In the beginning was the word. This is not about prophetic revelation—words from God spoken to a prophet. This is about the divine logos—a deep mystery, the creative power of the universe, the mind of God which creates order out of chaos, the grand pattern for the universe. In the Prologue of John (1:1-18), the author proclaims Jesus as this logos, the incarnation of this logos of God.
Matthew and Luke see Jesus as an Old Testament Messiah, the king born in Bethlehem. This is different. John pictures Jesus as pre-existent, as existing with God from eternity, as the creative force in the universe. Jesus is a divine being who comes from heaven and returns to heaven.
In John’s gospel, Jesus sees himself as God made flesh. “The Father and I are one (10:30).” He makes several “I am” statements, a symbol of the divine nature which comes from Exodus where God defines his nature as “I am” (Exodus 3:14). I am the bread of life (6:48), I am the light of the world (8:12), I am the good shepherd (10:11). Before Abraham was, I am (8:58). Note that Jesus does not say before Abraham was, I was. Instead he uses the divine designation of I am.
He also acts like God. In chapter 5, Jesus has a typical confrontation with the Jewish establishment, but the story is really about the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son functions for his Father in the world. The establishment is mad at him because Jesus sees himself as God’s equal (5: 16-18).
The scenes describing his arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection are informative. Jesus explains to his followers exactly what will happen (chapter 14). He encourages his arrest, chooses to die, with the arresting authorities falling on their knees in acknowledgment of his divinity (18: 1-9). He controls his crucifixion (chapter 19). He carries his own cross, seemingly suffers little, and utters “it is accomplished” as his final words. When the soldiers come to break the legs of the three victims on crosses, they leave Jesus alone because the paschal lamb does not have broken bones ( Exodus 12: 46). At the resurrection (chapter 20 and 21), he appears to whom he wants, when he wants. In all of these events, Jesus is in control. He functions like God.
The gospel of John is a glorious statement of faith by an author writing for a Christian community in the Hellenistic world who believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God. It is not history. It does not have to be our statement of faith if the idea of God walking around on earth is troubling. Marcus Borg makes a strong case that the “I am” statements come from the early church. These statements come in long speeches made by Jesus. There is no way that these speeches were remembered. They were obviously invented by someone. I have already pointed out the historical problems with Mark’s version of the passion narrative. The same problems exist with John’s story which I will point out again in the blog two weeks hence on the Jewish conflict in John. We don’t have to accept the worldview of first century Hellenism where people routinely expected gods to roam the earth.
In a blog entitled “The Resurrection in Matthew,” I pointed out several problems with the resurrection stories. These problems apply to John’s story of the resurrection. I would like to add an additional problem. John’s Jesus appears to Mary of Magdala as a gardener, to the disciples in an upper room in Jerusalem, and then eight days later to Thomas and the other disciples in that same room (chapter 20). He makes his last appearance to the disciples on the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (chapter 21). Why does Jesus only appear to Mary and the disciples? This picture of the resurrection makes the religion of Jesus into a small, select group. A God of love wouldn’t act that way. Such a God would insist that Jesus appear widely to the masses of the people. The religion of Jesus would be open to all.
If one rejects the worldview of John, does this gospel have meaning for Christians living in the twenty-first century? Absolutely! Jesus is the logos, the pattern of God in the world for all to see. Before Jesus, the pattern of God was enshrined in Law, now it is found in a flesh and blood human being. With God as the source, Jesus reflects that source and is the light of the world (8:12). We see this light in the mutual love described in the Farwell Discources of chapters 13-17. We see this light in the inclusive community of followers created by Jesus. We see this light in the love communities established by those followers after Jesus’ death (see Acts 2: 42-47 and 4:32). We see that light in the parables in Luke (see blog on the topic), and the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. The problem is not seeing this pattern in the gospel of John, it is living it. I keep trying!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
An Introduction to John
I wrote a term paper on the gospel of John for a New Testament class in college. I chose John because I knew nothing about the gospel and wanted to correct the problem. It was a mistake. After reading the gospel three or four times, I had no idea what it was all about.
