Biblical Theology XXXVIII: Luke

Luke is written to an individual known as Theophilus, which means “Loved of God.” We know it is an individual name because of the second person singular and the vocative address. The word kratiste indicates that it is an official in government, and the exhortations in Luke to persevere in the teachings of Scripture indicate that Theophilus is likely a believer. Luke is likely written after the events of A.D. 70 due to his precision of describing the event in contrast to the Gospel of Mark. He may also utilize Josephus’ histories which are written after the Jewish wars. The Gospel is the first volume in a two part work known as Luke-Acts, both of which relate the same theology, namely, that God is restoring Israel (Luke 2:25, 38; 22:28-30; 24:21; Acts 1) through the merciful work of Jesus Christ applied now through His people, the church. The kingdom blessings of the eschatological age are manifest in the good news announced to the poor and oppressed, and in the mercies Christians have upon one another, specifically to other Christians in need.

Theology: God has made His people up from many of the poor and marginalized of this world, and therefore, demands that the commandments of the Law and Prophets concerning them be fulfilled by Christians who are more well-to-do. God is the vengeful Judge who will pour out His wrath upon His professed covenant community for not repenting and obeying Him in the area. Luke communicates God’s concern for His marginalized people throughout his Gospel, but begins by presenting, not the noble Gentile Magi as coming to Christ later (as in Matthew), but the shepherds who lived out in the field, as those who are called to be witnesses of Christ’s birth. Likewise, it is the barren Elizabeth (1:25) who is given the blessings of a miracle child in her old age, and the poor virgin Mary who is giving the blessings of carrying the Messiah (v. 48). The Magnificat, unique to Luke, also relates God’s favor upon the powerless who seek Him and judgment upon the powerful who are arrogant and oppress the poor (vv. 46-55). The prayers of Zechariah (concerning God’s oppressed Israel), Simeon (2:34), and Anna (v. 38) relate the same ideas that God exalts and redeems the humbled/oppressed among His people, but humbles the lofty person who oppresses God’s lowly people (vv. 67-79).  Chapter 17 relates that the kingdom is being restored and not yet restored completely. This is consistent with Luke’s literary point of view in Acts.

