Luke 9:1-6
The next episode of Jesus’ ministry as Luke described it shows how much he wished to share the power of God’s Spirit that was in and working through him.
To be an apostle meant to be sent on a mission. Their training complete, Jesus empowered them and gave them his authority to go as do as he had been doing all through Galilee. It was a ministry of exorcisms, healing and the proclamation that God’s reign of love had already begun.
There is much scholarly debate whether Jesus actually did send out the apostles during his lifetime. John’s Gospel tells of no such mission. In a later section of his Gospel, Luke tells of a much larger mission of seventy disciples (10:1-16). Comparing the witness of Matthew and Mark, however, leads to the conclusion that the three writers had similar accounts that each edited in his own way.
Indeed the mission did take place, the scant supplies they were to take with them and directions for wasting no energy or futile anxiety over possible rejection suggest a short, quite successful foray into the mission field. Would that every ministry the church has undertaken over the two millennia of its history could have been as successful.
Sharon Hinge believes that the details of Luke’s account have all the signs of later missionary activity of the early church as described in Paul’s letters and in Acts.
There were other factors to be considered as well. Prof. George Caird wrote of three:
1) Unremitting demands of the crowds for more and more miracles raised expectations not even Jesus could fulfil alone.
2) Growing antagonism of Jewish religious authorities who thought of Jesus as a blasphemer.
3) Suspicions from the Roman political authorities who wanted no disturbances they could not control by force of arms. (Saint Luke. Pelican, 1969)
The disciples’ brief tour appears to have been carried out in haste and relied exclusively on a receptive, hospitable audience. before they left, Jesus gave them instructions any Jew would have recognized and relished.
Shaking the dust off their feet if they were not well received was a common Jewish practice of the time. For centuries Persians, Greeks, then Romans had been in control of their holy land. This was now Gentile territory. Shaking the dust from their feet represented a symbolic and defiant gesture of rejecting this domination.
Jesus bid the disciples do it for a different reason: They were proclaiming the arrival of God’s reign of love. This was a decisive moment and there was no time to waste. Those who would not listen were in danger of being left out of God’s kingdom.
Did Jesus himself believe that the end of history was at hand? That God would soon bring about the long promised “Day of the Lord” and of judgment of which many Old Testament prophets had spoken? It would appear that the early church so believed and read this back into Jesus’ teaching.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
23 - JESUS AND POWER - Part 2
Luke 8:40-56
The third and fourth incidents are imbedded together, but revealed to the disciples (and to us) that Jesus had power over disease and death. They also focus on Jesus’ special concern for women and children. Then too, they show a special aspect of Jesus’ healing ministry: just touching his fringe of his garment and hoping for what had not yet happened was enough in both instances.
Back in Galilee, he was met by Jairus, the leader of a local synagogue whose only daughter was dying. Her death at twelve, on the threshold of puberty, would have been a great family tragedy. There would be no grandchildren. On the way to the family home, Jesus was interrupted by a woman suffering from a hemorrhage lasting for twelve years. She had been unable to bear children.
It was the woman’s own faith that brought about her healing in the midst of a great crowd of people. Many of the crowd would have crushed against Jesus too, but they were curious onlookers, not people in desperate need. It was her faithful hope for healing that brought her to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment, possibly just the fringe of his prayer shawl.
At the family home, Jesus put the faithless mourners out of the house, but took the parents and three disciples in with him into the room where the child lay. Taking her by the hand, he spoke to her. Her spirit returned and she immediately rose from her bed, alive and well. He then told her parents to give her some food, but not to tell anyone what had happened.
Was the girl comatose and just presumed dead? We always look for rational answers to the riddles of Jesus’ miracles. But that is not the point of these four healing miracles. They all tell us that while Jesus had tremendous power over nature, demons, disease and death, he used it only for one purpose: to help people find faith in God’s love and will to save. He responded to more than just real human need for life and health.
In telling of Jesus blessing the woman with the terrible hemorrhage, the Greek text used the same word often translated as “save.” Her faith had saved her. That is the implication of the woman coming forward to identify herself, She came “to proclaim” - that is the word used in the Greek text too - why she had touched him. Luke made the connection between this woman’s healing and the proclamation of the good news of God’s salvation through faith. In the instance of Jairus’ daughter, there is a connection too between what was needed and a future promise: “Only believe, and she will be saved.”
