Josepheus, the Jewish historian of first century Palestine, comments that Jesus was known for performing many marvelous deeds. In the New Testament, Jesus performs seven exorcisms, cures fourteen diseases, works eight nature miracles, and raises three people from the dead. I am skeptical regarding the historicity of these claims for several reasons. We will examine the issue using stories from Luke.
The first point is that the ancient world looked differently on this issue than we do. The question for ancients was not whether miracles took place, but rather who was performing them. Miracles were associated with great religious figures. They offered proof that God was working through this person. Jesus could not be a great religious figure in the first century unless he performed miracles.
Moses, Elijah, and Elisha of Old Testament fame were seen as miracle workers. The Rabbi Hana ben Dosa, a contemporary of Jesus, performed similar deeds to Jesus according to the stories written about him. The same is true for Apollonius of Tyana, a pagan and also a contemporary of Jesus. In addition to performing miracles, Apollonius was known for his miraculous birth and resurrection.
In my blog on Luke’s portrait of Jesus as a prophet, I pointed out that Jesus’ cure of the centurion’s servant (Luke 7: 1-10) was patterned after a similar cure by Elisha. His cure of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7: 11-17) was modeled after Elijah. God must be shown to be working through Jesus. In fact, the gospels point out that Jesus was even greater than the Old Testament prophets. That is why Jesus is able to feed five thousand with five loaves while it takes Elisha twenty loaves to feed a hundred (see 2 Kings 4: 42-44).
Do we believe in the historicity of miracle stories for ancient religious figures? If not, why was Jesus different? If we believe them, why have these miracles stopped happening? Why aren’t there recent examples of people being raised from the dead?
It is also important to understand that ancient people knew nothing about the biological causes of disease. Disease was caused by Satan, by evil forces invading the body. Healing was a matter of getting right with God. People sought cures from priests and prophets. Jesus is pictured in the New Testament curing disease, but his cures are always associated with defeating the forces of evil. See Luke 4: 38-41, 5: 17-26, 6:19, 8:2, 9:1-2, 9: 42-43, and 13: 10-17. Jesus did not cure people the same way my son the doctor does. Jesus battled Satan.
Equally troubling from a modern perspective, the descriptions of the cures are vague. We do not have medical opinions to document the disease or to confirm the cure. If a cure takes place, we are given no evidence that it has a lasting effect. As humans who know something about story creation, we also suspect that the oral tradition took unusual events and exaggerated them.
Finally, I have pointed out several cases of where miracle stories were created to make a theological point. All of Jesus’ cures make the point that the battle for the kingdom had begun. The two cures of Luke in chapter 7 cited above signal that Jesus came from the prophetic tradition. Remember the story in Mark where Jesus cures the blind man in two stages (Mark 8: 22-26). I argued in the blog on Mark’s Messianic Secret that the author of Mark creates this story to illustrate his point that the disciples really never understand the significance of Jesus. We will soon examine the gospel of John. The resurrection of Lazarus is the most spectacular story in the New Testament. As you will see in a future blog, the author of John uses the Lazarus story to make the point that Jesus gives new life, a life centered in love. The fact that this amazing story is found only in John is puzzling. If the gospel writers were eye witnesses reporting history, you would expect that this story would be in all four gospels.
As more and more people came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead, stories were created to explain him. That is how ancient biographies were written. The miracle stories make two important points about Jesus: that he was a great religious figure and that the kingdom of God was imminent, that in fact the battle to establish it had begun with the healing work of Jesus to defeat Satan. The fact that the miracle stories about Jesus were more spectacular than stories about other religious figures says something important about the man Jesus. I am comfortable leaving it at that.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Parables in Luke
The parables of Jesus are one of the most precious treasures that he gave us. Parables are more than stories. They are an art form because they take you into the story. The majority of Jesus’ parables concern the kingdom of God. By reading or hearing them, you are taken there. You encounter God, you sense what it means to live in God’s kingdom.
Some of Jesus’ best parables are found only in Luke—the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. This blog will discuss these parables as well as two that Luke takes from Mark—the Sower and the Mustard Seed. Taken together, these five parables present an approach to religion that is life enhancing, a stance that makes Jesus relevant for the ages.
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37) is well known. An inquiring lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds by saying that the man must keep the two great commandments to love God and neighbor. The man then follows up by asking Jesus to define what he means by neighbor. Who is my neighbor? The Good Samaritan is Jesus’ answer to that question.
A man is traveling between Jerusalem and Jericho who falls into the hands of brigands. The brigands rob him, beat him, and leave him by the side of the road. The first person to see the victim is a priest who passes him by. The priest is followed by a Levite, an assistant priest, who also passes him by. The victim is finally saved by a Samaritan who takes compassion on him.
What is fascinating about this story and shocking to Jews of the first century is that the victim is saved by a Samaritan. Jews hated Samaritans. They considered them to be mortal enemies and unclean. Samaritans lived in central Palestine between Judea on the south and Galilee on the north. They accepted only the first five books of the Jewish scriptures, and worshipped Yahweh in their own temple on Mount Gerizim.
The answer to the man’s question is that your neighbor is the one you find in need, but this parable is about far more than Christian ethics. The kingdom of God is inclusive—all are invited. It is about reconciliation and reaching out to those who are different. Only love can lead to such reconciliation. Only love can bridge the gap between the Samaritan and the Jew, the Evangelical and the homosexual. Love overturns values and opinions. It produces a revolution in the heart.
The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) is also well known and loved by Christians. A man has two sons. The older one is self-righteous, dutiful, and responsible. The younger one is irresponsible. The younger son asks his father for his inheritance which the father gives him. The son then leaves the father’s estate and squanders the inheritance with high living. In desperation, this wayward son returns to his father, ask his forgiveness, and to work as his servant. When father and son meet, there is no lecture from the father. Instead the father throws his arms around his son and welcomes him home. He throws a big feast to celebrate the fact that his lost son has been found. When the older son sees what has happened, he is mad. He feels cheated. The father tries to mollify the anger of his oldest son, but he cannot contain the overflowing love that he feels for his lost son who has now returned.
The kingdom of God is a feast—a powerful image in a poor, agrarian society. The love of God is unconditional. Her power to forgive is without limits. This parable also lays out the ground rules for the divine/human relationship. A self-righteous perspective doesn’t work. It is ego driven. The younger son’s ego was shattered. He recognized his dependency, his limits as a human being, and his need for God’s love. When the ego is pushed aside in that way, space is created in awareness for God to fill.
The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18: 9-14) makes the same point. The Pharisee is self-righteous, believing all the correct things, and acting in proper ways. The Tax Collector is hated. Jews viewed these officials as petty tyrants, traitors, collaborators. From the perspective of Jesus, however, the tax collector is the one who is right with God.
Religion is not about correct belief. A self-righteous perspective inflates ego which leaves no space for God. The tax collector recognized that he was a sinner. He understood his limits as a human being. People who use religion for privilege and power are not right with God. A humble approach to life is the key.
I will conclude with two well known parables that Luke takes from Mark. A sower (Luke: 8:4-15) went out to sow his seed. This beloved story had special resonance for rural people whose lives depended on the skillful sowing of seed. The focus of the parable, however, is not on the sower but the seed. Most of it falls on bad ground with poor results. The seed that falls on good ground in contrast, flourishes. Jesus explains to the listening crowd that the seed is the word of God. The kingdom of God will result not from military force or political action, but the power of love working on the heart. The seed that lands on good soil finds people with a “noble and generous heart who have heard the word and taken it to themselves (15).” The kingdom is all about an inward revolution.
So is the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13: 18-19). A mustard seed is the tiny seed that produces a six foot shrub in one season. The growth is explosive. The kingdom of God is like that. It is here when love explodes in your heart.
