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.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
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.
16 - HUMILITY + FAITH = HEALING
Luke 7:1-10
A new phase of the gospel narrative begins as Luke 7:1-50 tells of several instances of how Jesus’ ministry moved forward. In each case, we may assume, Luke had his mixed audience of Gentiles and Jews in mind. The implications of what Jesus had said and done also foreshadowed difficult times ahead.
The healing of the Roman centurion’s servant would have been heard differently by different elements of that audience. Some Gentiles would have heard it as a friendly gesture toward an extreme outsider, albeit a person of authority who humbled himself beyond all expectations. Others, especially those of the servant or slave class, would have heard the story as an unusual act of kindness toward underprivileged people like themselves.
On the other hand, Jewish Christians living in a totally Gentile environment would have recognized it as approval of their openness to a foreign culture that their more orthodox Jewish neighbours would have tried to avoid.
The story of Jesus healing the centurion’s slave also appeared in Matthew 8:5-13 and John 4:46-51,each with its own context and purpose. In Luke’s version of the tradition, the centurion is the star of the story although never appearing on stage. Instead he is represented first by Jewish elders, then by some friends. It is his uncharacteristic humility that stands out despite his powerful post as a Roman military officer. His duty was to exercise Roman imperial power in Capernaum, where Herod Antipas also had some authority as Rome’s puppet king in Galilee.
This is the only instance of Jesus healing someone at a distance. In telling of this incident, Luke shows a remarkable acceptance of the institutions and customs of the society as they were at that time, militarism and slavery in particular. Yet the centurion also recognized that Jesus had an even greater though different authority than his.
This is the only instance of Jesus healing someone at a distance. Notably, Jesus’ word alone without his physical presence had power to heal. Jesus recognized the centurion’s faith, not his powerful office. This would have given considerable hope to Luke’s audience who lived in a distant place long after the ministry of Jesus had ended in his death. It also lays the grounds for our hope that in every action that brings health, the spirit of the living God is still present and at work.
In an earlier passage (4:25-27) Luke had referred to two well-known stories about the prophets Elijah and Elisha demonstrating God’s saving presence to Gentiles rather than Jews. Later, in Acts 10, he told of Peter converting another Roman centurion, Cornelius, by preaching to his assembled household. All of these passages in Luke’s narrative gave evidence of the authority of the word the disciples were commissioned to carry to the world.
Many people today suspect the usefulness of proclaiming the gospel in sermon, story or action. Here is the encouragement we need to go on identifying ourselves with the ministry of Christ in our worship and in our workplace, however humbly.
A new phase of the gospel narrative begins as Luke 7:1-50 tells of several instances of how Jesus’ ministry moved forward. In each case, we may assume, Luke had his mixed audience of Gentiles and Jews in mind. The implications of what Jesus had said and done also foreshadowed difficult times ahead.
The healing of the Roman centurion’s servant would have been heard differently by different elements of that audience. Some Gentiles would have heard it as a friendly gesture toward an extreme outsider, albeit a person of authority who humbled himself beyond all expectations. Others, especially those of the servant or slave class, would have heard the story as an unusual act of kindness toward underprivileged people like themselves.
On the other hand, Jewish Christians living in a totally Gentile environment would have recognized it as approval of their openness to a foreign culture that their more orthodox Jewish neighbours would have tried to avoid.
The story of Jesus healing the centurion’s slave also appeared in Matthew 8:5-13 and John 4:46-51,each with its own context and purpose. In Luke’s version of the tradition, the centurion is the star of the story although never appearing on stage. Instead he is represented first by Jewish elders, then by some friends. It is his uncharacteristic humility that stands out despite his powerful post as a Roman military officer. His duty was to exercise Roman imperial power in Capernaum, where Herod Antipas also had some authority as Rome’s puppet king in Galilee.
This is the only instance of Jesus healing someone at a distance. In telling of this incident, Luke shows a remarkable acceptance of the institutions and customs of the society as they were at that time, militarism and slavery in particular. Yet the centurion also recognized that Jesus had an even greater though different authority than his.
This is the only instance of Jesus healing someone at a distance. Notably, Jesus’ word alone without his physical presence had power to heal. Jesus recognized the centurion’s faith, not his powerful office. This would have given considerable hope to Luke’s audience who lived in a distant place long after the ministry of Jesus had ended in his death. It also lays the grounds for our hope that in every action that brings health, the spirit of the living God is still present and at work.
In an earlier passage (4:25-27) Luke had referred to two well-known stories about the prophets Elijah and Elisha demonstrating God’s saving presence to Gentiles rather than Jews. Later, in Acts 10, he told of Peter converting another Roman centurion, Cornelius, by preaching to his assembled household. All of these passages in Luke’s narrative gave evidence of the authority of the word the disciples were commissioned to carry to the world.
Many people today suspect the usefulness of proclaiming the gospel in sermon, story or action. Here is the encouragement we need to go on identifying ourselves with the ministry of Christ in our worship and in our workplace, however humbly.
15 - PERSONAL INTEGRITY
Luke 6:43-46
The third section of “the Sermon on the Plain” presents some striking instances of personal integrity related to both speech and action. The simple truth is that one’s actions define the trustworthiness of one’s words.
Two proverbs drawn from nature make the point abundantly plain: Only good trees or plants produce good fruit. Both the quality of the fruit and its type depend entirely on the quality and type of plant on which each grows. This truth is then applied to a person’s conduct and the quality of one’s heart. One’s conduct is the message one conveys. Actions must be congruent to the words one speaks. The person who speaks but doesn’t act in accord with his/her words is quickly recognized as a fraud, a hypocrite.
The next part of this section brings the issue of integrity directly to those who choose to follow Jesus. There could not be a more direct question put to any disciple than this: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?”
From the time of Moses, the sacred name of Israel’s God was YHWH (English = Lord). The name was never pronounced. Instead the Israelites substituted the foreign word Adonai. The Greek Old Testament used kurios to translate YHWH and New Testament authors followed this practice. In Jesus’ time, kurios was also used as the title for the Roman emperor whom many regarded as divine. In Christian worship, a Latin liturgical phrase, Kyrie Eleison, (Eng, = “Lord, have mercy.”) dates from possibly as early as the 2nd century CE.
The English word “Lord” had a more mundane origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon words hlaf weard, meaning “the keeper of the bread.” That person was regarded as the most trustworthy in the community. His or her task was the guard the grain reserved from the harvest for seeding a new crop the following spring. It was not to be consumed even the case of famine, lest the next year’s crop also be a failure. From this came the system of social, economic and political status of the class structure developed in mediaeval times and still extant today.
The parable of the two men who built houses on rock and on sand is virtually self-explanatory. This is one of those passages Luke shared with Matthew (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). Obviously both knew the same oral tradition traced directly to the first apostles.
Ringe concluded her analysis of the parable that for a person to be grounded in Jesus’ teachings meant moving "from learning as an intellectual or emotional achievement to learning embodied in action.” (97) That emphasizes the true meaning of discipleship as a life of faith and good works. The crucial issue, of course, for people of all ages, is living up to the standard it sets.
Ringe went on to note that all four sections of the Sermon on the Plain formed the training program that the apostles were receiving. These were "hard lessons about personal interactions and accountability in their daily life." But that is the intent of the Gospel as ‘good news’ which depends on "the coherence and integrity of the lives of those who bear its words of justice and liberation.” (97)
The third section of “the Sermon on the Plain” presents some striking instances of personal integrity related to both speech and action. The simple truth is that one’s actions define the trustworthiness of one’s words.
Two proverbs drawn from nature make the point abundantly plain: Only good trees or plants produce good fruit. Both the quality of the fruit and its type depend entirely on the quality and type of plant on which each grows. This truth is then applied to a person’s conduct and the quality of one’s heart. One’s conduct is the message one conveys. Actions must be congruent to the words one speaks. The person who speaks but doesn’t act in accord with his/her words is quickly recognized as a fraud, a hypocrite.
The next part of this section brings the issue of integrity directly to those who choose to follow Jesus. There could not be a more direct question put to any disciple than this: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?”
From the time of Moses, the sacred name of Israel’s God was YHWH (English = Lord). The name was never pronounced. Instead the Israelites substituted the foreign word Adonai. The Greek Old Testament used kurios to translate YHWH and New Testament authors followed this practice. In Jesus’ time, kurios was also used as the title for the Roman emperor whom many regarded as divine. In Christian worship, a Latin liturgical phrase, Kyrie Eleison, (Eng, = “Lord, have mercy.”) dates from possibly as early as the 2nd century CE.
The English word “Lord” had a more mundane origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon words hlaf weard, meaning “the keeper of the bread.” That person was regarded as the most trustworthy in the community. His or her task was the guard the grain reserved from the harvest for seeding a new crop the following spring. It was not to be consumed even the case of famine, lest the next year’s crop also be a failure. From this came the system of social, economic and political status of the class structure developed in mediaeval times and still extant today.
The parable of the two men who built houses on rock and on sand is virtually self-explanatory. This is one of those passages Luke shared with Matthew (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). Obviously both knew the same oral tradition traced directly to the first apostles.
Ringe concluded her analysis of the parable that for a person to be grounded in Jesus’ teachings meant moving "from learning as an intellectual or emotional achievement to learning embodied in action.” (97) That emphasizes the true meaning of discipleship as a life of faith and good works. The crucial issue, of course, for people of all ages, is living up to the standard it sets.
Ringe went on to note that all four sections of the Sermon on the Plain formed the training program that the apostles were receiving. These were "hard lessons about personal interactions and accountability in their daily life." But that is the intent of the Gospel as ‘good news’ which depends on "the coherence and integrity of the lives of those who bear its words of justice and liberation.” (97)
14 - MERCY AND JUDGMENT
14 - MERCY AND JUDGMENT
The third cluster of teachings in the Sermon on the Plain might well be considered a summary of Israel’s distinctive religious history. It can only be described as a covenant relationship. It depended on nothing less than God’s own nature as a God of justice and mercy.