Jesus wanted to convey the hope of faith to the disciples and to us. Note that in the very next section the disciples are sent out to do exactly what Jesus had just done: drive out demons and heal diseases (9:1-6). This was the apostolic mission in its earliest stages. Having learned what faith could do from Jesus himself, they were challenged to go out and proclaim the same message.
The third and fourth incidents are imbedded together, but revealed to the disciples (and to us) that Jesus had power over disease and death. They also focus on Jesus’ special concern for women and children. Then too, they show a special aspect of Jesus’ healing ministry: just touching his fringe of his garment and hoping for what had not yet happened was enough in both instances.
Back in Galilee, he was met by Jairus, the leader of a local synagogue whose only daughter was dying. Her death at twelve, on the threshold of puberty, would have been a great family tragedy. There would be no grandchildren. On the way to the family home, Jesus was interrupted by a woman suffering from a hemorrhage lasting for twelve years. She had been unable to bear children.
It was the woman’s own faith that brought about her healing in the midst of a great crowd of people. Many of the crowd would have crushed against Jesus too, but they were curious onlookers, not people in desperate need. It was her faithful hope for healing that brought her to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment, possibly just the fringe of his prayer shawl.
At the family home, Jesus put the faithless mourners out of the house, but took the parents and three disciples in with him into the room where the child lay. Taking her by the hand, he spoke to her. Her spirit returned and she immediately rose from her bed, alive and well. He then told her parents to give her some food, but not to tell anyone what had happened.
Was the girl comatose and just presumed dead? We always look for rational answers to the riddles of Jesus’ miracles. But that is not the point of these four healing miracles. They all tell us that while Jesus had tremendous power over nature, demons, disease and death, he used it only for one purpose: to help people find faith in God’s love and will to save. He responded to more than just real human need for life and health.
In telling of Jesus blessing the woman with the terrible hemorrhage, the Greek text used the same word often translated as “save.” Her faith had saved her. That is the implication of the woman coming forward to identify herself, She came “to proclaim” - that is the word used in the Greek text too - why she had touched him. Luke made the connection between this woman’s healing and the proclamation of the good news of God’s salvation through faith. In the instance of Jairus’ daughter, there is a connection too between what was needed and a future promise: “Only believe, and she will be saved.”
Jesus wanted to convey the hope of faith to the disciples and to us. Note that in the very next section the disciples are sent out to do exactly what Jesus had just done: drive out demons and heal diseases (9:1-6). This was the apostolic mission in its earliest stages. Having learned what faith could do from Jesus himself, they were challenged to go out and proclaim the same message.
22 - JESUS AND POWER - Part 1
Luke 8:22-39
The next section presents four stories of different ways that Jesus demonstrated his powers over nature, demons, disease and death. All of these incidents were primarily to instruct the disciples so that they might also share his sovereignty and power.
The first incident (8:22-25) relates the familiar story of the stilling of the storm. Lake Galilee is quite large but shallow, lies below sea level and is surrounded by low mountains. Storms frequently sweep down from the mountains whipping up waves that would threaten the small fishing boats like those of the fishermen. Knowing the lake, the disciples would also recognize when they were in great danger. Jesus used the moment to teach them hopeful faith that they were safe when he was with them.
The second incident is more problematic because it happened in foreign territory, probably a seacoast village of Khersa. In some manuscripts it was called Gadara, but not to be confused with Gerasa That a Greek city state lay in the mountains 40 miles to the southeast. It was one of the ten cities known as Decapolis. As a Gentile community, it is especially important for the later apostolic mission to the Gentiles which was Luke’s primary interest.
The man possessed with demons would be regarded today as mentally ill, perhaps with schizophrenia or multiple personalities. He was a danger to himself and his community, so he had been bound with chains and banished to live among the tombs in the cemetery. That a herd of swine was nearby emphasized that this was Gentile territory, although some Jewish people probably lived there. The region had been captured and held by the Jews for about twenty years prior to the Roman conquest of all Jewish territory to the east and west of the Jordan River in 63 BCE. The incident also reveals obvious marks of grave impurity for any Jew: a demon-possessed maniac living in a cemetery near a place “in the wilds” where a herd of pigs wandered freely. As Sharon Hinge stated, these details revealed that the man lived “beyond the bounds of civilization.”
The loss of the herd of swine would have been significant for that community. No wonder they reacted in fear and asked Jesus to leave, despite seeing their fellow citizen in his right mind. The man himself desperately wanted to go with Jesus, but was refused. Jesus sent him back to his community to witness to what had happened to him. That too would have been significant for the future mission of the church.
