Luke 6:17-26
He came down with them and stood on a level place with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon.
They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases, and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured.
And everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them.
Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven, for that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.
“Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”
Sermon
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
“Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.
These words may seem familiar. They are reminiscent of the Sermon on the Mount, a famous extended sermon by Jesus containing the Beatitudes. This passage is similar but also significantly different, known as the Sermon on the Plain. One was given from a hillside and the other on a flat area, thus the names.
The format of the “blessed” portion of the sermons also differ. In Matthew, we hear, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” In Luke, however, we are told “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”
These sound similar but they imply different ideas. We might puzzle over what “poor in spirit” means, but Luke’s simple statement about the poor is far more direct.
In Matthew we are told, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” Compare that with Luke: “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.” Whereas one is about a desire for righteousness, the other is specifically about those who are hungry.
And there is no reason not to take Luke’s version literally. Jesus frequently spoke about caring for the poor. The more conceptual Matthew version speaks to important ideals, but the need to care for others could not be more central to the teachings of Jesus.
These blessings are paired with another set of observations, this time about those who are wealthy now and those who have had their fill to eat already: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.”
Again, this is a familiar dynamic in the teachings of Jesus, lifting up the poor and casting down the wealthy. We might call it leveling, but it is not ultimately about everyone ending up in the same place. That is not the point. This is a moral judgment with a theological prediction attached: “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” This particular indictment of the wealthy can be found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
It is also in the same words and spirit as many of the prophetic books, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Not caring for the poor and needy, widows and orphans, the aliens and the strangers, is one of the surest signs that a prophet will be on the way. That is honestly the main job of a prophet: telling the people when they have disobeyed their covenant with God. And the wealthy are generally the ones who break the covenant.
But why is wealth such a terrible thing? You can do a lot of good things with money. You can take care of a lot of people. Why then is wealth such a problem that it is likely to keep someone outside of the kingdom of God?
Not because God will keep you out, by the way, but because it will be difficult to find your way inside. Wealth is a road map away from God. Not wealth itself, not money or property or stuff. Because there are people we might define as wealthy who are far closer to the kingdom of God than others. And there are people who we might define as merely comfortable, who can quickly plump up to the size of a camel in our needle passage imagery.
Wealth is an idea. If I have just enough money to make ends meet, to feed myself, it is possible that I am not wealthy. And yet how we define our “ends” that we are trying to meet and what we are feeding ourselves upon makes all the difference in the world. But that is not so easy to see when you are inside the contours of your life which you consider to be normal. In a sense, wealth becomes a mirage that distorts our sense of normalcy.
So, how might we define wealth?
In one survey, Americans polled thought that to be “wealthy” you needed to have at least $2.5 million in assets. To be “comfortable,” you need to have just under $800,000.
In another survey, to be considered middle class in Massachusetts, you need to have a salary of $60,000 per year. And yet in parts of California, you would be considered middle class until you earned more than $300,000. There is quite a range, assuming we can define any of this by polling people.
Wealth is of course relative. A wealthy person in 19th century America had many fewer options for using that wealth compared to a comfortable person in the 21st century. Even someone of modest means might have a better life considering what we now have: health, sanitation, clean water, access to education, etc. If one were able to choose, the present might seem far more attractive than the age of cholera and hoop skirts.
“Wealthy” as a concept will always be about percentages, some small number of people possessing an outsized portion of a society’s overall resources. It was the same in the time of Jesus even if the details of being wealthy versus poor differ across the centuries: someone had a lot more than everyone else.
Which brings me to the true topic of this sermon: sin. Sin is a central idea in Christian thought, but the meaning of the word sin varies greatly across time and across traditions.
“Sin” can be defined in many ways, such as an act which is regarded as a transgression of divine law and an offence against God. However, sin is often ignored as a concept. Sin is a fussy, superstitious idea. Enlightened people do not sin. Educated folks are not bound by such hidebound traditions.
One image that has been used over the centuries is “missing the mark” like an archer who has missed a target. And we are beyond making such aiming mistakes in our brave new world of science, liberalism, and the Protestant work ethic—aren’t we?
This metaphor for sin as missing the mark can get in the way of its true meaning. That image derives from the Hebrew term ḥaṭṭā’āṯ, implying a misstep, but sinning is far more than clumsiness or even a mistake. If a sin is an offense against God, that implies a relationship to God, an agreement of some sort or an understanding of what is supposed to transpire. Do this and do not do that.
If we accept this idea of an agreement with God, called a covenant in Biblical language, there must be terms and conditions of such an agreement to be fulfilled. Furthermore, if we are to be considered among those that follow Jesus, his specific terms and conditions are laid out in his teachings, such as in the Sermon on the Plain. In that sermon, Jesus clearly was drawing a distinction between the poor and the rich—one might say an eternal distinction.
Why would wealth be a condition that makes one prone to sin? Or is wealth by definition sinful? How did that image of wealth come into being?
The Bible has numerous passages condemning usury, the practice of charging interest on money that has been lent out. This is not a subtle sin in Biblical terms, or one of degree. The very act of charging interest was a sin. I imagine this was one reason why our 1923 prayerbook contains heavily amended versions of the Psalms from which all references to the sin of usury were deleted. As those references might have made any bankers in the pews uncomfortable, why stir the pot? By the way, we also chopped away at the 23rd psalm—apparently, no one’s cup runneth over.
