The blessings are a relief to read after last week's curses, although they still have the scandal-of-the-particular going on. I haven't look at them in Hebrew, but in this NRSV version they seem rather poetic, soothing.

As for the Gospel, the "queen of the South" part baffles me. ?
 

I heard a lecture in my class on Old Testament Prophets that interpreted Jonah as a parable against racism; Jonah was sent to the people of Nineveh to offer them a chance to repent of their ways, but his own prejudices about the people he was sent to serve caused to him to both seek a different path, and refuse to accept that God had forgiven the Ninevites when they heard his message and repented. Jonah was paralyzed in his ability to live and work with them because of his own racist attitudes taught him that the Ninevites were undeserving of God's grace. Jonah was saddened by the death of a palm tree that God had raised up, and yet sulked about an entire city of people who were saved.
When you combine this reference to the faith of the Ninevites with the discussion of the Queen of the South (who I would assume is the Queen of Sheba that came to study under Solomon,) I see this undoubtedly as a teaching against the exclusionary faith that was favored by the religious hierarchy of the time. They were looking for a Messiah who would lift the Jew out of bondage, but like many, they were only concerned with those of their own culture. In this passage, Jesus is saying that the salvation he is bringing is a salvation without borders, and all attempts to limit it will be shown as prejudicial and exclusionary. If the international community responded to the messages of Jonah and of Solomon, how much stronger will they respond to the message of HE who is so much greater!
What a wonderful message of inclusion to a people who had been raised with such a restricted view of God's acceptance...
 

I used to believe that it was so revolutionary for Jesus to say "Love the Lord God with all your mind, all your heart, and all your soul." I don't think so anymore. It's that we as religious leaders or future religious leaders we forget. It is not so new. It is that we forget. Plain and simple we forget. Here are the blesssings which are out of the Torah. They speak very strongly of repentence. Live out the law. Remember that the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, The God of Jacob has chosen us to be His. Our response to turn. Obey, repentence, return all speak of making myself less and God greater. The road may narrow but it rises. Not on my virtue but His.

The same message rises to the surface in Luke. Repentance is the vehicle of knowing the divine. The message is not really understand but allow this God whom you may or may not understand to demonstrate God's self to you. That is the good news. This call to repent is the way to find this great reality.

I am probably digressing here but that is ok. Since starting this reflection practice both during Lent and even here, the message continues to come shining through. Return to God, Return to God, Return to God.
 

The same pattern which we saw last week in Deuteronomy 28 is present here at the beginning. If the people follow the commandments given by the leader(s) then God will bless them. Clearly a blessing based upon works i.e. "diligently observing all his commandments that I am commanding."
Verse 7 provides the reason Israel was defeated by Babylon for if they had been faithful their enemies would have been defeated before them.
 

"Something Greater than Jonah is here"

I believe that I'm becoming a bit of an apologist. So much of modern commentary seeks to portray Jesus in so many ways. The wise teacher route comes to mind. Jesus as prophet. I know I've been there.

The church needs to hear that Jesus is greater than prophet. I hear CS Lewis in my ear, "either he was liar, lunatic, or he was what they said he was." Lewis also writes along the lines , "there is no middle ground, He (Jesus) never intended that way." This was troubling to me when was out in the wilds of faith and could not believe he was who He said he was. Some where along the way that changed. It was not by own devices.
Something changed and I leapt from ship to shore.

As a church I believe that this message that "he was more than Jonah" needs to be clear. Those theories of faith reducing Jesus to mystic or wise man or gnostic hold the same amount of proof as the claims to Messiah, Son of Man, God incarnate. Let us be seekers after that truth like Simeon if we must waiting our whole lives.
 

The blessings are poetic and lovely, and would work well in a liturgy. I do think it would be revisionist to add them to the lectionary while continuing to exclude the curses that accompany them; both were standard in suzerainty treaties at the time. And, in an excellent sermon yesterday, my advisor pointed out that the blessings and woes in Luke 6:20-26 are akin to the blessings and curses in Deut. We do read those, and those are tough as well; why not include it all?
 

AS I read, the difficulty that seemed to be most evident could be a society like ours hearing the blessings. A culture like ours could begin to associate material success as the result of God's blessing. While it could be the result, the challenge would be for honest appraisal rather than assumption. Material blessings are not proof of righteousness. Such assumptions can maintain a status quo that may not be just. Such assumptions can validate an economic system which can cripple rather than liberate. Such assumptions can underwrite policy that seeks to protect our interests at the expense of other people and nations. Such assumptions can send us headlong into fear, greed, pride, and covetness.
 

I would preach on the OT reading, but would mention the curses as well, because it would deceptive to leave them out. (The lectionary editors appear to agree, since both are left out.) I would focus on the passage at hand, however, acknowledging the lovely parts, but also ponder what it means that God would defeat our enemies before our eyes. Who are our enemies? Doesn't this sound violent? What was the historical context when the book was written, etc.