The Jesus of these parables could not have been behind the voice of the Son of Man. An apocalypse that seeks revenge against one’s enemies would not create the type of kingdom that Jesus describes in the parable of the sower. The exclusive club that meets in heaven would not include the Samaritan, and thus would not be endorsed by Jesus.
Religion is about love—unconditional love from God and forgiveness. It is life enhancing, not denying, a great feast. The kingdom is an inner realm of the heart where God rules. When God rules with love, it leads to reconciliation, a reaching out to those who are different.
I am quite confident that Jesus preached about a renewed Israel. He was a first century man. That was the fond hope of his contemporaries. That dream ended in 70 CE when Rome brutally destroyed the Jewish nation, slaughtering tens of thousands and scattering those that survived throughout the Hellenistic world. It is time for Christians to get over our fixation with salvation. The teachings on salvation in the New Testament have no relevance to people living in the twenty-first century. What is relevant are these parables in Luke. They present a religion that will transform the individual practitioner and change the world.
Some of Jesus’ best parables are found only in Luke—the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. This blog will discuss these parables as well as two that Luke takes from Mark—the Sower and the Mustard Seed. Taken together, these five parables present an approach to religion that is life enhancing, a stance that makes Jesus relevant for the ages.
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37) is well known. An inquiring lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds by saying that the man must keep the two great commandments to love God and neighbor. The man then follows up by asking Jesus to define what he means by neighbor. Who is my neighbor? The Good Samaritan is Jesus’ answer to that question.
A man is traveling between Jerusalem and Jericho who falls into the hands of brigands. The brigands rob him, beat him, and leave him by the side of the road. The first person to see the victim is a priest who passes him by. The priest is followed by a Levite, an assistant priest, who also passes him by. The victim is finally saved by a Samaritan who takes compassion on him.
What is fascinating about this story and shocking to Jews of the first century is that the victim is saved by a Samaritan. Jews hated Samaritans. They considered them to be mortal enemies and unclean. Samaritans lived in central Palestine between Judea on the south and Galilee on the north. They accepted only the first five books of the Jewish scriptures, and worshipped Yahweh in their own temple on Mount Gerizim.
The answer to the man’s question is that your neighbor is the one you find in need, but this parable is about far more than Christian ethics. The kingdom of God is inclusive—all are invited. It is about reconciliation and reaching out to those who are different. Only love can lead to such reconciliation. Only love can bridge the gap between the Samaritan and the Jew, the Evangelical and the homosexual. Love overturns values and opinions. It produces a revolution in the heart.
The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) is also well known and loved by Christians. A man has two sons. The older one is self-righteous, dutiful, and responsible. The younger one is irresponsible. The younger son asks his father for his inheritance which the father gives him. The son then leaves the father’s estate and squanders the inheritance with high living. In desperation, this wayward son returns to his father, ask his forgiveness, and to work as his servant. When father and son meet, there is no lecture from the father. Instead the father throws his arms around his son and welcomes him home. He throws a big feast to celebrate the fact that his lost son has been found. When the older son sees what has happened, he is mad. He feels cheated. The father tries to mollify the anger of his oldest son, but he cannot contain the overflowing love that he feels for his lost son who has now returned.
The kingdom of God is a feast—a powerful image in a poor, agrarian society. The love of God is unconditional. Her power to forgive is without limits. This parable also lays out the ground rules for the divine/human relationship. A self-righteous perspective doesn’t work. It is ego driven. The younger son’s ego was shattered. He recognized his dependency, his limits as a human being, and his need for God’s love. When the ego is pushed aside in that way, space is created in awareness for God to fill.
The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18: 9-14) makes the same point. The Pharisee is self-righteous, believing all the correct things, and acting in proper ways. The Tax Collector is hated. Jews viewed these officials as petty tyrants, traitors, collaborators. From the perspective of Jesus, however, the tax collector is the one who is right with God.
Religion is not about correct belief. A self-righteous perspective inflates ego which leaves no space for God. The tax collector recognized that he was a sinner. He understood his limits as a human being. People who use religion for privilege and power are not right with God. A humble approach to life is the key.
I will conclude with two well known parables that Luke takes from Mark. A sower (Luke: 8:4-15) went out to sow his seed. This beloved story had special resonance for rural people whose lives depended on the skillful sowing of seed. The focus of the parable, however, is not on the sower but the seed. Most of it falls on bad ground with poor results. The seed that falls on good ground in contrast, flourishes. Jesus explains to the listening crowd that the seed is the word of God. The kingdom of God will result not from military force or political action, but the power of love working on the heart. The seed that lands on good soil finds people with a “noble and generous heart who have heard the word and taken it to themselves (15).” The kingdom is all about an inward revolution.
So is the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13: 18-19). A mustard seed is the tiny seed that produces a six foot shrub in one season. The growth is explosive. The kingdom of God is like that. It is here when love explodes in your heart.
The Jesus of these parables could not have been behind the voice of the Son of Man. An apocalypse that seeks revenge against one’s enemies would not create the type of kingdom that Jesus describes in the parable of the sower. The exclusive club that meets in heaven would not include the Samaritan, and thus would not be endorsed by Jesus.
Religion is about love—unconditional love from God and forgiveness. It is life enhancing, not denying, a great feast. The kingdom is an inner realm of the heart where God rules. When God rules with love, it leads to reconciliation, a reaching out to those who are different.
I am quite confident that Jesus preached about a renewed Israel. He was a first century man. That was the fond hope of his contemporaries. That dream ended in 70 CE when Rome brutally destroyed the Jewish nation, slaughtering tens of thousands and scattering those that survived throughout the Hellenistic world. It is time for Christians to get over our fixation with salvation. The teachings on salvation in the New Testament have no relevance to people living in the twenty-first century. What is relevant are these parables in Luke. They present a religion that will transform the individual practitioner and change the world.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Luke's Kingdom of God
For you, this may have become an old topic. Luke’s views on the coming kingdom of God do not differ appreciably from those presented in Mark and Matthew. I raise the issue again for two reasons. First, Luke’s gospel may provide greater clarity on this complicated issue. Second, I would like you to see the two distinct voices that filter through his gospel.
I argued with regard to Mark and Matthew that the voice of Jesus speaks to the idea of a kingdom on earth. The key idea is that the kingdom is a place where God rules. In some passages there are hints that this place is a country, most probably Israel, which will be governed by a flesh and blood king. In other places, no specific details are given. Here is the evidence for the voice of Jesus as it echoes through Luke’s gospel.
In the virgin birth story (1:32-34), the angel tells Mary that God will give Jesus the throne of David, that he will rule over the house of Jacob. The long excerpt from the prophet Zechariah (1:67-79) reinforces this point. Somewhat later, as the baby Jesus is being presented at the Temple, the prophetess Anna looks forward to Jesus liberating Jerusalem (2:38).
We also see Jesus as he fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah. In 7:18-23, Jesus casts out devils, heals the sick, and gives sight to the blind. This is a sign, according to Isaiah, that the kingdom is imminent. Jesus instructs the disciples of John the Baptist to report these events to John. What is interesting is that Satan is being confronted on earth. The power of evil is being destroyed here. The message is that the first signs of the kingdom are here now as seen in the healing work of Jesus. The disciples are also defeating evil as it exists on earth by casting out devils and healing the sick. It’s an exciting time (see Luke 9:6).
In a similar vein, Jesus instructs his disciples to heal the sick in the towns that welcome them, and to tell them that the kingdom “is near to you (Luke 10: 8-10).” He makes the same point two verses later. When asked a question about the kingdom by the Pharisees (17:20-21), he tells them that the kingdom is not something to observe, but that it is already among you. Without giving details, Jesus implies that the kingdom exists when God rules. This rule is in the process of being established on earth.
