was successfully added to your cart.

Tag

Gospel of Luke

Note of the Day – February 17 (Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11)

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Today’s note begins the next division of our series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”, focusing on the Galilean Ministry of Jesus (cf. the Introduction). The first topic of study is on traditions related to the Call of the Disciples. There are four primary traditions found in the Gospel narrative:

  1. The call of the first Disciples—esp. two pair of brothers (Peter/Andrew, James/John)
  2. The call of Matthew/Levi
  3. The call and commission of the Twelve
  4. The naming of Peter

Only the first and third of these will be dealt with in detail.

The Call of the First Disciples

Mark 1:16-20 par

Following the baptism of Jesus (and the testing in the desert), the period of Galilean ministry, according to the Synoptic narrative, begins with announcement of Jesus’ activity. In the Gospel of Mark, this is found in 1:14-15:

“And with the giving along (of) Yohanan {John} (into custody), Yeshua {Jesus} came into the Galîl {Galilee} proclaiming the good message of God and giving account [i.e. declaring/saying] that ‘The time has been (ful)filled and the kingdom of God has come near! Change your mind [i.e. repent] and trust in the good message!'”

Matthew (4:17) generally follows Mark, though without the preceding message of John the Baptist’s arrest. Luke has set the notice of John’s imprisonment at a different point in the narrative (right before Jesus’ baptism, 3:18-20), and makes no mention of Jesus proclamation of the coming of the kingdom or need for repentance (but cf. Lk 4:43; 8:1). This has essentially been replaced by the narrative summary in 4:14-15, emphasizing the role of the Spirit and Jesus’ activity of teaching (in the Synagogue), which sets the scene for the episode at Nazareth in 4:16ff. In the quotation of Isaiah 61:1 (vv. 18-19), Jesus declares, as part of his mission, that he is to “give/proclaim the good message”, much as is stated in Mk 1:14-15.

Mark 1:16-20 records the call of the first disciples. The parallel in Matthew (4:18-22) is very close; while Luke, has supplemented the basic narrative (5:1b-2, 10-11) with a miracle story involving Peter and his co-workers (5:4-9). This unique handling and development of the tradition will be discussed below. The narrative in Mark is extremely simple, with action and dialogue kept to an absolute minimum:

  • Notice of the location, along the Sea of Galilee (v. 16a)
  • Jesus encounters a two pair of brothers—Simon/Andrew & James/John—in turn (vv. 16b, 19a)
  • These men are all fishermen, busy working their nets (vv. 16b, 19b)
  • Jesus calls to them (to follow him) (vv. 17, 20a)
  • They all leave their nets and boats (and family, etc) to follow Jesus (vv. 18, 20b)

The central element is the saying of Jesus in verse 17, and the structure of the narrative gives the impression that it was built up around the saying. Here is the saying (in Mark):

“Come (here) in back of me [i.e. follow me], and I will cause you to become salt-water (fisher)s of men” (Mk 1:17)

Matthew’s version (4:19) is virtually identical, reading “make you” instead of “cause you to become”. In Luke, the comparable saying is quite different:

“Do not be afraid! From now on you will be catching men alive” (Lk 5:10b)

What is striking about the main Synoptic tradition, as given simply in Mark/Matthew, is how the sparse narrative detail gives the impression of an immediate response by the disciples—at the very (first) word from Jesus, they leave everything and follow him. This, of course, will become a motif—i.e. of obedience and commitment in following Jesus—repeated on several occasions in the Synoptic narrative (Mk 2:14; 8:34; 10:21 par; Lk 9:57-62 par). The core saying itself contains certain elements which summarize and reflect the ministry of Jesus, and are worth noting:

Verse 17a—the emphasis and motif of discipleship:

  • The expression deu=te (“come [here]”) is as much an invitation or exhoration as it is a command, and indicates one’s coming close, toward Jesus—Matt 11:28; 25:34; cf. also 22:4; Mark 6:31.
  • The preposition o)pi/sw (“in back of, behind”) is often used specifically in terms of a disciple following a master (Mark 8:34 par, etc). Its occurrence in the saying(s) of John the Baptist (Mk 1:7 par; Jn 1:15, 27, 30) was discussed in previous notes.

Verse 17b—the illustration from daily life (cf. the parables of Jesus):

  • The word a(lieu/$ refers to someone who works on/in the salt-water, here meaning specifically a fisherman. The activity from daily life is applied to the religious/spiritual life of the disciple (believer) who follows Jesus.
  • The genitive “of men” (a)nqrw/pwn) establishes the point of contrast—instead of gathering in fish for the catch, the disciples will be gathering in human beings for the kingdom of God. This latter detail is not stated explicitly, but such a connotation is likely, given the frequent references to the kingdom of God/Heaven in the parables and teachings of Jesus.

Luke 5:1-11

As noted above, Luke’s version of this episode represents a significant development, in which the core Synoptic narrative (found in vv. 1b-2, 10-11) has been expanded to include a distinct miracle story featuring Peter (vv. 4-9). Verses 1a & 3 may reflect Lukan editing/authorship in order to blend the two traditions effectively into a literary whole. In particular, they seem to echo the setting in Mk 4:1-2, which Luke may have transferred from that location in the (Synoptic) narrative. This is likely, since in 8:4ff, the passage parallel to Mk 4:1-2ff, there is no corresponding mention of Jesus teaching the crowd from a boat.

This is all relatively straightforward—the Synoptic narrative, supplemented by another (“L”) tradition related to the call of Peter—were it not for the fact that the miracle narrated in vv. 4-9 is remarkably similar to that found in John 21:1-8ff. The problem is that the Johannine episode is said to have occurred at a much later time, after the resurrection of Jesus. It is not just a question of a general similarity; rather, there are a number of specific details shared by the two narratives, which include:

  • Peter and his colleagues had fished all night and had caught nothing (v. 3, 5; Jn 21:3)
  • Jesus is standing on the shore of the lake (v. 1; 21:1, 4)
  • Jesus tells them to go and cast out their nets again (v. 4; 21:6)
  • The result is an enormous catch of fish (v. 6b; 21:6, 11)
  • Reference to the stress (tearing) on the nets, and to the help required to bring in the catch (vv. 6-7; 21:8, 11)
  • A reaction by Peter to(ward) Jesus as a result of the miracle (v. 8; 21:7)
  • Jesus is called “Lord” [ku/rio$] (v. 8; 21:7)
  • The catch of fish is symbolic of the work of Christian ministry, and is connected in the narrative to a (separate) tradition involving the commission of Peter and the other disciples (vv. 10-11; 21:11, 15ff)

Also notable is the use of the dual name “Simon Peter” in both narratives (v. 8; 21:7), as it is the only such occurrence in the Gospel of Luke (and only once elsewhere in the Synoptics, Matt 16:16); cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 28), p. 561.