The people whose traditions regarded them as “the Chosen People” knew by their long experience that God’s judgment came swiftly and severely; but God’s mercy followed as the day follows night. It was this that separated them from the polytheism and fatalism all of their neighbours. When Israel broke its part of the covenant - the responsibility to obey God’s commandments - the people known as Israel suffered the consequences. That often meant disaster - famine, defeat in battle by hostile neighbours, slavery, invasion by imperial powers such as Egypt, Assyria and Babylon.
Such disasters are recorded again and again the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet the message was never without hope. It rested not in Israel’s return to righteous behaviour, but in chesed - God’s lovingkindness. Restoration, reconciliation and prosperity came as a result of divine mercy. This is the faith-story behind Jesus’ teaching: “Be merciful as your Father is merciful.”
Under the influence of the great prophets - Amos, Micah and Isaiah - this faith-history had direct implications in practical human terms. It set what Ringe calls “a standard for a certain kind of reciprocity: What one gives one can expect to receive.
Mercy tempers judgment, both in the way one is regarded and in the way each person treats others. Mercy transforms calculated measurement into abundance and generosity.” (6:37-38)
The same standard applies in relation to human weakness. Luke drew a number of references also found in Matthew as “a parable.” It is not strictly a parable, but a series of examples of how human weaknesses illustrated the point he was making. Instances - real of figuratively - of a blind person leading another blind person, the ignorance of students learning from their teacher, blaming others for one’s own shortcomings are characteristics many people unconsciously display.
Are those as Ringe calls them, “obviously silly examples” and “exaggeration?” Surely not. They happen every day. Just listen to the august speeches of the leaders of one party accusing their opposition of leading the public astray with their policies and legislative actions. Or hear the common room chatter of college students criticizing their professors. Recently, journalists have had a field day commenting on what went wrong and who is to blame for bringing the global economy to a standstill. Each one of us can recall instances of the same kind of behaviour in our own family circle.
The standard is not how we behave, but how God treats us - with chesed - lovingkindness and mercy. The New Testament makes this abundantly clear in the life and teaching of Jesus, in the preaching and teaching of the apostles, and in the the letters of Paul and the other New Testament authors. They tell us what the Good News is for all humanity, not just our own inner circle whom we all tend to favour.
The third cluster of teachings in the Sermon on the Plain might well be considered a summary of Israel’s distinctive religious history. It can only be described as a covenant relationship. It depended on nothing less than God’s own nature as a God of justice and mercy.
The people whose traditions regarded them as “the Chosen People” knew by their long experience that God’s judgment came swiftly and severely; but God’s mercy followed as the day follows night. It was this that separated them from the polytheism and fatalism all of their neighbours. When Israel broke its part of the covenant - the responsibility to obey God’s commandments - the people known as Israel suffered the consequences. That often meant disaster - famine, defeat in battle by hostile neighbours, slavery, invasion by imperial powers such as Egypt, Assyria and Babylon.
Such disasters are recorded again and again the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet the message was never without hope. It rested not in Israel’s return to righteous behaviour, but in chesed - God’s lovingkindness. Restoration, reconciliation and prosperity came as a result of divine mercy. This is the faith-story behind Jesus’ teaching: “Be merciful as your Father is merciful.”
Under the influence of the great prophets - Amos, Micah and Isaiah - this faith-history had direct implications in practical human terms. It set what Ringe calls “a standard for a certain kind of reciprocity: What one gives one can expect to receive.
Mercy tempers judgment, both in the way one is regarded and in the way each person treats others. Mercy transforms calculated measurement into abundance and generosity.” (6:37-38)
The same standard applies in relation to human weakness. Luke drew a number of references also found in Matthew as “a parable.” It is not strictly a parable, but a series of examples of how human weaknesses illustrated the point he was making. Instances - real of figuratively - of a blind person leading another blind person, the ignorance of students learning from their teacher, blaming others for one’s own shortcomings are characteristics many people unconsciously display.
Are those as Ringe calls them, “obviously silly examples” and “exaggeration?” Surely not. They happen every day. Just listen to the august speeches of the leaders of one party accusing their opposition of leading the public astray with their policies and legislative actions. Or hear the common room chatter of college students criticizing their professors. Recently, journalists have had a field day commenting on what went wrong and who is to blame for bringing the global economy to a standstill. Each one of us can recall instances of the same kind of behaviour in our own family circle.
The standard is not how we behave, but how God treats us - with chesed - lovingkindness and mercy. The New Testament makes this abundantly clear in the life and teaching of Jesus, in the preaching and teaching of the apostles, and in the the letters of Paul and the other New Testament authors. They tell us what the Good News is for all humanity, not just our own inner circle whom we all tend to favour.
13 - RELATIONSHIPS WITH ENEMIES AND BENEFACTORS
Luke 6:27-35.
The next section may have caused Luke’s audience considerable discomfort. It still does for us today. The normal human reaction to one’s enemies is to show them hostility; and one does good to one’s benefactors. It must have been quite a surprise for Luke’s or Jesus’ audience to hear the general counsel given here: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”
The passage makes the distinctive point that the behaviour of another person does not determine one’s own behaviour. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions in response to another’s action toward us.
It would have been even more surprising for the respective audiences to hear the specific details that follow from this moral principle. Slapping another person’s face would have been as common then as it is now. It is a normal response to excessive rudeness, especially for women. Men are more likely to punch another man in the jaw. Often regarding themselves as victims, Jewish people of that time, would have had a well developed argumentative character. Assault would be more verbal than physical, especially against anyone in authority.
A second, really astonishing instance has to do with thievery. Many folk of that time would possess many fewer garments than we do. A cloak was necessary for the colder weather. Only the more affluent would have had more than one. To give to a thief, or anyone who makes such a demand, was to put the giver in a state of almost certain privation. The enormity of the situation is made worse by the added directive to give one’s shirt as well, thereby leaving the donor virtually naked.
Derived from this exaggerated example is a truly universal ethical teaching we know as the Golden Rule. It exists in similar form, both positive and negative, in all main religious traditions from a wide variety of cultures and historical periods. It states unequivocally that one not only has a right to be treated justly, but a responsibility to ensure that others receive justice too.
The second set of teaching in this passage emphasizes relations with one’s benefactors. Repaying a favour with another simply perpetuates a dependency that can be carried to extremes. In many cultures, this developed into a system of patronage that still dominates many aspects of life. Social, economic and political spheres of human relationships all have complicated systems based on a very basic concept. Who owes what to whom? In Jesus’ time this principle undergirded a destructive system of land ownership in rural Galilee and to the poor urban dwellers throughout the Roman Empire in Luke’s time toward the end of the 1st century CE.
The good news Jesus sought to bring in his teaching is that all such systems based on power and status are ended. Although stated in economic language of borrowing and lending, the old ways are replaced by relationships based on generosity, respect and equal treatment for everyone. This way of living mirrors the uncalculated generosity of God.
The next section may have caused Luke’s audience considerable discomfort. It still does for us today. The normal human reaction to one’s enemies is to show them hostility; and one does good to one’s benefactors. It must have been quite a surprise for Luke’s or Jesus’ audience to hear the general counsel given here: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”
The passage makes the distinctive point that the behaviour of another person does not determine one’s own behaviour. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions in response to another’s action toward us.
It would have been even more surprising for the respective audiences to hear the specific details that follow from this moral principle. Slapping another person’s face would have been as common then as it is now. It is a normal response to excessive rudeness, especially for women. Men are more likely to punch another man in the jaw. Often regarding themselves as victims, Jewish people of that time, would have had a well developed argumentative character. Assault would be more verbal than physical, especially against anyone in authority.
A second, really astonishing instance has to do with thievery. Many folk of that time would possess many fewer garments than we do. A cloak was necessary for the colder weather. Only the more affluent would have had more than one. To give to a thief, or anyone who makes such a demand, was to put the giver in a state of almost certain privation. The enormity of the situation is made worse by the added directive to give one’s shirt as well, thereby leaving the donor virtually naked.
Derived from this exaggerated example is a truly universal ethical teaching we know as the Golden Rule. It exists in similar form, both positive and negative, in all main religious traditions from a wide variety of cultures and historical periods. It states unequivocally that one not only has a right to be treated justly, but a responsibility to ensure that others receive justice too.
The second set of teaching in this passage emphasizes relations with one’s benefactors. Repaying a favour with another simply perpetuates a dependency that can be carried to extremes. In many cultures, this developed into a system of patronage that still dominates many aspects of life. Social, economic and political spheres of human relationships all have complicated systems based on a very basic concept. Who owes what to whom? In Jesus’ time this principle undergirded a destructive system of land ownership in rural Galilee and to the poor urban dwellers throughout the Roman Empire in Luke’s time toward the end of the 1st century CE.
The good news Jesus sought to bring in his teaching is that all such systems based on power and status are ended. Although stated in economic language of borrowing and lending, the old ways are replaced by relationships based on generosity, respect and equal treatment for everyone. This way of living mirrors the uncalculated generosity of God.
12 - BLESSINGS AND WOES
Luke 6:20-26.
The next major section of the Gospel (6:20-49) is frequently referred to as “The Sermon on the Plain.” While this comment treats only the first part of it. There can be no doubt that it is modeled on Matthew’s “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt. 5:1-7:29). Like Matthew, Luke presents a collection of only somewhat related teachings on various themes, but Luke's is only about one quarter of the length.
Some of the teachings in Luke are found elsewhere in Matthew. Neither can be seen as recording an actual event, yet have their own theological purpose. Narrated close to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, they “corroborate and enlarge upon summary statements and other specific accounts of Jesus’ preaching and teaching, and thus emphasize the importance of that aspect of his ministry.” (Ringe, Sharon H. Luke91. Westminster Bible Companion Series. Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.)
Luke’s collection can be divided into four parts: blessings and woes (6:20-26); relationships with enemies and benefactors (6:27-35); mercy and judgment (6:36-42); personal integrity (6:43-49).
Only four beatitudes are found in Luke compared to nine in Matthew. Luke used the second personal pronoun, you, directed at his immediate audience whereas Matthew used the third person. Ringe suggests that this pointed to a large audience being present, although this cannot be proved. In the audience were some who would have benefited from the status quo and so would hear the woes directed at them.
