But there is a reason why the New Testament focuses on what we think, for, as with Peter, what and how we think can provide the Devil with an entry point into our lives.

A Petrine View of Jesus

Secondly, when it comes to thinking about Jesus, we in the Church often have what can, perhaps, be called a Petrine view of Jesus. This was the view of Jesus that, before the crucifixion, Peter and the other disciples all shared. We today know that Jesus had to suffer and die; we can’t really argue about that: it happened. Ironically, however, now that it has happened, and we are this side of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, we have gone back to seeing Jesus in the way the disciples saw him before it. We think that the message of suffering and death are now all behind us and that, instead, we can talk of victory and life. We can’t wait to move on to Easter Sunday.

Peter didn’t think that Jesus, as the Messiah, could suffer and die. Jesus’ Kingdom for him was about power and glory. This Petrine view of the Gospel expresses itself today in a number of different ways. One way it expresses itself, which is all too common in the Church, is in what is often known as the ‘prosperity Gospel’. This teaches that believing in Jesus and being faithful to him will make you both healthy and wealthy. Preachers of this Gospel boast of how much money they have and of the material possessions they own.

Most of us probably don’t express what we believe in this way, but we do still think that believing in Jesus should make our lives here and now, in this world, better materially. You only have to listen to what people thank God for in their prayers. We thank God, for example, when things go well in our lives, when we have success at school or work, when we find healing after sickness, or overcome difficulties that were making us unhappy. We see all these things as a sign of God’s blessing. But we begin to doubt and question him when things don’t go well, when we get ill, or experience hardship in our lives. The difference between how we think of the spiritual life and how the preachers of the prosperity Gospel think of it is often only a matter of degree.

And what is true of us as individuals is true of us as a Church. For us as a Church, the Devil’s temptation is also for us to see success in our ministry in material terms. So, when we thank God for blessing us as a Church, we think of how many members we have, the number of people who turn up for our services, the amount of money we get in the collection, the number of people we have on the staff, and how big our buildings are. Jesus said to the Church of Laodicea who thought like this:

‘For you say, ‘I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.’ You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.’ (Revelation 3:17)

When it comes to our mission as a Church, we also think in the way the Devil tempted Jesus to think and in the way Peter did think. We see our mission in political and material terms. This isn’t just about feeding the hungry, healing sick, and helping those in need, which is something we should do, but about gaining power and influence in our world. We tell ourselves, of course, that we want that power and influence so we can do good and advance God’s Kingdom on earth, but the history of the Church tells another story. When, in the past as a Church, we have had political power and influence, rather than us using it for good, it has corrupted us and led us, not to do the work of God, but the work of the Devil. Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), but, like Peter and the disciples, we refuse to listen.

It all comes down to who we think Jesus is and what it is we believe he calls us to do. The Devil will seek to persuade us that Jesus is not who he claimed to be or, failing that, that Christ is someone different to the person described in the New Testament. The Devil will tell us that we should worship Jesus by seeking power and glory now, in this world, with the result that when we find it, it is not Jesus we are worshipping, but the Devil himself.

Peter thought that what he believed about Jesus was right. He was trying to be true to Jesus but ended up being false. We need to be careful that Jesus doesn’t have say to us what he said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan’.

Following Jesus, as Jesus explained, is not about leaving the Cross behind and focusing instead on the empty tomb, but about taking up our Cross and following Jesus on the way of suffering and of death. It is those who follow Christ on the way of the Cross who win his praise (Revelation 12:11).

The Way of the Cross

Finally, tonight, we remember that the last thing Jesus did before his betrayal and death was to have a meal with disciples. Jesus tells them that that he has earnestly desired to eat this Passover meal with them before he suffers (Luke 22:15). It was, in other words, important to him. It should, in turn, alert us to how important this meal should be to us.

At the Meal, Jesus says that the bread is his body and the cup of wine, his blood. They are to do this, he tells them, ‘in remembrance’ of him. Jesus puts the Eucharist at the heart of the Church and its life. Tonight, on Maundy Thursday, we think especially of this gift.

Even those churches that make the Eucharist a regular part of their church services, however, find themselves shying away from the significance of it. This Meal is about Jesus’ death. This is his body sacrificed for us. This is his blood shed for us. When we share in this meal, we are not primarily celebrating the gifts of God in creation, we are celebrating the gift of his Son in dying for us. More specifically, we are celebrating the death of his Son for the forgiveness of sins: our sins.

Yes, Christ gives us life and the power to live life to the full, but it is his death that makes this life possible. It is his blood that washes us clean and gives us life. St Paul writes to the Church at Corinth:

‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’ (1 Corinthians 11:26)

Every time we share in this Meal, we proclaim Christ’s death. Whenever we are tempted to leave all thought of his death behind, we are brought back to it by the Meal he gives us and in which he gives himself to us. St Paul writes, again to the Church at Corinth:

‘… but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles …’ (1 Corinthians 1:23)

The idea of Christ being crucified was a stumbling block to Jews like Peter. It didn’t fit with their idea of who Christ was. To Gentiles, says St Paul, it was just foolishness. Who would want to believe in a crucified failure? And we too are tempted to move on and forget his death, but Christ tonight calls us back to it: this is my body; this is my blood; as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

We are not being morbid in proclaiming Jesus’ death, for it is in his death that we find hope. For we too are tempted as Peter was; we too, like Peter, fall and fail; we too deny Jesus; and we too are ashamed and afraid to admit to being his disciple. But it is in the death of Christ that we find forgiveness and the strength to keep going despite our failure, faithlessness, and fear.

Being Christ’s disciple is not easy. Jesus never promised it would be. Carrying our Cross and becoming like him in his death is demanding. As Jesus warned Peter and the disciples at this his last meal with them, those who carry the Cross will not be liked, they will not be popular, the world will hate them as it hated him. In the world, Jesus tells them, they will have trouble. Jesus’ last words to them, however, before they leave the Upper Room to go to the Garden where Jesus will be betrayed are words of encouragement and of hope. Jesus says:

‘… take courage; I have conquered the world!’ (John 16:33)

Peter was to discover that courage and become the rock Jesus knew he would be.

May we find the same courage and follow Jesus faithfully as we proclaim his death until he comes.

Amen.

Palm Sunday

This is the lightly edited transcript of the podcast version of my sermon for this week, Palm Sunday.

Palm Sunday

Gospel Reading: Luke 22:14-22:62

Today is the start of Holy Week. This year, all our services will be Broadcast Services. We will have services on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday as well as on Easter Sunday. For the sermons for each service, I want to consider our Lord’s death and resurrection by looking at four of the characters involved in what our Lord describes as his ‘hour’ (John 2:4; 12:23). Each sermon will be self-contained, but I hope you will want to listen to all four! The four people I have chosen are Judas, St Peter, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St Mary Magdalene in that order.

It would also be interesting to include some of the other characters such as Caiaphas, the High Priest, but maybe we can look at them next year - if the Lord allows.

