Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Giertz (18th Sunday after Pentecost)

A somewhat regular feature Kristina and I are going to work on is translating Bo Giertz's commentaries which correspond to the upcoming Sunday Gospel and Epistle reading. We'll see how it goes! Here is the first installment for next Sunday, September 26:

Luke 16:19-31 - The Rich Man and Lazarus

Parables can be of different kinds. Some use an image from everyday life to illustrate something concerning God's kingdom (for example, the parable of the dishonest steward). Such parables must be interpreted (explained). But - as we have already said - there are other types of parables, which one usually calls "example stories" (exempelberättelser). They present simple and clear examples of how one should act or not act, concerning God and one's neighbor. This is where the story of the good Samaritan belongs; likewise the story of the wealthy landowner and his plans to build (storehouses). Here it seems we have a third parable of the same type. In actual fact, it belongs together with the previous type. The parable of the dishonest steward is about considering the future and using money wisely. Following this is a new image of a man who didn't do this, a man who owned everything a man could wish for himself, but still lived a wasted life. Against him is set the poor man Lazarus. We know nothing about him, except that he lived in absolute poverty. Nevertheless, his life was not wasted. It lead to the destination God has set for all mankind: the great joy in God's kingdom. The parable confronts and deals with the common Jewish (judiska) notion that happiness/success in this life must be a sign of God's good favor (välbevågenhet), while adversity is punishment. The parable says, instead, that there is much in this vicious world which seems unfair and incomprehensible, but which God will correct, when one is "of" him. It does not say explicitly that Lazarus is of God, but it is apparent from what follows that this is what is crucial. The rich man realizes too late that he should not have neglected that which had to do with God. His fault was not that he was rich, but that he was a squanderer, who did not use what he received properly. As opposed to this rich man Jesus sets forth another rich man, who managed his possession rightly. He could let it go. He let Lot take the best part of the land. He was willing to offer even his only son, if God wanted this.

The parable's meaning is, thus, not that man gains heaven only because one is poor. But it says the same as Paul expresses with the words, "the distress we now suffer prepares for us glories which in many ways outweigh everything that can be imagined, and which lasts eternally." (II Cor. 4:17 - from Giertz's own translation)

Jesus sketches the picture of life on the other side with strokes which were well-known to his contemporaries. In this matter he says nothing new and his words are probably not meant as a teaching concerning the state after death. The fundamental feature of the image is the same as elsewhere in Jesus' preaching. There will be joy or judgement. The verdict cannot be changed. Aside from this, we must be careful in our use of details. It is not helpful to ask whether this happens before or after the final judgement or if it really is possible to make contact between these worlds. That is not what this parable is about.

On the contrary the parable has a second part, which is also part of the message. The rich man wants Lazarus to return to earth to warn his brothers. Abraham answers, they have already received what they need to know. This is, of course, God's word. The rich man answers that they do not care about such things. But should anyone come back from the dead, then they surely would repent. Then Abraham said to him, the one who is not convinced by the word of God, he will not repent even if someone is raised from the dead. With these words, Jesus gives justification for why he rejected all demands that he should do miracles as proof for who he was. Doing so creates no real faith. No one can love God as a result of calculations. Most explain away everything they saw of His power anyway. When Luke wrote this, he knew right Jesus had been. His adversaries had not at all allowed themselves to be convinced by His resurrection from the dead.

The details in the parable are as concrete as always. Purple-dyed fabric was an exclusive fabric, colored by the extract from a little gland of the Purpura mollusk (they had to use thousands of these to color one robe). The fine linen was called silk (? - byssus) and was almost as expensive as the purple fabric. The dogs were Middle-Eastern, half wild street dogs. The rich man was laid in a grave; however, nothing is said about Lazarus. He probably ended up in the trash heap where the jackals took care of his legs.

1 Tim 3:1-7 - Qualifications for Overseers (biskopar – bishops)

Here follows a list of conditions, which are to be fulfilled if someone is to be considered for the position of bishop or deacon. These offices are mentioned already in Philippians (1:1). In Swedish we still use the same words, but they do not have the exact same meaning. In Greek, bishop is episkopos, and that word actually means "overseer" or "manager" (föreståndare). Every congregation had several of them. It was not before the year 100 that the church in a certain place begun having only one bishop as a leader. The ”angels” of the churches in the book of Revelation could have been such leaders. Around 110 AD the martyr bishop Ignatius insists in his letters that this is the right order. Thus the word bishop received a meaning which it still maintains. Therefore, the Greek word episkopos is usually not translated as "bishop" when it appears in the New Testament, instead ”overseer” or something else that indicates the same meaning is used.

Paul says that this is ”a noble task”. Maybe he does this for the sake of the heretics. When we then hear about what would be required of a bishop candidate, it is difficult not to be surprised that the demands are so basic. He cannot be a lover of money or wine, he cannot be quarrelsome or a troublemaker, who could even resort to violence. He cannot have a bad reputation among ”outsiders”, the ones who are not Christians. Here we get – as in many other letters by Paul – a reminder of what kind of a life many of the Christians had led before and how they always had to fight against what they had brought with them from paganism. Every missionary who has worked with starting a congregation of all new Christians knows about this. We must be careful not to believe that congregations in the early Church only contained sanctified human beings. Rather, they were a congregation (assembly) of fire, who had been pulled out of the fire and who still smelled of smoke. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the leading positions were held by men, who had shown that their former lives were indeed something of the past. They were to be irreproachable, so that nothing in their behavior could be criticized. In this context, it is also said that an episkopos must be ”the husband of one wife”. This also is an basic requirement for a Christian. Roman law allowed a man to have concubines, so illicit relations were not considered offensive. But a Christian was to live in strict monogamy and was not allowed to divorce. To divorce one's wife in order to take another wife could be considered a kind of polygamy, and such a thing an overseer could not be guilty of.

Most the positive qualifications which are mentioned are basic for every human being: dignity and wisdom, self-control and moderation, as well as the ability to manage one's own household and children. Here the same word as in the case of an ”overseer” of the congregation is intentionally used. The congregation was God's family. If one was to take care of God's family, one must also be able to take care of one's own family. The overseer could not be a recent convert. The church in Ephesus had at this point (if the letter is written after Paul was released from prison) existed long enough for it to have experienced and proven people. If a newcomer was appointed, it could go to his head.

It is interesting to look at what is not mentioned, namely, personal faith in Jesus and a willingness to witness, suffer and sacrifice for one's faith. Such things must have been assumed to be obvious for everyone who belonged to the church. On the contrary, the ability to teach is mentioned. Not everyone had that. To teach was one of the most important and demanding tasks that an overseer had to do.

1 Tim 3:8-13 - Qualifications for Deacons

The deacons did not only have what we would call ”diaconal” tasks. They were the bishops' assistants, and it is striking that the qualifications regarding their personality and lifestyle are largely the same as for the bishops. We hear that they too have to be examined before they are appointed. Thus, there must have been such an examination of the bishops as well. It does not mean a probationary position, but a scrutiny of qualifications and characteristics. In this context, women are also mentioned. These are probably deaconesses, although some believe that the words refer to the wives of the deacons, because the female helpers (medhjälpare) of the church are specifically dealt with in another chapter later on.

Here the decisive Christian qualification is mentioned: [to hold] the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. The mystery of the faith is the gospel, the great mystery of God, which has been hidden throughout the centuries, but now has been revealed through Jesus Christ. This is what the deacons must have understood and received, and they must have kept it in a clear conscience, so that they do not in any matter live a double life in unresolved sins. Even regarding the deacons, it is stressed that it is an office which carries an authority when it is performed in the right way.