Luke’s first two blessings differ from Matthew’s significantly in that for Luke it is the economically poor, not the poor in spirit, who benefit from the reign of God. Matthew may have thought of “the meek” in the same way following texts such as Isaiah
61:1, 66:2 and Psalm 37:11. We would call them the “marginalized.” More important however is the reversal of fortunes that characterizes God’s project. Luke had emphasized this element of justice for the oppressed from the very beginning in the hymns and stories of the nativity and in introducing Jesus’ ministry by appropriating the Jubilee test of Isaiah 61:1-2 in 4:18-19.
Luke’s second beatitude (6:21) also sounds as though the need is physical rather than ethical as in Matthew. In the imagery of the Hebrew scriptures, hunger was often linked to the yearning for God’s salvation from disaster caused either by nature such an an earthquake or violent human actions such as foreign oppression or war. The satisfaction of hunger thus became one of the signs of God’s presence (Psalm 107:4-9, 35-37; 146:5-10; Isaiah 32:6; 49:7-10; 65:13.
The last two blessings also speak of the pattern of reversal between present suffering and coming joy. In each case they refer to God’s agenda. Similarly, the list of woes do not refer to human behaviour to be avoided or changed to avert disaster. God’s justice requires that those who have not enjoyed the same blessings must now have their turn. This may have been the meaning of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth (4:14-30). The woes would cause dismay among many that God had other things in mind for them while extending generous blessings to those had been marginalized. No wonder they ran him out of town.
The next major section of the Gospel (6:20-49) is frequently referred to as “The Sermon on the Plain.” While this comment treats only the first part of it. There can be no doubt that it is modeled on Matthew’s “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt. 5:1-7:29). Like Matthew, Luke presents a collection of only somewhat related teachings on various themes, but Luke's is only about one quarter of the length.
Some of the teachings in Luke are found elsewhere in Matthew. Neither can be seen as recording an actual event, yet have their own theological purpose. Narrated close to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, they “corroborate and enlarge upon summary statements and other specific accounts of Jesus’ preaching and teaching, and thus emphasize the importance of that aspect of his ministry.” (Ringe, Sharon H. Luke91. Westminster Bible Companion Series. Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.)
Luke’s collection can be divided into four parts: blessings and woes (6:20-26); relationships with enemies and benefactors (6:27-35); mercy and judgment (6:36-42); personal integrity (6:43-49).
Only four beatitudes are found in Luke compared to nine in Matthew. Luke used the second personal pronoun, you, directed at his immediate audience whereas Matthew used the third person. Ringe suggests that this pointed to a large audience being present, although this cannot be proved. In the audience were some who would have benefited from the status quo and so would hear the woes directed at them.
Luke’s first two blessings differ from Matthew’s significantly in that for Luke it is the economically poor, not the poor in spirit, who benefit from the reign of God. Matthew may have thought of “the meek” in the same way following texts such as Isaiah
61:1, 66:2 and Psalm 37:11. We would call them the “marginalized.” More important however is the reversal of fortunes that characterizes God’s project. Luke had emphasized this element of justice for the oppressed from the very beginning in the hymns and stories of the nativity and in introducing Jesus’ ministry by appropriating the Jubilee test of Isaiah 61:1-2 in 4:18-19.
Luke’s second beatitude (6:21) also sounds as though the need is physical rather than ethical as in Matthew. In the imagery of the Hebrew scriptures, hunger was often linked to the yearning for God’s salvation from disaster caused either by nature such an an earthquake or violent human actions such as foreign oppression or war. The satisfaction of hunger thus became one of the signs of God’s presence (Psalm 107:4-9, 35-37; 146:5-10; Isaiah 32:6; 49:7-10; 65:13.
The last two blessings also speak of the pattern of reversal between present suffering and coming joy. In each case they refer to God’s agenda. Similarly, the list of woes do not refer to human behaviour to be avoided or changed to avert disaster. God’s justice requires that those who have not enjoyed the same blessings must now have their turn. This may have been the meaning of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth (4:14-30). The woes would cause dismay among many that God had other things in mind for them while extending generous blessings to those had been marginalized. No wonder they ran him out of town.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
11 - CHOOSING THE TWELVE
Luke 6:12-19
Prayer came habitually to Jesus. His ministry thus far had been entirely of an individual nature. As the previous incidents revealed, his teaching and healing had become extremely popular with the crowds and not a little contentious to the authorities. Now, Luke asserted, Jesus realized that he could not carry on alone. He needed a team who could share his ministry in very specific ways.
Who could help him? There appeared to be many who could have been considered his close followers - people who had “left everything and followed him.” (6:13) That was a decision he had to make in prayer. But why did he choose only twelve to be “apostles”?
The answer to that question is found in the place he went to pray - on a mountain alone all night. The parallel with Moses on Mount Sinai communing with God before receiving the authoritative Law seems obvious. As with so much else in the Gospel story, the number he chose also recalls the twelve patriarchs and twelves tribes of Israel in the Book of Numbers. Yet that is not the whole story.
In a little monograph, The Footprints of Jesus’ Twelve in Early Christian Traditions, (Lang, 1985) Heinz Guenther, late Professor of New Testament at Emmanuel College Toronto, pointed out that twelve was a most significant number in theological but not historical terms. It represented the views of the post-Easter church, not of Jesus himself.
Guenther claimed that there is no historical evidence of twelve as claimed in this passage or parallels in the other Gospels. He concluded that twelve were created because they seemed to be the most suitable agents for the church to illustrate God’s saving love for the world. Thus the number was confessional and had important meaning for the church’s own identity.
Faith does not create history, it creates a confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. It states the church’s claim to be an apostolic community representing the ‘twelveness’ of the Jewish tradition now ready to confess Jesus Christ and assuming responsibility with him for an imperiled world.
As for the names of the twelve, there is no historical evidence other than the gospel stories that such a group existed. Later Christian traditions gave each of them some semblance of reality, mostly on the basis of legendary accounts of martyrdom. None of the existing variants of the names can be adequately explained. Luke included two names that the other Gospels do not mention - Simon the Zealot and Judas, son of James. Simon appears as “Thaddeus” in Matthew and Mark.
The last paragraph of this passage (6:17-19) forms a transition to a new section of the Gospel to follow. The setting is no longer a mountain, but a level plain. The geographical origins of the people gathered to hear Jesus or to be healed by him indicate the universality of his appeal. The modern church has not been mistaken in using every means of communication to encourage faith in him.
Prayer came habitually to Jesus. His ministry thus far had been entirely of an individual nature. As the previous incidents revealed, his teaching and healing had become extremely popular with the crowds and not a little contentious to the authorities. Now, Luke asserted, Jesus realized that he could not carry on alone. He needed a team who could share his ministry in very specific ways.
Who could help him? There appeared to be many who could have been considered his close followers - people who had “left everything and followed him.” (6:13) That was a decision he had to make in prayer. But why did he choose only twelve to be “apostles”?
The answer to that question is found in the place he went to pray - on a mountain alone all night. The parallel with Moses on Mount Sinai communing with God before receiving the authoritative Law seems obvious. As with so much else in the Gospel story, the number he chose also recalls the twelve patriarchs and twelves tribes of Israel in the Book of Numbers. Yet that is not the whole story.
In a little monograph, The Footprints of Jesus’ Twelve in Early Christian Traditions, (Lang, 1985) Heinz Guenther, late Professor of New Testament at Emmanuel College Toronto, pointed out that twelve was a most significant number in theological but not historical terms. It represented the views of the post-Easter church, not of Jesus himself.
Guenther claimed that there is no historical evidence of twelve as claimed in this passage or parallels in the other Gospels. He concluded that twelve were created because they seemed to be the most suitable agents for the church to illustrate God’s saving love for the world. Thus the number was confessional and had important meaning for the church’s own identity.
Faith does not create history, it creates a confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. It states the church’s claim to be an apostolic community representing the ‘twelveness’ of the Jewish tradition now ready to confess Jesus Christ and assuming responsibility with him for an imperiled world.
As for the names of the twelve, there is no historical evidence other than the gospel stories that such a group existed. Later Christian traditions gave each of them some semblance of reality, mostly on the basis of legendary accounts of martyrdom. None of the existing variants of the names can be adequately explained. Luke included two names that the other Gospels do not mention - Simon the Zealot and Judas, son of James. Simon appears as “Thaddeus” in Matthew and Mark.
The last paragraph of this passage (6:17-19) forms a transition to a new section of the Gospel to follow. The setting is no longer a mountain, but a level plain. The geographical origins of the people gathered to hear Jesus or to be healed by him indicate the universality of his appeal. The modern church has not been mistaken in using every means of communication to encourage faith in him.
10 - QUESTIONING JESUS’ AUTHORITY AGAIN
Luke 6:1-11
The simple act of reaping a few kernels of ripening grain got Jesus and his disciples into trouble. The story may have been important to the church in Luke’s time. The Pharisees had assumed the religious and political leadership of the Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire during the years after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Keeping of the sabbath by attendance at synagogue services had become of supreme importance.
Jesus turned the challenge on its head. It was undoubtedly still a very painful issue for devout Jews, and especially those who were Pharisees, that they could not longer go up their sacred sanctuary to offer the traditional sacrifices that had become so much a part of their worship. Jesus seems almost to have taunted them by pointing to an incident in the life of their greatest king, David (1 Samuel 21:1-6).
As Sharon Ringe points out in her Luke, in the Westminster Bible Companion series, there are three anomalies in the story. What the disciples did was within law of Moses because the reaped grain met an immediate need, always permissible on the sabbath. The Pharisees were walking with Jesus, something forbidden on the sabbath. That the story about David did not exactly fit the situation may indicate that it may have been a literary creation by Luke to make his point to prove that Jesus’ authority surpassed that even of David.
The principle of Jesus’ authority for Christians is fully expressed in the words of 6:5. The issue is not what one does on the sabbath, but what rules one’s life all of the time.