Judas Iscariot: Introduction

Just about everyone has heard of Judas Iscariot. The name Judas is now synonymous with betrayal. Judas is universally known as the person who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus, at the Last Supper, describes Judas, literally, as the ‘son of destruction’ (John 17:12) and speaking of him says:

‘For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.’ (Mark 14:21)

Despite this damning assessment of him by our Lord, there have been attempts in recent years to see Judas in a more positive light and even to rehabilitate him altogether. Some of this is just perversity on our account. Being sinners ourselves, we are naturally drawn to the darkness and to those who represent it. Interestingly, some Gnostics in the late second century also had a positive assessment of Judas. The Gnostics were amongst the first heretics in the church. It was Gnostics who produced the fictional so-called Gospel of Judas that received some publicity a few years ago. In it, Judas is portrayed as the only one of the disciples who understood Jesus. There really is nothing new under the sun, and certainly not when it comes to false teaching in the Church.

While we shouldn’t rewrite history where Judas is concerned, we should try to understand Judas’ role in Jesus’ death and ask why it was he betrayed Jesus. In doing this, we need to be careful not to indulge our imaginations. The only historical information we have about Judas is in the Gospels, and they largely limit themselves to describing Judas’ action in betraying Jesus.

Chosen by Jesus

The first thing to say about Judas is that he was chosen by Jesus, and chosen not just to be a disciple but to be one of the Twelve, the inner circle of Jesus’ closest and most trusted disciples. The Twelve were chosen by Jesus to be with him during his ministry and to be his ‘witnesses’ to continue his work after he returned to his Father. When, after Jesus’ ascension, the remaining eleven choose a replacement for Judas, Peter says of Judas:

‘ … for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.’ (Acts 1:17)

In choosing someone to replace Judas, it has to be, again as Peter puts it:

‘… one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us …’ (Acts 1:21)

What perhaps we don’t always appreciate is that during Jesus’ ministry, as far as everyone was concerned, Judas appeared to be someone who was in every way committed to Jesus and was trusted by him. The reason we don’t appreciate this is that we know Judas was the one who betrayed Jesus and, whenever he is mentioned in the Gospels, the Gospel writers refer to him as the one who was betray Jesus. However, while Jesus himself knew that Judas was going to betray him, and while we know, no-one else at the time knew until the betrayal took place.

Indeed, as late as the Last Supper on the night that Judas betrayed Jesus, the disciples all still trusted Judas as one of them. When Jesus says to the Twelve at the Supper that one of them will betray him, they all ask each other who it is (Luke 22:23; John 13:22). Even when Judas leaves the Supper early, after Jesus tells him to do what he has to do quickly (John 13:27), no-one suspects Judas of anything. They all think he has legitimate reasons for leaving (John 13:29). When Judas arrives with those sent to arrest Jesus, the sign he has agreed with them to identify Jesus for them is a kiss. A kiss was chosen presumably because this was Jesus and Judas’ normal method of greeting; it is the greeting of those who are friends.

This means that for over three years Judas was in every way like the other disciples. He heard Jesus teach, he saw Jesus’ miracles, healings, and exorcisms, helped distribute the food at the feeding of the 5,000, and was in the boat when Jesus calmed the storm. What is more, Judas was one of those sent out by Jesus to preach, heal and cast out demons (Luke 9:1-6). In all this time, there was nothing in anything Judas said or did that gave rise to any suspicion. He showed no sign of not being fully committed to Jesus. In fact, in the synagogue at Capernaum, when many of Jesus’ disciples find Jesus’ teaching too hard to accept and decide to abandon Jesus, Judas is one of those who stays loyal and refuses to go (John 6:66-68). Judas is now so defined by his last days of betrayal that we forget his previous years of loyalty.

The question, of course, we would like to ask is why Jesus chose Judas, and that, quite simply, is something we are not told and cannot know. We can, perhaps, instead ask why Judas originally became a disciple and what made him change his mind.

Why did Judas become a disciple?

Although we are not told why Judas personally became a disciple, we are given sufficient information to make a reasonable guess. Judas’ motive in becoming a disciple is likely to have been the same as that of the other eleven who collectively with him formed the group of Twelve.

They believed that Jesus was the Messiah who would bring about the Kingdom of God. They may have had various ideas as to what this meant, but at the very least it would have included the overthrow of the Romans and Jesus becoming the ruler of a renewed Israel. St John, for example, at the beginning of his account of Jesus’ ministry, describes the calling of the very first disciples. Andrew tells his brother Simon, known more commonly now as Peter:

‘We have found the Messiah [St John then explains] (which is translated Anointed).’ (John 1:41)

Nathaniel, who becomes a disciple at the same time says to Jesus:

‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’ (John 1:49)

It is sometimes suggested that Judas was a ‘zealot’, that is, one of those who believed in using violence to overthrow the Romans. The second name given to Judas in the Gospels, Iscariot, is sometimes appealed to as evidence for this. The name is explained as coming from a Greek or Aramaic word meaning assassin or bandit.

The name ‘Iscariot’, however, is more likely to be a reference to where Judas originally comes from. St John describes Judas as the son of Simon Iscariot (John 6:71; 13:2, 26). The name Iscariot then comes from Judas’ father and as both Judas and Simon are common names adding the place of origin helps to identify them. Some manuscripts even read ‘from Kerioth’. If Iscariot does refer to Judas’ hometown, its precise location is not clear. The Old Testament identifies a town in Moab with this name (Jeremiah 48:24, 41; Amos 2:2), as well as a location called Kerioth-Hezron (Joshua 15:25).

While Judas may not have been a zealot, he and all the disciples would have expected the coming of the Kingdom of God to entail violence to end Roman and pagan rule. It is hard to see how an end to Roman rule could be achieved without it. The need for violence seems to have just been assumed by the disciples. St Luke, for example, describes what happens when those sent by the Jerusalem authorities, led by Judas, to arrest Jesus arrive in the Garden of Gethsemane. St Luke writes:

‘When those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.’ (Luke 22:49-50)

St John tells us it was Peter who struck the slave (John 18:10). Jesus tells them to put their swords away and what the disciples had thought would be the beginning of the rebellion and the coming of the Kingdom of God ends in a moment. Jesus is arrested and taken away.

Why did Judas betray Jesus?

So, what went wrong? Why did Judas who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and who shared in his ministry become the one who betrayed Jesus? Looking at it from a human point of view, we are not told why Judas decided to betray someone he had previously been so committed to. Exactly why Judas became a traitor is, then, a question we need to be careful in trying to answer, and we need to be cautious in the motives we attribute to him.

I think, however, that it is not unreasonable to suggest that, by the time Jesus and his disciples arrived at Jerusalem for the final Passover, Judas was feeling disillusioned with Jesus. Jesus had repeatedly told the Twelve he was going to suffer and die, but this was not something that they seemed able to process.

That there would be suffering and death is something they would have expected, and all the disciples seem to have been willing to accept it for themselves. The problem they had was with the idea of the Messiah himself suffering and dying. The turning-point for Judas, St John seems to suggest, was what happened at Bethany, a village two miles from Jerusalem, just six days before the final Passover (John 12:1-8).

I looked in detail at this incident last week for the Fifth Sunday of Lent. When Judas criticized Mary of Bethany for anointing Jesus with very expensive perfume, Jesus defended Mary of Bethany, justifying such an expensive gesture by saying that Mary was anointing his body for burial ahead of his death (Matthew 26:12). This may have brought home to Judas that Jesus was serious about having to die. Realizing that events were not going to turn out as he and the others had thought, Judas may have felt that self-preservation was called for and that he needed to act quickly. If Jesus was arrested, then the disciples too would be at risk. It is one thing dying heroically for God, another altogether to be completely humiliated and shown to have been foolish for believing in someone now exposed as a fraud. A defeated messiah was a contradiction in terms.