After casting out a devil, Jesus gets into a dispute over whose power is enabling him to cast out devils: Beelzebul, the prince of devils, or God (Luke 11: 14-21). He strongly points out that his power comes from God, and that the kingdom is in the process of becoming.
Finally, John the Baptist forecasts a coming apocalypse (3: 7-9). There are hints in the New Testament that Jesus was an early member of John’s movement. The three gospels we have examined claim that Jesus was baptized by John. We also know that Jesus left John’s movement. Sadly, we don’t know why. It makes sense to me that a mean-spirited apocalypse violated the God that Jesus knew in his heart.
There is another voice in Luke that most probably comes from the early Church. This voice has the benefit of hindsight—it comes later. The kingdom espoused by Jesus never materialized, Palestine and Judaism with it were destroyed by Rome in the horrible war of 66 to 73 CE, and the message of Jesus was taken to the Hellenistic world where it was changed. The kingdom expected by Paul and the Hellenistic Church would be ushered in by the Son of Man. It would follow on the heals of a mean-spirited apocalypse in which the world was destroyed. The kingdom of God would be established in heaven. It would be populated by people in transformed, spiritual bodies. Here is the evidence for this second voice.
There are many references to a coming Son of Man in Luke with the strong suggestion that Jesus was this figure (see Luke 5:24, 6: 5, 7:34). A good example of the formula invented by the early Church as a statement of faith comes in Luke 9:22. The Son of Man will be grievously rejected, put to death, and raised on the third day.
The passage in Luke 10: 13-16 expresses several mean-spirited aspects of the apocalypse. In 12: 49-50, Jesus says that he has come to bring fire to the earth, and wishes that the earth were blazing already. Later, he points out that the return of the Son of Man will be like Noah’s flood (17: 22-37). It will be a time of vengeance (Luke 21: 22).
Modern Christians who look forward to these events unfolding should worry whether they will be included. Jesus thanks God that the secrets of heaven will be hidden from the learned and clever (10:21). He later suggests that the process of choosing who will be saved is random (17:35-37). Is this the Jesus that you know and love?
Finally, the kingdom is a place in heaven. See Luke 12: 9. Jesus gives further details in 20: 27-40 where he claims that the bodies of those admitted will be transformed like angels.
As I have pointed out in earlier blogs, the idea of the two voices is speculative. It’s the best I can do after years of trying to understand the issue. However, it is clear that neither voice is relevant to people living in the twenty-first century. Jesus believed he was defeating evil as he cast out devils and healed the sick. It is rather obvious that he did not succeed, that evil, whatever it is, is still around.
Jesus further believed that the kingdom he was working to establish was imminent. The voice of the Church argued that the return of the Son of Man was imminent. See Luke 9:29, 12: 35-40, 19:11, 21: 8-19, and 21: 32. As I also pointed out in an earlier blog, I have studied this question statistically by listing every reference to the kingdom of God in the New Testament. The results are published in my book on Evangelical Christianity. The findings of this study are stark and troubling. There is no credible evidence that the kingdom of God will be delayed. It is the expectation of every New Testament writer that the kingdom is imminent, that it would come within the first century. Jesus was wrong. The early Church was wrong. The ideas about salvation as presented in the New Testament have no relevance for Christians living in the twenty-first century.
There is one additional problem with the voice of the Church. Apocalyptic eschatology is mean-spirited, bent on revenge by a small group of the self-proclaimed righteous against the rest of us. It is the province of an exclusive club. The Jesus I know in my heart would not espouse such views.
You may find that last sentence a little puzzling. If Jesus has no relevance as a salvation figure, what is the point? Don’t miss next week when I try to answer that question by examining the parables in Luke.
I argued with regard to Mark and Matthew that the voice of Jesus speaks to the idea of a kingdom on earth. The key idea is that the kingdom is a place where God rules. In some passages there are hints that this place is a country, most probably Israel, which will be governed by a flesh and blood king. In other places, no specific details are given. Here is the evidence for the voice of Jesus as it echoes through Luke’s gospel.
In the virgin birth story (1:32-34), the angel tells Mary that God will give Jesus the throne of David, that he will rule over the house of Jacob. The long excerpt from the prophet Zechariah (1:67-79) reinforces this point. Somewhat later, as the baby Jesus is being presented at the Temple, the prophetess Anna looks forward to Jesus liberating Jerusalem (2:38).
We also see Jesus as he fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah. In 7:18-23, Jesus casts out devils, heals the sick, and gives sight to the blind. This is a sign, according to Isaiah, that the kingdom is imminent. Jesus instructs the disciples of John the Baptist to report these events to John. What is interesting is that Satan is being confronted on earth. The power of evil is being destroyed here. The message is that the first signs of the kingdom are here now as seen in the healing work of Jesus. The disciples are also defeating evil as it exists on earth by casting out devils and healing the sick. It’s an exciting time (see Luke 9:6).
In a similar vein, Jesus instructs his disciples to heal the sick in the towns that welcome them, and to tell them that the kingdom “is near to you (Luke 10: 8-10).” He makes the same point two verses later. When asked a question about the kingdom by the Pharisees (17:20-21), he tells them that the kingdom is not something to observe, but that it is already among you. Without giving details, Jesus implies that the kingdom exists when God rules. This rule is in the process of being established on earth.
After casting out a devil, Jesus gets into a dispute over whose power is enabling him to cast out devils: Beelzebul, the prince of devils, or God (Luke 11: 14-21). He strongly points out that his power comes from God, and that the kingdom is in the process of becoming.
Finally, John the Baptist forecasts a coming apocalypse (3: 7-9). There are hints in the New Testament that Jesus was an early member of John’s movement. The three gospels we have examined claim that Jesus was baptized by John. We also know that Jesus left John’s movement. Sadly, we don’t know why. It makes sense to me that a mean-spirited apocalypse violated the God that Jesus knew in his heart.
There is another voice in Luke that most probably comes from the early Church. This voice has the benefit of hindsight—it comes later. The kingdom espoused by Jesus never materialized, Palestine and Judaism with it were destroyed by Rome in the horrible war of 66 to 73 CE, and the message of Jesus was taken to the Hellenistic world where it was changed. The kingdom expected by Paul and the Hellenistic Church would be ushered in by the Son of Man. It would follow on the heals of a mean-spirited apocalypse in which the world was destroyed. The kingdom of God would be established in heaven. It would be populated by people in transformed, spiritual bodies. Here is the evidence for this second voice.
There are many references to a coming Son of Man in Luke with the strong suggestion that Jesus was this figure (see Luke 5:24, 6: 5, 7:34). A good example of the formula invented by the early Church as a statement of faith comes in Luke 9:22. The Son of Man will be grievously rejected, put to death, and raised on the third day.
The passage in Luke 10: 13-16 expresses several mean-spirited aspects of the apocalypse. In 12: 49-50, Jesus says that he has come to bring fire to the earth, and wishes that the earth were blazing already. Later, he points out that the return of the Son of Man will be like Noah’s flood (17: 22-37). It will be a time of vengeance (Luke 21: 22).
Modern Christians who look forward to these events unfolding should worry whether they will be included. Jesus thanks God that the secrets of heaven will be hidden from the learned and clever (10:21). He later suggests that the process of choosing who will be saved is random (17:35-37). Is this the Jesus that you know and love?
Finally, the kingdom is a place in heaven. See Luke 12: 9. Jesus gives further details in 20: 27-40 where he claims that the bodies of those admitted will be transformed like angels.
As I have pointed out in earlier blogs, the idea of the two voices is speculative. It’s the best I can do after years of trying to understand the issue. However, it is clear that neither voice is relevant to people living in the twenty-first century. Jesus believed he was defeating evil as he cast out devils and healed the sick. It is rather obvious that he did not succeed, that evil, whatever it is, is still around.