The second incident similarly established Jesus’ authority over all of life. Synagogue attendance involved studying the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. All Jewish men were required to be there, even the disabled if at all possible.
Although healing was considered work, it was permissible as long as it dealt with a life-threatening situation. In a world where right-handedness was dominant and left- handedness sinister, this was indeed the case. But would have endangered the man’s life to wait until the sabbath was over at sunset?
Again the story may point to a total separation of synagogue and church in Luke’s community. For Christians, the issue is about the purpose of keeping the sabbath, not about the letter of the law. Jesus’ concern was for the disabled man. To heal his disability was closer to the purpose of the commandment than rigid but vapid holiness. We are given life to serve God wholly in body, mind and spirit. As has been noted before, in English healing, health, whole and holy all come from the same ancient German root word heil.
Have we lost the meaning of keeping the sabbath? It has been said that today on any given Sunday, there are more Christians at worship than at all the professional sports events in the country. But what about the rest of the week? It too is holy.
The simple act of reaping a few kernels of ripening grain got Jesus and his disciples into trouble. The story may have been important to the church in Luke’s time. The Pharisees had assumed the religious and political leadership of the Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire during the years after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Keeping of the sabbath by attendance at synagogue services had become of supreme importance.
Jesus turned the challenge on its head. It was undoubtedly still a very painful issue for devout Jews, and especially those who were Pharisees, that they could not longer go up their sacred sanctuary to offer the traditional sacrifices that had become so much a part of their worship. Jesus seems almost to have taunted them by pointing to an incident in the life of their greatest king, David (1 Samuel 21:1-6).
As Sharon Ringe points out in her Luke, in the Westminster Bible Companion series, there are three anomalies in the story. What the disciples did was within law of Moses because the reaped grain met an immediate need, always permissible on the sabbath. The Pharisees were walking with Jesus, something forbidden on the sabbath. That the story about David did not exactly fit the situation may indicate that it may have been a literary creation by Luke to make his point to prove that Jesus’ authority surpassed that even of David.
The principle of Jesus’ authority for Christians is fully expressed in the words of 6:5. The issue is not what one does on the sabbath, but what rules one’s life all of the time.
The second incident similarly established Jesus’ authority over all of life. Synagogue attendance involved studying the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. All Jewish men were required to be there, even the disabled if at all possible.
Although healing was considered work, it was permissible as long as it dealt with a life-threatening situation. In a world where right-handedness was dominant and left- handedness sinister, this was indeed the case. But would have endangered the man’s life to wait until the sabbath was over at sunset?
Again the story may point to a total separation of synagogue and church in Luke’s community. For Christians, the issue is about the purpose of keeping the sabbath, not about the letter of the law. Jesus’ concern was for the disabled man. To heal his disability was closer to the purpose of the commandment than rigid but vapid holiness. We are given life to serve God wholly in body, mind and spirit. As has been noted before, in English healing, health, whole and holy all come from the same ancient German root word heil.
Have we lost the meaning of keeping the sabbath? It has been said that today on any given Sunday, there are more Christians at worship than at all the professional sports events in the country. But what about the rest of the week? It too is holy.
9 - THE NEW AND THE OLD
Luke 5:27-39 tells of the calling of another disciple and incidents about the value of what is new and what is old. The calling of Levi represents a somewhat startling innovation for the Jewish community. At the same time also it recalled and challenged some ancient religious traditions in Israel.
The location of the event would have been a public place - a tax collector’s booth where custom’s duties on trade goods and other tax revenues would have been collected for the Roman government. The new disciple’s name was purely Jewish: Levi was the son of Jacob and Leah (Gen. 29:34) and namesake of one of the twelve tribes. He was best known for the priestly role of his descendants, the Levites. Whether Luke intended the paradox or not, Levi had a strange vocation for someone with his name.
The banquet that followed at Levi’s home included both other tax collectors as well other ordinary citizens. The Pharisees and scribes thought that Jesus was going too far in having table fellowship with such sinners. So they complained to Jesus' disciples. But some of them there too? If so, surely they knew who their host would be when they accepted his invitation to dinner. Strictly religious Jews would never have eaten with such “unclean people.”
Despite the gaps in the story, Luke obviously used it to point out to his own Jewish and Gentile audience many decades after the resurrection that Jesus was the friend of all sinners. That was why he had singled out the tax collectors. There was also superb irony in his words. The Pharisees and scribes did not see themselves in the same light as Jesus did. Luke’s message to his audience was that the Christian community was totally inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles, and of the religious and not so religious. That is a principle with which the church continues to have serious problems.
The next anecdote in Luke’s narrative (5:33-39) brings out other elements of our Christian tradition with which the church still wrestles. What is the “right way” to worship? Who is welcome at our worship services?
In Jesus’ time, Jewish ritual laws were very strict. The Torah laid down exactly how the liturgies of temple and home were to be carried out. The spiritual disciplines of fasting and prayer had to be meticulously followed. Those who did not meet these conditions were excluded. Then as now, however, weddings were family and community celebrations with much feasting and drinking. When the celebration was over, everyone went back to the traditional religious practices.
The twin parables of new cloth patching old garments and new wine stored in old wineskins were just common sense. On the other hand, neither the new or the old is to be wasted. Both are valuable at the appropriate time and place. Jesus’ presence is what is most significant to the church in every age. He can be associated with either ancient traditions or new transitions without violating basic principles of inclusiveness and community.
The location of the event would have been a public place - a tax collector’s booth where custom’s duties on trade goods and other tax revenues would have been collected for the Roman government. The new disciple’s name was purely Jewish: Levi was the son of Jacob and Leah (Gen. 29:34) and namesake of one of the twelve tribes. He was best known for the priestly role of his descendants, the Levites. Whether Luke intended the paradox or not, Levi had a strange vocation for someone with his name.
The banquet that followed at Levi’s home included both other tax collectors as well other ordinary citizens. The Pharisees and scribes thought that Jesus was going too far in having table fellowship with such sinners. So they complained to Jesus' disciples. But some of them there too? If so, surely they knew who their host would be when they accepted his invitation to dinner. Strictly religious Jews would never have eaten with such “unclean people.”
Despite the gaps in the story, Luke obviously used it to point out to his own Jewish and Gentile audience many decades after the resurrection that Jesus was the friend of all sinners. That was why he had singled out the tax collectors. There was also superb irony in his words. The Pharisees and scribes did not see themselves in the same light as Jesus did. Luke’s message to his audience was that the Christian community was totally inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles, and of the religious and not so religious. That is a principle with which the church continues to have serious problems.
The next anecdote in Luke’s narrative (5:33-39) brings out other elements of our Christian tradition with which the church still wrestles. What is the “right way” to worship? Who is welcome at our worship services?
In Jesus’ time, Jewish ritual laws were very strict. The Torah laid down exactly how the liturgies of temple and home were to be carried out. The spiritual disciplines of fasting and prayer had to be meticulously followed. Those who did not meet these conditions were excluded. Then as now, however, weddings were family and community celebrations with much feasting and drinking. When the celebration was over, everyone went back to the traditional religious practices.
The twin parables of new cloth patching old garments and new wine stored in old wineskins were just common sense. On the other hand, neither the new or the old is to be wasted. Both are valuable at the appropriate time and place. Jesus’ presence is what is most significant to the church in every age. He can be associated with either ancient traditions or new transitions without violating basic principles of inclusiveness and community.
8 - CHALLENGES TO JESUS’ AUTHORITY
In Luke 5:12-26, we are told next of two incidents that once more raised issues about Jesus’ authority and his growing popularity. Moving about Galilee, he was confronted by a leper who pleaded to be cleansed. Note the difference in this man’s attitude from the way Simon had reacted: he believed instinctively that Jesus could heal him.
In those days, any skin affliction was seen as leprosy, not just the true form we now know as the disabling and disfiguring Hansen’s disease. Having such an affliction meant being ostracized from family and community. Jesus touched him and he was immediately healed. To touch a leper was to make oneself also diseased and, more seriously, to be impure in the sight of the law of Moses. What happened next was the point of this incident in Luke’s mind.
Jesus demanded secrecy until the man had showed himself to the priest and offered an appropriate sacrifice, as the law of Moses required. Obviously Jesus was aware that his ministry of teaching and healing had social and religious implications. The religious authorities would be the first to challenge him. The attempt to keep the incident quiet failed completely. As the news of Jesus’ power spread far and wide, more and more people flocked to hear him and have their diseases healed.
A major turning point in Jesus’ ministry was at hand. So he retreated for a time to pray. Luke frequently used such a withdrawal as a warning that a new series of conflicts was about to begin. The challenge would come from the Pharisees and scribes, (i.e. teachers of the law). In Jesus’ time they were not yet a powerful significant party, more like a minor group of religious reformers or activists. By Luke’s time fifty years later, they had come to dominate the Jewish tradition.
The incident Luke related next not only reflected the determination and faith of the sick man’s friends, but more importantly raised the question of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. Nothing was said about the nature of the man’s illness, but the implication is that it was due to some unstated sinfulness. We might call it a psychosomatic illness arising from a deep sense of guilt. The healing of the man stands alone as an act of mercy. Jesus did not question the man’s moral character. Yet the consequences of Jesus’ action caused immense controversy.
The religious authorities charged Jesus with blasphemy for forgiving the man’s sin. In the Hebrew tradition, blasphemy involved abusing God’s name (Lev. 24:10-11, 14-16, 23); attacking something belonging to God (2 Kings 19:4. 6, 22; Ezekiel 35:1-2). In this instance, the issue was usurping God’s unique power to forgive. To the Pharisees, by healing the man and forgiving him, Jesus had violated God’s very being, as their challenge revealed. Jesus claimed to be doing what only God was capable of doing. Did he have such authority?
Luke conveyed his understanding that Jesus indeed did have such authority in the phrase he put into Jesus’ response using the familiar term, the Son of Man. To Luke, late int the 1st century CE, the term meant something more than “the Human One,” an ordinary mortal, as in the Hebrew tradition of Ezekiel and Daniel. It had already become a christological confession.