The incident at Bethany has also suggested to people a financial motive in Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. St John tells us that Judas was the keeper of the common purse and use to steal from it (John 12:6; 13:29). Judas’ love of money, they suggest, is what led him to betray Jesus. If this was his motive, he didn’t make much from it. If 30 pieces of silver is 30 denarii, then it was only one tenth of what the perfume used by Mary was worth. We are talking about one month’s wages for the average worker. What is more, Judas even ended up giving it back.

My own opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that Judas was genuinely committed to Jesus, but became disillusioned with him when he saw where it was all heading. Consequently, Judas decided to protect himself and make money out of it at the same time.

The tragic conclusion to all of this is that having successfully betrayed Jesus, Judas bitterly regretted what he had done. We obviously don’t know the precise nature of his regret, but that he returned the money and then killed himself suggests that his regret was genuine (Matthew 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19). Judas’ actions after the betrayal also confirm that his previous commitment to Jesus had also been real even if he now thought it had been mistaken.

The conclusion to all of this is that, chosen by Jesus, Judas was a devoted disciple, who was also dishonest and became disillusioned and disloyal. There is, however, another even darker dimension to the story of Judas and that concerns the role of the Devil.

Earlier in Jesus’ ministry, when Jesus asks the Twelve if they too will go away, Peter answers for them that there is no-one for them to go to as it is Jesus who has the words of life. The Twelve have, says Peter, come to believe and know that he is the Holy One of God (John 6:67-69). It is a good response, and it should have been an encouragement to Jesus. Jesus, however, responds:

‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’ (John 6:70)

St John explains:

‘He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him.’ (John 6:71)

St John begins his account of the Last Supper by telling us:

‘The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him.’ (John 13:2)

St John describes how, during the Meal, after Jesus has given Judas a piece of bread, Satan enters into him (John 13:27). Jesus’ action with he bread is intended to indicate that he knows that it is Judas who will betray him. Immediately after receiving it, Judas, unsuspected by his fellow disciples, leaves the Meal early. St John writes simply and symbolically:

‘And it was night.’ (John 13:30)

St Luke also emphasizes this dimension to Judas’ betrayal.  St Luke writes that it was as the Passover drew near that Satan entered Judas’ heart (Luke 22:3). At the moment when those sent by the Jerusalem authorities come to arrest Jesus, Jesus comments on how they haven’t arrested him in public when he was teaching in the Temple, but have come out for him as if he is a bandit. Jesus says:

‘But this is your hour, and the power of darkness!’ (Luke 22:53)

The word translated ‘betray’ is, in Greek, paradidomi, which is better translated as ‘hand over’. The word occurs regularly in the New Testament, often in connection with the arrest of Jesus and specifically with Judas. So, for example, St Luke tells us that Judas offers to hand Jesus over to the Jerusalem authorities who are pleased at his offer because they have been looking for an opportunity to put Jesus to death but haven’t been able to find a way to arrest him because of his popularity (Luke 22:1-6).

Although Judas hands Jesus over to the Jerusalem authorities, there is a very real sense in which he is handing Jesus over to the Devil and the powers of darkness.

St Luke describes how Jesus in the wilderness is tested by Satan, after which St Luke writes that Satan departed from Jesus ‘until an opportune time’ (Luke 4:13). That time arrives at the final Passover. Jesus refused to worship Satan in the wilderness and now Jesus is handed over to him and will pay the price of his refusal. The events of the crucifixion have both an earthly and a heavenly dimension to them. St John records how Jesus said that he had lost none of those the Father gave to him except the ‘son of destruction’, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled (John 17:12).

It isn’t simply that the Scripture has foreseen Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, but that the Scripture reveals what God’s plan is for him. Peter on the Day of Pentecost addresses the crowds who have gathered to see what is going on. Speaking to them of Jesus, Peter says:

‘ …this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.’ (Acts 2:23)

St Paul writes:

‘None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’ (1 Corinthians 2:8)

Satan and the powers of darkness hadn’t realized that Satan’s greatest moment of triumph in getting Judas to hand Jesus over to the Jerusalem authorities had all along been planned and ordained by God to be the moment of Satan and the powers of darkness’ defeat and downfall.

All of which, of course, raises the question of how much Judas was responsible for his actions and how much he was following a plan for his life over which he had no control. Was Judas just an innocent victim in a cosmic power struggle between God and Satan? The New Testament itself never portrays what happened like this. It holds Judas personally responsible for his actions as well as seeing him as being influenced by Satan, as he carries out the plan of God.

It is not possible to say more today on the subject of human freedom and responsibility. What the story of Judas does tell us, however, is that even when Satan and humans join forces, they only ever succeed in fulfilling the plans and purposes of God. This should give us hope when evil seems rampant and the powers of darkness appear to be in control. Quite simply: they are not; God is.

What, if anything, then, can we learn today from the story of Judas himself? We are rightly wary, given the enormity of what Judas did, to draw any conclusions for ourselves. While it is right to be cautious and sensitive to the historical circumstances of Judas’ life and his betrayal of Jesus, there is a danger in thinking that what Judas did was so uniquely evil that there is nothing at all that we can learn from him. We are not like him, we think; he was not one of us.

But Judas was one of us. Not only that, he was one of the Twelve, chosen by Jesus, and given authority and gifts by him. If Judas can go wrong, we certainly can. Judas and what happened to him is something we need to take seriously.

1. The Enemy Within

Satan targeted a member of the Twelve, one of those closest to Jesus, in order to get near to Jesus and destroy him. St Paul sees Satan as having a playbook, which he uses consistently. Writing to the Church at Corinth, St Paul identifies people who are claiming to be apostles and teachers in the Church and who are troubling the Church as agents of Satan. St Paul describes them as disguising themselves as ‘apostles of Christ’. He is not surprised that they are doing this. St Paul writes:

‘And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.’ (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

Satan’s tactic is to attack the body of Christ from within. The Risen Christ in a letter to the Church at Thyatira accuses some of those who are members of the Church there of having learned the ‘deep things of Satan’ (Revelation 2:24). St John in his first letter warns the believers he writes to that they should ‘test the spirits’ for many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).

Judas is a warning to us of the danger that can come from within the Church and from those who seem in every way to be followers of Christ, as Judas was. Now, we need to be careful and guard against paranoia and the temptation to see the Devil everywhere and in everything. We should not blame the Devil for things where the blame lies firmly with us ourselves.

Most churches, however, are not in the remotest danger of giving way to such paranoia. We have largely dismissed the very idea of spiritual powers and the existence of the Devil. In warfare, armies want to do all they can not to appear on the enemy’s radar. When it comes to spiritual warfare, we in the Church have simply switched the radar off, thereby giving the Devil the freedom to work as freely as he likes.

Of course, we should not overestimate the Devil’s power or the threat he poses to us. St John, having warned those he writes to of the false prophets that have gone out into the world, reassures them that he who is them is greater than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4). We should not think of the Devil as having more power than he has, but nor should we be casual or carefree about the threat he presents to us as a Church and to us as individuals. St Peter writes:

‘Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in your faith ...’ (1 Peter 5:8-9)

2. We need to stay close to God

If I am on the right lines in suggesting that Judas was a ‘devoted disciple, who was also dishonest and became disillusioned and disloyal’, then Judas provides a real warning to us in our own lives and relationship with God.