Jesus further believed that the kingdom he was working to establish was imminent. The voice of the Church argued that the return of the Son of Man was imminent. See Luke 9:29, 12: 35-40, 19:11, 21: 8-19, and 21: 32. As I also pointed out in an earlier blog, I have studied this question statistically by listing every reference to the kingdom of God in the New Testament. The results are published in my book on Evangelical Christianity. The findings of this study are stark and troubling. There is no credible evidence that the kingdom of God will be delayed. It is the expectation of every New Testament writer that the kingdom is imminent, that it would come within the first century. Jesus was wrong. The early Church was wrong. The ideas about salvation as presented in the New Testament have no relevance for Christians living in the twenty-first century.
There is one additional problem with the voice of the Church. Apocalyptic eschatology is mean-spirited, bent on revenge by a small group of the self-proclaimed righteous against the rest of us. It is the province of an exclusive club. The Jesus I know in my heart would not espouse such views.
You may find that last sentence a little puzzling. If Jesus has no relevance as a salvation figure, what is the point? Don’t miss next week when I try to answer that question by examining the parables in Luke.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Luke's Portrait of Jesus the Prophet
Who was Jesus? According to Luke, he was the son of God, and the last prophet of Israel, the man sent by God to announce the imminent approach of the kingdom.
Luke’s ancient biography of Jesus was well written. He lays out his case immediately in the virgin birth story. A comparison of the ancestry of Jesus in Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38) is informative. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage to Abraham, the father of Israel. His was a Jewish gospel. Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry to Adam and finally to God. This is a gospel for the entire world, the link to Adam, and it is the story of God’s son.
To understand the purpose of the virgin birth story in Luke, we must first admit that it is a work of fiction. As I pointed out in discussing Matthew’s virgin birth story, the two stories share nothing in common with the exception of the characters. Luke’s story is contrived from the outset. It is based on the premise of a worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus that takes a pregnant Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. The prophet Micah (5:2) specified that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. To announce to his readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah, it was important that the birth take place in Bethlehem. The problem is that a worldwide census was never order by Caesar Augustus. Luke’s story is inspired by a Syrian census that was conducted when Jesus was ten years old.
Once we accept the fact that the story is a work of fiction, we can ask the important question of why it was written. The point was to proclaim Jesus as the final prophet of Israel. To do this, Luke patterns his story after the birth of the prophet Samuel (read 1 Samuel 1:9-2: 6). In the Samuel story, a barren woman gives birth to a future prophet as a result of divine intervention. The Magnificat (Luke 1: 46-55) is clearly inspired by the hymn of Hannah (1 Samuel 2: 1-10). The birth of Jesus is also linked to the birth of John the Baptist, a prophet in the tradition of Elijah (Luke 1: 17). Ancient Jews believed that Elijah’s return would presage the coming Messiah. Any first century Jew reading or hearing this story would immediately pick up the signals that this was a story about Jesus the prophet.
The next piece of evidence comes from the story where Jesus is rejected in Nazareth (Luke 4: 14-5:16). I have already pointed out in introducing Luke that this is a fictional story. Although it is likely that Jesus spoke in his hometown, the events depicted in the story could not have taken place in the tiny village of Nazareth.
Luke takes this story from Mark (see Mark 6: 1-6). What is significant is the material Luke adds to the story. When Jesus speaks in the synagogue, he reads from the prophet Isaiah. He concludes the reading with the claim that the prophecy from Isaiah was being fulfilled even as he was speaking. The crowd was duly impressed, sensing that they were in the presence of a great prophet.
Luke’s last addition to the story creates trouble. Jesus tells the audience of two examples where God sent Elijah and Elisha on missions to Gentiles rather than to Israel. The implication is that this is what Jesus has been commissioned to do. The people feel threatened by Jesus’ comments, and they try to throw him off a cliff. It seems clear that Luke shapes this story to serve his own agenda of proclaiming Jesus as a prophet.
Next, we have two miracle stories that only appear in Luke. In the first story (Luke 7: 1-10), Jesus heals the slave of a Gentile centurion through the intercession of Jewish elders. This miracle is modeled after a similar miracle performed by Elisha (see 2 Kings 5: 1-14) where Elisha heals a Syrian general through the intercession of a young Jewish girl.
In the second story, Jesus raises back to life the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7: 11-15). This miracle is patterned after Elijah who raised the son of the widow of Zarephath (see 1 Kings 17: 17-24). Luke concludes his story with the same words used in the Elijah story, “and he gave him to his mother (7: 16).” What is significant is that the witnesses to Jesus’ miracles understand the parallels immediately and proclaim, “A great prophet has appeared among us (Luke 7: 16).”
According to Luke’s account, Jesus dies as a prophet. By tradition, prophets of Israel speak threatening messages which result in their deaths. Jesus associates himself with this tradition in Luke 13: 34-35.
When Jesus expels the dealers from the Temple, an act that leads to his death, he functions as a prophet. The words, “my house will be a house of prayer” (Isaiah 56:7), and “But you, have turned it into a robbers’ den” (Jeremiah 7:11), are taken from two prophets. The Temple will not be reformed. It will be destroyed (Luke 21: 5-7). This is the gloomy message of a prophet. In this gospel, Jesus does not die for others as an atoning sacrifice for sin, but he dies as a prophet to draw attention to his message.
We also need to examine the immediate events surrounding Jesus’ death. In Mark, as I explained in an earlier blog, the veil of the Temple is torn asunder at the precise moment when Jesus dies (Mark 15: 37), symbolizing the idea that Jesus’ death provides unmediated access to God. In Luke, the veil is torn before Jesus dies, as darkness descends on the land (Luke 22: 44-46—read this passage carefully!), a symbol of impending doom and prophetic judgment.
Finally, our centurion sees Jesus’ death somewhat differently. In Mark and Matthew, he proclaims Jesus to be the son of God. In Luke, the centurion sees Jesus as a prophet, as “a great and a good man (23:48).”
Luke does not miss an opportunity. His story of the resurrection is filled with illusions to Jesus as prophet. When Jesus meets Cleopas on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24: 13-20), Cleopas and his companion do not recognize the resurrected Jesus. In their encounter, Jesus asks them what they were talking about. Cleopas responds that they were discussing Jesus of Nazareth “who proved he was a great prophet by the things he said and did (24: 20).” This story is only found in Luke.
In Luke, the resurrected Jesus meets his disciples in a home in Jerusalem. In Matthew, this meeting takes place on a mountain top in Galilee (see Matthew 28: 16-20). For his final instructions, Jesus tells his disciples to remain in Jerusalem because that is where God will launch his kingdom (24: 44-49). The focus on Jerusalem makes sense because Jerusalem was the city of prophets.
The gospel of Luke is ancient biography, not history. The stories discussed above are unique to Luke or, if taken from Mark, presented with a spin that is unique to Luke. Taken as a whole, this creative editorial work paints a distinctive picture of Jesus. That is how ancient biography was written. To claim that much of Luke is a work of fiction is a threatening idea only if it relates to the gospel of Luke. Fortunately, all ancient biographies were written this way. Authors did not have hard historical data to work with. Instead they had stories handed down through an oral tradition.
The gospel of Luke was written sixty years after the death of Jesus in an unknown place that was clearly a long way from Palestine. The author did not have newspaper clippings, television feeds, interviews with Jesus, or interviews with people involved in the events described. Instead, he had several conflicting stories to choose from, stories shaped by the oral tradition. Unfortunately, many of these conflicting stories have been hidden from us. Stories with a Jewish spin, with the exception of Matthew, were destroyed in the Roman invasion of 66-73 CE. Gnostic stories (the subject of a future blog) were suppressed (burned) by the established Church in the fourth century. Fortunately, some of these Gnostic stories of Jesus were unearthed from an Egyptian cave in 1948. In any event, this diversity of stories gave Luke a lot to choose from.