In those days, any skin affliction was seen as leprosy, not just the true form we now know as the disabling and disfiguring Hansen’s disease. Having such an affliction meant being ostracized from family and community. Jesus touched him and he was immediately healed. To touch a leper was to make oneself also diseased and, more seriously, to be impure in the sight of the law of Moses. What happened next was the point of this incident in Luke’s mind.
Jesus demanded secrecy until the man had showed himself to the priest and offered an appropriate sacrifice, as the law of Moses required. Obviously Jesus was aware that his ministry of teaching and healing had social and religious implications. The religious authorities would be the first to challenge him. The attempt to keep the incident quiet failed completely. As the news of Jesus’ power spread far and wide, more and more people flocked to hear him and have their diseases healed.
A major turning point in Jesus’ ministry was at hand. So he retreated for a time to pray. Luke frequently used such a withdrawal as a warning that a new series of conflicts was about to begin. The challenge would come from the Pharisees and scribes, (i.e. teachers of the law). In Jesus’ time they were not yet a powerful significant party, more like a minor group of religious reformers or activists. By Luke’s time fifty years later, they had come to dominate the Jewish tradition.
The incident Luke related next not only reflected the determination and faith of the sick man’s friends, but more importantly raised the question of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. Nothing was said about the nature of the man’s illness, but the implication is that it was due to some unstated sinfulness. We might call it a psychosomatic illness arising from a deep sense of guilt. The healing of the man stands alone as an act of mercy. Jesus did not question the man’s moral character. Yet the consequences of Jesus’ action caused immense controversy.
The religious authorities charged Jesus with blasphemy for forgiving the man’s sin. In the Hebrew tradition, blasphemy involved abusing God’s name (Lev. 24:10-11, 14-16, 23); attacking something belonging to God (2 Kings 19:4. 6, 22; Ezekiel 35:1-2). In this instance, the issue was usurping God’s unique power to forgive. To the Pharisees, by healing the man and forgiving him, Jesus had violated God’s very being, as their challenge revealed. Jesus claimed to be doing what only God was capable of doing. Did he have such authority?
Luke conveyed his understanding that Jesus indeed did have such authority in the phrase he put into Jesus’ response using the familiar term, the Son of Man. To Luke, late int the 1st century CE, the term meant something more than “the Human One,” an ordinary mortal, as in the Hebrew tradition of Ezekiel and Daniel. It had already become a christological confession.
7 - CALLING THE FIRST DISCIPLES
After he had spent a quiet night of prayer in a deserted place near Capernaum, Luke told of Jesus leaving Galilee to proclaim his message in the synagogues of Judea (4:42-44). In the next phase of Luke’s narrative, Jesus was back by in Capernaum once more. He had already visited in Simon’s house and healed Simon’s mother-in-law. Now he walked along the shore of lake of Gennesaret (an earlier name for Lake Galilee). The crowds followed and pressed in on him to hear what he had to say. Seeing some fishermen washing their nets beside their boats, he got into one and asked its owner, Simon, to put out a little from shore. There he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
After that quiet introduction picking up the theme of Jesus continuing his ministry of preaching and teaching, Luke’s narrative spun into an exciting drama. Sharon Hinge calls it, “A Fish Story.”
Jesus instructed Simon to launch his boat into deep water and let down his nets. Did Jesus know where a school of fish could be found? Or was this one of those details Luke used to reflect Jesus’ authority? The latter would seem to have been the case, because Simon immediately called Jesus, "Master." That Greek term Luke reserved for one who had authority. In similar situations in Matthew and Mark, the parallel term was either teacher or rabbi.
More important than the huge catch of fish was the addition of a second name given to Simon, Peter, and his reaction to the incident. The name meant a rock or rocky ground. Bruce Chilton makes something of the name, "Rocky." Perhaps it had a double edge in some respects. Simon Peter was impetuous, but not always the steady one among the twelve. As Luke’s narrative continued, the nickname, if that is what itw as, expressed Simon’s true character. Instead of a respectful response, Simon expressed fear and a desire to separate himself from Jesus. He had quickly recognized that he was in the presence of immense power and authority. In those days, unexpected demonstrations of such great power were often interpreted as demonic rather than divine. Simon’s confession of his own sinfulness pointed to his belief that Jesus indeed possessed divine powers.
In Luke's narrative, Simon Peter was certainly afraid in this instance. So had been Zechariah, Mary and the shepherds when the Angel Gabriel spoke to them. Jesus responded to this fear with the same words: “Do not be afraid.” (Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10). In Luke’s style, this signaled that Jesus spoke with the same divine authority as had the angel. Although James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were also amazed, Jesus spoke to Simon alone. However, after bring their boats ashore, they all left everything and followed Jesus.
In those days, fishing was for food, not sport. That meant death for the fish, but life for people, especially in Capernaum, an important fishing village in Galilee.
There is a story, imaginative but probably legendary, that Zebedee had a contract to supply the temple priesthood with salted fish from Galilee. It is difficult to believe that even salted fish could remain edible after a journey of 100 miles from Capernaum to Jerusalem.
The fishermen’s task in following Jesus, as Sharon Hinge puts it, was to gather people for life in a new community. This would be an entirely new trade for these men, but also for all who chose to follow him as disciples. Some who followed, like Levi (5:28), did not become apostles, but remained ordinary citizens. In Luke’s time, being a Christian did mean leaving everything behind. Most of us are like Levi, disciples in ordinary walks of life.
After that quiet introduction picking up the theme of Jesus continuing his ministry of preaching and teaching, Luke’s narrative spun into an exciting drama. Sharon Hinge calls it, “A Fish Story.”
Jesus instructed Simon to launch his boat into deep water and let down his nets. Did Jesus know where a school of fish could be found? Or was this one of those details Luke used to reflect Jesus’ authority? The latter would seem to have been the case, because Simon immediately called Jesus, "Master." That Greek term Luke reserved for one who had authority. In similar situations in Matthew and Mark, the parallel term was either teacher or rabbi.
More important than the huge catch of fish was the addition of a second name given to Simon, Peter, and his reaction to the incident. The name meant a rock or rocky ground. Bruce Chilton makes something of the name, "Rocky." Perhaps it had a double edge in some respects. Simon Peter was impetuous, but not always the steady one among the twelve. As Luke’s narrative continued, the nickname, if that is what itw as, expressed Simon’s true character. Instead of a respectful response, Simon expressed fear and a desire to separate himself from Jesus. He had quickly recognized that he was in the presence of immense power and authority. In those days, unexpected demonstrations of such great power were often interpreted as demonic rather than divine. Simon’s confession of his own sinfulness pointed to his belief that Jesus indeed possessed divine powers.
In Luke's narrative, Simon Peter was certainly afraid in this instance. So had been Zechariah, Mary and the shepherds when the Angel Gabriel spoke to them. Jesus responded to this fear with the same words: “Do not be afraid.” (Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10). In Luke’s style, this signaled that Jesus spoke with the same divine authority as had the angel. Although James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were also amazed, Jesus spoke to Simon alone. However, after bring their boats ashore, they all left everything and followed Jesus.
In those days, fishing was for food, not sport. That meant death for the fish, but life for people, especially in Capernaum, an important fishing village in Galilee.
There is a story, imaginative but probably legendary, that Zebedee had a contract to supply the temple priesthood with salted fish from Galilee. It is difficult to believe that even salted fish could remain edible after a journey of 100 miles from Capernaum to Jerusalem.
The fishermen’s task in following Jesus, as Sharon Hinge puts it, was to gather people for life in a new community. This would be an entirely new trade for these men, but also for all who chose to follow him as disciples. Some who followed, like Levi (5:28), did not become apostles, but remained ordinary citizens. In Luke’s time, being a Christian did mean leaving everything behind. Most of us are like Levi, disciples in ordinary walks of life.
Friday, January 15, 2010
6 - Sabbath at Capernaum
In Luke 4:31-44 the narrative presents the good news in action as well as words, just as Jesus had indicated he would by the quotation from Isaiah 61.
Ideally set at the seashore, Capernaum was important to the local Galilean economy because of its fishing industry. Like every Jewish town it had its synagogue. Jesus was invited to teach there on a sabbath. Once again, his teaching elicited amazement, but also a measure of opposition. This time from a man with “the spirit of an unclean demon” (4:33).
To us “authority over demons’”reminds us of the horrors of exorcism. Biblical stories of exorcism communicate the effective treatment of severe mental illnesses and/or personality disorders. Healing and the integration the personality is called for kindness and care, not judgmental punishment. This ‘demon’ had been disturbing the synagogue at worship. The healing Jesus offered silenced it, perhaps mostly by paying attention to the person who was ill in a caring way.
But the ‘demon’ also recognized Jesus in a way that the congregation did not. He had seen in Jesus a power than was greater than himself. This was a serious threat to the ‘demon’ who held the sick man in its power. Luke thus affirmed that Jesus was no ordinary exorcist or a great teacher. Instead, for Luke’s audience, Jesus was one in whom the authority and power of God was effectively manifested.
Something miraculous indeed occurred, but the reaction of the people in Capernaum was strikingly in contrast to that of the people in Nazareth. The two episodes revealed the inconsistency of human beings. This reality will continue throughout Jesus’ ministry, but will not defeat the purposes of God.
The next incident in Luke’s narrative dealt with the physical issue of disease and the religious issue of keeping the sabbath. Simon Peter’s mother-in-law was ill with a fever. Jesus healed her and she immediately rose and served him. We don’t even know her name, but as Luke told of it, she was the first person to participate in the ministry of service. Later in Luke 22:26, Jesus would use the idea of service as the way disciples demonstrate that they are followers of Jesus).
Other instances of woman serving Jesus and accompanying him on his journeys will appear later in the Gospel too. One was even said to “preach” (8:47); but Luke generally limited preaching to men while women served and listened (e.g. Martha and Mary in Luke 10:38-42). This became an important feature of the second part of Luke’s narrative in The Acts of The Apostles.
As Sharon Hinge put it, with these anecdotes from Jesus’ early ministry in Nazareth and Galilee, Luke was intent on preparing his audience for, and giving previews of, what he would say in the rest of the Gospel. Not only was Jesus proclaiming the good news drawn from Isaiah’s prophecy, he was instituting God’s reign by his actions though healing and exorcism demonstrating his power.