The spiritual life doesn’t just happen; it needs working at and protecting. It is all too easy for us too to become disillusioned or just fed up, and in doing so to leave ourselves vulnerable to spiritual attack and failure. Being a follower of Christ is demanding and requires determination.

The amount of work and energy required is often more than many are willing to give. They get tired and give up. Many people don’t turn against Christ in the way that Judas did and do great evil as a result, they simply just lose interest.

With others though it is different. They become prone to doubts or resent what being a follower of Christ demands of them. In turning from Christ in this way, they lay themselves open to the Devil’s deceits and deceptions. The Devil is good at identifying our weaknesses. Judas’ weakness seems to have been money. As Judas began to have questions about his relationship with Jesus, it was a weakness the Devil was able to exploit.

The spiritual life requires discipline and self-awareness. We need to be honest with ourselves about where our own weaknesses lie. The desire for money, sex, status, or power are common weaknesses, but so too are a lack of forgiveness, jealousy, and resentment towards others. Whatever our weakness, the Devil will use it as the opening he needs to enter our hearts, as he entered the heart of Judas.

This can sound frightening, and in many ways it is. It should not, however, lead to a fear that overwhelms us, but to one which makes us aware of the need for honesty and vigilance. St Paul tells believers in the Church at Corinth that he has forgiven any in the Church who have wronged him. He writes:

‘And we do this so that we may not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.’ (2 Corinthians 2:11)

More than anything, we need to stay close to God and take our relationship with him seriously. It is all too easy to take God for granted, to neglect prayer, to have no interest in reading our Bible, and to stop meeting with other believers to receive the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist.

What we need to do to stay safe spiritually is not complicated, but we do need to do it. It takes time and it takes effort. St James, the brother of our Lord, writes in his letter:

‘Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.’ (James 4:7)

3. Anyone can fall

Of course, there is a real danger that we think that none of this applies to us. We are not remotely like Judas, or so we believe. But Judas knew Jesus in a way we do not; he was after all chosen by Jesus, and yet still he fell.

St James in the verse immediately before the one I have just quoted writes:

‘But he gives all the more grace; therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”’ (James 4:6)

Judas’ act was unique. But we need to be careful not to think that Judas was himself so uniquely evil that that his sin of betrayal could not be repeated by us. We need to guard against the pride that makes us confident in ourselves.

Tragically, many church leaders have thought themselves safe and not at risk only to be overcome by evil and to succumb to temptation. It happens all too often. When a church leader falls, it hits the headlines, but it is something that can happen to any believer who thinks themselves safe and free from danger. We see others fail, and instead of feeling a sense of humility that there but for the grace of God go each one of us, we instead congratulate ourselves and thank God that we are not like them. All of us, however, without exception are vulnerable to the temptation to have confidence in ourselves rather than in God.

Judas fell with terrible consequences, but what happened to him was something that had happened to others in Israel’s past, not least to one of the most famous figures in her history.

In the Scriptures, David is seen as Israel’s greatest King. It is David who the Messiah is descended from and whom people believed the Messiah would be like. David is described in the Scriptures as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22). Yet David succumbed to adultery and murder, and he was to suffer himself badly because of it.

It would be comforting to say that no matter how far or hard we fall there is always hope, but that would be to offer a false hope. The writer to the Hebrews writing to people in danger of giving up their faith writes:

‘For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.’ (Hebrews 6:4-6)

The writer warns those to whom he writes of the very real danger of falling away and of not being able to find a place of repentance and the way back to God. He continues to say that he is convinced that this is not how it with those to whom he writes, but he wants them to know the great peril they are in.

Conclusion

All this may seem a sombre, not to say dark, note on which to close. It is, though, perhaps appropriate today, in a sermon on Judas, that we should end this way. We will see on Maundy Thursday, when we think about St Peter, that there can be a way back for those who fall, but for today, it is right that we should not finish thinking about Judas by minimizing the seriousness of what we are about as followers of Christ.

Nevertheless, even so, we should not give way to despair. St Paul warns:

‘So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.’

But he continues:

‘No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.’ (1 Corinthians 10:12-13)

Our hope never lies in ourselves but always and only in God, and God, as St Paul writes, is faithful.

May God grant his grace to each of us that we may always be faithful to him.

Amen.

The Fifth Sunday of Lent

This is the lightly edited transcript of the podcast version of my sermon for this week, the Fifth Sunday of Lent.

The Fifth Sunday of Lent 2022

Reading: John 12:1-8

Today's Gospel reading reminds us of how much there is that we don't know when it comes to the details of Jesus’ life and ministry.

Our reading is a continuation of St John’s account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead and its aftermath (John 11:1-57). The raising of Lazarus proves to be the last straw for the Jerusalem authorities. Their concern now is that Jesus is becoming so popular that there is a real risk of rebellion, so much so that they fear the Romans may feel that they need to intervene. If the Romans do, there is the danger that they will destroy the Temple and take away what independence the Jerusalem authorities have (John 11:48). Consequently, the authorities decide they need to get rid of Jesus, and quick. St John writes:

‘So from that day on they planned to put him to death.’ (John 11:53)

Politically, as Caiaphas, the high priest, points out it is a good decision (John 11:49-50).

Jesus, aware of the threat to him, withdraws to Ephraim, a place near the wilderness, away from the crowds (John 11:54).

St John begins his account of the raising of Lazarus by referring to a certain man who was ill. The man is described as ‘Lazarus of Bethany’. Bethany was a village on the south-east slope of the Mount of Olives, some two miles from Jerusalem (John 11:18). Bethany itself is described as the ‘village of Mary and her sister Martha’ (John 11:1). St John expects his original readers to have heard of Mary, as he adds that she was the one anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair (John 11:2), even though he is yet to relate this event! When their brother becomes ill, the sisters send a message to Jesus that the person Jesus loves is ill (John 11:3). Jesus himself, speaking to his disciples, describes Lazarus as their friend (John 11:11).

Clearly then, Jesus and his disciples know Lazarus, Martha, and Mary very well, and Jesus, in particular, seems to be very close to them. This, however, is the first time St John mentions them. There is, in other words, a lot we do not know about Jesus’ life and relationships. We know enough, but not as much as we would like. There was a great deal going in Jesus’ life and work that we have to leave to the imagination. Speculating doesn’t get us very far, but it is important, at least, to see that the story of Jesus is far more multi-dimensional than sometimes we imagine it to be.

What we can be certain of is that this family at Bethany is a significant one in Jesus’ life despite our not knowing how or when it became so important. We know that Jesus will stay at Bethany in the days leading up to his crucifixion, and it is probably with this family that he stays. Furthermore, it is from Bethany that Jesus ascends to heaven to return to his Father (Luke 24:50). It seems reasonable, then, to suppose that, after his resurrection, Jesus appeared to Lazarus, Martha, and Mary and that they are included in the different resurrection appearances of our Lord that St Paul writes of (1 Corinthians 15:5-8).

St John writes that it is just six days before Passover and Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion that the event our Gospel reading describes takes place. Jesus has returned to Bethany from Ephraim for the Passover. Bethany is again described as where Lazarus lives. The NRSV description of it as the ‘home’ of Lazarus is misleading. St John does not actually say that Jesus stayed with Lazarus, Martha, and Mary nor that the dinner takes place in their home. St John writes simply that ‘there they gave a dinner for him’, which could be anywhere in Bethany. He also does not tell us who the ‘they’ are who give the dinner.