Cruel as the stampede of the herd of pigs may be, it confirmed for the disciples who witnessed the incident that the sovereignty of the kingdom of God had arrived with Jesus. The stilling of the sea had shown them that through Jesus, God ruled over the chaos of nature. The healing of the demoniac further showed that God also reigned over the chaos that was in humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. That all three Synoptic Gospels report these incidents indicate their importance to the early tradition.
The next section presents four stories of different ways that Jesus demonstrated his powers over nature, demons, disease and death. All of these incidents were primarily to instruct the disciples so that they might also share his sovereignty and power.
The first incident (8:22-25) relates the familiar story of the stilling of the storm. Lake Galilee is quite large but shallow, lies below sea level and is surrounded by low mountains. Storms frequently sweep down from the mountains whipping up waves that would threaten the small fishing boats like those of the fishermen. Knowing the lake, the disciples would also recognize when they were in great danger. Jesus used the moment to teach them hopeful faith that they were safe when he was with them.
The second incident is more problematic because it happened in foreign territory, probably a seacoast village of Khersa. In some manuscripts it was called Gadara, but not to be confused with Gerasa That a Greek city state lay in the mountains 40 miles to the southeast. It was one of the ten cities known as Decapolis. As a Gentile community, it is especially important for the later apostolic mission to the Gentiles which was Luke’s primary interest.
The man possessed with demons would be regarded today as mentally ill, perhaps with schizophrenia or multiple personalities. He was a danger to himself and his community, so he had been bound with chains and banished to live among the tombs in the cemetery. That a herd of swine was nearby emphasized that this was Gentile territory, although some Jewish people probably lived there. The region had been captured and held by the Jews for about twenty years prior to the Roman conquest of all Jewish territory to the east and west of the Jordan River in 63 BCE. The incident also reveals obvious marks of grave impurity for any Jew: a demon-possessed maniac living in a cemetery near a place “in the wilds” where a herd of pigs wandered freely. As Sharon Hinge stated, these details revealed that the man lived “beyond the bounds of civilization.”
The loss of the herd of swine would have been significant for that community. No wonder they reacted in fear and asked Jesus to leave, despite seeing their fellow citizen in his right mind. The man himself desperately wanted to go with Jesus, but was refused. Jesus sent him back to his community to witness to what had happened to him. That too would have been significant for the future mission of the church.
Cruel as the stampede of the herd of pigs may be, it confirmed for the disciples who witnessed the incident that the sovereignty of the kingdom of God had arrived with Jesus. The stilling of the sea had shown them that through Jesus, God ruled over the chaos of nature. The healing of the demoniac further showed that God also reigned over the chaos that was in humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. That all three Synoptic Gospels report these incidents indicate their importance to the early tradition.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
21 - PARABLES THAT HIDE AND REVEAL
Luke 8:4-21
The two parables of this section have much the same meaning. Not everyone will hear Jesus’ message as good news that the reign of God has begun with him and accept his way as their own lifestyle. Many scholars now agree that the interpretation of parable of the sower, seeds and soils (vss. 11-15) are not Jesus’ words but from the early church of Luke’s or a later generation as it experienced strong resistance to the gospel.
Behind the parable of a sower scattering his seeds hoping for an abundant harvest lies the homely scene of a Galilean rural community. Many of those who heard it would nod their heads in understanding, at least regarding the details of the story. Apparently the disciples did not understand its hidden meaning despite Jesus’ challenge to pay attention and grasp the full meaning of what he said.
All three Synoptic Gospels citing this parable included a paraphrase from Isaiah 6:9-10 as Jesus’ reason for teaching in parables. Sharon Ringe suggested that “some are not supposed to catch on. (Italics hers.) There is a hint of divine predestination that simply defies human understanding.”
Many scholars deny the effectiveness of the quasi-allegorical interpretation of vss. 11-15. It is not a true allegory in the standard Greek form where each detail of the story stands for something else in the real world behind the story. This was an ancient method of teaching common in the Greek world centuries before Christ. Some modern preachers still believe that Jesus used this method of teaching and that this is an example of it, but stands alone in the four Gospels.
The point that Jesus was making is that his disciples ought to pay serious attention to the moral character of their lives so that they may be more effective in their ministry. He also recognized that some who heard him and sought to follow him would not be as successful as they might have been.