What is remarkable about Luke is what the author claims and what more and more people were coming to believe. Luke claims that Jesus was the son of God, that he was the last prophet of Israel, and that after dying on the cross he came back to physical life to meet with his disciples. There must have been something behind these conflicting stories to survive the oral tradition and to inspire such beliefs.
Luke’s ancient biography of Jesus was well written. He lays out his case immediately in the virgin birth story. A comparison of the ancestry of Jesus in Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38) is informative. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage to Abraham, the father of Israel. His was a Jewish gospel. Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry to Adam and finally to God. This is a gospel for the entire world, the link to Adam, and it is the story of God’s son.
To understand the purpose of the virgin birth story in Luke, we must first admit that it is a work of fiction. As I pointed out in discussing Matthew’s virgin birth story, the two stories share nothing in common with the exception of the characters. Luke’s story is contrived from the outset. It is based on the premise of a worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus that takes a pregnant Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. The prophet Micah (5:2) specified that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. To announce to his readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah, it was important that the birth take place in Bethlehem. The problem is that a worldwide census was never order by Caesar Augustus. Luke’s story is inspired by a Syrian census that was conducted when Jesus was ten years old.
Once we accept the fact that the story is a work of fiction, we can ask the important question of why it was written. The point was to proclaim Jesus as the final prophet of Israel. To do this, Luke patterns his story after the birth of the prophet Samuel (read 1 Samuel 1:9-2: 6). In the Samuel story, a barren woman gives birth to a future prophet as a result of divine intervention. The Magnificat (Luke 1: 46-55) is clearly inspired by the hymn of Hannah (1 Samuel 2: 1-10). The birth of Jesus is also linked to the birth of John the Baptist, a prophet in the tradition of Elijah (Luke 1: 17). Ancient Jews believed that Elijah’s return would presage the coming Messiah. Any first century Jew reading or hearing this story would immediately pick up the signals that this was a story about Jesus the prophet.
The next piece of evidence comes from the story where Jesus is rejected in Nazareth (Luke 4: 14-5:16). I have already pointed out in introducing Luke that this is a fictional story. Although it is likely that Jesus spoke in his hometown, the events depicted in the story could not have taken place in the tiny village of Nazareth.
Luke takes this story from Mark (see Mark 6: 1-6). What is significant is the material Luke adds to the story. When Jesus speaks in the synagogue, he reads from the prophet Isaiah. He concludes the reading with the claim that the prophecy from Isaiah was being fulfilled even as he was speaking. The crowd was duly impressed, sensing that they were in the presence of a great prophet.
Luke’s last addition to the story creates trouble. Jesus tells the audience of two examples where God sent Elijah and Elisha on missions to Gentiles rather than to Israel. The implication is that this is what Jesus has been commissioned to do. The people feel threatened by Jesus’ comments, and they try to throw him off a cliff. It seems clear that Luke shapes this story to serve his own agenda of proclaiming Jesus as a prophet.
Next, we have two miracle stories that only appear in Luke. In the first story (Luke 7: 1-10), Jesus heals the slave of a Gentile centurion through the intercession of Jewish elders. This miracle is modeled after a similar miracle performed by Elisha (see 2 Kings 5: 1-14) where Elisha heals a Syrian general through the intercession of a young Jewish girl.
In the second story, Jesus raises back to life the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7: 11-15). This miracle is patterned after Elijah who raised the son of the widow of Zarephath (see 1 Kings 17: 17-24). Luke concludes his story with the same words used in the Elijah story, “and he gave him to his mother (7: 16).” What is significant is that the witnesses to Jesus’ miracles understand the parallels immediately and proclaim, “A great prophet has appeared among us (Luke 7: 16).”
According to Luke’s account, Jesus dies as a prophet. By tradition, prophets of Israel speak threatening messages which result in their deaths. Jesus associates himself with this tradition in Luke 13: 34-35.
When Jesus expels the dealers from the Temple, an act that leads to his death, he functions as a prophet. The words, “my house will be a house of prayer” (Isaiah 56:7), and “But you, have turned it into a robbers’ den” (Jeremiah 7:11), are taken from two prophets. The Temple will not be reformed. It will be destroyed (Luke 21: 5-7). This is the gloomy message of a prophet. In this gospel, Jesus does not die for others as an atoning sacrifice for sin, but he dies as a prophet to draw attention to his message.
We also need to examine the immediate events surrounding Jesus’ death. In Mark, as I explained in an earlier blog, the veil of the Temple is torn asunder at the precise moment when Jesus dies (Mark 15: 37), symbolizing the idea that Jesus’ death provides unmediated access to God. In Luke, the veil is torn before Jesus dies, as darkness descends on the land (Luke 22: 44-46—read this passage carefully!), a symbol of impending doom and prophetic judgment.
Finally, our centurion sees Jesus’ death somewhat differently. In Mark and Matthew, he proclaims Jesus to be the son of God. In Luke, the centurion sees Jesus as a prophet, as “a great and a good man (23:48).”
Luke does not miss an opportunity. His story of the resurrection is filled with illusions to Jesus as prophet. When Jesus meets Cleopas on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24: 13-20), Cleopas and his companion do not recognize the resurrected Jesus. In their encounter, Jesus asks them what they were talking about. Cleopas responds that they were discussing Jesus of Nazareth “who proved he was a great prophet by the things he said and did (24: 20).” This story is only found in Luke.
In Luke, the resurrected Jesus meets his disciples in a home in Jerusalem. In Matthew, this meeting takes place on a mountain top in Galilee (see Matthew 28: 16-20). For his final instructions, Jesus tells his disciples to remain in Jerusalem because that is where God will launch his kingdom (24: 44-49). The focus on Jerusalem makes sense because Jerusalem was the city of prophets.
The gospel of Luke is ancient biography, not history. The stories discussed above are unique to Luke or, if taken from Mark, presented with a spin that is unique to Luke. Taken as a whole, this creative editorial work paints a distinctive picture of Jesus. That is how ancient biography was written. To claim that much of Luke is a work of fiction is a threatening idea only if it relates to the gospel of Luke. Fortunately, all ancient biographies were written this way. Authors did not have hard historical data to work with. Instead they had stories handed down through an oral tradition.
The gospel of Luke was written sixty years after the death of Jesus in an unknown place that was clearly a long way from Palestine. The author did not have newspaper clippings, television feeds, interviews with Jesus, or interviews with people involved in the events described. Instead, he had several conflicting stories to choose from, stories shaped by the oral tradition. Unfortunately, many of these conflicting stories have been hidden from us. Stories with a Jewish spin, with the exception of Matthew, were destroyed in the Roman invasion of 66-73 CE. Gnostic stories (the subject of a future blog) were suppressed (burned) by the established Church in the fourth century. Fortunately, some of these Gnostic stories of Jesus were unearthed from an Egyptian cave in 1948. In any event, this diversity of stories gave Luke a lot to choose from.
What is remarkable about Luke is what the author claims and what more and more people were coming to believe. Luke claims that Jesus was the son of God, that he was the last prophet of Israel, and that after dying on the cross he came back to physical life to meet with his disciples. There must have been something behind these conflicting stories to survive the oral tradition and to inspire such beliefs.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Introduction to Luke
There is a general consensus among New Testament scholars that the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author. Acts begins with the words, “In my earlier work.” Both works are dedicated to Theophilus, an unknown person who may have been a Roman official. There are striking similarities in grammatical style, and the vocabulary used in the two books. The two works also represent a logical progression. Luke presents the story of Jesus, and Acts that of the early church. The next five blogs are concerned with the gospel of Luke.