Ideally set at the seashore, Capernaum was important to the local Galilean economy because of its fishing industry. Like every Jewish town it had its synagogue. Jesus was invited to teach there on a sabbath. Once again, his teaching elicited amazement, but also a measure of opposition. This time from a man with “the spirit of an unclean demon” (4:33).
To us “authority over demons’”reminds us of the horrors of exorcism. Biblical stories of exorcism communicate the effective treatment of severe mental illnesses and/or personality disorders. Healing and the integration the personality is called for kindness and care, not judgmental punishment. This ‘demon’ had been disturbing the synagogue at worship. The healing Jesus offered silenced it, perhaps mostly by paying attention to the person who was ill in a caring way.
But the ‘demon’ also recognized Jesus in a way that the congregation did not. He had seen in Jesus a power than was greater than himself. This was a serious threat to the ‘demon’ who held the sick man in its power. Luke thus affirmed that Jesus was no ordinary exorcist or a great teacher. Instead, for Luke’s audience, Jesus was one in whom the authority and power of God was effectively manifested.
Something miraculous indeed occurred, but the reaction of the people in Capernaum was strikingly in contrast to that of the people in Nazareth. The two episodes revealed the inconsistency of human beings. This reality will continue throughout Jesus’ ministry, but will not defeat the purposes of God.
The next incident in Luke’s narrative dealt with the physical issue of disease and the religious issue of keeping the sabbath. Simon Peter’s mother-in-law was ill with a fever. Jesus healed her and she immediately rose and served him. We don’t even know her name, but as Luke told of it, she was the first person to participate in the ministry of service. Later in Luke 22:26, Jesus would use the idea of service as the way disciples demonstrate that they are followers of Jesus).
Other instances of woman serving Jesus and accompanying him on his journeys will appear later in the Gospel too. One was even said to “preach” (8:47); but Luke generally limited preaching to men while women served and listened (e.g. Martha and Mary in Luke 10:38-42). This became an important feature of the second part of Luke’s narrative in The Acts of The Apostles.
As Sharon Hinge put it, with these anecdotes from Jesus’ early ministry in Nazareth and Galilee, Luke was intent on preparing his audience for, and giving previews of, what he would say in the rest of the Gospel. Not only was Jesus proclaiming the good news drawn from Isaiah’s prophecy, he was instituting God’s reign by his actions though healing and exorcism demonstrating his power.
5 – Jesus’ Ministry Begins
“Preaching, Power and Controversy,” is the title Sharon Hinge gives to the next section of the gospel in Luke 4:14-44. It sums up exactly what happened in those early days in Galilee. As was the custom, Jesus was invited to read and interpret the Hebrew scriptures in local synagogues wherever he went. Because he spoke with power, enabled by the Holy Spirit, his preaching was enthusiastically received. Not so in his home town of Nazareth.
As Luke told of it, he was handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, but not whether he was asked to read a particular passage or chose it himself (Isaiah 61:1-2). The passage reflects the ancient tradition of celebrating a year of jubilee as mandated by Leviticus 25. The provisions of that law were quite specific: Every fifty years Israel was to declare a “year of liberty” during which four different types of freedom were to be granted. Land was to be left fallow; debts were to be cancelled; indentured servants were to be set free; and land that had been originally granted to one’s ancestors but lost in the interval due to financial hardship were to be returned to the original owners.
The latter provision had to do with God’s sovereignty. The practice was based on the belief that God owned all the land and only God could redistribute ownership. This economic upheaval was intended to yield a once in a lifetime fresh start throughout the land. Similar practices had also been implemented in neighbouring nations, but with more dubious intent: to erase the effects of a previous regime. In some respects practice was used in mediaeval monarchies in Europe. The monarch alone owned the land, and could be used only at the king’s discretion. Modern states still holding large tracts of so-called “crown lands” in my country or national parks, forests, etc. continues this practice.
On the other hand, there is no historical evidence that a jubilee year was ever celebrated in Israel. Instead, the imagery of Isaiah 61 represents the inauguration of God’s reign. It also had a messianic reference. To a people subjugated and oppressed by Rome’s cruel yoke, this would have been a message of comfort and promise, as it had been when first uttered by the prophet during the time of Babylonian Exile (586-539 BCE).
Jesus’ proclamation that this scripture had now been fulfilled brought forth immediate amazement among his audience in Nazareth. What they had been hearing about his ministry elsewhere had now come right there among them. How could this carpenter’s son they h ad known since childhood make such a claim as that?
The mood didn’t last long. As soon as he began to chide them for not believing him, they became very disturbed. They wanted evidence that the promises of the jubilee year were actually being fulfilled, burdened as they were by Rome’s occupying forces and heavy taxation.
Jesus replied by citing two examples from the prophetic tradition that only made things worse. He told them that they, as Jews, had no priority of place, as in the instances of Elijah’s and Elisha’s ministry to foreigners rather than Jews. The Nazareans threatened Jesus with death.
In describing the incident for his Gentile audience in this way, Luke set up the pattern of continuing hostility that would end in the cross and the victory of the resurrection.
As Luke told of it, he was handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, but not whether he was asked to read a particular passage or chose it himself (Isaiah 61:1-2). The passage reflects the ancient tradition of celebrating a year of jubilee as mandated by Leviticus 25. The provisions of that law were quite specific: Every fifty years Israel was to declare a “year of liberty” during which four different types of freedom were to be granted. Land was to be left fallow; debts were to be cancelled; indentured servants were to be set free; and land that had been originally granted to one’s ancestors but lost in the interval due to financial hardship were to be returned to the original owners.
The latter provision had to do with God’s sovereignty. The practice was based on the belief that God owned all the land and only God could redistribute ownership. This economic upheaval was intended to yield a once in a lifetime fresh start throughout the land. Similar practices had also been implemented in neighbouring nations, but with more dubious intent: to erase the effects of a previous regime. In some respects practice was used in mediaeval monarchies in Europe. The monarch alone owned the land, and could be used only at the king’s discretion. Modern states still holding large tracts of so-called “crown lands” in my country or national parks, forests, etc. continues this practice.
On the other hand, there is no historical evidence that a jubilee year was ever celebrated in Israel. Instead, the imagery of Isaiah 61 represents the inauguration of God’s reign. It also had a messianic reference. To a people subjugated and oppressed by Rome’s cruel yoke, this would have been a message of comfort and promise, as it had been when first uttered by the prophet during the time of Babylonian Exile (586-539 BCE).
Jesus’ proclamation that this scripture had now been fulfilled brought forth immediate amazement among his audience in Nazareth. What they had been hearing about his ministry elsewhere had now come right there among them. How could this carpenter’s son they h ad known since childhood make such a claim as that?
The mood didn’t last long. As soon as he began to chide them for not believing him, they became very disturbed. They wanted evidence that the promises of the jubilee year were actually being fulfilled, burdened as they were by Rome’s occupying forces and heavy taxation.
Jesus replied by citing two examples from the prophetic tradition that only made things worse. He told them that they, as Jews, had no priority of place, as in the instances of Elijah’s and Elisha’s ministry to foreigners rather than Jews. The Nazareans threatened Jesus with death.
In describing the incident for his Gentile audience in this way, Luke set up the pattern of continuing hostility that would end in the cross and the victory of the resurrection.
4 - A Time of Testing
What we used to call Jesus’ temptation is now described as testing. That is certainly the more accurate translation of the Greek word. It also more accurately defines his experience immediately after his baptism. This is further confirmed by the repeated use of the conditional form Luke gave to Satan's challenges to Jesus: “If you are the Son of God .... If you will worship me ....” Luke thus created the impression that we are hearing the inner spiritual struggles of Jesus as he meditated
on how to proceed with the mission for which his birth and baptism had prepared him.
Another significant aspect of this experience was the role of the Holy Spirit. Throughout the forty days in the wilderness, Jesus was surrounded and supported by God’s active power. Matthew and Mark represented this power by the presence of angels, generally regarded in biblical language as spiritual agents.
The time spent in the wilderness was not as important as we might think. It was a symbolic number merely recalling OT references to similar experiences of Moses (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9) and Elijah (1 Kings 19:4-8).
Nor can the scripture quotations Luke put into the mouth of Jesus be ignored. The three tests were all symbolic and had biblical precedents. Moses had provided food for the Israelites in the wilderness. Where famine was frequent, turning stones into bread would have been extremely popular. It would not be wrong, but neither would it be adequate as Moses had said to the Israelites (Deut. 8:3).
The second test was equally seductive at that time when Roman power brutally subjugated the Jewish people. But to accept the promise of absolute power would have been a denial of God’s sovereignty and an obstacle for the reign of God’s justice and love promised throughout Isaiah 40-66. By deciding to worship and serve God alone, Jesus accepted that goal as primary and vastly better than any other possible means. The implication is that those who seek security by violent means will ultimately fail. Divine mercy, justice and love are the only means God uses to bring about God’s reign on earth.
The biblical precedent for the third test lay in Psalm 91:8-9 where the righteous are promised God’s special protection. To jump from the pinnacle of the temple would have won Jesus instant fame and credibility, but would also contradict his real message. Like the other tests, this one would not have been inherently evil, and in each case some good would have come from what was proposed. More important than what any religious leader might do was whether or not it would enhance the relationship of all the people with God.
Surprisingly, each of the tests also involved activities that were expected of Israel’s promised Messiah. They all had social and political as well as religious manifestations that lay within the Jewish belief system. Luke presented them as being very much like the Israelites’ misunderstanding of God’s purposes for them and their failure to trust God during their time in the wilderness.
Note especially that Luke did not provide an alternative means for Jesus to proceed. All we have is the ominous note that Satan left Jesus “until an opportune time.” As we shall see the testing of Jesus was to go on throughout his ministry.
The testing of Jesus’ mission in and to the world is still going on.
on how to proceed with the mission for which his birth and baptism had prepared him.