Ethics: Luke wants to be very clear that those who claim to be followers of Christ must take care of the poor and marginalized within the covenant community. Lots of oppression of the poor and abuse of authority in the religious community is taking place: the Pharisees devour widows’ houses, Jewish tax collectors rob from their fellow covenant people, the merchants in the temple use religion to get money from the people, believers in the army are extorting money, etc. In fact, nothing is mentioned of pagans doing this to the covenant community, even though it is understood that this is occurring, because Luke’s emphasis is that believers are not to be like the pagans. They are not to oppress and marginalize other believers, and those who are being oppressed and marginalized by these believers are not to return curses upon them, but rather seek their repentance and reconciliation to God and the community. The suffering of Christ itself is the example that the means to exaltation is humility, and hence, repentance is preached to all. The scene in Luke 16 relates a covenant member who did not obey the Scripture when it came to the poor fellow covenant member in his midst (i.e., Eliezer), and is now in punishment rather than with his father Abraham. The poor and marginalized to whom Luke refers are clearly those who fear God and humble themselves before Him (1:50; 14:7-11; 18:9-14). Luke is not arguing that the poor and marginalized in general have God’s favor and blessings. Hence, he is not using how one treats the general poor as testimony to one’s genuine membership in God’s kingdom, but rather whether one cares for poor and marginalized Christians, since this is what God is now doing for His people through Christ. One confirms that he is a true neighbor/member of the covenant community by how he treats those in need within the covenant community. This is a theme that runs throughout Luke-Acts. True belief is confirmed by receiving and taking care of other Christians, and false belief is confirmed by the absence of this care for them. Luke records the rebuke of the Pharisees coming to be baptized, but then adds unique material that contains John’s instructions for anyone who would have the fruit that is consistent with true repentance: ““The one who has two tunics must share with the one who has none, and the one who has food must do likewise” (3:11).  Those believers who have government power are told to not abuse it, but to only collect the taxes that are required (v. 12) and to not oppress God’s people under them by extorting money, bearing false witness, and being content with what the government pays them (vv. 12-14). The wheat and chaff imagery in vv. 16-17 are in the context of true and false believers, relating that those who are saved do what God does with His people, i.e., seek to care for and preserve them rather than to abuse them for personal gain as the unsaved among the professed community do. Luke records Jesus’ mission statement as given to the Jews in the synagogue. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (4:18-19). Rather than do miracles in His hometown, Jesus stirs them up by pointing out that in the days of Elijah and Elisha, only those Gentile outcasts who had faith were healed. No one in Israel was, as they were in apostasy at the time, and God only gives a taste of the kingdom to come to those who have faith/fear and humble themselves before Him. Even Peter’s call is uniquely presented in Luke as Peter humbling himself and admitting that he is a sinner (5:8). It is when Jesus sees faith (v. 20) that the restoration of Israel is granted to the individual. Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners is clearly in the context of the head of household, Levi, following Jesus as His disciple (vv. 27-32; see also the woman who is called a “sinner” in 7:36-50, as well as 15:1). In fact, Luke is the only one to mention the repentant thief on the cross in an effort to display this (23:39-43). Hence, this is a repentant household that is exercising faith, even though the tax collector was seen as a traitor to Israel and hated by the larger covenant community (also see Luke’s unique story of Zachaeus in 19:1-10). Luke indicates that the Jewish leaders have no room for repentance in their theology (Chapter 15—the story of the Prodigal Son speaks to this) because they have no room for mercy. Luke then quotes Jesus as dismissing the Jewish purity laws that are being used to marginalize the sick and ritually unclean (5:33-6:11), instead of washing the outside of the cup, repentance means that they wash the inside by setting their minds on those in need (11:41). It is in the context of all of this that Luke relates the Sermon on the Plain (6:17-49—notice that he makes the mount a plain probably for symbolic literary reasons). The poor who are blessed are clearly the Christian poor, since he argues that the kingdom of God belongs to them (v. 20). Likewise, it says “you,” referring to the poor among the covenant community listening to Him. Those who are not oppressed among the community due to their compromise with false believers like the Jewish leaders (the prime example of abusive/selfish power among God’s people in the Gospel—11:39-54; 13:33-35) receive the woes that belong to the curse, again, something unique to Luke. The blessing and woe configuration is that of the Deuteronomic law code that displays whether one is true Israel and therefore has a right to the blessings of the kingdom or should be cursed and cast out into the darkness of death/the world. The sermon relates the idea that oppression by others who claim to be Christians does not grant the right to oppress them in return. Rather than seeking vengeance and marginalizing those Christians who mistreat others, the true Christian is to love and seek their repentance by doing good to them (examples of retaliation of marginalized people might be the Samaritans who reject Christ because He want to go to Jerusalem in 9:51-56, even though they would be received as covenant members otherwise 17:11-19). In fact, the contrast in the context may indicate that the visible covenant members under the blessing are being persecuted by the visible covenant members who are under the woes. Hence, their Christian riches are at the cost of their fellow covenant members’ poverty, their full bellies are at the cost of their fellow covenant members’ hunger, their laughter is at the cost of their fellow covenant members’ sorrow, and their good reputation is at the cost of their slandering their fellow covenant members who are following Christ.  Certainly, the ones persecuting/slandering Christ are professed covenant community members, not pagans (11:14-23). Verses 6:37-42, again, indicate that the context is the covenant community, how a Christian treats his fellow covenant member. Hence, the entire context, immediate and from the larger literary units, indicates that Luke is referring to how Christians treat one another, not how Christians treat pagans (see 17:1-4). He continues throughout the Gospel to restore everyone in the covenant community on the basis of their own faith or the faith of those with whom they are united. Chapter 10 relates the idea that those within the covenant community who receive the disciples and the teachings of Christ will be granted blessings of healing and forgiveness, but those who do not will be cursed down to the very dust that exists in the village. The parable of the Good Samaritan is in this context. The only true covenant member is the one who takes care of a covenant member who is in need. The rest are not neighbors/covenant members. Thus, Jesus focuses on evaluating oneself as to whether he is a true covenant member, rather than evaluating other covenant members as to whether they are genuine. This is similar to Matthew’s use of judging Christians in Chapter 6 of his Gospel, where judging other believers is being used as an excuse not to care for them financially. Chapter 12 is warning against greed and finding security in one’s physical resources rather than in an obedient relationship with God. Concluding that His disciples should be willing to sell their possessions and give to the poor, so that their treasure is in heaven, since one’s treasure displays where his heart is (vv. 32-34). Being ready when Christ returns is about a believer taking care of fellow believers rather than oppressing them (vv. 41-46). Hence, inviting the marginalized rather than family and rich friends to a party is to look toward the eschatological reward in the resurrection rather than an earthly reward (14:12-14). Jesus’ parables in Luke largely center on who is a true covenant member. He tells them numerous parables where those who think they are a part of the covenant community find out in the judgment that they are not because they did not prepare themselves by obeying Christ’s teaching (14:15-24). Good stewardship with the money that belongs to God means that one uses it to worship God rather than the self, and those who hoard it for themselves will go to hell (Chapters 15 and 16).  Healing on the Sabbath is brought up three times in Luke, as Luke argues that the ritual law is being used to marginalize other members of the covenant community in need rather than to help/restore them with the blessings of the kingdom (6:1-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6), and as such, is being misunderstood as to its purpose.