These similarities have been explained various ways by commentators:

  • As two separate historical episodes, at different points in the life of Peter, during his time with Jesus—one at the beginning, and the other at the end. The shared details would be either coincidental or providential.
  • Two separate traditions have been shaped by a distinct miracle-story form—i.e. the miraculous catch of fish.
  • A tradition with an original post-resurrection setting (John) has been given an earlier setting at the time of Peter’s calling (Luke).
  • A tradition originally associated with Peter’s calling has been set after the resurrection. I.e. the reverse of the view above.
  • It is a piece of “floating” tradition, which came to the Gospel writers (and/or their sources) without a specific narrative (or chronological) context; each writer made use of the tradition at the most meaningful (or logical) point.

The first option generally follows the traditional-conservative view. Those who hold to it would quickly point out the many differences between the two narratives, in addition to the similarities. Critical scholars, on the other hand, are more likely to accept either the second, third, or fifth options (e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, pp. 561-2). The fact that Luke has apparently adapted an (earlier) Synoptic narrative, by adding/inserting the miracle episode, as a distinct unit (vv. 4-9), would perhaps favor (some form of) the critical view. For those who would argue between the Lukan and Johannine setting as the “original” setting of the historical tradition, the evidence seems to be fairly evenly divided. On the one hand, the fact that Luke and John (according to the Alexandrian/Majority text of Lk 24), have inherited common traditions related to the resurrection, supports the post-resurrection setting in John 21. On the other hand, the idea of Peter and the other disciples returning to the ordinary life of fishermen after the resurrection has always seemed a bit odd (even unlikely) to many. The overall milieu of the scene (esp. vv. 1a-8 in John) better fits the period of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (as narrated in the Synoptics). It would be easy enough to adapt such an “earlier” or “floating” tradition to a post-resurrection setting, as could have been done in John simply by adding vv. 1 and 12b-14 (try reading the text without these framing verses) to an episode otherwise very close to Lk 5:4-9.

Speaking of the Gospel of John, it should be mentioned, in closing, that the Fourth Gospel has nothing like Mark 1:16-20 par, but records/preserves an entirely different tradition regarding the call of the first disciples (Peter/Andrew, etc). This will be discussed in the next daily note.

Note of the Day – February 16 (Luke 9:28-36, etc)

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Today’s note follows up on the discussion yesterday, regarding the Transfiguration scene (Mk 9:2-13 par), and its parallels with the Baptism of Jesus. Here I will be focusing on the meaning and significance of the episode, especially as presented in the Gospel of Luke. This will include a comparison of the variant readings in Lk 9:35, compared with those in John 1:34.

Interpretation of the Transfiguration scene

As I mentioned in the prior note, the Transfiguration begins the second half of the Synoptic narrative, much as the Baptism scene begins the first. The Baptism of Jesus marks the start of his ministry (in Galilee), while the Transfiguration marks the beginning of his Passion (i.e. in Judea/Jerusalem) and precedes his journey to Jerusalem. The parallels between the Baptism and Transfiguration (cf. the list in yesterday’s note) have to be understood in terms of these differing contexts within the narrative. Consider the following points:

1. The connection with John the Baptist and questions regarding the identity of the Messiah

This has been a central theme in our study of the Baptism of Jesus in the Gospel tradition (discussed in detail in the prior notes). John the Baptist, of course, features prominently in the Baptism narrative, which opens with a description of John and his ministry, including the central association with the Isaiah 40:3ff prophecy (Mark 1:2-6 par). His presence in the Transfiguration scene is limited to the (separate?) tradition which appears at the end (Mk 9:11-13). It is generally assumed that Jesus is speaking of John in his reference to “Elijah” (cp. Matt 11:14), drawing a parallel between the Baptist’s mistreatment/arrest and his own (i.e. of the “Son of Man”, 8:31; 9:12, etc). Note the framing structure surrounding 8:27-9:13, forming an inclusio:

The question regarding the identity of “the Anointed One” (i.e. Messiah) is given more prominence and clarity in Luke’s account of the Baptism (3:15; cp. John 1:19-27).

2. The heavenly declaration corrects/clarifies the Messianic identification

This is implicit by the phenomena attending Jesus at his baptism, especially the descent of the Spirit upon him; Luke brings out the Messianic association more directly, in the subsequent scene at Nazareth, where Jesus identifies himself with the “Anointed” figure of Isa 61:1ff (Lk 4:17-21, cf. also 7:22). This makes clear in what sense Jesus is the Messiah (3:15) and the “one [who is] coming” (3:16; 7:19 par). The heavenly declaration at the Baptism adds to this by identifying Jesus as God’s Son (3:22 par), drawing upon the image of the king (i.e. the Davidic ruler) as “Son of God” (the variant reading in Lk quotes [the Messianic] Psalm 2:7). Similarly, prior to the Transfiguration, Peter declares Jesus to be “the Anointed One (Messiah) [of God]” (Mk 8:27 / Lk 9:2). The exchange between Peter and Jesus which follows (Mk 8:31-33 par, but omitted by Luke) suggests that Peter had in mind the Messianic figure-type of the Davidic ruler (cf. Parts 6-8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”), which would not have been compatible with the idea that Jesus must suffer and be put to death. It was Peter who also responds to the Transfiguration, without truly understanding the significance of what he sees (Mk 9:5-6 par, cf. below). Again, as at the Baptism, the heavenly voice declares Jesus to be the “Son of God”—but here, it would seem, not in the traditional Messianic sense, but hinting at something greater, tied to the death and resurrection of Jesus (Mk 8:31; 9:9, 12-13 par), which will lead to his exaltation to the right hand of God (Mk 14:62 par; Acts 2:32-35; 13:30-35 [citing Ps 2:7], etc).

