Jeremiah had reason to dislike people.  The king and princes of Judah sometimes ignored him, sometimes persecuted him, and sometimes abused him so that he might have died from their treatment.  He was irritated at them not merely because of their treatment of him, but rather because they had conscientiously turned away from the God who had provided them with everything they had.  

Today we hear Luke’s parallel to part of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel account (Matthew 5-7).  It is referred to as the Sermon on the Plain by some.  It is neither so pithy nor memorable as is Matthew’s contrived sermon, but it is worth noting some of the contrasts it provides.  First, we find an abbreviated version of what are famously known as the Beatitudes.  In Matthew, there are eight; in Luke merely four.  Matthew elaborates on them; Luke’s are succinct, even simplistic.  For example, Matthew blesses those who are “poor in spirit,” while Luke labels blessed those who are in fact “poor.”  Luke has reduced the subjects to physical situations: poverty, hunger, sadness and societal abuse.  Matthew’s Beatitudes are more numerous, more nuanced, and more relational than situational.  In both accounts, Jesus addresses a large crowd.  Luke specifically points out the Twelve (later to be called Apostles), a great crowd of disciples (those who were deliberately following Jesus and being taught by him), and then a large number of others not so committed, but who at least were listening.  Luke characterizes Jesus as prophetically provocative, by sort of sneaking up on to the audience by first praising the lowest economic and social levels of Judean society for being victimized, and then for predicting woe (i.e., future suffering) to those who are not among the needy.  Luke’s literary style implies difficult questions.  Did Jesus advocate having too little and being destitute?  Is it virtuous to suffer want?  Likewise, is it wrong to have and enjoy a sufficiency?  Is it worthy of condemnation to enjoy life at all?  These are not yes or no questions.  Luke portrayed Jesus’ prophetic ministry by raising difficult questions to force the audience to ask, What might his Gospel mean?  This is rhetorical consciousness-raising, prodding people to see beyond their own personal situations to those of others.  Understand that we are reading meaning into the text here.  Recognize, too, that some sarcasm has certainly being used by Luke.  How do we hear and live the Gospel message with a concern for both (a) the needs of those who are suffering and (b) overcoming any risk of thoughtlessness and ingratitude that can come with plenty?  This is a spiritual and ethical wrestling match.  No single, simple, or clear answer is presented.  Each of us, as was true for Luke’s original audience, is called to grapple with, think about, engage in, and try to resolve all those issues and aspects of life we encounter here with us.  In Jeremiah’s mind, the leaders of Judah had forgotten the generosity of God and had become unfaithful.  Luke had Jesus provoke his audience into awareness lest they be attracted merely by getting something (e.g., a free meal in the miracle of the loaves).  The Church announces this passage to us for much the same reasons: to make us thoughtfully aware, generous in behavior, and thankful in attitude, as essential components of our Gospel way of life.

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, from which we’ve heard for five weeks, addressed the question of resurrection.  No technical description of resurrection was provided.  What was asserted was that Christ was already raised from the dead, and hence, that the salvific power of Christ and the God who raised him was already effective.  The lives of believers, who have embraced the Gospel message and who work conscientiously at living a life of fellowship and gratitude, are themselves the evidence of God’s power to raise up from death.  Perhaps Paul was arguing against a resurgence of the Sadducean party within the early Church.  Remember, the Pharisees were the group of believers who held the idea of life after death and resurrection which had evolved during the Persian and Greek eras (approximately 539-330 BC and 330-63 BC respectively).  The Sadducees, on the other hand, considered themselves to have been Torah purists.  Since Moses had mentioned neither life after death nor resurrection, they tended to discount both ideas.  The Church evolved from the Pharisaic group; both Jesus and Paul were consistently Pharisaic in their beliefs.  Paul even claims the title Pharisee.  And, while there is still today no credible definition or measurable knowledge of what comprises the next life or resurrection, the Christian hope of everlasting life is very important.  So far, believers are allowed to use their own imaginations.  Each Church era has done so, often with the help of artists and poets.  Frankly no one knows what eternal life means.  The Gospel message, while promising eternal life, exhorts us to live life fully and purposefully in the present.  Paul told his Philippians that “We are citizens of heaven now” (Phil 3:20).  The 1st Letter of John tells us that “We are God’s children now” (1st John 3:2).  One great consequence of thoughtfully and conscientiously embracing and living the Gospel is the overwhelming gratitude that permeates one’s life.  Salvation is not only in the future.  We are saved!  Salvation has come and is now!