                

It is interesting to note that the babies of believers, in this context, are also viewed as marginalized members of the covenant community who should not be hindered from partaking in the blessings of Christ (18:15-17). Gentiles, Samaritans, women, children/babies, the disabled and sick, demon possessed, repentant sinners, repentant tax collectors, repentant prostitutes, etc. all make up the group of those who are being marginalized by those within the covenant community who are rich or in power. Luke argues that if one is to see himself as a true disciple of Christ’s kingdom, then he must use his riches and power to help the marginalized rather than oppress them further. This may be an encouragement to Theophilus, a brother in government, to use his influence, riches, and power to help rather than oppress fellow Christians.

Unjust Justice for an Unbelieving World

I often note how movies in the seventies often had rather unsettling endings where the bad guy gets away. It throws a wrench in the internal narrative of humanity that the good guy should always get the bad guy, good should be the victor, and the bad guy should lose. That divinely constructed consciousness causes us to seek justice in the world, and we are disturbed when injustice, rather than justice, is the end result.

This makes me wonder if having an unbelieving worldview contributes to the felt necessity to believe an accuser who has no evidence at the possible cost of convicting the innocent. If one believes atheism, or any worldview for that matter, that denies that a horrific punishment awaits those who commit heinous crimes against God and others, then the only justice is here and now. That means that murderers get away. Pedophiles get away. Rapists get away. Since we cannot let them get away, we must risk all to make sure that whoever accuses one of such serious crimes, even if there is no evidence, is believed.

Otherwise, there is no justice for the crime. There is no answering the evil. It just wins and there is nothing anyone can do about it. So even if it may convict the innocent (particularly an innocent party that is viewed within the class of the privileged oppressor who is less important than a historical victim of that oppressor), then all testimony that sounds sincere and has no evidence against it, even if there is no evidence for it, must be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed true until proven false. This is justice for some, but not all. In fact, it is actually the practice of injustice in the hopes that justice may blindly find its mark.

In the Christian worldview, however, there is justice for all because of this believed truth: no one ever gets away. In fact, anyone who gets away with a heinous act in this life will actually wish they had paid for it in this life. A terror awaits them. So the Christian can advocate that justice in the here and now should be performed for all through a due process that may allow some criminals to slip through the system due to lack of evidence or whatnot, but exists also to protect the innocent from false claims. A Christian worldview allows for a more balanced method of seeking justice in this world. It is never a necessity to bring about justice through a prosecutorial means that increases the likelihood that the innocent will receive an unjust treatment.