St Matthew and St Mark also describe this event, and they both write that it took place in the home of one, Simon the Leper, although they do not say that it was a dinner (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9). In St Matthew and St Mark’s accounts, however, no-one else apart from Simon and Jesus are named, and both St Matthew and St Mark describe the event after they have described Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on what we know as Palm Sunday.

This has all led to much speculation about the relationships between the various people involved. Was Simon the father of Lazarus and his sisters, for example? We just don’t know. For all we know, Simon could be Martha or Mary’s husband, even if that does seem somewhat unlikely! Indeed, there may have been no relationship as such between Simon and the brother and sisters. The reason that commentators assume there was relationship is because, at the dinner, St John tells us that Martha served and Lazarus was at the table with Jesus. If Martha served at a dinner in Simon’s house, doesn’t that imply it was also in some way Martha’s house? ‘Not necessarily’, is the answer! At the wedding in Cana of Galilee, Jesus’ mother is the one who tells Jesus they have no wine and who then the servants what to do. There is no suggestion, however, that this was her house!

The way St Matthew and St Mark refer to Simon again suggests that the original readers would have known whom they meant. A reasonable guess is that Simon may have been a leper who Jesus had healed and who was active in the church. Simon would certainly not have been able to host the dinner if he was still a leper. Lepers had to separate themselves from the rest of society.

Also worth mentioning is St Luke’s account of a meeting between Jesus and the two sisters (Luke 10:38-42). Most commentators assume that this event took place earlier in Jesus’ ministry. St Luke describes how Jesus and his disciples enter a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomes him. St Luke writes that Martha has a sister named Mary, who sits at Jesus’ feet and listens to his teaching. Martha, who is busy making all the necessary preparations for Jesus’ visit, asks Jesus to tell her sister to help her. Jesus replies that Martha is anxious and troubled about many things, but Mary has got her priorities right.

Returning, then, to our Gospel reading, and putting the three Gospel accounts together, what we get is that at Bethany, in the days leading up to the Passover, ‘they’ gave a meal for Jesus at the home of Simon the Leper at which Martha served and Lazarus was a guest.

St John describes how Mary takes a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard and anoints Jesus’ feet, wiping them with her hair. The house, St John writes, was filled with the perfume. It would be. This was a very extravagant act on Mary’s part. Judas values the perfume as 300 denarii, the equivalent to about a year’s pay for the average worker. A ‘pound’ here is a Roman pound, which was about three quarters of our pound, that is, 327 grams for those who use metric! ‘Nard’ is spikenard, a fragrant oil from the root of the nard plant from the mountains of northern India.

St Matthew and St Mark write that Jesus was anointed on his head. Given the amount of perfume Mary uses, there would be more than enough for head and feet! There is, however, an appropriateness in Mary anointing Jesus’ feet given how she sat at Jesus’ feet and was commended for it by Jesus (Luke 10:39) and how she falls at Jesus’ feet when Jesus comes to Bethany after Lazarus’ death (John 11:32).

It may be appropriate, but it is also scandalous and shocking. A woman wiping a man’s feet with her hair in public would attract comment in any age, but, in the context of the time, it would be seen as something outrageous and indecent. Apart from this, there is the cost of the perfume. Judas Iscariot, who is to betray Jesus, complains that the perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor. St John writes that this was not because he cared for the poor, but because he kept the common purse and used to steal from it. This piece of information is, again, another reminder of how much of the detail of Jesus’ ministry we don’t know. I wonder if it is because the disciples shared a common purse during Jesus’ ministry that they decided to share everything after Jesus’ ascension when the church began in Jerusalem.

St Matthew and St Mark don’t single Judas out for mention, but write that some of those in the house at the time joined in condemning Mary’s action and what they see as a waste of something valuable that could have been used to raise money for the poor.

Jesus, however, as he does in the story told by St Luke, immediately comes to Mary’s defence, and again says that Mary has got her priorities right. It is as if, Jesus says, Mary has anointed him for his burial. Jesus reminds them that they always have the poor with them, the implication being that they have plenty of opportunities to help the poor, if they really do care for the poor, but they do not always have him with them. Jesus’ death is now very near.

I want to look what this passage says to us today under three headings:

the Hypocrisy of Judas
the Praise of Jesus
the Extravagance of Mary

1. The Hypocrisy of Judas

When Jesus said ‘you will always have the poor with you’, he wasn’t justifying poverty or suggesting that we should, as his followers, be unconcerned by it or do nothing about it. He was, however, responding to the ‘hypocrisy of Judas’, and of others, in condemning Mary. To discuss what our attitude towards poverty should be as believers and what action we should take in the light of it is not something that can be adequately tackled in a short sermon such as this. I hope, then, that you won’t think that what I am about to say is all that I have to say or all that I think needs saying when it comes to thinking about poverty and what the Church’s response to it should be. I do want to address a few comments, however, to what I see as the persistence of the ‘hypocrisy of Judas’ in the Church.

The statement that the money could, or should, be spent on the poor is one that I have heard made many times throughout my ministry and made frequently, it has to be said, by those who, like Judas, show no obvious sign of caring themselves for the poor. It is something that is most often said when a church is discussing its finance or is planning a project that would incur significant cost. I have heard it used both as a criticism of the building of the great Cathedrals, in the past, and of spending money on church buildings, in the present. The argument that the money could be spent on the poor is meant to end all further discussion.

That the Church should care for the poor and exercise wisdom in its use of money and resources should not be in any doubt, but simply saying that the money could, instead, be spent on the poor is something that could be said of any expenditure, and that applies as much to our own individual expenditure as it does to that of the Church. There is a hypocrisy in condemning a church for spending money on various projects rather on the poor, and then buying ourselves the latest smartphone, model of car, or designer handbag. If it is wrong to spend money on church projects rather than on the poor, it is wrong to spend money on ourselves rather than on the poor. Both as a church and as individuals, we are equally under an obligation to do what Christ wants us to do.

What we can call the ‘Judas syndrome’, however, goes deeper than the somewhat trivial hypocrisy of some church members. It has, more seriously, to do with the Church’s identity and mission. There is, at the moment in the Church, an argument between, on the one hand, those who see the Church’s mission primarily in terms of preaching the Gospel, in the sense of seeking to bring people to faith, and, on the other, those who see it more broadly as working for social justice in our world.

Those who see the Church’s mission as being primarily to work for social justice, believe that the Church’s response to poverty should be about more than seeking to help the poor or to feed the hungry. It should also, they argue, be about tackling those things that make people poor and keep them hungry.

That showing people the love of God and loving our neighbours as ourselves should mean caring for both people’s material and spiritual needs should, I think, be obvious. It is a mark of the saints historically that it never occurred to them to think otherwise. The saints sought to bring people into a closer relationship with God, while reaching out to them with the love of God, caring for their needs, and providing food to satisfy their hunger.

That showing people the love of God and loving our neighbours as ourselves should, however, also mean that the Church should engage in political activism and embrace a particular ideology of social justice is, I believe, not so obvious. The problem is that those who espouse certain ideologies of social justice also want to make adopting their beliefs and programmes a necessary consequence of wanting to care for the poor.