3. The presence of Moses and Elijah—Jesus as a Prophet figure, specially chosen/anointed by God

That Jesus was seen as a Messiah of the Prophet figure-type seems clear enough from the Baptism scene, attested by different strands of tradition (Mk 1:7-8 par; Lk 3:15ff; 4:14-30; Jn 1:19-27), as well as the entirety of the period of his Galilean ministry, as recorded in the Synoptic narrative. Principally, he fulfilled the role of Spirit-endowed, miracle working Prophet (like Elijah), identified more specifically with the anointed herald of Isa 61:1ff. It has been popular to interpret the presence of Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration scene as representing “the Law and the Prophets” which Jesus was fulfilling (Matt 5:17; Lk 16:16; 24:27, 44; Jn 1:45, etc). However, this does not seem to be correct. To begin with, Elijah is an odd choice to represent the Prophetic Scriptures (Isaiah would make more sense, cf. Jn 12:39-41). More importantly, Moses and Elijah each represent distinct Prophet-figures; and, in the original context of the Gospels, it is almost certain that Jesus, in the period of his Galilean ministry especially, was also seen as an Anointed Prophet. I would suggest that in the Transfiguration scene the significance of Moses and Elijah is two-fold:

  1. It identifies Jesus as a Messianic Prophet (like Moses and Elijah), marking the conclusion of his Galilean ministry in which this role was primarily being fulfilled, but also pointing to his eschatological role inaugurating a new era for the people of God. It is no coincidence that, in Jewish tradition by the time of Jesus, Moses and Elijah were seen as prophetic figures who would appear at the end-time, as a fulfillment of specific prophecies (Deut 18:15-20; Mal 3:1ff; 4:5-6).
  2. Moses and Elijah each experienced a theophany—manifestation of God’s presence—upon the holy mountain (Sinai/Horeb); similarly, Jesus (and his disciples) on this mountain experience the appearance of the cloud of God’s presence and the divine Voice from heaven. This theophany, in relation to Jesus, is of a different sort, reflecting his divine Sonship. For more on this, cf. below.
4. The Transfiguration scene prefigures the coming Passion—the death and resurrection of the Son of Man

This is clear from the position of the Transfiguration scene in the Synoptic narrative, as noted above. It marks the conclusion of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, and the beginning of his Passion—the upcoming journey to Jerusalem (Mk 10; Lk 9:5118:34), and the events which would take place there. Luke’s account of the Transfiguration brings out this aspect more clearly (cf. below).

The Transfiguration in Luke 9:28-36

Note the following details or characteristics of the Lukan version, and its place in the specific context of the Gospel narrative:

  • Luke has given special prominence to Jesus’ role as a Messianic, Spirit-endowed Prophet in the period of his Galilean ministry (4:149:22); this gives greater significance to the presence of Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration scene (see above).
  • Peter’s confession in Luke (9:20) reads “You are the Anointed One of God” which is parallel to the unique form of the heavenly declaration in the Lukan version of the Transfiguration “This is the Son of God, the Elect/Chosen (One)“. On this, see below.
  • Luke’s version of the Transfiguration brings out more clearly the association with Moses and the Exodus—especially the traditions regarding the cloud of God’s presence (9:29, 31a, 34-35, cf. Exod 13:21-22; 19:9, 16ff; 24:15-16ff; 33:9-10; 34:5; 40:34-38). In particular, note v. 34 which alludes to Moses entering the cloud (Exod 24:18, cf. also 33:9).
  • This also enhances the idea of the Transfiguration as a theophany, in which Jesus and his disciples experience the presence of God and see his glory/splendor (vv. 31-32, cf. also v. 27). In this context, the altered appearance of Jesus (v. 29) probably is meant to echo the tradition regarding Moses changed appearance in Exod 34:29-35.
  • Luke ties the Transfiguration more directly to the coming death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, in two respects:
    (1) by the detail he includes in v. 31, using the word e&codo$ (exodos, “way out”, i.e. “exodus”), and
    (2) its relation to the journey to Jerusalem which follows, and which features so prominently in the structure of the Lukan narrative (9:51-18:34)

The textual question in Luke 9:35 and John 1:34

Finally, mention should be made again of the textual variants for the heavenly declaration in Luke 9:35. The majority text (including A C* W 33, etc) follows the version in Mark (9:7):

“This is my Son, the (one who is) loved”
ou!to/$ e)stin o( ui(o/$ mou o( a)gaphto/$

However, many of the earliest/best manuscripts (Ë45,75 a B L, etc) instead read:

“This is my Son, the (one) gathered out [i.e. elect/chosen]”
ou!to/$ e)stin o( ui(o/$ mou o( e)klelegme/no$

Most commentators prefer this as the original reading, considering it much more likely, considering scribal tendencies, that the passage would be harmonized with Mark than the other way around. As it happens, there is a similar textual variant related to the declaration of Jesus’ identity at the Baptism, in John 1:34. The Baptist’s statement, in the vast majority of manuscripts and witnesses (including Ë66) reads—

“…this is the Son of God”
ou!to/$ e)stin o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=

which, of course, is quite similar to the voice at the Transfiguration in the Synoptic tradition (cf. also the Matthean version of the Baptism, Matt 3:17). However, in a number of witnesses (Ë5,106vid a* b e ff2* etc) the reading is:

“…this is the (One) gathered out [i.e. Elect/Chosen] of [i.e. by] God”
ou!to/$ e)stin o( e)klekto/$ tou= qeou=

A few MSS have the longer (conflate) reading “…the elect/chosen Son of God”, which is surprisingly close to the heavenly voice in the Lukan version of the Transfiguration (according to many of the best MSS, cf. above). The adjective e)klekto/$ is closely related to the participle e)klelegme/no$ (both from the verb e)kle/gomai, “gather out of/from”), and has essentially the same meaning (“selected, elect, chosen”, etc). The adjective normally refers (in the plural) to believers (as the elect/chosen ones) in the New Testament, but the singular is used of Jesus (also as a title) in Luke 23:35; a few manuscripts likewise read the adjective, instead of the participle, in Lk 9:35. In the two Lukan references, and in Jn 1:34 v.l., the title “Elect/Chosen One” almost certainly must be understood in a Messianic context. The Lukan usage in 9:35, if original, suggests a parallel with the adjective a)gaphto/$ (“[the one] loved [i.e by God]”)—the one chosen by God is loved by God, and vice versa. It also indicates that the title “Son of God” should not be understood here in terms of later orthodox Christology (nor even the developed Christology of the Fourth Gospel). The immediate narrative context of the Gospel has rather a different, two-fold emphasis:

  • Jesus is the Son of God in a Messianic sense, according to the interpretation of Psalm 2:7 etc in Jewish and early Christian tradition (cf. Lk 1:32, 35, etc), and
  • The declaration points to the death, resurrection (and exaltation) of Jesus, by which he is considered to be God’s Son (and Anointed One) in a very special sense (Acts 13:33, etc). The Johannine idea of Jesus’ Sonship—i.e. as the pre-existent, eternal Son of the Father, plays little (if any) role in the Synoptic narrative, and represents a somewhat later development in the Gospel tradition.
The title “Elect/Chosen One of God” (ah*l*a$ ryj!B=) is found in an Aramaic text from Qumran (4Q534). It survives only as a fragmentary piece, so it is nearly impossible to determine the precise context, but it appears to be related in some way to the ancient Enoch traditions, most familiar as expressed in the work known as 1 Enoch. Column 1 lines 10-11 reads: “in that [i.e. because] he is the chosen (one) of God, his being born [i.e. his birth] and the spirit [jwr] of his life-breath [<vn] {…} his thinking/reckoning [pl. i.e., plans] will be to the distant age (to come) [i.e. for ever]…”. It may perhaps be debated to what extent the title “Elect/Chosen One” is Messianic (cp. Isa 42:1; Ps 89:3; 106:23); however, in the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (chap. 37-71), often dated roughly to the time of Jesus (early-mid 1st cent. A.D.), we find a heavenly figure (much like Jesus) who is variously given the titles “Son of Man”, “Anointed One” and “Elect/Chosen One”. All three of these titles appear together, in the context of the Transfiguration scene, in Luke 9 (vv. 20, 22, 26, 35 v.l., 44).

Note of the Day – February 13 (Luke 3:15; 4:14-21ff)

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Today’s note continues the study of the Baptism of Jesus as developed in the Gospel Tradition, by looking at the theme of Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (in comparison with John the Baptist), here within the Gospel of Luke.

There are three distinctive Lukan contributions to the Gospel tradition at this point:

  1. The addition of 3:15
  2. The specific emphasis on the Spirit and the heavenly voice in the Baptism narrative (3:21-22), and
  3. The episode with which the beginning of Jesus’ ministry is narrated (4:14-21ff)

Luke 3:15

The Lukan Baptism narrative (on the ministry of John the Baptist) contains the following information in verse 15:

“And (with) the people looking toward receiving (something) [i.e. being in expectation], and all (the people) gathering (it) through their hearts about th(is) Yohanan {John}—(if) not in some (way) [i.e. whether] he might be the Anointed One [o( xristo/$]…”

This leads into the Baptist’s sayings of vv. 16-17 (par Mark 1:7-8; Matt 3:11-12), which, in Luke’s version, are a direct response to the people’s reaction in v. 15. The detail in this verse is not found in the other Synoptic Gospels, but its general authenticity is perhaps confirmed by a comparison with Jn 1:19-27 (to be discussed in the next note). At any rate, it would not be at all surprising if such a unique, prophetic figure as John might be taken as an Anointed One of God (i.e. Messiah). However, it seems most unlikely that the traditional Messianic figure-type of the Davidic Ruler is in view here—it is hard to see how anyone would consider the Baptist in that light, based on the description of him and his ministry in the Gospels (however, cp. Jn 1:20ff). It is far more probable that the people thought he could be a Messianic Prophet figure—especially according to the type of Elijah, who would appear at the end-time before the Judgment. The main point to note is that John here deflects attention away from his Prophetic/Messianic role to that of the “one who is coming”, the one greater than he (i.e. Jesus).

Luke 3:21-22—The Baptism

I have already discussed the way that the Gospel writer has adapted the Synoptic narrative of Jesus’ baptism, in an earlier note. Today, I wish to look briefly at two specific points of emphasis which relate to the Lukan portrait of Jesus’ identity (as the Anointed One of God).

(1) The Descent of the Spirit (v. 22a)

Several details are worth noting. First, Luke’s description seems to give added emphasis to the descent of the Spirit as a concrete, visual event (note the words in italics):

“…and the holy Spirit stepping down [i.e. coming down] in bodily appearance as a dove upon him…”

Second, the word order joins the descent of the Spirit and the heavenly voice into an enclosed symmetry, connecting them in an artistic manner:

  • and stepping down
    —the Holy Spirit…upon him
    —and a voice out of heaven
  • coming to be

Third, after the baptism, the role of the Spirit and its relationship to Jesus is given much more prominence in the Lukan narrative (note the words in italics):

  • 4:1—”And Yeshua, full of the holy Spirit, turned back from the Yarden {Jordan} (river) and was led in the Spirit in(to) the desolate (land)” (cp. Mk 1:12; Matt 4:1)
  • 4:14—”And Yeshua turned back [i.e. returned from the desert] in the power of the Spirit into the Galîl {Galilee}”

Finally, the use of Isa 61:1ff (in 4:17ff, cf. below) indicates that Jesus has been, in some sense, anointed by the Spirit, which almost certainly should be understood as having taken place at the Baptism.

(2) The Voice from Heaven (v. 22b)

I have already mentioned (in a prior note) how the Lukan syntax of vv. 21-22 has the effect of making the declaration by the heavenly voice the climactic focal point of the scene, in a distinctive way. Two additional points should be mentioned here:

(a) The idea of Jesus as the Son of God—how this is developed in Luke-Acts. Consider:

  • It is introduced in the Infancy narrative, at the Angelic announcement of his birth to Mary (1:32, 35)
  • The idea is implied in the scene of the child Jesus in the Temple—God as his (true) Father, contrasted with Joseph as his (human/legal) father (2:48-49)
  • The genealogy of Jesus (3:23-38), which directly follows the baptism (and the declaration of the heavenly voice), is included as a creative (literary) device to emphasize Jesus’ true identity as the “Son of God” (i.e. rather than the human son of Joseph)
  • The title “Son of God” plays a key role in the Temptation scene which follows (4:3, 9)
  • His identity as Joseph’s (human/legal) son is brought up again in the subsequent scene at Nazareth (4:22)
  • He is declared “Son of God” by demons during the first miracles of his public ministry (4:41, cf. also v. 34)

(b) The variant reading of the heavenly declaration—in the Beza MS [D], as well as in certain Latin MSS and writings of the early Church Fathers, instead of the traditional Synoptic version (identical with Mk 1:11), the voice from heaven cites Psalm 2:7 [LXX]:

ui(o/$ mou ei@ su/ e)gw\ sh/meron gege/nnhka/ se
“You are my Son—today I have caused you to be (born)”

I have discussed this reading (which some scholars consider to be original) in an earlier note. It certainly makes a Messianic association with the title “Son of God” more definite (cf. Acts 4:25-27; 13:32-33ff; Heb 1:5; 5:5).