The second parable again deals with the secrecy and hiddenness of Jesus’ message, but in a different light. The purpose of his teaching, Jesus seemed to say, was not to hide the good news of God’s kingdom, but to reveal it. The obvious implication was that the disciples, having received the good news themselves, now have a greater responsibility to share their God-given gift. That is what a lamp set on a lampstand does. It sheds light to all around it.
Jesus’ final comment often cause people trouble because they interpret it in economic terms. Jesus clearly stated it in direct relation to the ministry to which he had called his disciples. Only a relative few would actually hear and know him, at least for now. Even fewer would really understand what his presence meant. Sharing the good news of God’s reign of love would increase their commitment to make it more widely known.
The passage ends with Jesus’ own family trying to reach him. When told about them, he includes everyone who does God’s will in his family.
The two parables of this section have much the same meaning. Not everyone will hear Jesus’ message as good news that the reign of God has begun with him and accept his way as their own lifestyle. Many scholars now agree that the interpretation of parable of the sower, seeds and soils (vss. 11-15) are not Jesus’ words but from the early church of Luke’s or a later generation as it experienced strong resistance to the gospel.
Behind the parable of a sower scattering his seeds hoping for an abundant harvest lies the homely scene of a Galilean rural community. Many of those who heard it would nod their heads in understanding, at least regarding the details of the story. Apparently the disciples did not understand its hidden meaning despite Jesus’ challenge to pay attention and grasp the full meaning of what he said.
All three Synoptic Gospels citing this parable included a paraphrase from Isaiah 6:9-10 as Jesus’ reason for teaching in parables. Sharon Ringe suggested that “some are not supposed to catch on. (Italics hers.) There is a hint of divine predestination that simply defies human understanding.”
Many scholars deny the effectiveness of the quasi-allegorical interpretation of vss. 11-15. It is not a true allegory in the standard Greek form where each detail of the story stands for something else in the real world behind the story. This was an ancient method of teaching common in the Greek world centuries before Christ. Some modern preachers still believe that Jesus used this method of teaching and that this is an example of it, but stands alone in the four Gospels.
The point that Jesus was making is that his disciples ought to pay serious attention to the moral character of their lives so that they may be more effective in their ministry. He also recognized that some who heard him and sought to follow him would not be as successful as they might have been.
The second parable again deals with the secrecy and hiddenness of Jesus’ message, but in a different light. The purpose of his teaching, Jesus seemed to say, was not to hide the good news of God’s kingdom, but to reveal it. The obvious implication was that the disciples, having received the good news themselves, now have a greater responsibility to share their God-given gift. That is what a lamp set on a lampstand does. It sheds light to all around it.
Jesus’ final comment often cause people trouble because they interpret it in economic terms. Jesus clearly stated it in direct relation to the ministry to which he had called his disciples. Only a relative few would actually hear and know him, at least for now. Even fewer would really understand what his presence meant. Sharing the good news of God’s reign of love would increase their commitment to make it more widely known.
The passage ends with Jesus’ own family trying to reach him. When told about them, he includes everyone who does God’s will in his family.
Monday, January 25, 2010
19 - THE ANOINTING WOMAN
Luke 7:36-50
This passage is filled with a series of striking contrasts. To begin with, a Pharisee invited him to dinner and Jesus readily accepted. A woman in the city “who was a sinner” sought him out. Was she a prostitute, an unfaithful wife, or just a poor woman seeking customary charity? We are not told. Nor are we told how she got into the house.
She may have been a person of means because of the gift she brought - an alabaster jar of ointment. The excellence of the gift may have got her past the servants at the door. Or she stole in when the servants were busy elsewhere. We are not told what was in the jar, but such small containers made from a soft white rock usually held a fine ointment or perfume of considerable value.
At table, people reclined rather than sat around a low U-shaped table. Servants provided food and drink from the centre rather than the outside. Their feet were exposed behind them as they leaned on their left elbows. Thus it would have been easy for the woman to come up behind Jesus to anoint his feet, and did so fervently, even sensuously.
Anointing a guest with olive oil and kissing him or her was a normal way to greet a special friend or guest. This woman did both, but to his feet, still dusty from the streets because his host had not provided for this to be done as Jesus arrived. Latecomers would have had their feet washed as they reclined at the table. This woman may have been mistaken for someone who arrived late.