We have also, as followers of Christ, to be careful that by advocating certain responses to poverty, we are not at the same time be undermining our message more generally. We cannot, for example, argue in Lent that ‘man shall not live by bread alone’ and then, when it comes to poverty, talk as if it is bread alone that matters and that campaigning for an equitable distribution of bread is what it means to bring good news to the poor. When Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, it was the same message for the prostitute as it was for the tax-collector. Jesus said:

‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’ (Mark 1:15)

Repenting may have taken a different form for the rich tax-collector (Luke 19:1-10) to what it took for the ‘sinful woman’ (Luke 7:36-50), but both had to repent, and unless they did, they would, Jesus warned, both likewise perish (Luke 13:5). The poor are not poor necessarily because they are sinners, but they are necessarily sinners, just as the rich are, and just as we all are. Outside of Christ, human sin is the most inclusive force there is, and it makes all people equal.

The Church should, as St Paul writes to St Timothy, warn the rich not to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches (1 Timothy 6:13), but it should also be careful not to suggest that it is in the same riches that the hope of the poor is to be found. Riches are an uncertain hope for rich and poor alike.

2. The Praise of Jesus

As I have mentioned, in chapter 11, St John is able to assume that his readers have already heard about the woman who anointed Jesus with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair (John 11:2), even though it is only later, in chapter 12, that St John describes what actually happened. St Matthew and St Mark write that Jesus says of the woman, who is not named in their Gospels:

‘Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.’ (Mark 14:9; see also: Matthew 26:13)

St John makes sure we know the woman’s name, Mary. There are many Marys in the Gospel. The Blessed Virgin Mary, of course, and Mary Magdalene, as well as Mary of Bethany. It was ironically a Pope in the sixth century, Pope Gregory I, who mistakenly conflated Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2) and Mary of Bethany with the ‘sinful woman’, who washed Jesus’ feet and dried them with her hair (Luke 7:36-50), to make one composite character.

The two Marys, however, are different people and neither of them is the ‘sinful woman’ in Luke chapter 7. Both these Marys play an important part in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ body ahead of his death and Mary of Magdalene is the first witness of his resurrection. They both loved and were committed to Jesus, and they would have known one another. It is yet another aspect of Jesus’ life we know all too little about.

Politicians always talk about their legacy and endeavour to do something that they will be remembered for. At funerals, the person giving the eulogy will try to identify one or two things that the person who has died has done that they will be remembered for, and will, in the eulogy, praise the dead person for them. Jesus says that Mary of Bethany will be remembered for what she has done for him. Mary now, wherever the Gospel is preached, is remembered for her act of love and her devotion to Jesus.

People at the dinner, however, thought that what Mary did was inappropriate and wrong. She was criticized and condemned. Jesus, however, told them to leave her alone. Mary herself was focused not on what people thought of her, but on Jesus. She had been consistent in her attitude. She had refused to fulfil the role that even her sister expected of her, taking instead the role of a student sitting at Jesus’ feet, and here, at the dinner, she wants only to express her devotion to him. On both occasions, she receives praise from Jesus.

Students at school speech days and college graduations are often urged by the guest speaker to make the most of the education they have received. They are encouraged to do something that people will remember them by and to try to make a difference in the world. The result of this sort of thinking is that we live in an age that is self-obsessed; an age in which everyone is desperate for their moment of fame, whether it’s on TikTok, a TV ‘talent’ show, or some other platform. We now have the category famous for being famous. And these are our role models!

Mary of Bethany didn’t care about being famous. She cared about Jesus. She embodied Jesus’ words:

‘For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.’ (Luke 14:11)

Mary wasn’t special, but she knew someone who was, and loving him made her special. We need the same willingness as Mary to forget ourselves and to focus on Jesus. If, at our funeral, it can be said of us that we loved Jesus, then no other praise is needed.

3. The Extravagance of Mary

Jesus said that wherever the Gospel is proclaimed that what Mary did will told in remembrance of her. Jesus made her action at the dinner an integral part of the Gospel story. Was Jesus simply saying that we would remember Mary? Certainly, he was saying that, but, more than that, in Mary’s extravagant action in anointing Jesus and lovingly wiping his feet with her hair, she was demonstrating how we too should respond to Jesus and to the Gospel.

One of my sadnesses as a priest is that so much of church life is no different to belonging to any other organisation. At its best, the church is like a religious NGO or charity that believes in promoting faith in God and doing good in the world. Very often, however, the focus is on building management, fundraising, social activities, and welfare programmes, and all that goes with being such an organisation. The question we need to ask ourselves is, ‘What’s God got to do with it?’ If you were to take God out of the Church much of what we do as a Church could continue anyway.

In the book of Revelation, the Risen Christ sends seven letters to the seven churches of Asia through his servant John. In the first letter, to the Church at Ephesus, Christ praises the believers for how they have kept the faith and resisted false teaching. There is, however, a problem. Jesus says:

‘But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.’ (Revelation 2:4)

St Paul compares the relationship of Christ and the Church to that of a bride and her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33). The Church should not be about organisation but relationship. A couple in love who decide to marry and live together have to find somewhere to live, they have to plan their finances and arrange their domestic affairs; there are many practical concerns, but these are all geared to making it possible for them to be together. Sadly, all too often, in many relationships, the love grows cold and the relationship becomes stale or even breaks down altogether. That’s what was in danger of happening with the Church at Ephesus. They had lost their first love.

What can happen with a Church can happen with us as individuals. Have we lost our first love? Of course, you can only abandon love if you actually had it to begin with. Mary of Bethany invites us today to fall in love with Jesus. Or if we, like those at Ephesus, have lost the love we had, then Mary would invite us to rediscover it and fall in love again with Jesus.

As believers and as a Church, what we believe, what we do, the way we organize ourselves, and how we worship are all important, but most important is whom we love. Those in love care most about the one they love. They want to be with them, and nothing is too much trouble. If we are in love, we want to give ourselves to the one we love and hold nothing back. It didn’t occur to Mary that pouring the perfume over Jesus was a waste. How could it be? She loved him and love is extravagant, or it is not love.

On one occasion, St Catherine of Sienna (1347-1380) had a vision in which she gave her heart to Jesus. Her confessor was sceptical and reproved her for it as they reproved Mary for her extravagance, but as Christ responded in love to Mary, so Christ later appeared to St Catherine and, in a vision, gave her a new heart. Mary of Bethany would have understood St Catherine’s experience. Mary too wanted to give all she had to Jesus whatever the cost and in remembering her today we see how we too should respond to Christ.

In our second reading this week, St Paul writes of how he regards everything he had as worth losing. He continues with these words:

‘More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him …’ (Philippians 3:8)

May we like Mary give ourselves completely to Jesus no matter what the cost.

Amen.

The Fourth Sunday of Lent

Here is the transcript of the podcast version of my sermon for the Fourth Sunday of Lent.

The Fourth Sunday of Lent

Reading: Luke 15:1-3, 11-32

Our Gospel reading this week begins:

‘Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him [Jesus]. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.”’ (Luke 15:1-2)

This is becoming something of a theme in St Luke’s Gospel. Back in chapter 5, St Luke describes how Jesus is getting his team of disciples together and recruits, Levi, a tax-collector (Luke 5:27-28). St Luke tells how even then the Pharisees and their scribes were already complaining about how Jesus was associating with people who had a bad reputation (Luke 5:30). This was not just an occasional occurrence on Jesus’ part. Jesus regularly associated with those who were considered by many religious people to be morally disreputable.