Luke 4:14-21—The Episode at Nazareth

I will be discussing this episode in more detail at a later point in this series (when studying the Galilean ministry of Jesus in the Gospel Tradition); here I will simply point out several details which relate back to the earlier chapters and the identity of Jesus as the Anointed One and Son of God:

  • The unique presence and power of the Spirit on/in Jesus as he begins his ministry (v. 14, cf. also v. 1)
  • The quotation from Isa 61:1, as read by Jesus in the narrative (vv. 17-19)—this refers to an anointing by God, and the presence of the Spirit upon this (prophetic) figure. Jesus’ comment in v. 21 would indicate that he is identifying himself with this Anointed One.
  • The crowd’s reaction in v. 22 plays on the idea of Jesus’ sonship—that he is the human/legal son of Joseph. In the Lukan context, this implies that the people have missed the essence of the Scripture and what Jesus has said. Rather than recognizing him as the Anointed One (and Son of God), they continue to see him in the ordinary sense as the son of Joseph and Mary. Luke has already introduced this contrast earlier in in chapters 2 and 3—the child Jesus in the Temple (esp. 2:48-49), and the genealogy of Jesus (esp. the framing verses 23 and 38).
  • In his response to the people’s reaction, Jesus identifies himself as a Prophet (v. 24, see also Mk 6:4 par).
  • The illustrations he gives in vv. 25-27 suggest that he may be specifically identifying himself as a Prophet in the manner of Elijah. The reference to working miracles (like Elijah and Elisha) is probably what is in view here, especially in light of the Isa 61:1 citation (cf. the parallel in Mk 6:5 and the reference in Lk 7:22-23).

These points of emphasis relate back to the Baptism narrative, in that they serve to identify Jesus as the Anointed One (Messiah), not of the Davidic ruler type, but as a Prophetic figure (i.e. “the one [who is] coming”), drawing upon two Messianic motifs: (1) Elijah, as a miracle-working Prophet, and (2) the one anointed by the Spirit of God in Isa 61:1ff. The connection here with Jesus as the Son of God is much less prominent, but I would argue that it still underlies the scene.

 

Note of the Day – February 12 (Matt 11:2ff, etc)

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Moving from the core Synoptic tradition (in Mark, cf. the previous note) to its development in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, there are several areas to consider:

  1. The development of the immediate Synoptic tradition—i.e. of the Baptism and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry
  2. The “Q” material in Matt 11:2-19 / Lk 7:18-35, and
  3. Details or traditions found only in Luke

We begin today with the first two areas, leaving the third to be discussed in the next daily note. Remember that we are now examining the specific theme, or component, in the Tradition of Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One.

Luke 3:21-4:1ff & Matt 3:16-4:1ff

Both Luke and Matthew, to the extent that they made use of Mark (or a similar Synoptic source), have independently—(1) adapted the basic narrative of the baptism, and (2) incorporated so-called “Q” material.

(1) Matt 3:13-17 and Luke 3:21-22

Matthew generally follows Mark closely in narrating the Baptism, with two main differences: (a) the description in Mk 1:9 (v. 13) has presumably been modified to allow for the insertion of the exchange between John and Jesus in vv. 14-15; and (b) the form of the declaration by the heavenly voice (v. 17) is different. Both of these changes seem to have, as a major (if not primary) purpose, a depiction of the baptism of Jesus as a sign to be observed by all the people (i.e. all Israel). The statement by Jesus in verse 15 indicates that, by submitting to baptism by John, he is fulfilling the religious forms and symbols, etc, of the Old Covenant (“all the righteousness [of God]”), stretching back through the Law and Prophets to the birth of the people Israel (cf. 11:13 par). The form of the heavenly declaration in v. 17 similarly functions as a public assertion regarding Jesus’ identity—”This is my Son…” It moves from a ‘simple’ record of events to include information about how people (believers) should understand them.

Luke has modified the Synoptic narrative somewhat differently, through arrangement and syntax. First, he has essentially ‘removed’ John from the scene (vv. 18-20), leaving Jesus on the stage alone. Secondly, the distinctive syntax of vv. 21-22 (a single sentence in Greek), drives the description forcefully ahead to make the heavenly declaration the definite focus of the narrative. The Lukan syntax here is quite difficult to translate literally, since it involves (an extreme) form of the construction e)ge/neto de/ (“and it came to be [that]”) + a sequence of infinitives (a construction used frequently in the Gospel). Here is a an approximation:

“And it came to be, in all of the people being dunked (by John), and Yeshua (also) being dunked and speaking out toward (God) [i.e. praying], and the holy Spirit’s stepping down [i.e. coming down] in bodily appearance as a dove, and (it was then that) a voice coming to be out heaven (said): ‘You are my Son, the (one) loved (by me)—in you I have good regard’.”

The three verbs in italics are all infinitives, which would typically be translated “to dunk”, “to step down”, and “to come to be”, but here have to be rendered differently, like participles or verbal nouns (gerunds), in order to make sense, and yet still capture the development of the sentence in its sequence, i.e.:

  • all the people (in their) being dunked
    • the Holy Spirit’s stepping/coming down
      • a voice out of heaven coming to be

The sequence builds, step by step, to the declaration by the heavenly voice, which emphasizes its significance and position in the Lukan narrative.

(2) Matt 4:1ff & Luke 4:1ff

Matthew and Luke each include so-called “Q” material following the Baptism account; this includes primarily the Temptation scene (Matt 4:1-11 / Lk 4:1-13), but also, as a way of transitioning to it from the Baptism, an expansion of the (Synoptic) narration in Mk 1:12, giving greater prominence to the role of the Spirit in relation to Jesus. Compare:

Mk 1:12—”And straightaway the Spirit casts him [i.e. Jesus] out into the desolate (land)…”
Matt 4:1—”Then Yeshua was led up into the desolate (land) under the Spirit…”
Luke 4:1—”And Yeshua, full of the holy Spirit, turned back…and was led in the Spirit in the desolate (land)”

Matt 11:2-19 / Lk 7:18-35 (“Q”)

This “Q” material, while unrelated to Jesus’ baptism as such, is important as another source for studying the relationship between John and Jesus. It is divided into three sections, each of which includes early traditional material, which has been joined together, based on common themes and language, to form a coherent whole. It may be outlined as follows:

  • John’s question to Jesus, with Jesus’ response (Matt 11:2-6)
  • Jesus’ testimony regarding John (vv. 7-15)
  • The (negative) reaction to John and Jesus, respectively (vv. 16-19)

For the purposes of this study, the first two sections have the greatest relevance, developing themes also found in the Baptism narrative.