The gospel of John is different from the Synoptic gospels. There is no virgin birth story, and the implication is that Jesus was born in Nazareth, the result of the normal biological union between a man and a woman (see John 6: 42-43 and 1:45-47). Further, Jesus is not baptized by John in this gospel, nor is he tempted by Satan in the wilderness. There is no transfiguration, no institution of the Lord’s Supper, no trial before the Sanhedrin, and no charge of blasphemy. Jesus never tells a parable or casts out a demon. There is no Sermon on the Mount or concern with ethical teachings. Nor does Jesus focus much attention on the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. The gospel is all about identity. Jesus speaks about himself.
The organization of the gospel is also different. Jesus’ public ministry spans three years instead of the one year posited in the Synoptic gospels, and he goes back and forth between Jerusalem and Galilee with most of the action centering in Judea. Jesus throws out the money changers at the beginning of his story rather than the end as with the first three gospels. The four authors use this story to make different points.
Finally, most of the stories in John are unique to his gospel. The different style of story telling jumps out at you. The gospel of John is filled with long, reflective discourses rather than the more straight forward biographical style of the first three gospels. The author quotes Jesus making long speeches. Obviously, this is not history. There is no way these speeches could have been remembered word for word sixty years later.
The gospel of John is the story of the cosmic Jesus. This Jesus was present with God from the beginning. He is a Jesus that came from heaven and returns there. It is the story of the incarnation, of God becoming flesh. It is also the story about a new religion. The cleansing of the Temple symbolizes the end of sacrificial religion. Faith in Jesus is the road to eternal life.
The gospel begins with a prologue, the famous poem that introduces the theme of incarnation. The second section known as the Book of Signs, John 1:19 through 12: 50, consists of miracle stories designed to bring people to faith. The third section contains the Farewell Discourses, chapters 13 through 17, where Jesus teaches his disciples in private about mutual love and the future of the Christian community. This section is followed by a passion narrative, the resurrection, and an appendix that describes an additional resurrection encounter at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee.
The gospel contains several text related problems. The story of the adulterous woman (7:53-8: 11), as I pointed out in the blog dealing with Mark’s resurrection story, is an insertion. The story is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, and the language and grammar are different from the rest of the gospel. The appendix in chapter 21 is an addition to the original gospel. The gospel has a natural ending in Chapter 20:31, and again the vocabulary and grammar of chapter 21 reflect important differences with what comes before. Finally, there are several examples of rough transitions between stories. In 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem where he heals and teaches. In 6:1, we find him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee. These transitional problems are interesting because they show an author putting stories together as if he were constructing a patchwork quilt.
The gospel claims in the appendix that the story was written by Jesus’ favorite disciple, John of Zebedee (see 21:24). This claim lacks validity for several reasons. The author of Acts describes John as an illiterate peasant (see Acts 4: 13), which doesn’t fit with the gospel’s poetic style and deep philosophical reflection. There are also hints that the gospel was written rather late, a time when it is extremely unlikely that John was alive. The author mentions that many Jews were reluctant to accept Jesus as the Messiah for fear of being expelled from their synagogue (see 12:43). Such conflicts did not take place until late in the first century. Most scholars date the book between 90 and 110 C.E. As a result, though it is possible that the author was a follower of John, it is unlikely that the author was the disciple of Jesus. Ancient writers often used pseudonyms to add credibility to their work.
The gospel of John describes the faith claims of many Christians today. These faith claims are explored in the blogs that follow. The most important one dealing with the incarnation is the subject for next week.
The gospel of John is different from the Synoptic gospels. There is no virgin birth story, and the implication is that Jesus was born in Nazareth, the result of the normal biological union between a man and a woman (see John 6: 42-43 and 1:45-47). Further, Jesus is not baptized by John in this gospel, nor is he tempted by Satan in the wilderness. There is no transfiguration, no institution of the Lord’s Supper, no trial before the Sanhedrin, and no charge of blasphemy. Jesus never tells a parable or casts out a demon. There is no Sermon on the Mount or concern with ethical teachings. Nor does Jesus focus much attention on the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. The gospel is all about identity. Jesus speaks about himself.
The organization of the gospel is also different. Jesus’ public ministry spans three years instead of the one year posited in the Synoptic gospels, and he goes back and forth between Jerusalem and Galilee with most of the action centering in Judea. Jesus throws out the money changers at the beginning of his story rather than the end as with the first three gospels. The four authors use this story to make different points.