St Luke tells us that so common was this accusation against him that Jesus even refers to it himself. Contrasting his own style of ministry with that of John the Baptist, Jesus says:

‘For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, “He has a demon”; the Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!”’ (Luke 7:33-34)

Now, later in his ministry, the accusation is made explicitly again. Jesus responds to it with three much loved and well-known parables: the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3-7), the Parable of the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10), and what is commonly known as the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32).

The parable of the ‘Prodigal Son’ is the main focus of our Gospel reading. It is probably the most famous of Jesus’ parables, but it is also frequently misunderstood. If you ask most people what it means, their reply will be that it is about how God forgives us or about how we should forgive people. We understand the emphasis of the parable to be on forgiveness, and that’s right as far as it goes. In the past, when people thought about this parable, they concentrated on the welcome the younger son receives from the father, and this is reflected in the art and literature that has been inspired by the parable.

There is now, however, a greater realization that Jesus’ message and purpose in telling the parable lies in his description of the behaviour of the elder son. What the parable says about the younger son and the father’s forgiveness is important, but the parable builds up to the elder son and his reaction to the father’s forgiveness of the younger son. Jesus is saying to the Pharisees and scribes that the way they are reacting to his welcome of sinners is like the elder son’s reaction to the father’s welcome of the younger son. Jesus forgives the sinners he eats with and is glad to welcome them, so too, the parable suggests, the Pharisees and scribes should join in welcoming them.

So far so good. And it is good that nowadays preachers and commentators remember the point of the parable, and don’t only focus on the prodigal younger son. We like the Father’s forgiveness of the younger son and we like the idea of a party to celebrate his return. We rejoice at what we see as the condemnation of the mean-minded religious types who disapprove of having a good time. We are personally reassured that we don’t have too much to worry about if we go wrong. We know God will forgive us. At the same time, we like having our attitudes to stuffy religious types confirmed and reinforced. This is our sort of parable and, of course, we conveniently forget some of the other parables that have for us a less congenial message. This is the parable we want to hear.

Or do we?

Let’s hear it then. By hear it, I mean hear it as Jesus means it to be understood and not as we want to understand it.

The parable begins with the younger son doing something that even today would be frowned on, but which, in Jesus’ day, would be completely unforgiveable. The younger son basically tells his father he wishes his father was dead and that he wants his inheritance now. Somewhat surprisingly, the father agrees, and divides his property between his two sons.

The younger son can’t wait to get away. He wants to enjoy life and to travel, so that’s what he does, spending what he has been given by his father on what Jesus describes as ‘dissolute living’. It is important to note that there is no suggestion in the parable that what the younger son does is anything other than wrong. There is no attempt to explain or to excuse his behaviour.

When you go on spending money, it will eventually run out; and when it’s gone, it’s gone. To make matters worse for the younger son in the story, disaster hits the part of the world where the younger son is now living. There’s a famine, and for the first time in his life the younger son ‘began to be in need’. So bad does the situation get that he has to hire himself out, and the work he is given is with the pigs. Jesus puts this into the story to indicate that the younger son’s situation is about as bad it gets. Jews and pigs don’t go together. Worse still, he is so hungry that he would happily have eaten the pig’s food. He is utterly alone with no-one to help him.

In verse 17, Jesus describes how he comes to himself. He is working as a hired hand, and still he is dying of hunger. His father’s hired hands have food enough and to spare! This moment of enlightenment, however, is not just about his situation; it’s about himself and the seriousness of what he has done: he has sinned against God and his father; he is no longer worthy to be called a son; he needs to be treated like a hired hand. To be allowed to live is the most he can hope for. He turns and returns.

He is still ‘far off’ when his father sees him coming. When he sees his son, his father is filled with compassion. The father runs to him and hugs and kisses him. The son, however, is genuinely very much aware of the wrong he has done, and still says what he had planned to say. He has sinned against God and his father; he is no longer worthy to be called his son.

The father, however, orders his slaves to bring a robe, a ring, and sandals all symbols of forgiveness and acceptance. But not only that the father orders a celebration: the fatted calf is to be killed. The father explains the reason for this welcome and celebration:

‘… for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ (Luke 15:24)

In the past there has been the temptation to stop here. Quite rightly, we now realize there is still some way to go in the story. The elder son has been out working in the field. He is naturally puzzled by the sound of music and dancing when he comes home. Perfectly reasonably, he asks one of the slaves what is going on. Understandably, he is not exactly pleased when he is told his brother has returned.

He refuses to go in to the house. As the father ran to his younger son, so now the father goes out to his elder son. The elder son’s complaint is a fair one. He has been faithful in working for his father; he has obeyed his commands; and, in all this time, there has been no party for him. Now his brother has returned, ‘having devoured his father’s property with prostitutes’, there is a lavish celebration for him. The elder son refuses to acknowledge the younger son as his brother, describing him to his father as ‘this son of yours’.

There is no question that what the younger son has done is seriously wrong and there is no disagreement between the father and the elder son about how wrong it was. Both when the younger son returns and when talking with the elder son, the father says that the younger son:

‘… was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ (Luke 15:24, 32)

The question the parable addresses is what should be the reaction when someone who has done great wrong acknowledges that wrong, is sorry for it, and turns from it.

Jesus thought the sinners turning from the wrong they had done and turning to God should be celebrated. The Pharisees, however, thought that the wrong the tax-collectors and sinners had done could not be so simply and easily forgotten.

We, of course, side with the father in the story and with Jesus in his attitude to the Pharisees and scribes as we are supposed to. But what if the younger son had been a rapist, a people trafficker, a drug dealer, or all three before returning home, should there still have been a party to welcome him? Would we still side against the elder son for refusing to join in the singing and dancing? Tax-collectors and sinners included some pretty horrible people. We should perhaps try a little harder to understand why the Pharisees and scribes behaved like the elder son. The familiarity of the story means it has largely lost its impact on us, which is sad. What Jesus asks of the Pharisees and scribes - and of us - is scandalous and shocking!

Worse still, however, we use it to excuse our own sin and wrongdoing and fail to see how the parable challenges us both about our sin and our attitude to other people who have sinned. The parable does not teach that we needn’t worry about sin because God will always forgive it. The seriousness of the younger son’s sin is not minimized in the story in any way nor is it simply assumed that the father would forgive the younger son and welcome him home. Those hearing the parable for the first time would have no idea how the father in the story was going to react when the son returns.

The younger son’s behaviour was so bad that the only way of describing him was as dead, lost, and worthless. It is this that makes the father’s welcome home so amazing and the elder son’s reaction so understandable. What Jesus is asking of the Pharisees is right, but it is not always easy. It’s easier when you don’t take sin seriously, and it is easier with some sins more than others, but for those who care about right and wrong and the harm that evil does to people, then welcoming, for example, the repentant racist, rapist, and wrongdoer and partying with them is not easy. But this is exactly what Jesus is asking us to do.

I want to look at what we can learn from this story using four words: wrath, repentance, reconciliation, and rejoicing.

1. Wrath

St Paul, in his letter to the Church at Rome, introduces the theme of his letter by telling the Roman believers that he is not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who has faith, the Jew first, but also the Greek (Romans 1:16-17). Immediately after telling them this, St Paul writes:

‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.’ (Romans 1:18)

In other words, as St Paul will go on to explain in some detail, we all need saving because we are all under the judgement of God and facing his wrath. St Paul is expressing to the Roman believers what, as we saw in our Gospel reading last week, Jesus said to the crowds. He warned them:

‘… unless you repent, you will all perish as they did.’ (Luke 13:3, 5)

Jesus told many parables on the theme of judgement, although these are not nearly so popular for some reason as our parable this week! Nevertheless, while not the main point of the parable about the two sons, Jesus’ message of repent or perish is a necessary part of the background to it. It is only because the younger son realizes he is perishing and that he is quite literally dying from hunger, that the younger son comes to his senses and returns to his father.