Inclusive Love and the Excommunicated Member

Simple question: If love demands that we invite our enemies over to dinner because we are to love EVERYONE, are we being commanded by Christ and Paul to not be loving to the excommunicated member when we are told to treat them as a tax collector and pagan and to not even associate or eat with such a one? Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Does the command to love your enemies include them or not? If it does, then Jesus contradicts Himself, and certainly Paul contradicts Him even though he seems to be interpreting Him in 1 Corinthians 5. If it doesn't, then one must admit that the command is not telling us to love everyone. Which is it?

And when Paul tells Timothy to not give to unfaithful widows, but only to those who have served the church and have an evidence of their faith in good works, is he being unloving and telling Timothy to disobey Jesus? Or maybe are we reading the command to love your enemies out of context?

Matthew's Argument contra His Misinterpreters

How does one know what issue a book is addressing? Are we merely guessing? More specifically, how do I know that Matthew is addressing a rift in the church between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (and perhaps, other Jewish Christians who associate with Gentile Christians)? There is evidence within the books themselves by what arguments they make, and these arguments can be seen by the various themes and statements made throughout. Looking at the beginning and end of a book or a section like Christ’s teaching in Matthew that begins in Chapter 5 and ends in Chapter 25 can relate what the book is about. Looking at the unique material in Matthew by comparing it to Mark and Luke certainly helps to understand Matthew’s purpose. There is also external evidence that may be relevant when compared to all of that internal evidence. So let’s look at the evidence.

If we take Matthew’s emphases on reconciliation between believers seriously, as well as his argument that the judgment will center on how one treated the least of Christ’s brothers, we must conclude that the book is about how a covenant member treats another covenant member.

The teaching of Christ in Matthew is sandwiched in by an inclusio that focuses on the judgment of Christians. In Chapter 7, Christ teaches that it is not everyone who claims that Christ is his Lord that will enter the kingdom of God, but only those who do the will of the Father. Many Christians will come to Him and argue that they did ministry in His name and should enter in, but He will tell them that they practiced lawlessness and that He never knew them. The judgment in 24 and 25 is clear that it concerns how Christians treat one another (if one begins to beat his fellow servants, how one treated the least of these brothers of Mine). It also repeats the phrases of Chapter 7: “I do not know you,” “depart from Me.” The Sermon on the Mount is also focused in on the same thing (reconciling with fellow brothers, with one’s spouse, with those with whom one is at odds in the community, forgiving other Christians, giving to other Christians and not to pagans (i.e., dogs and swine).

What this tells us is that Matthew is concerned about how Christians are treating one another within the covenant community.

Matthew is clearly written to Jewish Christians. This is not disputed, as even the way he speaks of the Kingdom of God for the most part is geared toward a Jewish audience (kingdom of Heaven, where "heaven" represents God so as to diminish offense to Jews who had begun to worry about using even the word "God").

Since he is writing to Jewish Christians, and is concerned about how Christians are treating one another, there must be an issue where Jewish Christians are mistreating other Christians.

One of Matthew’s main arguments is that the ritual law does not make one Israel, but having the King of Israel as Lord does causes Him to argue that Jesus is the true Israel, and that He has interpreted the ritual law as non-binding upon the Church/the New Israel.

It is clear that the contrast between the moral law as the expression of love and the ritual law as something that is not inherently moral is meant to remove the idea that the cleanliness laws should be maintained. Hence, all foods are clean, but the evil that comes out of a man's thoughts defile him, the Sabbath is made for man and Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath who can interpret its intent correctly, ritual washings and willing one's earthly goods to the temple are traditions and not the law, rituals are old wineskins and new wine is not to be put in them, etc. These are characterized as things the Pharisees who were condemned by Christ emphasized over the moral law, and Christ commands His disciples throughout to have a greater righteousness than the Pharisees and to beware of their teaching.

Indeed, for the Second Temple Jerusalem Jew, the purity laws are what identify one as a true Jew, so much so that even ethnic Jews who do not practice all of them are considered "Hellenists" in distinction from Jews even in the NT.

