Sermon for 29 October 2006 (Reformation-Reconciliation Sunday)
Sermon delivered at First Congregational United Church of Christ of Bloomer, Wisconsin on Reformation-Reconciliation Sunday, 2006.
Principal text: Mark 10:46-52.
I’m sure we’ve all heard different variations of today’s Gospel lesson. There are many accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry in the Gospels. The one we heard this morning appears in Mark’s gospel, but different versions of the same story also appear in the other two synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Mark. I’ll read it again.
They [Jesus and the Disciples] came to
Jericho. And he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout over and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stood still and said, “Call him here.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you.” So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.” Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.
In the last few times I’ve been in this pulpit, I’ve talked about how putting Biblical passages into their historical context can help us gain a better insight into the message of the text itself, and as I approached this text last night I found the same thing with today’s lectionary. If we take a casual look at this morning’s Gospel lesson, it seems quite straightforward: a blind man demanded Jesus’ attention and receives his sight back. But if we take a closer look it reveals a complexity that can teach us as Christians how to relate to the wider world of culture and politics.
I mentioned in a sermon a while ago that during Jesus’ time, the relationship between the Jews in Israel and their Roman rulers was complex. I’m going to explore some of this complexity this morning because it relates to our passage.
During Jesus’ generation there were two major parties that vied for influence over Jewish life in Israel, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, and there were many differences between the two. Probably the most noticeable was a difference in class: the Sadducees were few in number but powerful. They consisted of the wealthy upper class, the rulers and the high priests, the select group of families that oversaw the running of the Jerusalem Temple. And indeed, in their version of Judaism the center of Jewish life was the Temple building in Jerusalem. The Pharisees on the other hand consisted of pretty much everyone else, of scribes and rabbis who worked in town and village synagogues where working people prayed, worshiped and studied.
There was a linguistic difference: the Pharisees spoke Aramaic for everyday use and prayed in Hebrew. The upper-class Sadducees on the other hand prayed in Hebrew and spoke Aramaic, but also fluently spoke the Greek that the Roman rulers spoke which was the language of secular education. On the whole the Sadducees advocated an accepting stance towards the Romans, co-operation with them and the adoption of Greek culture. And for their support many Sadducees were rewarded with positions of power and influence. The Pharisees for the most part opposed Jewish adoption of foreign culture and education, and resented the Roman presence. On a day-to-day level the thing they most hated was Roman taxation. Still for many years Roman military strength meant that little could be done about it, so many longed for a Messiah who would throw the Romans out and re-establish a Jewish kingdom.
Saint Mark was not concerned with Jesus’ genealogy when he wrote his Gospel. Other Gospel writers included Jesus’ family history back to King David to verify their claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophesy that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David. This didn’t seem to be important for Saint Mark, however, and there aren’t any references to Jesus’ family descent in his Gospel. Except in the passage we read this morning.
The Pharisees’ tradition expected a Messiah who would be the ruler over an independent Israel. His earthly kingdom was thought of in utopian terms: once the Messiah came, they thought, all things would be set back into their rightful places with a descendent of David on the throne. For a subjugated, conquered, humiliated people it was a great hope to look forward to a figure who they thought would lead a revolt against the foreign rulers and re-establish Israel to its former glory. In Hebrew, the title they gave to this man they looked forward to was Mashiach ben-David, the Annointed One, Son of David.
Now except for Jesus’ followers, no one believed that He was the Messiah. Not the Pharisees. Not the Sadducees. It’s likely that when the blind beggar shouted out, he used the words Y’shua ben-David. Jesus Son of David. It wouldn’t have been like saying, “Jesus Son of Mary”. Everyone in that crowd would have recognized the significance of that title. It was the same thing as saying, “Jesus, Messiah, have mercy on me”. And I would imagine that when they heard Jesus proclaimed as the Messiah, the people in the crowd had one of two gut reactions. Some would have had a cold shiver. The Pharisees didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah. He was too unorthodox, He didn’t have a band of warriors ready to defeat the Romans, He wasn’t ‘hero’ material. Still, they didn’t want anyone to get the ‘wrong’ idea and they certainly didn’t want trouble with a Roman army that was all too ready to crush any hint of an uprising. The Sadducees for their part had a vested interest in keeping things the way they were, in keeping the Romans in power and probably didn’t look forward very much to a messiah or someone pretending to be the messiah challenging the Romans. When you consider their positions it’s no wonder Mark tells us that many people told Bartimaeus the blind beggar to shut up.
Other onlookers, though, instead of feeling dread, probably felt a glimmer of hope. Is this the One? I’ve heard the rumors, but is this really the One we’ve been taught about, the One we’ve been waiting for? And then they watched as Jesus returned Bartimaeus’ sight. Mark’s Chapter Ten concludes by saying that Bartimaeus “followed [Jesus] on the way”.
Today is Reformation Reconciliation Sunday, the day when we remember the start of the Protestant Reformation, which was an effort to renew the Christian Church. The Reformation sought to return the teachings of the Church to Biblical principles and away from teachings that had no Biblical sanction.
Perhaps the most egregious violation that the Reformation targeted was the Church selling indulgences. The Roman church taught, and still teaches that before we can go to heaven we have to go to Purgatory for a time to pay for our sins. The Protestant reformers found no Biblical justification for that teaching, no Biblical reference to purgatory at all. Instead they found the Bible teaching that Christ’s death on the Cross was sufficient to atone for the sins of all Christians and that no purgatory is needed. The Roman church taught that it has the authority to excuse individual souls from Purgatory when it chooses to do so, and during the medieval period in Europe they used this as a way to raise money for building cathedrals and basilicas. My donating money to church projects, they taught you could get deceased loved ones out of purgatory quicker and easier. In their efforts they even had a rhyme: “every time a penny in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”
Martin Luther was a monk, an academic, and a priest, and when he studied Scripture he noticed the sharp discrepancy between this practice of selling indulgences and what the Scriptures said. He read Ephesians Chapter Two, which says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” And in a brave effort to be true to the Gospel, to listen to the voice of a still-speaking God, Martin Luther posted his famous 95 Theses on the church doors in Wittenberg. Summoned to account for himself in front of the authorities who demanded he recant his teachings, Luther dramatically, “my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything […] Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.” For his trouble, those authorities then declared Luther an outlaw and issued a warrant for his arrest.
“Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me.” “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Here I stand. I can do no other.”
Both Bartimaeus the blind beggar and Martin Luther went radically against the grain of their times. They weren’t just politically incorrect. They found that faith was, and is, risky. Bartimaeus and Luther had the audacity to lift their voices above the crowds, to stand out. Bartimaeus loudly and rudely proclaimed the truth of Jesus’ messiahship, confirming in some their worst fears and in others their greatest hope. Martin Luther had the courage to critique unbiblical teaching and ungodly practices within the church, and against bishops and princes he called Christianity to conform with Scripture.
As Christians we are called to critique every day. Christianity is not a faith that tells us to roll with the punches that society gives us. We’re to look at our politics, at our entertainment, at our economic system, at our own behavior, and ask, ‘is this what God would have it be?’ And proclaiming Christ’s good news as we struggle to bring our lives and our worldviews into God’s will, we can ask for His mercy and his grace as we follow Him on the way. Let’s take a moment to pray.
Have mercy on us, Jesus Son of David! Have mercy on us, Son of David! Grant that we, who are blind, would at last see You and continually call on You in every dark hour until we are safe at last in that kingdom of light which has already been prepared for us through you! AMEN.