Finally, most of the stories in John are unique to his gospel. The different style of story telling jumps out at you. The gospel of John is filled with long, reflective discourses rather than the more straight forward biographical style of the first three gospels. The author quotes Jesus making long speeches. Obviously, this is not history. There is no way these speeches could have been remembered word for word sixty years later.
The gospel of John is the story of the cosmic Jesus. This Jesus was present with God from the beginning. He is a Jesus that came from heaven and returns there. It is the story of the incarnation, of God becoming flesh. It is also the story about a new religion. The cleansing of the Temple symbolizes the end of sacrificial religion. Faith in Jesus is the road to eternal life.
The gospel begins with a prologue, the famous poem that introduces the theme of incarnation. The second section known as the Book of Signs, John 1:19 through 12: 50, consists of miracle stories designed to bring people to faith. The third section contains the Farewell Discourses, chapters 13 through 17, where Jesus teaches his disciples in private about mutual love and the future of the Christian community. This section is followed by a passion narrative, the resurrection, and an appendix that describes an additional resurrection encounter at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee.
The gospel contains several text related problems. The story of the adulterous woman (7:53-8: 11), as I pointed out in the blog dealing with Mark’s resurrection story, is an insertion. The story is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, and the language and grammar are different from the rest of the gospel. The appendix in chapter 21 is an addition to the original gospel. The gospel has a natural ending in Chapter 20:31, and again the vocabulary and grammar of chapter 21 reflect important differences with what comes before. Finally, there are several examples of rough transitions between stories. In 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem where he heals and teaches. In 6:1, we find him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee. These transitional problems are interesting because they show an author putting stories together as if he were constructing a patchwork quilt.
The gospel claims in the appendix that the story was written by Jesus’ favorite disciple, John of Zebedee (see 21:24). This claim lacks validity for several reasons. The author of Acts describes John as an illiterate peasant (see Acts 4: 13), which doesn’t fit with the gospel’s poetic style and deep philosophical reflection. There are also hints that the gospel was written rather late, a time when it is extremely unlikely that John was alive. The author mentions that many Jews were reluctant to accept Jesus as the Messiah for fear of being expelled from their synagogue (see 12:43). Such conflicts did not take place until late in the first century. Most scholars date the book between 90 and 110 C.E. As a result, though it is possible that the author was a follower of John, it is unlikely that the author was the disciple of Jesus. Ancient writers often used pseudonyms to add credibility to their work.
The gospel of John describes the faith claims of many Christians today. These faith claims are explored in the blogs that follow. The most important one dealing with the incarnation is the subject for next week.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Luke: Odds and Ends
Conflicts With the Pharisees. Luke tones these conflicts down. In the story of the disciples picking corn on the Sabbath (Luke 6: 1-5), the Pharisees wonder why the disciples are doing something that is forbidden on that day. Compare Jesus’ answer in Luke with his answer to the same story in Matthew (Matthew 12: 1-8). You will see that Luke edits the answer and takes out some of the venom from Jesus’ response.
In the next story, Jesus cures a man on the Sabbath (Luke 6: 6-11). The Pharisees are furious. In the Luke story, the Pharisees withdraw discussing the best way to deal with Jesus. In Matthew’s version (Matthew 12:9-14), the Pharisees discuss how to destroy him.
Finally, in Luke 13: 31-32, the Pharisees warn Jesus that Herod wants to kill him. In 7: 36 and 14: 1-2, we see Jesus eating with the Pharisees. These three stories are only found in Luke.
On Faith and Miracles. A woman with a twelve year hemorrhage touches Jesus and is cured (Luke 8: 48). Jesus comments that her faith restored her to health. It is interesting that in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, faith produces miracles. As we will see with the gospel of John, the relationship is reversed: miracles produce faith.
A Textual Insert. “Up to the time of John it was the Law and the Prophets; since then the kingdom of God has been preached, and by violence everyone is getting in (Luke 16: 16).” This is a strange statement which does not relate to what comes above or what follows below. It seems to me best explained as an insert by one looking forward to a violent apocalypse, the voice of the early Church.
