There is real bitterness against Jews in the gospel of John. John mentions “the Jews” over seventy times in his gospel in disparaging ways, which is more than the other three gospels combined. The Jews represent all those who reject Jesus. They become a symbol for all that is evil in the world. There is intriguing evidence in John that the conflict between Jews and Christians had become so bitter that Jews were expelling Christians from the synagogue (9:22).
A good example of this problem comes in John’s account of the Passion Narrative. Read his story of Jesus before Pilate (18:28-19:16). In the story, we see a Pilate that believes Jesus to be innocent, and “the Jews” who want him crucified. I have already pointed out the historical problems with Mark’s account of the Passion Narrative (See the blog under that title.). The same problems apply to John’s story.
To briefly summarize these problems, it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was buried. Victims of crucifixion were left on the cross to be eaten by animals. It was part of the horror of the punishment. Second, trials were not held. The victim was arrested and placed on a cross. The hearing with Pilate in John is fiction. Finally, the Romans killed Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. If the Jewish Sanhedrin had wanted to kill Jesus, he would have been stoned. As I explained in the blog relating to Mark’s account, Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was seen as a political threat.
Despite this history, John places the blame squarely on the Jews. This distortion of history has had important historical consequences. Biblical literalism can present real problems.
James Carroll, in a fascinating book entitled Constantine’s Sword, points out the profound consequences of the anti-Semitism which originates in the gospel of John. He demonstrates how Christian thinkers from Marcion in the second century, to Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther developed theologies that were anti-Semitic and inspired by the gospel of John. These theologies created a climate of opinion which explains the First Crusade of 1096 which was directed against Jews, the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century which led to the massacre of thousands of Jews, and the holocaust. The point Carroll makes is that Hitler killed the Jews, but the anti-Semitism that originates in John created a climate of opinion that made the holocaust possible. Read Carroll’s book. It is well researched and deeply disturbing.
The anti-Semitism of John also worked to change the religion of Jesus. This unfortunate consequence was aided by the Roman/Jewish War (66-73 CE) which killed 600,000 Jews. Those Jews that survived were exiled throughout the Hellenistic world. The result was that Jewish Christianity was destroyed. The Christian religion was then reconstituted in the Hellenistic world. This fact plus the anti-Semitism of the gospels, especially John, led to a divorce between the new Christian religion and its Jewish origins. The result was that individual salvation became the central focus rather than creating a relationship with God that centers around the practice of ethics and loving your neighbor. See my blog entitled “The Sermon on the Mount” which summarizes the interest of Jesus in the practice of ethics. This practice of ethics became a secondary concern for Hellenistic Christianity, and yet it is in doing this hard work that one finds God. Sadly, many Christians miss this point.
As the two examples above suggest, biblical illiteracy and scriptural literalism have important consequences. These consequences linger today. When Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of Christ” was released, an Evangelical church in Denver gleefully proclaimed “The Jews Killed Jesus” on its roadside sign. The Biblical Literacy Project is dedicated to fighting these problems.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
John's Concept of the Kingdom of God
In the blog entitled “Mark’s Jesus and Jewish Eschatology,” I argued that three views of an eschatological future were swirling around Palestine at the time of Jesus. Let me review them for you. The first, labeled apocalyptic eschatology, called for the destruction of the world with the establishment of a kingdom in heaven. It was mean-spirited in that a favored group would be saved while the vast majority of us burned. The second approach, prophetic eschatology, argued for a new order for this world, a renewed Israel in which God’s anointed would rule as king. The third approach, realized eschatology, posited that the kingdom was here, that it had arrived in the teachings and acts of Jesus, and that it was essentially a kingdom of the heart—a kingdom within.
The clearest expression of realized eschatology in the New Testament comes in the gospel of John. The key story is the raising of Lazarus, a story found only in John (11:1-54). Lazarus was an old friend of Jesus. The sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, send word to Jesus that their brother is gravely ill. Hearing the news, Jesus sets off for Judea to visit him. When he arrives, he finds that Lazarus has been dead for four days. In consoling Martha, Jesus tells her that her brother will rise again. Martha assumes that Jesus means that he will rise again at the general resurrection at the end of days (apocalyptic eschatology). In fact, Jesus means that he will rise now, and he does. “I am the resurrection. If anyone believes in me, even though he dies he will live, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (11: 25-26) Eternal life is redefined in qualitative terms. It is about knowing and loving God. It is about living in a community defined by mutual love. See also John 4:36, 5: 24-25, and 12:46.