So this tells us that there is a conflict that involves Jewish Christians rejecting other Christians on the basis of ritual purity laws, or what they consider Jewish identity markers.

Then we see Matthew arguing throughout his Gospel that since the true follower of God is he who obeys Christ as Lord, and there are Gentiles who have greater faith than anyone (the Centurian, the Canaanite/Syro-Phoenician woman), and many ethnic Jews are unfaithful to God's commands, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the ethnic descendants of Abraham and given to a nation (i.e., another nation than ethnic Israel) producing the fruit of it. We begin to understand that there is a conflict between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians that largely centers on the question of what makes one a true Jew/Israelite, ritual purity laws or having Jesus as one's King/Lord.

The unique parable to Matthew that displays this feud is the parable of the workers. One group has labored all the day, and another group comes at the last of the day and receives the same reward. In context, this must be referring to Jews and Gentiles.

When we go out of Matthew and look at the rest of the New Testament, this seems to be a massive problem in the early church that is created by the current interpretation of ritual purity laws summed up by Peter in Acts 10:28:

He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”

This is said to Cornelius, who the text tells us is a God-fearer, and not some pagan worshiping Zeus. Yet, even as a God-fearer, Peter declares that it is against the law, i.e., the current Jewish interpretation of the purity laws, to associate with a Gentile. It is the reason why Peter is eventually caught up in separating himself from the Gentile Christians in Galatia and refusing to eat with them any longer. It is the reason why the question of circumcision is such a big issue throughout the NT.

This is what causes the conflicts in the churches throughout the Book of Acts, Galatia, Rome, Thessalonica, and Smyrna in Revelation. And this is also what has caused the conflict that Matthew is addressing. These Jewish-Christians were teaching that Jews could not associate with Gentiles, even when they had become Christians, persecuting those Jews who did, and separating the church of God into two groups, the greatest and least, first and last, the true Jews and the second-class, Gentile converts. Yet, it is true faith in Christ that makes one a member of true Israel, and hence, these Jews were rejecting Christ and the gospel by doing this.

Now, THAT is what Matthew is addressing when he is talking about those who persecute, i.e., slander in Matthew’s context, you and are “enemies,” “opponents,” at odds with one another within the covenant community. Instead of perpetuating the problem by withdrawing further into cliques and factions that do not associate with one another, the true disciple is to pray for these wayward Christians in the hope that they will repent, do good to them, invite them to eat with them, and the Jewish Christians are to do the same for those Gentile Christians against whom they are embittered due to their history of oppression. Matthew is arguing that reconciliation must take place between professing Christians, that ritual purity laws should not be an obstacle any longer, and that all must be made true Israel by submitting to the teaching of Jesus the Messiah through His appointed messengers the apostles.

Matthew is not arguing that giving kingdom resources to pagans is a good thing, as Christ explicitly commands to not give kingdom resources to unbelievers (dogs and pigs are images of the unbeliever), but instead that Christians are to consider everyone within the covenant community as representing Jesus the Messiah Himself, and therefore, whatever they do to one another, they are doing to Him. The kingdom resources belong to them because they belong to Christ. This creates the love ethic in Matthew that centers the love of the Christian around Christ and all of those who a part of the kingdom over which He rules.

Hence, Matthew uniquely adds that the problem in the time of judgment is that lawlessness will increase and will cause the love of the many to grow cold. This means that when Christ comes there will be servants who are practicing sin and beating their fellow slaves. It is for this reason that He will cut them to pieces and assign them a place with the unbeliever.

Finally, after Matthew has made his argument, he records Christ’s commission to His disciples as the logical conclusion to what he has argued. Since the kingdom is for Jew and Gentile alike, they are to go unto all of the Gentiles and make them disciples by baptizing them and teaching them all that Christ commanded concerning love and the endurance of the moral law that expresses it accurately.