Another significant aspect of this experience was the role of the Holy Spirit. Throughout the forty days in the wilderness, Jesus was surrounded and supported by God’s active power. Matthew and Mark represented this power by the presence of angels, generally regarded in biblical language as spiritual agents.
The time spent in the wilderness was not as important as we might think. It was a symbolic number merely recalling OT references to similar experiences of Moses (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9) and Elijah (1 Kings 19:4-8).
Nor can the scripture quotations Luke put into the mouth of Jesus be ignored. The three tests were all symbolic and had biblical precedents. Moses had provided food for the Israelites in the wilderness. Where famine was frequent, turning stones into bread would have been extremely popular. It would not be wrong, but neither would it be adequate as Moses had said to the Israelites (Deut. 8:3).
The second test was equally seductive at that time when Roman power brutally subjugated the Jewish people. But to accept the promise of absolute power would have been a denial of God’s sovereignty and an obstacle for the reign of God’s justice and love promised throughout Isaiah 40-66. By deciding to worship and serve God alone, Jesus accepted that goal as primary and vastly better than any other possible means. The implication is that those who seek security by violent means will ultimately fail. Divine mercy, justice and love are the only means God uses to bring about God’s reign on earth.
The biblical precedent for the third test lay in Psalm 91:8-9 where the righteous are promised God’s special protection. To jump from the pinnacle of the temple would have won Jesus instant fame and credibility, but would also contradict his real message. Like the other tests, this one would not have been inherently evil, and in each case some good would have come from what was proposed. More important than what any religious leader might do was whether or not it would enhance the relationship of all the people with God.
Surprisingly, each of the tests also involved activities that were expected of Israel’s promised Messiah. They all had social and political as well as religious manifestations that lay within the Jewish belief system. Luke presented them as being very much like the Israelites’ misunderstanding of God’s purposes for them and their failure to trust God during their time in the wilderness.
Note especially that Luke did not provide an alternative means for Jesus to proceed. All we have is the ominous note that Satan left Jesus “until an opportune time.” As we shall see the testing of Jesus was to go on throughout his ministry.
The testing of Jesus’ mission in and to the world is still going on.
3 - The Genealogy of the Son of God.
Instantly we notice that Luke’s genealogy is different from Matthew’s in several ways while also being somewhat similar. First, Luke introduced a valuable historical detail for the beginning of Jesus public ministry - he was 30 years old. Like Matthew, he recorded Jesus’ heritage to David and Abraham, but in reverse order beginning with Joseph and making no mention of Mary at all.
Luke also added a parenthetical note about Joseph’s presumed relationship to Jesus. Could this possibly have been to counter rumours about his illegitimate birth that had begun to circulate in the 80s? In his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (Doubleday, 2000) Bruce Chilton declares that Jesus would have been regarded as a mamzer in his home town of Nazareth. The word is bluntly translated "bastard."
Unlike Matthew, Luke imposed no significant pattern or order to the genealogy. The linkage with David and Abraham established Jesus as the saviour of Israel. Then by tracing Jesus’ ancestry all the way back to Enos, Seth and Adam he stated for all to know that Jesus was the Son of God and Saviour of the whole of humanity. That would have been of great significance for the Gentiles in Luke’s audience.
The term “Son of God, ” however, did not imply some sort of divine nature. In Jewish thought, it meant that,like the earlier monarchs of Israel, Jesus had been chosen for a unique role in history. It also conveyed the same sense of inclusiveness found also in Gabriel’s message to Mary in 1:35, in Simeon’s song in 2:30-32, and it confirmed what the voice from heaven had said in 3:22.
The genealogy brought to an end the introduction to the gospel. Luke’s audience would know beyond doubt exactly who this Jesus of Nazareth is and why he had been born. Sharon Hinge noted that this had been done by all that preceded it, i.e. “the angelic announcement of the birth, the prophetic precedent, human sensitivity, a heavenly voice and a catalogue of ancestors.”
Thus far in Luke’s narrative Jesus himself had played no more than a totally passive role. Yet several important themes to be developed during his ministry had already been introduced. Hinge went onto say that Luke had yet to tell what Jesus would do
with these beginnings and the working out of these claims in very specific historical contexts. She notes further that there was a mysterious "lack of hospitality toward such a project had already been reflected in the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.”
Another way these introductory passages could be interpreted is to see Jesus as a person whose life, words and work contradicted what might have been expected of Israel’s Messiah as perceived by Jews of that time. This same theme had echoes in the introduction to John’s Gospel: “He was in the world, ... yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” (John 1:10-12)
Is it too much to say that in the latter decades of the 1st century CE the traditions about Jesus in diverse Christian communities had begun to coalesce into a definitive theology about the person and work of Jesus, the Christ? This may not have been a mature Christology, but it certainly was the beginning of such theological reflection as to the person and work of Christ. If true, Luke contributed greatly to the espousing of this theology by the Gentiles of his time.
Luke also added a parenthetical note about Joseph’s presumed relationship to Jesus. Could this possibly have been to counter rumours about his illegitimate birth that had begun to circulate in the 80s? In his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (Doubleday, 2000) Bruce Chilton declares that Jesus would have been regarded as a mamzer in his home town of Nazareth. The word is bluntly translated "bastard."
Unlike Matthew, Luke imposed no significant pattern or order to the genealogy. The linkage with David and Abraham established Jesus as the saviour of Israel. Then by tracing Jesus’ ancestry all the way back to Enos, Seth and Adam he stated for all to know that Jesus was the Son of God and Saviour of the whole of humanity. That would have been of great significance for the Gentiles in Luke’s audience.
The term “Son of God, ” however, did not imply some sort of divine nature. In Jewish thought, it meant that,like the earlier monarchs of Israel, Jesus had been chosen for a unique role in history. It also conveyed the same sense of inclusiveness found also in Gabriel’s message to Mary in 1:35, in Simeon’s song in 2:30-32, and it confirmed what the voice from heaven had said in 3:22.
The genealogy brought to an end the introduction to the gospel. Luke’s audience would know beyond doubt exactly who this Jesus of Nazareth is and why he had been born. Sharon Hinge noted that this had been done by all that preceded it, i.e. “the angelic announcement of the birth, the prophetic precedent, human sensitivity, a heavenly voice and a catalogue of ancestors.”
Thus far in Luke’s narrative Jesus himself had played no more than a totally passive role. Yet several important themes to be developed during his ministry had already been introduced. Hinge went onto say that Luke had yet to tell what Jesus would do
with these beginnings and the working out of these claims in very specific historical contexts. She notes further that there was a mysterious "lack of hospitality toward such a project had already been reflected in the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.”
Another way these introductory passages could be interpreted is to see Jesus as a person whose life, words and work contradicted what might have been expected of Israel’s Messiah as perceived by Jews of that time. This same theme had echoes in the introduction to John’s Gospel: “He was in the world, ... yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” (John 1:10-12)
Is it too much to say that in the latter decades of the 1st century CE the traditions about Jesus in diverse Christian communities had begun to coalesce into a definitive theology about the person and work of Jesus, the Christ? This may not have been a mature Christology, but it certainly was the beginning of such theological reflection as to the person and work of Christ. If true, Luke contributed greatly to the espousing of this theology by the Gentiles of his time.
2 – The Baptism of Jesus
Luke put a lot of theological significance into the two brief verses describing Jesus’ baptism by John (3:21-22). At first there was nothing unusual about the scene. It was an ordinary baptism following a strong sermon. Jesus appeared to have been in the midst of the candidates coming for baptism. The ceremony over, Jesus seems to have been alone, praying. That too was probably not particularly unusual.
In Luke’s gospel, however, whenever Jesus is said to be praying that does have special meaning. Prayer signals that something important is taking place.
In this instance, Sharon Hinge states that Jesus' prayers become "a window to the divine presence.” She notes three images that follow in Luke’s account: the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven announces that God is pleased with Jesus, who is God’s beloved Son.
Unlike our space age understanding of what is ‘up there,’ heaven had special meaning in biblical times. Heaven was understood in a physical sense as a series of inverted bowls protecting the earth from the waters above (Gen. 1:6-7). For the heavens to open would be an extremely threatening experience because the waters would flood the earth as in Gen. 7:1-10. That would have been interpreted in great fear and awe as an act of God.
In Luke’s description of this moment, the Holy Spirit descended from heaven. As in the Nativity stories, the Spirit has a special role in all of Luke’s narrative too. By the time Luke was writing the gospel, (presumed to be in the late 80s CE) the physical symbol of the Spirit as a dove had come into common use in the early church. The earlier Gospels, Mark and Matthew, were less concrete in saying that it was like a dove. Luke emphasized the physical form of the symbol by the single word “bodily.”
The third image Luke included in this brief incident was the voice of God from heaven. The words were not unique. They had been drawn from a blending of Isaiah 42:1 describing the Servant of God and the royal psalm sung at the coronation of a new king, Psalm 2:7. Jewish tradition held that the king was referred to as both God’s servant and God’s son. That double role was to be what Jesus subsequently undertook as his ministry. It will reappear again and again in Luke’s narrative, as it already had in the message of the angel Gabriel and Mary’s Song (Luke 1:35; 46-55). And quite intentionally so. In these two verses Luke was reiterating who Jesus is and how closely related he is to God.
The baptism was Jesus’ authorization to proceed with his public ministry. It might be seen today as his ordination in the same way that ministers (and/or priests) are set apart by their ordination. In the Roman Catholic tradition, this kind of authorization is regarded as a sacrament. While Protestants do not share the same sacramental meaning of an essentially liturgical act, a person’s baptism can be seen as not only inclusion in the membership of the church but as authorization to be a disciple of Jesus in the world. In ancient times, this was especially true when baptism was primarily for adults.In more recent times and in many Reformed churches, confirmation serves the same purpose for every church member.
In Luke’s gospel, however, whenever Jesus is said to be praying that does have special meaning. Prayer signals that something important is taking place.
In this instance, Sharon Hinge states that Jesus' prayers become "a window to the divine presence.” She notes three images that follow in Luke’s account: the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven announces that God is pleased with Jesus, who is God’s beloved Son.