Usury is a sin because it allows wealth to be generated without any work. One needs only to have the money to lend in the first place and then someone else will do the work needed to repay the loan. And if this gets anyone thinking that such a rule about passive income undercuts the very basis of capitalism, you sir or madam win a prize. Because it does.
And, yes, Jesus spoke out against charging interest: “[L]ove your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.”
That being said, I am not calling for the dismantling of capitalism or the elimination of charging interest. This does not comply with my general rule of following Jesus’ teachings, but we also have to understand what Jesus taught in context. And we have a more abundant society because of some of these financial concepts.
In an ancient society, the separation between work and wealth allowed for great disparities. In those same societies, people were also subject to enslavement and the real possibility of warfare in their lives. They often died of childhood illnesses or infectious diseases. And yet we have made many strides against such social evils and benighted practices.
Similarly, our system of economics is profoundly different. It presents newfound challenges, but that does not mean it can be judged only by the yardstick of past problems. Charging interest on loans allows more people to own properties and goods. For example, Sixty five (65) percent of Americans own property which would be impossible without a complex lending system. What the Ancient Hebrew prophets and Jesus were arguing against looks far different from what we face in modern contexts.
Again, wealth is relative.
Within a modern, capitalistic society, wealth might be best defined by the overall spread of prosperity. Because wealth is a decision about the concept of “enough.” Wealth equals more than enough.
If everyone in a society has enough—enough food, enough medicine, enough housing—then wealth in the form of excess “enough-ness” is less sinful in character. Why? Because no one is poor. No one is hungry. No one is suffering from such material deprivations. But what if they are?
What if people are poor? Like over 10 percent of the Massachusetts population below the rate of poverty in 2024.
What if people are hungry? Like 34 percent of people in Massachusetts who were food insecure in 2024.
If there are poor people or hungry people in our midst, then those we might define as “wealthy” have sinned. They have sinned if they have done nothing to address those needs. They have sinned according to the teachings of Jesus, who was not only talking about the poor in spirit or those who hunger for abstract concepts. They have sinned by definition, through inaction. Because the poor and the hungry should not exist when the word “wealth” is being bandied about.
Now, in full disclosure, you might peruse the internet and find ample arguments contrary to this very point, often invoking this line from scripture: “[I]f any would not work, neither should he eat.” By the way, this is the only example of this sentiment in the Bible that I have found.
And I have several problems with it.
One, Paul was talking about specific people in a specific congregation in Thessalonica with a few of those gathered together living off the generosity of the others. And two, even if you take Paul literally, Paul does not get to overrule Jesus.
Let me say that again: Paul does not get to overrule Jesus.
Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin, popes and cardinals, theologians and theocrats: they do not have the right to overrule Jesus. They do not get to razor the Sermon on the Plain or the Gospel of Luke out of the Bible because it might make someone uncomfortable in their day job.
I realize I just interpreted Jesus on the topic of wealth, but that is not the same as ignoring him utterly.
But that happens all the time. Someone running around with scissors gets a hold of the Bible and cuts out the discomforting parts of what Jesus taught. Which is almost everything he taught. They skip over the preachy parts and then sprinkle on a handful of Leviticus for taste when it suits their cultural baggage.
These X-Acto knife theologians try to explain away everything Jesus asked his followers to do. They say that “loving thy neighbor” is exactly that, to narrow down the boundaries of compassion to the few people that we like and somehow glossing over the “love thy enemies” part while whistling a merry tune. Anyone outside of our close circle of family and friends can take a back seat. With that sentiment in mind, the Good Samaritan should have let the wounded man die by the side of the road.
Perhaps the greatest sin of Christianity was the decision to worship Jesus but then to stop listening to him. How can you worship someone but not listen to him? Read any one of the prophets and you will see how common a problem that has been. God was repeatedly ignored. We are simply the latest in a long line.
Why was this such a great sin? Because it was the choice to cast aside the entire covenant we have with God, at least according to Jesus. That sin was the choice to love ourselves more than our neighbors and, by the same act, to love ourselves more than God. Such narrow-minded Christians stopped loving God because they refuse to love their neighbors. They stopped loving God in the form of God’s creation all around us.
For wealth is simply one form of hoarded love.
Is there hunger in the world? Is there poverty in places we can reach? And is their wealth in our pockets, in our cities, in our nation that could be used to feed and to care for those in need without taking a morsel of food out of our mouths?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then we have a duty to help. We in our lives, we in our congregations, we in our communities, and we in our nation have a duty to help. And if we choose not to do so, we have sinned.
As Jesus said: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”
In those corners of the internet where people speak highly of wealth, as if God’s blessings took the form of money in the bank, those are the words of the false prophets. Those are the misleading charlatans who cast aside the commandment to love in favor of comforting words about prosperity as the true measure of a Christian life.
Jesus does not say these things. Even Paul only said it once and that was taken completely out of context. The prophets repeatedly decry the abandonment of the poor and the wickedness of those who choose wealth over their fellow human beings. The Bible could not be more clear, but even the words of God can be drowned out by these false prophets of prosperity and selfishness.
If sin could be defined as missing the mark, then trying again to hit the bullseye would be the next logical step. But if we fundamentally disagree about where to aim, if we do not even imagine ourselves upon the same playing field, then this is more than missing the mark.
It is about rejecting God. It is about rejecting Jesus Christ.
So, please, do not forsake the call to love God and to love one another. Please do not forsake the poor or the hungry. Please do not forsake all God’s children, great and small, near and far.
Please do not forsake God or Jesus.
God bless you all and Amen.
0 Comments