A new idea about judgment comes with this realized eschatology. In the well known story concerning the instruction of Nicodemus, the Pharisee (3: 1-21), Jesus spells it out. He explains that God did not send him into the world to judge it, but to save it. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus, judge themselves (3:17). Jesus is the light of the world. Those who see the light and live by it, participate in a new quality of existence—eternal life now. Those who prefer darkness to the light, judge themselves. See also John 7: 8 and 12: 47-48.
Though the main thrust of the gospel posits a realized eschatology, a softened idea of apocalyptic eschatology emerges from time to time. Jesus tells his disciples that he is returning to heaven and will come back for them at a later time. See John 13: 37, 14: 1-3, and 6: 40-44. There are also several references in the gospel to Jesus as the Son of Man (3:13, 5: 27-28, and 6:53-54). I say a softened apocalyptic eschatology because none of these references point to some horrible fate for those left behind. These references do, however, make clear that salvation will be for believers in heaven. As Jesus tells Pilate, he is not a king of this world (18:30).
It is possible that the author of John intends for these two concepts of the kingdom to exist together in a paradoxical relationship. It is also possible that the two contrasting views represent two distinct voices within the gospel. In this second scenario, the voice of realized eschatology comes from the author of John after many years of reflection on the meaning of Jesus’ life and death and the fact that the expected kingdom had not come. The voice of apocalyptic eschatology is added by the early church in an attempt to make John’s gospel more like the other three in this regard.
No matter, realized eschatology is an idea that makes sense for modern Christians. Who knows what happens when we die. It is life’s last great mystery. What is important is how one lives now in this life. Realized eschatology posits a kingdom that resides in the heart. You enter it when you know God and love your neighbor. It is found when one lives in a community defined by the mutual love described in the Farewell Discourses (John 13:33 through chapter 17). It is an approach to spiritual life that focuses on the here and now rather than the hereafter. It is a concept of the kingdom of God that Christians should more carefully consider.
The clearest expression of realized eschatology in the New Testament comes in the gospel of John. The key story is the raising of Lazarus, a story found only in John (11:1-54). Lazarus was an old friend of Jesus. The sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, send word to Jesus that their brother is gravely ill. Hearing the news, Jesus sets off for Judea to visit him. When he arrives, he finds that Lazarus has been dead for four days. In consoling Martha, Jesus tells her that her brother will rise again. Martha assumes that Jesus means that he will rise again at the general resurrection at the end of days (apocalyptic eschatology). In fact, Jesus means that he will rise now, and he does. “I am the resurrection. If anyone believes in me, even though he dies he will live, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (11: 25-26) Eternal life is redefined in qualitative terms. It is about knowing and loving God. It is about living in a community defined by mutual love. See also John 4:36, 5: 24-25, and 12:46.
A new idea about judgment comes with this realized eschatology. In the well known story concerning the instruction of Nicodemus, the Pharisee (3: 1-21), Jesus spells it out. He explains that God did not send him into the world to judge it, but to save it. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus, judge themselves (3:17). Jesus is the light of the world. Those who see the light and live by it, participate in a new quality of existence—eternal life now. Those who prefer darkness to the light, judge themselves. See also John 7: 8 and 12: 47-48.
Though the main thrust of the gospel posits a realized eschatology, a softened idea of apocalyptic eschatology emerges from time to time. Jesus tells his disciples that he is returning to heaven and will come back for them at a later time. See John 13: 37, 14: 1-3, and 6: 40-44. There are also several references in the gospel to Jesus as the Son of Man (3:13, 5: 27-28, and 6:53-54). I say a softened apocalyptic eschatology because none of these references point to some horrible fate for those left behind. These references do, however, make clear that salvation will be for believers in heaven. As Jesus tells Pilate, he is not a king of this world (18:30).
It is possible that the author of John intends for these two concepts of the kingdom to exist together in a paradoxical relationship. It is also possible that the two contrasting views represent two distinct voices within the gospel. In this second scenario, the voice of realized eschatology comes from the author of John after many years of reflection on the meaning of Jesus’ life and death and the fact that the expected kingdom had not come. The voice of apocalyptic eschatology is added by the early church in an attempt to make John’s gospel more like the other three in this regard.
No matter, realized eschatology is an idea that makes sense for modern Christians. Who knows what happens when we die. It is life’s last great mystery. What is important is how one lives now in this life. Realized eschatology posits a kingdom that resides in the heart. You enter it when you know God and love your neighbor. It is found when one lives in a community defined by the mutual love described in the Farewell Discourses (John 13:33 through chapter 17). It is an approach to spiritual life that focuses on the here and now rather than the hereafter. It is a concept of the kingdom of God that Christians should more carefully consider.
Monday, March 9, 2009
God Becomes Flesh
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!
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