Matt 11:2-6 (Lk 7:18-23)—The setting of the first section has John in prison, from whence he sends messengers (from among his disciples) to Jesus with an important question:

“Are you the one coming, or should we look toward receiving [i.e. expect] a different (person)?” (v. 3, Lk’s version [v. 19] is nearly identical)

As I discussed in the previous note, the use of the expression “the one coming” (o( e)rxo/meno$) makes it all but certain that John is asking if Jesus is the Chosen/Anointed One (i.e. Messiah), sent by God. However, he probably does not have in mind the Anointed Ruler from the line of David, but rather a Prophetic figure-type—perhaps “Elijah” or “the Prophet (like Moses)”, or even the Messenger of YHWH from Mal 3:1ff (which seems most likely). On this, cf. Parts 2 & 3 from the series “Yeshua the Anointed” and the note on “The One Coming“. The plain sense of this question would indicate that John, at that particular moment in time, harbored some doubt as to whether Jesus was indeed the Chosen/Anointed one (“the one coming”) he had declared in his preaching (Mk 1:7-8 par, etc). Some Christians may be bothered by this idea, but it is straightforward enough, and does not need to be explained away.

Jesus’ response (Matt 11:4-6 / Lk 7:22-23) is essentially a quotation of Isa 61:1, along with allusions to Isa 26:19 and 35:5. This is significant, since here Jesus identifies himself specifically with the Isaian herald—the prophetic figure anointed by God (by/with the Spirit). The signs of his anointing are the miracles he works and the “good news” he proclaims to the poor, things characteristic of Jesus’ ministry and central to it. The same association is established even more directly in Lk 4:17-21ff, which will be discussed in the next note.

Matt 11:7-15 (Lk 7:24-30)—This second section is less uniform than the first, and may involve a collection of related sayings. Here Jesus gives testimony regarding the person and role of John the Baptist, identifying him specifically with the “Messenger” of Malachi 3:1ff (cf. above). Jesus does this first by stating that John is a prophet (v. 9a) and, indeed, exceedingly (more) than a prophet (v. 9b)—that is, something greater than a prophet. This is explained by the citation from Mal 3:1 which follows in v. 10 par, the same Scripture which is applied to John in Mk 1:2. In Matthew’s version of this material, Jesus is even more precise, declaring John to be “Elijah, the one being about to come”. This is an interpretation of Mal 3:1 based on 4:5-6 [Hebr 3:23-24]. Luke does not have this in his corresponding material, but it is established (indirectly) elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition (Mk 9:12-13 par).

The logic of these “Q” sections, then, seems to be as follows:

  • John asks whether Jesus truly is the Anointed Prophet of the end-time (“the one coming”), i.e. probably the Messenger of Mal 3:1ff.
  • Jesus, in his response, redirects the question—(implying) that he is not this messenger, but is to be identified (instead) with the Messianic figure of Isa 61:1ff
  • In a separate tradition(?), Jesus turns the question around, identifying John as the Messenger of Mal 3:1ff, and, specifically, “Elijah”, the Prophet “who is coming”.

This will be discussed further in tomorrow’s note, when dealing with the traditions and details only found in the Gospel of Luke.

Note of the Day – February 9 (Luke 1-3)

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Today’s note will look at the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus, as developed in the Gospel of Luke. There are three areas where we can see this:

  • In the Lukan Infancy narrative of chapters 1-2
  • In the structure of the Baptism narrative in chapter 3, and
  • Specific details in the Lukan Baptism narrative

The Infancy Narrative (Luke 1-2)

I have discussed the Lukan Infancy narrative in some detail in earlier notes and articles, most recently in the Advent/Christmas series “And You Shall Call His Name…” There is good reason to believe that the Infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew each, independently, represent a somewhat later development within the Gospel Tradition. By all accounts, the core Gospel (and Synoptic) narrative effectively begins with the ministry of John and the baptism of Jesus, as we see in Mark (and also the Fourth Gospel). In Luke, the central figures from the baptism scene—John and Jesus—are kept together in the Infancy narrative which precede it. There is a clear parallelism that runs through the first two chapters, focusing on John and Jesus in turn; for each there is:

  • An announcement of his coming birth by a heavenly Messenger (Gabriel), following a similar pattern, including a declaration of the child’s name and his future destiny/role in God’s plan of salvation for his people (1:8-23, 26-38)
  • The mother is not able at the time to bear a child (for different reasons), the conception/birth being the result of God’s miraculous action (1:7, 27 & 34)
  • The parent who receives the heavenly announcement (Zechariah, Mary) utters a song/hymn of praise to God (1:46-55, 67-79)
  • The mothers (Elizabeth, Mary) meet together in a central scene, in the same house (1:39-56); each utters an inspired hymn or declaration (vv. 42-45, 46ff)
  • The special circumstances surrounding the child’s birth become known to people in the surrounding area, who react with wonder (1:58, 65-66; 2:8-20)
  • The circumcision and naming of the child is narrated (1:59ff; 2:21)
  • The parents are both described/depicted as devout and observant of the Law (Torah), which includes fulfilling their religious duties/obligations at the Temple in Jerusalem (1:6, 8-10, 23, 59; 2:21-24ff, 39, 41-42)
  • An aged, devout pair (male and female) is associated with the child, in different ways—Zechariah/Elizabeth and Simeon/Anna (1:5-6, etc; 2:25-38)
  • An aged, devout figure (Zechariah, Simeon) utters an oracle regarding the child’s future destiny (1:76-79; 2:29-35)
  • A summary notice of the child’s growth and development (1:80; 2:40 & 52)

More significantly, the relationship between John and Jesus, established in the Synoptic tradition at the baptism, is, in Luke, partially transferred to the Infancy narrative, where it is enhanced. Interestingly, this is done almost entirely in two places: (a) the Angelic annunciations, and (b) the oracles by Zechariah and Simeon.