We know little about the author. The fact that the earliest manuscripts are written in Greek suggests that the author was an educated Greek. We also know that he was not an eye witness to the events he writes about because he admits that his material comes from the oral tradition (see 1: 1-4).
The Greek origin of the gospel is further supported by the fact that, like Mark, the author displays confusion about the setting of Palestine. When Jesus preaches in Nazareth (4: 16-30), he addresses a crowd in a synagogue. Because his message is threatening, the crowd attempts to throw him off a cliff. There are three problems here. First, Nazareth has no cliffs. Second, archeological studies of Nazareth indicate that the first synagogue was not constructed until 200 CE. Finally, Nazareth was a tiny village making it unlikely that a speaker would attract a crowd.
The consensus estimate for the time of writing is 90 CE. This date is supported by the fact that 35% of the material found in Luke comes from Mark. The author also corrects mistakes found in Mark. When Jesus appears before Pilate (23: 13-25), the crowds demand that he free Barabbas. Pilate eventually gives into these demands, but no claim is made that there was a precedent for freeing a prisoner during Passover. Mark’s claim that such a precedent existed is not historically accurate. You might also read the Lament of Jerusalem (19: 41-44) and the Siege of Jerusalem (21: 20-24). These passages echo (see the blog that introduces Mark) the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70CE.
As I indicated above, 35% of the material in Luke comes from Mark. The Q gospel (see the blog that introduces Matthew) represents 20% of the material, with 45% coming from sources unique to Luke. The material that is unique to Luke provides for much of the distinctive flavor of the gospel. The miracle stories and parables only found in Luke are subjects of future blogs.
You cannot read the gospel of Luke without sensing that this gospel was written for the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden. In the Magnificat (1: 46-55), Mary sings to the poor and lowly. When Jesus is born, he is visited by lowly shepherds rather than wise men. You also see a clever pattern of editorial change. In the Beatitudes (6:20), the poor are blessed rather than the poor in spirit. The author also changes the parable of the invited guests (14: 15-24). After the first invited guests turn down the invitation with excuses, the master tells the servant to invite the poor, the blind, the crippled, and the lame. Compare this rendering of the story with Matthew 22: 1-14.
It is also possible that Luke was written as an apology to the Romans. Theophilus may have been a Roman official. For whatever reason, the author makes clear that Pilate’s hand was forced in arresting Jesus. He declares Jesus to be innocent three times (23: 2-25). The blame for Jesus’ death is placed squarely on the Jewish elite (19: 47-48). The point here may have been that Rome has nothing to worry about with these early Christians.
Finally, the city of Jerusalem plays a prominent role in Luke’s story. The author mentions Jerusalem thirty-three times which is more than the other three gospels combined. Prophets focus their activity in Jerusalem. As I will explain next week, Luke’s gospel is the story of how God’s prophet is rejected by the Jews with the result that salvation is given to the Gentiles.
We know little about the author. The fact that the earliest manuscripts are written in Greek suggests that the author was an educated Greek. We also know that he was not an eye witness to the events he writes about because he admits that his material comes from the oral tradition (see 1: 1-4).
The Greek origin of the gospel is further supported by the fact that, like Mark, the author displays confusion about the setting of Palestine. When Jesus preaches in Nazareth (4: 16-30), he addresses a crowd in a synagogue. Because his message is threatening, the crowd attempts to throw him off a cliff. There are three problems here. First, Nazareth has no cliffs. Second, archeological studies of Nazareth indicate that the first synagogue was not constructed until 200 CE. Finally, Nazareth was a tiny village making it unlikely that a speaker would attract a crowd.
The consensus estimate for the time of writing is 90 CE. This date is supported by the fact that 35% of the material found in Luke comes from Mark. The author also corrects mistakes found in Mark. When Jesus appears before Pilate (23: 13-25), the crowds demand that he free Barabbas. Pilate eventually gives into these demands, but no claim is made that there was a precedent for freeing a prisoner during Passover. Mark’s claim that such a precedent existed is not historically accurate. You might also read the Lament of Jerusalem (19: 41-44) and the Siege of Jerusalem (21: 20-24). These passages echo (see the blog that introduces Mark) the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70CE.
As I indicated above, 35% of the material in Luke comes from Mark. The Q gospel (see the blog that introduces Matthew) represents 20% of the material, with 45% coming from sources unique to Luke. The material that is unique to Luke provides for much of the distinctive flavor of the gospel. The miracle stories and parables only found in Luke are subjects of future blogs.
You cannot read the gospel of Luke without sensing that this gospel was written for the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden. In the Magnificat (1: 46-55), Mary sings to the poor and lowly. When Jesus is born, he is visited by lowly shepherds rather than wise men. You also see a clever pattern of editorial change. In the Beatitudes (6:20), the poor are blessed rather than the poor in spirit. The author also changes the parable of the invited guests (14: 15-24). After the first invited guests turn down the invitation with excuses, the master tells the servant to invite the poor, the blind, the crippled, and the lame. Compare this rendering of the story with Matthew 22: 1-14.
It is also possible that Luke was written as an apology to the Romans. Theophilus may have been a Roman official. For whatever reason, the author makes clear that Pilate’s hand was forced in arresting Jesus. He declares Jesus to be innocent three times (23: 2-25). The blame for Jesus’ death is placed squarely on the Jewish elite (19: 47-48). The point here may have been that Rome has nothing to worry about with these early Christians.
Finally, the city of Jerusalem plays a prominent role in Luke’s story. The author mentions Jerusalem thirty-three times which is more than the other three gospels combined. Prophets focus their activity in Jerusalem. As I will explain next week, Luke’s gospel is the story of how God’s prophet is rejected by the Jews with the result that salvation is given to the Gentiles.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Matthew: Odds and Ends
The Birth in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:6). The prophet Micah (5.2) predicts that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. This is one reason the author of Matthew created his virgin birth story. The Messiah could not be born in Nazareth. He also wanted to make the point that Jesus was a great religious figure. This part of the story is inspired by the legends surrounding the births of some Roman emperors. In these stories, god traveled to earth to impregnate a human mother. Although the historical facts of Matthew’s story are unlikely to be true, the author succeeds in making his point. Jesus was a great religious figure.
The Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 3:2) The author of Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven about thirty times in his gospel. The fact that he substitutes the term heaven for God reflects the Jewish reluctance to cite the name of God. It was too sacred a name to mention. This small change illustrates the Jewish roots of the gospel. Matthew’s audience was a group of Jewish Christians.
Effective Prayer (Matthew 7: 7-11) “Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you.” As I confessed in the blog on the Sermon on the Mount, I have asked God to make me a more loving person, and not much seems to have changed. I have prayed for friends with cancer, and they have died. “For the one who asks always receives.” Sadly, I can’t believe that, which has led me to conclude that God does not act in the world in any way that humans can know or understand. We so often give God the benefit of the doubt. When good things happen, God answers prayer. When bad things happen, we look for another explanation. I think the most honest answer is to say that God leaves us alone to our own devices. This fact is a great gift of love.
False Prophets (Matthew 7:16) You can tell false prophets by their fruits. This is a wonderful teaching. Religion has nothing to do with correct belief. If a person isn’t loving, that person doesn’t get it.
Disciples Go to Israel (Matthew 10: 5-8) Jesus sends the disciples out to the lost sheep of Israel with a warning to stay out of pagan territory. Toward the end of the gospel, Jesus says that the gospel will be proclaimed to the whole world (24: 14), and he instructs his disciples on the mountain in Galilee to make disciples of all the nations (28: 19). These statements appear to be contradictory. A possible solution is to suggest that two voices echo through the gospel—that of Jesus, the first voice cited above, and the early church.