Jesus the Jew. “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one little stroke to drop out of the Law (Luke 16:17).” This follows immediately after the statement above that speaks to the kingdom resulting from violence. It also appears to be an insert from someone who thought of Jesus as a Jew.
Jesus Teaches in the Temple (Luke 19:47-48). From this passage, it is clear that the crowds love him while the Jewish establishment opposes him. This statement is probably the most accurate historical expression of the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish masses. In Mark and Matthew, the crowds are not so sure about what they think of Jesus.
The Last Supper (Luke 22: 14-20). I grew up in the Episcopal Church where Holy Communion plays a central role in the service. This ritual is centered around the forgiveness of sin. If you read the account of the Last Supper in Luke (22: 14-20), you will see that it has nothing to do with sin. It is a memorial service. Matthew’s version of the story is more in keeping with the Episcopal tradition (see Matthew 26: 26-29). There forgiveness of sin is a central focus. I suspect that the early church is responsible for Matthew’s version of the story.
The Time of Crisis In Luke 22: 35-38. Jesus tells his disciples that at the time of crisis they will need a sword. This is a strange teaching for a man who preached turning the other cheek, and most probably reflects the voice of the early Church.
The Meaning of the Cross (Luke 23:44-46). The cross is a symbol of obedience in Luke, not of suffering. God’s plan was fulfilled because Jesus was obedient. He is a model of self-control and courage. Note that Luke changes his last words. The cry of abandonment and anguish in Mark and Matthew has been replaced with “into your hands I commit my spirit.”
In the next story, Jesus cures a man on the Sabbath (Luke 6: 6-11). The Pharisees are furious. In the Luke story, the Pharisees withdraw discussing the best way to deal with Jesus. In Matthew’s version (Matthew 12:9-14), the Pharisees discuss how to destroy him.
Finally, in Luke 13: 31-32, the Pharisees warn Jesus that Herod wants to kill him. In 7: 36 and 14: 1-2, we see Jesus eating with the Pharisees. These three stories are only found in Luke.
On Faith and Miracles. A woman with a twelve year hemorrhage touches Jesus and is cured (Luke 8: 48). Jesus comments that her faith restored her to health. It is interesting that in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, faith produces miracles. As we will see with the gospel of John, the relationship is reversed: miracles produce faith.
A Textual Insert. “Up to the time of John it was the Law and the Prophets; since then the kingdom of God has been preached, and by violence everyone is getting in (Luke 16: 16).” This is a strange statement which does not relate to what comes above or what follows below. It seems to me best explained as an insert by one looking forward to a violent apocalypse, the voice of the early Church.
Jesus the Jew. “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one little stroke to drop out of the Law (Luke 16:17).” This follows immediately after the statement above that speaks to the kingdom resulting from violence. It also appears to be an insert from someone who thought of Jesus as a Jew.
Jesus Teaches in the Temple (Luke 19:47-48). From this passage, it is clear that the crowds love him while the Jewish establishment opposes him. This statement is probably the most accurate historical expression of the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish masses. In Mark and Matthew, the crowds are not so sure about what they think of Jesus.
The Last Supper (Luke 22: 14-20). I grew up in the Episcopal Church where Holy Communion plays a central role in the service. This ritual is centered around the forgiveness of sin. If you read the account of the Last Supper in Luke (22: 14-20), you will see that it has nothing to do with sin. It is a memorial service. Matthew’s version of the story is more in keeping with the Episcopal tradition (see Matthew 26: 26-29). There forgiveness of sin is a central focus. I suspect that the early church is responsible for Matthew’s version of the story.
The Time of Crisis In Luke 22: 35-38. Jesus tells his disciples that at the time of crisis they will need a sword. This is a strange teaching for a man who preached turning the other cheek, and most probably reflects the voice of the early Church.
The Meaning of the Cross (Luke 23:44-46). The cross is a symbol of obedience in Luke, not of suffering. God’s plan was fulfilled because Jesus was obedient. He is a model of self-control and courage. Note that Luke changes his last words. The cry of abandonment and anguish in Mark and Matthew has been replaced with “into your hands I commit my spirit.”
Monday, February 16, 2009
Miracle Stories In Luke
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