The Pharisee knew she was an intruder and was much displeased. Not so Jesus. He rebuked his host for not supplying the basic services a guest might expect, then frowning upon Jesus for allowing this intruder to do what he ought to have done.
Sensing the host’s embarrassment, Jesus spoke up, diverting everyone’s attention by telling his host that he had something to say to him. Given the host’s permission he told a brief story. One can imagine everyone listening eagerly to what he would say. Any good raconteur gets a hearing.
The story ended with a question that put the whole situation in context. Who deserves to be forgiven? It was a question any Pharisee would love to debate. They argued small points of the scriptural law codes like this ad infinitum. This time the Pharisee wasn’t too sure where Jesus was going with his anecdote, so he gave a somewhat tentative answer.
Then Jesus drove his point home by bringing the intruding woman back into the picture. He contrasted her uncharacteristic behaviour with the neglect of his host. This would put the host on the spot. The level of the host’s embarrassment must have brought some tension to room.
Again Jesus diverted everyone’s attention by speaking directly to the woman. He forgave her whatever sins she was confessing by her unusual actions. That startled everyone. What had he done? They began to question among themselves who this Jesus was. After all, he had usurped power and authority that belonged to God alone.
This passage is filled with a series of striking contrasts. To begin with, a Pharisee invited him to dinner and Jesus readily accepted. A woman in the city “who was a sinner” sought him out. Was she a prostitute, an unfaithful wife, or just a poor woman seeking customary charity? We are not told. Nor are we told how she got into the house.
She may have been a person of means because of the gift she brought - an alabaster jar of ointment. The excellence of the gift may have got her past the servants at the door. Or she stole in when the servants were busy elsewhere. We are not told what was in the jar, but such small containers made from a soft white rock usually held a fine ointment or perfume of considerable value.
At table, people reclined rather than sat around a low U-shaped table. Servants provided food and drink from the centre rather than the outside. Their feet were exposed behind them as they leaned on their left elbows. Thus it would have been easy for the woman to come up behind Jesus to anoint his feet, and did so fervently, even sensuously.
Anointing a guest with olive oil and kissing him or her was a normal way to greet a special friend or guest. This woman did both, but to his feet, still dusty from the streets because his host had not provided for this to be done as Jesus arrived. Latecomers would have had their feet washed as they reclined at the table. This woman may have been mistaken for someone who arrived late.
The Pharisee knew she was an intruder and was much displeased. Not so Jesus. He rebuked his host for not supplying the basic services a guest might expect, then frowning upon Jesus for allowing this intruder to do what he ought to have done.
Sensing the host’s embarrassment, Jesus spoke up, diverting everyone’s attention by telling his host that he had something to say to him. Given the host’s permission he told a brief story. One can imagine everyone listening eagerly to what he would say. Any good raconteur gets a hearing.
The story ended with a question that put the whole situation in context. Who deserves to be forgiven? It was a question any Pharisee would love to debate. They argued small points of the scriptural law codes like this ad infinitum. This time the Pharisee wasn’t too sure where Jesus was going with his anecdote, so he gave a somewhat tentative answer.
Then Jesus drove his point home by bringing the intruding woman back into the picture. He contrasted her uncharacteristic behaviour with the neglect of his host. This would put the host on the spot. The level of the host’s embarrassment must have brought some tension to room.
Again Jesus diverted everyone’s attention by speaking directly to the woman. He forgave her whatever sins she was confessing by her unusual actions. That startled everyone. What had he done? They began to question among themselves who this Jesus was. After all, he had usurped power and authority that belonged to God alone.
18 - JOHN, JESUS AND THE COMING ONE
Luke 7:18-35.
In some respects this passage is confusing. It puts John the Baptist in a different light than earlier parts of the gospel. He has heard of Jesus but appears to doubt his identity. Jesus’ response to John’s messengers repeated the basic elements of his ministry so far: teaching, healing, exorcism and challenge to all who saw and heard to believe.
The phrase “the coming one” and the raising of the widow’s son also lend confusion to the passage. Did it refer to Elijah whose return was expected before the Messiah came to establish God’s reign? Or did it refer to John himself?
In her discussion of the passage Sharon Ringe suggests two possibilities, then resolves the problem.
Either this incident, shared from a common source in Matthew 11:2-6, is an actual event in Jesus’ ministry.
Or it is the product of the early church attempt to distinguish between John and Jesus.