Therefore, as said many times before, Matthew is about how Christians treat one another in the covenant community, and has nothing to say about how one treats unbelievers, except that it calls all men everywhere to repent and receive Christ as Lord if he or she would enter into to the eternal

kingdom of Heaven. To interpret passages within it as referring to something else, i.e., how we should love pagans, is to remove the context that Matthew has provided and to replace it with our own tradition. This context replacement is unfaithful to the Word of God, as it creates our own ethics instead. Ironically, then, it is the very antinomian practice of setting aside what God has said for the sake of our own traditional teachings that Matthew condemns as lawlessness, i.e., a replacement of Christ’s teaching and law, which He says is the same as the Law and the Prophets, with our own.

As the Law and the Prophets did not tell Israelites to hand over kingdom resources to pagans, as it would have been seen as unfaithful and evil to give the inheritance God had given them to the nations that reject YHWH, so in the New Testament, the law is fulfilled completely, without one deficiency, according to Jesus and the apostles, by loving fellow Christians.

Those who would argue against this context do so, not on the basis of providing anything from the context that would present Matthew as arguing for Christian-pagan relations, but rather on the basis of their eisegetical reading of the text that they feel is well established due to the majority rule principle (i.e., if the majority believes it, it must be the rule).

However, both the internal and external context is clear, and if those wishing to hold onto their traditions had nothing at stake, they would gladly grant it as well due to the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming.

Biblical Theology XXXVII: Mark

The Gospel of Mark is foundational for the other two Synoptics, Matthew and Luke, in that it argues that who Jesus is demands a response of true discipleship that is characterized as death to the one’s own vision of what life should be and one’s own activity moving toward that vision. Matthew applies this to the Jewish-Gentile conflict and obeying Jesus’s commands over one’s own desires when it comes to how one treats other covenant members in general, and Luke applies this specifically to how one treats the poor and marginalized within the covenant community. It is clear that Mark is the first Gospel written, as it is the Gospel that Paul uses in his earliest letters, and the others do not seem to be known by him in those early epistles.

Theology: Jesus is the Messianic Son of Man, and as the Messiah, He begins to take authority over all things by subduing chaos and demanding that all things submit to Him: He calls sinners to repentance, demonic powers to relinquish their hold on people, illness and death to depart, and natural disasters/cosmic chaos to yield to Him.

Jesus fulfills all of the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Him.  He is the Prophet like Moses who has a messenger go before Him to make a way for Him (1:2-13). He is the Son of Man who shatters the demonic powers among His people (1:21-27). He is the healer of Israel (1:29-2:12), and the Lord of the law, who interprets and applies it correctly and with authority (2:18-3:6). He is the King of Israel who begins to gather the twelve tribes together by selecting the twelve judges of those tribes who will proclaim to them the will of the King (3:13-19).

Ethics: As Jesus is the Messianic King who demands that all submit to Him as the Sovereign Lord, the right response to His authority is submission to Him. This submission is characterized as dying to the self and all other things. Jesus message begins, therefore, by His proclamation of the good news in Mark, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is accessible. Repent, therefore, and believe the proclamation.” 

He judges Israel for not being true disciples by preaching the truth to them in parables, truths that are meant to convey God’s condemnation of false believers. They will hear without hearing, and see without seeing, so that they do not repent and are forgiven (4:10-12), which is a judgment of the prophets upon wayward Israel who had the commands of God and did not obey them. 

In contrast, those who would be Christ’s disciple and enter into the kingdom to come must become moldable like a little child, and therefore, he must die to who he has become, what he thinks, and what he does. He uses the issue of divorce and remarriage and money as examples of where people must die to what they want out of life in order to follow Him.

Faith, therefore, plays a huge role in the Gospel, and Christ teaches that with it, one can do the impossible. Faith, therefore, is the ultimate act of submission and dying to self, as it must trust God completely when one wishes to preserve the life that gives him comfort. Christ Himself is the example for all in Mark. Christ came to be rejected and to lose His life. Hence, all who would follow Him as His disciples must do the same. This is why Mark does not have a large resurrection narrative at the end of the book, but rather emphasizes the death of Christ. The ethical theme of Mark, then is that discipleship is death.

Then  Jesus called the crowd, along with his disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and for the gospel will save it. For what benefit is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his life? What can a person give in exchange for his life? For if anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (8:34-38)