Along these lines, it is interesting to note that Jesus focuses his ministry exclusively on rural areas—in the small towns and villages along the Sea of Galilee. Jews lived in these rural areas, Gentiles were located in urban areas. The gospel record suggests that Jesus purposely avoided urban areas where Gentiles resided.
This deliberate strategy supports the idea that Jesus’ message of salvation was directed at Israel. Paul and the early Church in the Hellenistic world changed the message to include Gentiles.
The Son of Man is not God (Matthew 12:32). The authors of the Trinity seem to have missed this passage in Matthew.
Joseph’s Son (Matthew 13: 55). Jesus goes to Nazareth, and the people there see him as Joseph’s son, with several brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. I wonder what Church theologians do with this passage.
On Clean and Unclean (Matthew 15: 10-20). In the Odds and Ends blog for Mark, I commented on the conflict stories involving the Pharisees. The purpose of these stories is to suggest that the Pharisees played a role in Jesus’ death. I indicated then that these stories are probably not historical, and that Rome and the Jewish elite were responsible for the death of Jesus.
The discussion of Jewish purity rules in Matthew helps to make this point. The author of Matthew turns the discussion into a major confrontation with the Pharisees.
The problem with this is that rules regarding what was clean are no big deal. Everyone was unclean from time-to-time. A male and female after intercourse were unclean, a woman during the time of her period was believed to be unclean. The solution was simple. One became clean from immersion in a pool, and waiting until sunset. It was then possible to enter the Temple. This issue reminds me of my mother going to great lengths to dress me for church as a young boy.
When Jesus teaches that eating with unwashed hands does not make a person unclean but that cleanliness is a matter of the health of one’s heart, he is not attacking the essence of Judaism. Rather he is making an interesting ethical point. Such an argument would not shock or infuriate the Pharisees. They might not agree with him, but disputes of this nature were common within the family of Judaism.
A Mother’s Request (Matthew 20: 20-22). The mother of the sons of Zebedee asks Jesus to allow her two sons to sit, one at his right hand and the other at his left hand, in the kingdom. Compare this with Mark 10: 35-38 where the two sons make the same request. Matthew has a higher view of the disciples than Mark. In Matthew’s gospel, the disciples eventually get it.
The Coming Apocalypse (Matthew 24:20). When the apocalypse comes, Jesus instructs his listeners to, “pray that you will not have to escape in the winter or on a Sabbath.” Compare this with Mark’s version in 13:18. Matthew adds the words “on a Sabbath,” again reflecting the Jewish Christian audience for his gospel. This is the work of an editor.
The Treachery of Judas (Matthew 26: 47-56). The story of Jesus’ arrest is a strange one. Judas tells the chief priests and elders that he will kiss Jesus in order to identify him. Why was this necessary? Jesus and the Jewish elite are seen fighting throughout Matthew’s gospel. They surely knew each other. What probably happened was that Judas told them that Jesus would destroy the Temple. When the Jewish establishment reported this to the Roman authorities, these authorities arrested him and put him on the cross.
The Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 3:2) The author of Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven about thirty times in his gospel. The fact that he substitutes the term heaven for God reflects the Jewish reluctance to cite the name of God. It was too sacred a name to mention. This small change illustrates the Jewish roots of the gospel. Matthew’s audience was a group of Jewish Christians.
Effective Prayer (Matthew 7: 7-11) “Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you.” As I confessed in the blog on the Sermon on the Mount, I have asked God to make me a more loving person, and not much seems to have changed. I have prayed for friends with cancer, and they have died. “For the one who asks always receives.” Sadly, I can’t believe that, which has led me to conclude that God does not act in the world in any way that humans can know or understand. We so often give God the benefit of the doubt. When good things happen, God answers prayer. When bad things happen, we look for another explanation. I think the most honest answer is to say that God leaves us alone to our own devices. This fact is a great gift of love.
False Prophets (Matthew 7:16) You can tell false prophets by their fruits. This is a wonderful teaching. Religion has nothing to do with correct belief. If a person isn’t loving, that person doesn’t get it.
Disciples Go to Israel (Matthew 10: 5-8) Jesus sends the disciples out to the lost sheep of Israel with a warning to stay out of pagan territory. Toward the end of the gospel, Jesus says that the gospel will be proclaimed to the whole world (24: 14), and he instructs his disciples on the mountain in Galilee to make disciples of all the nations (28: 19). These statements appear to be contradictory. A possible solution is to suggest that two voices echo through the gospel—that of Jesus, the first voice cited above, and the early church.
Along these lines, it is interesting to note that Jesus focuses his ministry exclusively on rural areas—in the small towns and villages along the Sea of Galilee. Jews lived in these rural areas, Gentiles were located in urban areas. The gospel record suggests that Jesus purposely avoided urban areas where Gentiles resided.
This deliberate strategy supports the idea that Jesus’ message of salvation was directed at Israel. Paul and the early Church in the Hellenistic world changed the message to include Gentiles.
The Son of Man is not God (Matthew 12:32). The authors of the Trinity seem to have missed this passage in Matthew.
Joseph’s Son (Matthew 13: 55). Jesus goes to Nazareth, and the people there see him as Joseph’s son, with several brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. I wonder what Church theologians do with this passage.
On Clean and Unclean (Matthew 15: 10-20). In the Odds and Ends blog for Mark, I commented on the conflict stories involving the Pharisees. The purpose of these stories is to suggest that the Pharisees played a role in Jesus’ death. I indicated then that these stories are probably not historical, and that Rome and the Jewish elite were responsible for the death of Jesus.
The discussion of Jewish purity rules in Matthew helps to make this point. The author of Matthew turns the discussion into a major confrontation with the Pharisees.
The problem with this is that rules regarding what was clean are no big deal. Everyone was unclean from time-to-time. A male and female after intercourse were unclean, a woman during the time of her period was believed to be unclean. The solution was simple. One became clean from immersion in a pool, and waiting until sunset. It was then possible to enter the Temple. This issue reminds me of my mother going to great lengths to dress me for church as a young boy.
When Jesus teaches that eating with unwashed hands does not make a person unclean but that cleanliness is a matter of the health of one’s heart, he is not attacking the essence of Judaism. Rather he is making an interesting ethical point. Such an argument would not shock or infuriate the Pharisees. They might not agree with him, but disputes of this nature were common within the family of Judaism.
A Mother’s Request (Matthew 20: 20-22). The mother of the sons of Zebedee asks Jesus to allow her two sons to sit, one at his right hand and the other at his left hand, in the kingdom. Compare this with Mark 10: 35-38 where the two sons make the same request. Matthew has a higher view of the disciples than Mark. In Matthew’s gospel, the disciples eventually get it.
The Coming Apocalypse (Matthew 24:20). When the apocalypse comes, Jesus instructs his listeners to, “pray that you will not have to escape in the winter or on a Sabbath.” Compare this with Mark’s version in 13:18. Matthew adds the words “on a Sabbath,” again reflecting the Jewish Christian audience for his gospel. This is the work of an editor.
The Treachery of Judas (Matthew 26: 47-56). The story of Jesus’ arrest is a strange one. Judas tells the chief priests and elders that he will kiss Jesus in order to identify him. Why was this necessary? Jesus and the Jewish elite are seen fighting throughout Matthew’s gospel. They surely knew each other. What probably happened was that Judas told them that Jesus would destroy the Temple. When the Jewish establishment reported this to the Roman authorities, these authorities arrested him and put him on the cross.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Jesus Fulfills Scripture?