It is known that there was some rivalry between the disciples of the two. The selected references to Isaiah’s prophecies clearly describe the essentials of Jesus’ ministry as Luke had previously defined it in 4:16-30 and 6:20-26. But this would imply that John was ignorant of Jesus’ ministry, which seems very doubtful and his own role in preparing for him.
Ringe’s solution is that there is no confusion or uncertainty if we regard the passage as a change in the theological understanding of the relationship between John and Jesus.
The subsequent rhetorical questions Jesus’ put to the multitude describes John and not himself as “the coming one.” In Jesus’ time the Jewish people awaited more than any prophet’s word but the word of one who would tell them that the events of the end-time had arrived. So the passage is essentially an eschatological statement. This is clarified by the quotation from Malachi 3:1 followed by Jesus’ assurance that John was more than just another prophet. He was the prophet who would prepare the way for God’s chosen Messiah bringing that final time of salvation to Israel.
In other words, John was the last of the old order, but he was still not the one who came to establish God’s reign on earth. He was not the Messiah. That is how vss. 28-30 describe John. Many people who came to be baptized by John believing that he represented the welcome justice and righteousness of God. Those who refused to be baptized by him, were actually rejecting God purpose for their lives.
It was as if Jesus and John stood on different sides of the dividing line marking the beginning of God’s final reign. They had a common agenda from God, but they would both be rejected by their own generation. The parable about the children’s games makes this point. Neither John’s message of repentance nor the good news Jesus proclaimed would be heard except by a relatively few.
The proverb about Wisdom’s children reiterates the point of the whole passage. Those who do believe welcome both the appeal for repentance and the joy of God’s purpose and reign being fulfilled at last.
In some respects this passage is confusing. It puts John the Baptist in a different light than earlier parts of the gospel. He has heard of Jesus but appears to doubt his identity. Jesus’ response to John’s messengers repeated the basic elements of his ministry so far: teaching, healing, exorcism and challenge to all who saw and heard to believe.
The phrase “the coming one” and the raising of the widow’s son also lend confusion to the passage. Did it refer to Elijah whose return was expected before the Messiah came to establish God’s reign? Or did it refer to John himself?
In her discussion of the passage Sharon Ringe suggests two possibilities, then resolves the problem.
Either this incident, shared from a common source in Matthew 11:2-6, is an actual event in Jesus’ ministry.
Or it is the product of the early church attempt to distinguish between John and Jesus.
It is known that there was some rivalry between the disciples of the two. The selected references to Isaiah’s prophecies clearly describe the essentials of Jesus’ ministry as Luke had previously defined it in 4:16-30 and 6:20-26. But this would imply that John was ignorant of Jesus’ ministry, which seems very doubtful and his own role in preparing for him.
Ringe’s solution is that there is no confusion or uncertainty if we regard the passage as a change in the theological understanding of the relationship between John and Jesus.
The subsequent rhetorical questions Jesus’ put to the multitude describes John and not himself as “the coming one.” In Jesus’ time the Jewish people awaited more than any prophet’s word but the word of one who would tell them that the events of the end-time had arrived. So the passage is essentially an eschatological statement. This is clarified by the quotation from Malachi 3:1 followed by Jesus’ assurance that John was more than just another prophet. He was the prophet who would prepare the way for God’s chosen Messiah bringing that final time of salvation to Israel.
In other words, John was the last of the old order, but he was still not the one who came to establish God’s reign on earth. He was not the Messiah. That is how vss. 28-30 describe John. Many people who came to be baptized by John believing that he represented the welcome justice and righteousness of God. Those who refused to be baptized by him, were actually rejecting God purpose for their lives.
It was as if Jesus and John stood on different sides of the dividing line marking the beginning of God’s final reign. They had a common agenda from God, but they would both be rejected by their own generation. The parable about the children’s games makes this point. Neither John’s message of repentance nor the good news Jesus proclaimed would be heard except by a relatively few.
The proverb about Wisdom’s children reiterates the point of the whole passage. Those who do believe welcome both the appeal for repentance and the joy of God’s purpose and reign being fulfilled at last.
17 - THE WIDOW’S SON
Luke 7:11-17
Could this story reassure Luke’s audience that resurrection is possible after all? Or does it have some more current meaning: that Jesus is Lord and fully identified with God’s saving purpose with power over life and death? Could those who saw it happen, have regarded it as a case of both?