(a) The Angelic Annunciation

The heavenly Messenger’s announcement to Zechariah (1:13-20) includes a declaration of the child John’s future destiny, in which it is said of him:

“and many of the sons of Yisrael he will turn (back) upon [i.e. to] the Lord their God, and he will go before [i.e. forward] in His sight, in (the) spirit and power of Eliyyah, to turn (the) hearts of fathers (back) upon [i.e. to] (their) offspring, and (the ones) unpersuaded (by the truth) in(to) the (way of) thinking of (the) right(eous)” (vv. 16-17)

This statement clearly draws upon Malachi 3:1ff, which, along with Isaiah 40:3, is the principal Scripture (and prophecy) associated with John the Baptist in the Gospel tradition. Keep in mind that the opening of Mark’s Gospel (Mk 1:2-3), introducing John and his ministry, combines Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3. It is likely that this combination is secondary to the primary Synoptic tradition, since the overall citation refers only to Isa 40:3 (“even as it has been written in Yesha’yah the Foreteller [i.e. Isaiah the Prophet]”, v. 2). Matthew and Luke only include the Isaiah reference, Mal 3:1 being applied to John elsewhere in Gospel, in the “Q” material (Matt 11:10 / Lk 7:27). If Luke was following Mark in the main Synoptic narrative, then he (along with Matthew) has omitted any reference to Mal 3:1 in the introduction to John’s ministry. For Luke, there would have been less need to include it there, since he already established the association in the Infancy narrative. The reference to “Elijah” and the thought expressed in Lk 1:16-17 stems largely from the interpretation found at the end of Malachi (4:5-6 [Heb 3:23-24]). It is likely that this is a (secondary) explanation of the original oracle in 3:1ff, interpreting the Messenger of the passage in the light of certain traditions related to Elijah. Jewish tradition and eschatology generally followed the line of interpretation, which was picked up and utilized by early Christians as well.

The “Lord” (ku/rio$) of Mal 3:1 LXX, and here in Lk 1:16-17, is God the Father (YHWH, Yahweh); however, early Christian tradition, due to its use of ku/rio$ in reference to Jesus (as “Lord”), was able to apply the prophecy to the coming of Jesus. This relates to the second Annunciation scene, to Mary, regarding the conception and birth of Jesus (1:26-38). Here, in the parallel declaration of the child’s future destiny, it is said of him: “This (child) will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Highest’…” (v. 32a). This passage is rich in Messianic associations and allusions, but the two phrases quoted here are especially important in terms of the relationship between John and Jesus:

  • “This (one) will be great” (ou!to$ e&stai me/ga$), which should be compared with what is said of John:
    “He will be great in the sight of the Lord” (v. 15)
    The unqualified use of me/ga$ for Jesus almost certainly indicates a superior position, and, indeed, a special divine status.
  • “He will be called Son of the Highest”, which is similar with what is prophecied of John in the song of Zechariah (cf. below):
    “You will be called Prophet of the Highest”

This implicit relationship is expressed in the following scene, of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (1:39-56). The babe John, in the womb, is said to have “jumped” at the sound of Mary’s greeting (vv. 41, 44). The idea, expressed dramatically (and most creatively) in the narrative, is that John is, in a sense, recognizing Jesus. Elizabeth, too, in what is said to be an inspired utterance (v. 41b), calls Mary “the mother of my Lord [ku/rio$]” (v. 43). This plays on the same dual-meaning of ku/rio$ for early Christians (cf. above) and echoes the Mal 3:1 reference as applied to John.

(b) The Oracles

The relationship of John to Jesus is central to the oracle in the song of Zechariah (1:67-79, vv. 76-79), where the prophecies of Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1 are implicit:

“And also (for) you, my little child—you will be called Foreteller [i.e. Prophet] of the Highest, for you will travel before in the sight of the Lord to make ready his ways…” (v. 76)

If the “Lord” (ku/rio$) in 1:16-17 was YHWH, here it should be understood primarily in reference to Jesus. That is certainly how the Gospel writer would have understood it, in light of early Christian tradition and interpretation of Isa 40:3/Mal 3:1. This relationship is further clarified through the language and imagery expressed in vv. 77-79, with the emphasis on salvation—”to give knowledge of salvation to his people…” (v. 77). This, too, is the emphasis in the song of Simeon in 2:29-32, which, like the song of Zechariah, is full of Messianic allusions, especially in its use of key passages from Isaiah (on this, cf. my earlier notes on the song). The Infancy narrative rather clearly expresses the idea which would become standard among early Christians—that Jesus was the Anointed One (Messiah) of God, in the sense of being the chosen Davidic ruler and “Son of God”, and that John was preparing the way for him (according to Isa 40:3 / Mal 3:1ff).

John and Jesus: A Unique detail

The main factual/historical detail presented in the narrative, unique to the Gospel of Luke, is that John and Jesus were apparently related—as cousins, presumably, of some degree. This can be inferred from 1:36 and use of the word suggenh/$—one who has “come to be [born] together with” another, often in the sense of family relations; it also fits the setting of the visitation scene which follows. Critical scholars are naturally skeptical of this datum, since it not attested (or even suggested) anywhere else in the New Testament. Be that as it may, it is clearly of significance for Luke, since it establishes a special relationship between John and Jesus which gives added meaning to the baptism scene which follows in chapter 3.

The Baptism Narrative (Luke 3)

Given the central importance of the theme in the Infancy Narrative—the relationship between John and Jesus—does not feature as prominently in the Baptism narrative itself. We can see something of the approach taken by the Gospel writer, in terms of adapting and developing the traditional material, by examining the structure of the narrative. Note the following outline:

  1. John’s ministry (vv. 1-20)
  2. The Baptism of Jesus (vv. 21-22)
  3. The Genealogy of Jesus—his (true) identity as Son of God (vv. 23-38)

It is important to notice how John’s ministry is kept separate from Jesus’ baptism, which the Gospel writer does through a careful reworking and (subtle) arrangement of material. In this regard, the Lukan portrait is quite distinct from the other Gospels. Here is an outline of verses 1-20, which demonstrates how it is, in many ways, an enclosed section:

  • Narrative (historical) introduction—the current rulers (Herods, etc) (vv. 1-2)
    —The ministry of John [Isaiah 40:3-5] (vv. 3-6)
    ——Preaching for repentance: eschatological emphasis—the Judgment (vv. 7-9)
    ——The “fruits of repentance”: ethical emphasis (vv. 10-14)
    —The ministry of John: Messianic emphasis—the Judgment (vv. 15-17)
  • Narrative summary—the current ruler (Herod) (vv. 18-20)

In terms of source criticism, the Lukan narrative here is complex:

(a) The narrative summaries in vv. 1-2, 18-20 are a Lukan refashioning of traditional (and Synoptic) material
(b) Vv. 3-6, 7-9, and 10-14 can be marked Synoptic [Mark], “Q”, and “L” material, respectively
(c) Vv. 15-17 would seem to combine Synoptic [Mark], “Q”, and “L” (?)