Unlike our space age understanding of what is ‘up there,’ heaven had special meaning in biblical times. Heaven was understood in a physical sense as a series of inverted bowls protecting the earth from the waters above (Gen. 1:6-7). For the heavens to open would be an extremely threatening experience because the waters would flood the earth as in Gen. 7:1-10. That would have been interpreted in great fear and awe as an act of God.
In Luke’s description of this moment, the Holy Spirit descended from heaven. As in the Nativity stories, the Spirit has a special role in all of Luke’s narrative too. By the time Luke was writing the gospel, (presumed to be in the late 80s CE) the physical symbol of the Spirit as a dove had come into common use in the early church. The earlier Gospels, Mark and Matthew, were less concrete in saying that it was like a dove. Luke emphasized the physical form of the symbol by the single word “bodily.”
The third image Luke included in this brief incident was the voice of God from heaven. The words were not unique. They had been drawn from a blending of Isaiah 42:1 describing the Servant of God and the royal psalm sung at the coronation of a new king, Psalm 2:7. Jewish tradition held that the king was referred to as both God’s servant and God’s son. That double role was to be what Jesus subsequently undertook as his ministry. It will reappear again and again in Luke’s narrative, as it already had in the message of the angel Gabriel and Mary’s Song (Luke 1:35; 46-55). And quite intentionally so. In these two verses Luke was reiterating who Jesus is and how closely related he is to God.
The baptism was Jesus’ authorization to proceed with his public ministry. It might be seen today as his ordination in the same way that ministers (and/or priests) are set apart by their ordination. In the Roman Catholic tradition, this kind of authorization is regarded as a sacrament. While Protestants do not share the same sacramental meaning of an essentially liturgical act, a person’s baptism can be seen as not only inclusion in the membership of the church but as authorization to be a disciple of Jesus in the world. In ancient times, this was especially true when baptism was primarily for adults.In more recent times and in many Reformed churches, confirmation serves the same purpose for every church member.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
1 - A Time of Preparation
As he did when he began the Nativity story, Luke began the narrative of Jesus ministry by attempting to provide a historical setting. But he was quite mistaken about specific details. His references in 3:1-2 do not fit into a period of less than five years, from 25-30 CE. Moreover, he named two high priests, Annas and Caiaphas as holding that sacred office simultaneously. That was impossible in the Jewish tradition.
This last puzzle remains despite considerable ingenuity being expended to resolve it. The best guess is to regard Luke’s collation of several names of Roman governors, puppet kings and the two high priests as his way of setting his account of Jesus’ ministry as being of public significance. As Sharon H. Ringe stated in her excellent study of the Gospel which will guide our study, “He establishes the relevant context of his account as the double system of authority - Empire and temple - that prevailed in Palestine.” (Ringe, Sharon H. Luke. Westminster Bible Companion Series, 1995.)
Another feature of Luke’s style similar to the birth narrative was his way of telling of John the Baptist prior to but in parallel with significant incidents in the life of Jesus. But that went only for a preparatory period until John had baptized Jesus and was imprisoned by Herod Antipas (3:20-22).
Apparently John carried on his prophetic ministry only near the Jordan River in the region of Judea. Recent archeological research has located two possible sites, one on the western bank of the river in Israel and the other on the eastern bank in Jordan. This wilderness location has theological significance because it brings to mind the ancient tradition of Israel’s forty years wandering and testing prior to crossing the Jordan to the Promised Land “as a new people, chosen and precious to God.”
The Baptist’s preaching of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” recalled the prophetic words of Isaiah 40:3-5. Baptism, however, was not part of Jewish tradition. They practiced repeated ritual bathing as a sign of moral and spiritual cleansing. Total immersion in baptism symbolized the reorientation of one’s life to the will and purposes of God. It did not yet mean the entry into a new religious institution as it became later in the history of the Christian church.
John's preaching also included a significant measure of divine judgment. Almost every prophet proclaimed that in the Old Testament. John’s utterance of it were still too strong a condemnation for many to hear. He countered potential objections by denouncing even their heritage as Abraham’s descendants. When the crowds asked him for an alternative, he gave them very clear directives reminiscent of the social justice proclaimed by the great 8th century BCE prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah.
When people wondered if he was the Messiah, John gave a clear distinction between his role and that of “the one who is to come”: the Holy Spirit.
This last puzzle remains despite considerable ingenuity being expended to resolve it. The best guess is to regard Luke’s collation of several names of Roman governors, puppet kings and the two high priests as his way of setting his account of Jesus’ ministry as being of public significance. As Sharon H. Ringe stated in her excellent study of the Gospel which will guide our study, “He establishes the relevant context of his account as the double system of authority - Empire and temple - that prevailed in Palestine.” (Ringe, Sharon H. Luke. Westminster Bible Companion Series, 1995.)
Another feature of Luke’s style similar to the birth narrative was his way of telling of John the Baptist prior to but in parallel with significant incidents in the life of Jesus. But that went only for a preparatory period until John had baptized Jesus and was imprisoned by Herod Antipas (3:20-22).
Apparently John carried on his prophetic ministry only near the Jordan River in the region of Judea. Recent archeological research has located two possible sites, one on the western bank of the river in Israel and the other on the eastern bank in Jordan. This wilderness location has theological significance because it brings to mind the ancient tradition of Israel’s forty years wandering and testing prior to crossing the Jordan to the Promised Land “as a new people, chosen and precious to God.”
The Baptist’s preaching of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” recalled the prophetic words of Isaiah 40:3-5. Baptism, however, was not part of Jewish tradition. They practiced repeated ritual bathing as a sign of moral and spiritual cleansing. Total immersion in baptism symbolized the reorientation of one’s life to the will and purposes of God. It did not yet mean the entry into a new religious institution as it became later in the history of the Christian church.
John's preaching also included a significant measure of divine judgment. Almost every prophet proclaimed that in the Old Testament. John’s utterance of it were still too strong a condemnation for many to hear. He countered potential objections by denouncing even their heritage as Abraham’s descendants. When the crowds asked him for an alternative, he gave them very clear directives reminiscent of the social justice proclaimed by the great 8th century BCE prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah.
When people wondered if he was the Messiah, John gave a clear distinction between his role and that of “the one who is to come”: the Holy Spirit.
A New Start.
There is an interesting background to this blog. It began several years ago as a series of weekly Bible studies with a group of seniors in Glen Abbey United Church, in Oakville, Ontario. From eight to twelve people gathered each Tuesday morning for a two hour session with whatever biblical subject or book they found interesting or had been suggested by the author of this blog.
As the series continued from October to April each year, the enthusiasm of the members grew. As the autumn leaves turned from green to gold, one or another member would approach me with the question,"When do we start again?" Over the years, we have dealt with a variety of themes and texts drawn from our Christian heritage. Some of those studies have appeared as other blogs which can still be addressed by anyone interested.
After completing studies of The Nativity of Jesus and The Passion during the past two years in keeping with the appropriate seasaon of the Christian year, the group decided to focus on The Ministry of Jesus as described in the Gospel of Luke. The introductory notes for each session have formed the basis for this blog.
Generally speaking, our discussions ranged far and wide from the actual words of the gospel to the historical and exegetical background of the text to the relevance for a particular passage in our lives and times.
We have not studied in ignorance. As leader I have drawn on many resources in my own library gathered over the past sixty years of ministry and any available wherever they could be found, especially on the ever-present Internet. We have also followed the excellent study of Luke published in the Westminster Bible Companion Series by Sharon H. Ringe (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.) This volume, entitled simply Luke, has given our group some valuable insights into the text itself, the life and times of Jesus' ministry in Galilee as well as the historical background of later first century CE period in which Luke's Gospel was composed. We can only thank the author and editors of this series for the excellence with which they have made available such clear and useful material for biblical study to ordinary enthusiasts like our small group.
Ir remains only to add that our studies introduced in the subsequent entries to this blog may be used by anyone or any group wishing to enjoy the fruits of the Spirit's guidance in opening to Bible at a deeper and more practical level. As Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote in his latest book, Eternal Life: A New Vision Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell (HarperOne, 2009): "The goal of all religion is not to prepare us to enter the next life; it is a call to live now, to love now, to be now and in that way to taste what it means to be part of a life that is eternal, a love that is barrier free and the being of a fully self-conscious humanity."
As the series continued from October to April each year, the enthusiasm of the members grew. As the autumn leaves turned from green to gold, one or another member would approach me with the question,"When do we start again?" Over the years, we have dealt with a variety of themes and texts drawn from our Christian heritage. Some of those studies have appeared as other blogs which can still be addressed by anyone interested.
After completing studies of The Nativity of Jesus and The Passion during the past two years in keeping with the appropriate seasaon of the Christian year, the group decided to focus on The Ministry of Jesus as described in the Gospel of Luke. The introductory notes for each session have formed the basis for this blog.
Generally speaking, our discussions ranged far and wide from the actual words of the gospel to the historical and exegetical background of the text to the relevance for a particular passage in our lives and times.
We have not studied in ignorance. As leader I have drawn on many resources in my own library gathered over the past sixty years of ministry and any available wherever they could be found, especially on the ever-present Internet. We have also followed the excellent study of Luke published in the Westminster Bible Companion Series by Sharon H. Ringe (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.) This volume, entitled simply Luke, has given our group some valuable insights into the text itself, the life and times of Jesus' ministry in Galilee as well as the historical background of later first century CE period in which Luke's Gospel was composed. We can only thank the author and editors of this series for the excellence with which they have made available such clear and useful material for biblical study to ordinary enthusiasts like our small group.
Ir remains only to add that our studies introduced in the subsequent entries to this blog may be used by anyone or any group wishing to enjoy the fruits of the Spirit's guidance in opening to Bible at a deeper and more practical level. As Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote in his latest book, Eternal Life: A New Vision Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell (HarperOne, 2009): "The goal of all religion is not to prepare us to enter the next life; it is a call to live now, to love now, to be now and in that way to taste what it means to be part of a life that is eternal, a love that is barrier free and the being of a fully self-conscious humanity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)