Several characteristics of Jesus’ ministry are demonstrated in this story. He had compassion on a widow whose only support in a very unjust society had suddenly died leaving her destitute. His initial response was to utter some comforting words. Then he took some more creative action: he stepped forward, laid his hand on the coffin and commanded the deceased young man to rise.
Astonishing as it was, the miracle itself was almost an anti-climax. Instead Luke immediately focused attention on the crowd’s reaction. That was somewhat mixed. At first fear gripped every one who saw what had happened. Then they praised God, for everyone knew that only God has power over life and death. Finally, they interpreted what they had witnessed in terms of their religious traditions.
This insight gave rise to two distinct expressions: They saw Jesus as a prophet in the mould of Elijah and Elisha. In fact, those two prophets of an earlier era had performed very similar miracles in healing young men. (Cf. 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4: 32-32). In the Elisha story, the Greek text of 1 Kings 17:23 is identical with Luke 7:15. Luke’s purpose was to help his audience recognize Jesus as another step in God’s revelation to Israel and beyond.
Another more subtle purpose is the way Luke placed this incident immediately after the healing of the centurion’s servant. A widow had the lowest status in Jewish society. The Roman centurion was a representative of the political power structure. With out a husband or son, this woman would have been seen as a danger to every other woman’s security. Her only means of support was the compassion of a male relative or the price of her body as a prostitute.
Was Luke not saying to his audience, probably mostly Gentile, that God was concerned for all people of every class from to the weakest to the most powerful? Thus with this miracle Jesus demonstrated God’s concern for social justice for the weak as well as the strong, yet another prophetic allusion too.
Note also that this is the first time Luke used the word “Lord” in referring to Jesus. The word had occurred in the angel’s announcement in the Nativity, but that narrative is believed to have been composed separately from the main gospel narrative. With the reference to Jesus as Lord, Luke identifies him with God as the only one who has authority over both life and death.
This is a story of family restoration. Nothing suggests that the young man would not die again at some future date. The miracle does not imply any gift of eternal life, nor of the family’s spiritual condition. A distinction is made between resuscitation and resurrection to eternal life. Ordinary life triumphs and a mother’s grief is ended.
Could this story reassure Luke’s audience that resurrection is possible after all? Or does it have some more current meaning: that Jesus is Lord and fully identified with God’s saving purpose with power over life and death? Could those who saw it happen, have regarded it as a case of both?
Several characteristics of Jesus’ ministry are demonstrated in this story. He had compassion on a widow whose only support in a very unjust society had suddenly died leaving her destitute. His initial response was to utter some comforting words. Then he took some more creative action: he stepped forward, laid his hand on the coffin and commanded the deceased young man to rise.
Astonishing as it was, the miracle itself was almost an anti-climax. Instead Luke immediately focused attention on the crowd’s reaction. That was somewhat mixed. At first fear gripped every one who saw what had happened. Then they praised God, for everyone knew that only God has power over life and death. Finally, they interpreted what they had witnessed in terms of their religious traditions.
This insight gave rise to two distinct expressions: They saw Jesus as a prophet in the mould of Elijah and Elisha. In fact, those two prophets of an earlier era had performed very similar miracles in healing young men. (Cf. 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4: 32-32). In the Elisha story, the Greek text of 1 Kings 17:23 is identical with Luke 7:15. Luke’s purpose was to help his audience recognize Jesus as another step in God’s revelation to Israel and beyond.
Another more subtle purpose is the way Luke placed this incident immediately after the healing of the centurion’s servant. A widow had the lowest status in Jewish society. The Roman centurion was a representative of the political power structure. With out a husband or son, this woman would have been seen as a danger to every other woman’s security. Her only means of support was the compassion of a male relative or the price of her body as a prostitute.
Was Luke not saying to his audience, probably mostly Gentile, that God was concerned for all people of every class from to the weakest to the most powerful? Thus with this miracle Jesus demonstrated God’s concern for social justice for the weak as well as the strong, yet another prophetic allusion too.
Note also that this is the first time Luke used the word “Lord” in referring to Jesus. The word had occurred in the angel’s announcement in the Nativity, but that narrative is believed to have been composed separately from the main gospel narrative. With the reference to Jesus as Lord, Luke identifies him with God as the only one who has authority over both life and death.
This is a story of family restoration. Nothing suggests that the young man would not die again at some future date. The miracle does not imply any gift of eternal life, nor of the family’s spiritual condition. A distinction is made between resuscitation and resurrection to eternal life. Ordinary life triumphs and a mother’s grief is ended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)