There is one point that all Christians agree on: there are many references to a coming Messiah in the Old Testament. First century Jews believed that their scriptures were far more than a history of God’s involvement with Israel. In addition, these sacred writings were a blueprint of God’s plans for the future. Jewish scriptures point to a Messiah. The question is whether Jesus fulfills these expectations. Matthew makes several claims that he does.
I was taught as a child that because Jesus fulfills Old Testament references to a Messiah, this fact proves the historicity of the New Testament. This is a remarkable claim which makes it an important question to consider. This blog will analyze three Old Testament references to the Messiah that Matthew uses to create his virgin birth story.
The most famous of these passages is the sign of Immanuel in Isaiah 7: 10-17. Many Christians believe that this passage points to the virgin birth of Jesus as depicted in Matthew 1: 18-25. There are three problems with this claim.
The first has to do with the translation of the word virgin. My Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, translates the word as maiden in the Isaiah story, suggesting a young woman who may or may not have been a virgin. This is the correct translation of the Hebrew word in the original text.
There are some English Bibles, however, where the word is translated as virgin. The Septuagint is the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. The relevant Greek word used in Isaiah 7: 14 can be translated into English as virgin or young woman, which creates the confusion. As I indicate above, if you go back to the original Hebrew text, the correct translation is maiden or young woman.
Second, there is no hint in the Isaiah story that God was somehow involved in the conception of this child. Immanuel had a human father.
Finally, a reading of the larger context of the Isaiah passage suggests that the child Immanuel will become a king who will rule from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Did God intend for Jesus to become a king who rules an earthly kingdom? That is not the way most Christians think of salvation, which indicates that the Jesus Christ of Christian faith does not in any way fulfill this scripture.
The second example of Jesus fulfilling scripture in the virgin birth story comes in Matthew 2: 13-16. God tells Joseph in a dream to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Matthew claims that this fulfills Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt.” What is the author of Matthew thinking here? One son is going to Egypt to escape, and the other is coming from Egypt to escape. I don’t get it!
The last example comes in Matthew 2: 16-18. When Herod kills all the children, Matthew claims that this action fulfills Jeremiah 31: 15-16. A careful reading of the Jeremiah passage indicates a problem. The children that Rachel laments have not been killed, but rather are lost. God tells her to dry her tears because they will be returned.
I have spent hours testing the thesis that Jesus fulfills Jewish scripture. I present further examples of the problems with this claim in my book on Evangelical Christianity. I have never found a credible Old Testament reference to the Messiah that points to the Jesus Christ of Christian faith.
The three examples presented above illustrate the problems with this claim quite well. Some purported references are silly like the Hosea passage of a son coming out of Egypt. Many others reference a Messiah as a political figure, an ideal king who rules from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Then there are the ones like the Jeremiah passage where the situation of the gospel does not match the situation described in the Old Testament.
It was a wonderful irony that a week after completing this blog I was visited by a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I enjoy such visits because I usually learn something about religion from them. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God controls history, that the Bible foretells the future, that statements by the prophets point to Jesus Christ. They have no problems accepting Matthew’s claim that Jesus fulfills scripture.
Here is what I have learned from several visits with their representatives over the years. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not acquire their views from reading the Bible, but rather they assume them to be true from the outset. As a result, they do not read the Bible with an open mind, but instead they search for evidence that appears to support their original assumptions. In conducting this search, they do not look beyond the surface. If a gospel writer claims that an act of Jesus fulfills scripture, they accept it at face value. They ignore factors such as problems with translating the text (virgin/maiden), the larger historical context of a passage, or passages that offer a different perspective from what they are looking for.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not unique in their approach to the Bible. Many Christians come to the Bible with deeply held assumptions, and look only for confirmation of those assumptions. They treat Jesus as a celebrity, someone they know little about and can therefore make into a person they want and need. In this process, they invent a religion that satisfies deep seated desires for individual salvation and personal confirmation.
From my perspective, such an approach misses the central dynamic of the divine/human relationship. I have only found God in loving my neighbor, in reaching out to others by ethical living. The idea is to reduce the control of ego over consciousness, which opens greater space for divine love to enter. It’s hard work!
I was taught as a child that because Jesus fulfills Old Testament references to a Messiah, this fact proves the historicity of the New Testament. This is a remarkable claim which makes it an important question to consider. This blog will analyze three Old Testament references to the Messiah that Matthew uses to create his virgin birth story.
The most famous of these passages is the sign of Immanuel in Isaiah 7: 10-17. Many Christians believe that this passage points to the virgin birth of Jesus as depicted in Matthew 1: 18-25. There are three problems with this claim.
The first has to do with the translation of the word virgin. My Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, translates the word as maiden in the Isaiah story, suggesting a young woman who may or may not have been a virgin. This is the correct translation of the Hebrew word in the original text.
There are some English Bibles, however, where the word is translated as virgin. The Septuagint is the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. The relevant Greek word used in Isaiah 7: 14 can be translated into English as virgin or young woman, which creates the confusion. As I indicate above, if you go back to the original Hebrew text, the correct translation is maiden or young woman.
Second, there is no hint in the Isaiah story that God was somehow involved in the conception of this child. Immanuel had a human father.
Finally, a reading of the larger context of the Isaiah passage suggests that the child Immanuel will become a king who will rule from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Did God intend for Jesus to become a king who rules an earthly kingdom? That is not the way most Christians think of salvation, which indicates that the Jesus Christ of Christian faith does not in any way fulfill this scripture.
The second example of Jesus fulfilling scripture in the virgin birth story comes in Matthew 2: 13-16. God tells Joseph in a dream to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Matthew claims that this fulfills Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt.” What is the author of Matthew thinking here? One son is going to Egypt to escape, and the other is coming from Egypt to escape. I don’t get it!
The last example comes in Matthew 2: 16-18. When Herod kills all the children, Matthew claims that this action fulfills Jeremiah 31: 15-16. A careful reading of the Jeremiah passage indicates a problem. The children that Rachel laments have not been killed, but rather are lost. God tells her to dry her tears because they will be returned.
I have spent hours testing the thesis that Jesus fulfills Jewish scripture. I present further examples of the problems with this claim in my book on Evangelical Christianity. I have never found a credible Old Testament reference to the Messiah that points to the Jesus Christ of Christian faith.
The three examples presented above illustrate the problems with this claim quite well. Some purported references are silly like the Hosea passage of a son coming out of Egypt. Many others reference a Messiah as a political figure, an ideal king who rules from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Then there are the ones like the Jeremiah passage where the situation of the gospel does not match the situation described in the Old Testament.
It was a wonderful irony that a week after completing this blog I was visited by a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I enjoy such visits because I usually learn something about religion from them. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God controls history, that the Bible foretells the future, that statements by the prophets point to Jesus Christ. They have no problems accepting Matthew’s claim that Jesus fulfills scripture.
Here is what I have learned from several visits with their representatives over the years. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not acquire their views from reading the Bible, but rather they assume them to be true from the outset. As a result, they do not read the Bible with an open mind, but instead they search for evidence that appears to support their original assumptions. In conducting this search, they do not look beyond the surface. If a gospel writer claims that an act of Jesus fulfills scripture, they accept it at face value. They ignore factors such as problems with translating the text (virgin/maiden), the larger historical context of a passage, or passages that offer a different perspective from what they are looking for.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not unique in their approach to the Bible. Many Christians come to the Bible with deeply held assumptions, and look only for confirmation of those assumptions. They treat Jesus as a celebrity, someone they know little about and can therefore make into a person they want and need. In this process, they invent a religion that satisfies deep seated desires for individual salvation and personal confirmation.
From my perspective, such an approach misses the central dynamic of the divine/human relationship. I have only found God in loving my neighbor, in reaching out to others by ethical living. The idea is to reduce the control of ego over consciousness, which opens greater space for divine love to enter. It’s hard work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