I talked about this theme at some length last week, so I won’t dwell on it again this week, except to say the parable makes no sense without it. (The sermon can still be heard or read online for those who are interested!)

Like the younger son, we need to realize that our choices, actions, and lifestyle what the Bible calls sin, have landed us in real trouble, and we too will perish unless something is done.

2. Repentance

The something that needs to be done is for us to repent. Jesus’ description of the younger son shows us what this involves. First of all, it means realizing the mess we are in. Living in a pigsty is no fun. It is only when he realizes how desperate his situation is and how badly he has behaved that the younger son comes to his senses.

The criticism is often made of those who follow Christ that our faith is not rational and that faith is somehow contrary to reality. The truth is that we are not in a rational state of mind before we come to faith and we cannot think rationally without it. St Paul writes of the consequences when humans first left their Father for another country. St Paul writes:

‘… for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.’ (Romans 1:21)

Again as I have said in previous sermons, the big thing in our day is to be true to yourself, to believe in yourself, and to follow your dreams. It was precisely this philosophy of life that got the younger son into the mess he found himself in. He thought that by asserting himself, he would find freedom. By following a path he thought would lead to freedom, he instead ended up lost, and it is only when he ‘comes to himself’ and admits his failure and sin that he is able to take the steps he needs to make to find his way home.

Doubtless, if questioned, he would have argued that what he was doing by leaving his father’s home was being true to himself and that no-one and nothing should be allowed to limit his personal freedom. We are deeply attached to the idea of having freedom and independence. We want to make our own choices and decisions. The trouble is we are not very good at it. It was because he was given his freedom that younger son ended up losing all freedom. By doing what felt right, following his dreams, and fulfilling his desires, rather than finding himself, he got lost and destroyed himself.

It is only when he comes to himself and sees that he has sinned against God and his father that he can find redemption. Repentance is about coming to ourself, realizing we are lost, and accepting that we have no-one to blame for it but ourself. As the younger son puts it:

‘I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.”’ (Luke 15:18-19)

His journey home begins when he realizes that being a servant in his father’s home is better than being free in a foreign country. As George Matheson wrote in the hymn, ‘Make me a captive, Lord, and then I shall be free.’ It is only when we turn to God from the captivity of our sin that we can find true freedom.

3. Reconciliation

Repentance is essential, but it is not enough. Without repentance we can never find spiritual healing and hope, but seeing the mess we are in, and acknowledging it is our own fault that we are in it, is not going to get us out of it.

We are so familiar with the story of the father’ acceptance of the younger son that there is a tendency to think that if we simply say ‘sorry’ that’s enough, God will just forgive us, and all will be OK. It’s not quite like that. The younger son has to come to a point where he knows he is no more worthy to be called a son. He realizes that he cannot expect his father to take him back as a son; the most he can hope for is to be a worker in his father’s house.

It is all very well knowing we need God, but what is God’s attitude in all this? We have to move from repentance to reconciliation, and all the repentance and sorrow for sin, important though it is, counts for nothing until we are reconciled with God and find peace with him. Repentance is something we have to do; reconciliation, however, is something only God can do.

St Paul writes about this in our second reading this week. He writes of how God has reconciled those in Christ to himself. He describes how God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting our sin against us. St Paul is describing in theological language what happens in the story.

While younger son is still a long way off, the father sees his son and runs to him. Fathers in the ancient world would never have behaved in such an undignified manner. At the very least, they would have waited until the errant son had come home and said what he had to say. The son knows he can’t expect to be welcomed back as a son, but the father seeing his son returning doesn’t wait until he arrives. More than that, it is the father who does what is necessary to reconcile and restore his son to himself. It is the father who puts the robe over the son’s body, a ring on his finger, and sandals on his feet. It is the father who orders the killing of the fatted calf, and it is the father who orders the celebrations to begin.

We have no right to expect to expect God’s forgiveness and we cannot presume on the kindness of God. That’s what amazing about it! When we are at our moment of deepest despair, when we are in no position to hope, it is then we experience the amazing grace of God that not only forgives but reconciles and restores us in Christ.

The father describes his son as having been lost and dead but is now found and alive. It is in Christ that the lost are found and the dead are given life. It is in Christ that we are reconciled to God and restored to a relationship with him. It is in Christ that we come home. St Paul writes:

‘All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ …’ (1 Corinthians 5:18)

4. Rejoicing

And so, we get to the conclusion of the parable and to Jesus’ reason for telling it. The story has been building up to the fourth step in the process of salvation. The first three steps describe how we get home to God. The fourth step describes what happens once we are home and what the reaction should be of those already home to someone who has joined us in the house.

The parable asks how we should respond to someone who has realized their plight, repented of their sin, and been reconciled to God. Put like that it seems obvious. If God is happy, who are we to be unhappy. Sadly, it doesn’t always work like this. We can’t help ourselves. There are some repentant sinners we refuse to accept.

Perhaps it’s because we have never really felt ourselves to be sinners, certainly not a sinner in the way some are sinners. Perhaps we have been one of those who all their life have tried to do the right thing, to live a good life, help others, and avoid giving offence. What is it all for if someone can do what they like and get away with it? The elder son isn’t exaggerating when he talks of how well he has behaved and how loyal to his father he has been, and the father doesn’t contradict him. The elder son has, however, missed the point.

This isn’t about which of the sons has done what is right and which has done what is wrong, but what the right way to respond is when someone realizes they are in the wrong. We can accept that there is forgiveness for some sins, but we find it hard to believe that there is forgiveness for all sins. Jesus offered forgiveness to all who repented, whatever their sin. Jesus is telling the Pharisees and those like them that there is only way to respond when a sinner repents and that is the way the father himself responds. We should rejoice when the sinner comes home.

God likes sinners to repent and return to him. It is a cause for rejoicing, but more than that, God not only want us to join in the rejoicing, but to do what we can to welcome the sinner home and to join in the celebration.

We will only do this when we are willing, like the father was, to see that those who were lost and dead are now, through the forgiveness and mercy of God, found and alive. Knowing his son was lost gave the father no satisfaction and seeing the mistakes and wrong choices people make should give us no satisfaction. It should, however, give us an incentive to reach out to people with the love of God and to do so as those who have themselves made the same mistakes and wrong choices, and to offer them the hope of being found, as we have been found, by the God who gives life in Christ.

Seeing that many are lost and without life and hope in our world should also give us in the Church, and as a Church, a sense of priority.

Jesus tells two other parables before this one. In the first, a shepherd leaves 99 sheep to go in search of one that is lost. In the second, a woman stops everything she is doing to search for her lost coin. Seeing the lost around us, we need the same sense of urgency and determination. St Paul writes that God has given us the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ (2 Corinthians 5:18). We, like Jesus, are to ‘seek and to save the lost’ (Luke 19:10). But we will only want to do this if we think they are lost and need saving, and we will only be able to do this if we have been found and saved ourselves.

The message to us today is that God wants us to be reconciled to himself and to come home to a relationship with him in Christ.

May we find that relationship for ourselves and rejoice with him when others find it too.

Amen.