The strands of tradition, such as the author has inherited them, have been blended together with consummate (literary) skill to create a unified whole. It begins with a notice on the start of John’s ministry, and ends with a notice of his imprisonment. This effectively ‘removes’ John from the baptism scene. Of course, the author understood the historical tradition, that John baptized Jesus, but he does not emphasize this. For him, the baptism tradition serves a different purpose, which is two-fold, establishing two key themes regarding Jesus’ identity, which will carry on through the Gospel:

  1. The descent (i.e. anointing) of the Spirit—Jesus as the Chosen/Anointed of God
  2. Jesus as the Son of God

The latter theme is developed, most creatively, through the inclusion of the genealogy of Jesus in vv. 23ff. These points will be discussed further in the next main section of our study (on Jesus as the Anointed One).

Details in the Baptism Narrative

These have been mentioned, to some extent, above. However, there are several other special points which should be noted:

  • Lk 3:2b, a Lukan addition to the traditional (Synoptic) narrative, is a clear echo of the Infancy narrative and the (prophetic) role of John expressed there.
  • Luke is the one Gospel writer who extends the citation of Isaiah 40:3 to include vv. 4-5 (3:5-6). This is almost certainly an intentional adaptation so as to introduce the motif that “all flesh” will see “the salvation of God”, the reading of the Greek (LXX) version of v. 5. This connects back to the theme of salvation in the Song of Zechariah (1:77ff) and the Song of Simeon (cf. above), and, in turn, touches on John’s role (as the Messenger of Mal 3:1ff) in relation to Jesus (the Messiah and “Lord”).
  • Lk 3:15 is another Lukan addition, but one which almost certainly reflects early tradition (cf. Jn 1:19ff). It will be dealt with more fully in upcoming notes, but it is important to see how the author has included it ahead of the Baptist’s sayings in vv. 16-17, joining it with those well-established traditions. In Luke’s version, the sayings are in response to questions that John might be the Anointed One (Messiah). Much the same occurs in the Fourth Gospel (to be discussed in the next daily note).
  • In 3:16a the phrase o)pi/sw mou (“in back of, behind me”) has been omitted or is otherwise not included (cp. Mk 1:7, etc). It is possible that the expression was intentionally left out because of the implication that Jesus was a follower (disciple) of John, such as many commentators believe to be the case. The version in Acts 13:25, which may stem from a separate tradition, uses meta/ instead of o)pi/sw, and is more readily understood in a temporal/chronological sense (i.e. “after, later [than]”).
  • The Lukan addition in 3:18 emphasizes again John as one who speaks the word (v. 2b), and who proclaims the “good message”. This provides another allusion to the Infancy narrative (1:16ff, 68-69ff, 77; 2:10f).

Note of the Day – February 4 (Luke 3:2, 10-14, etc)

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Luke 3:2, 10-14, etc

Having discussed the key association with Isaiah 40:3 in the past two notes (Feb 2 & 3), we now turn to examine how the ministry of John the Baptist was developed in the Gospels of Luke and John. This will be studied in more detail when we come to the section dealing with the relationship between John and Jesus, which, in the Gospel of Luke, was established primarily in the Infancy narrative of chapters 1-2. Here also we find elements describing John’s (future) ministry role throughout:

  • The Angelic announcement to Zechariah (Lk 1:8-22)
    —John’s ascetic character (i.e. as a Nazirite), 1:15b
    —Proclamation leading people to repentance, 1:16-17
  • Birth and circumcision (1:57-66)
    —The reaction to John by the people in the surrounding region, 1:58, 65-66
  • Song of Zechariah (1:67-79)
    —Identification with the Isaiah 40:3 reference, 1:76
    —ministry leading people to forgiveness of sin, 1:77
  • Summary notice (1:80)
    —John’s time in the wilderness before appearing to the people

The notice in 1:80 is picked up again by the Gospel writer at 3:1-2. This uniquely Lukan historical/chronological setting serves as the narrative introduction to the episode, leading into the important statement in verse 2b: “the word of God came to John…in the wilderness”. The connection with the desert, as formulated here, may be an echo of Hosea 2:14. In any event, the emphasis is clearly on the specific prophetic character of John’s ministry—which begins at just this point. Note how three strands of tradition appear in sequence here in the Gospel of Luke:

  • The Synoptic narrative in vv. 3-6 (par Mk 1:3-6)
  • followed by “Q”—vv. 7-9
  • and the Lukan (“L”) material—vv. 10-14.

In verses 10-14, John is questioned by three different groups (cf. the episode in Jn 1:19-27):

  • The crowd/throng of people generally (vv. 10-11)
  • Toll-collectors (vv. 12-13)
  • Soldiers (v. 14)

To each group, John gives practical, ethical instruction regarding daily life and conduct. The teaching effectively illustrates the “good fruit… leading to repentance” mentioned in verses 8a, 9. It emphasizes a life of humility, modesty, and fair behavior, aimed especially at those with greater means or influence, directing them to show care and concern for those less fortunate. In this regard, the teaching has a good deal in common with the ethical instruction of Jesus, as seen, for example, in the parables or in the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount. However, at least as important, is the place vv. 10-14 hold in the overall structure of the narrative:

  • Narrative (historical) introduction—the current rulers (Herods, etc) (vv. 1-2)
    —The ministry of John [Isaiah 40:3-5] (vv. 3-6)
    ——Preaching for repentance: eschatological emphasis—the Judgment (vv. 7-9)
    ——The “fruits of repentance”: ethical emphasis (vv. 10-14)
    —The ministry of John: Messianic emphasis—the Judgment (vv. 15-17)
  • Narrative summary—the current ruler (Herod) (vv. 18-20)

There is an inclusive symmetry to this section, up to verse 20, which creates a separation from the actual baptism of Jesus in vv. 21-22. This separation is enhanced by the way that the Synoptic tradition has been reworked in vv. 18-20.

John’s arrest was mentioned in Mk 1:14 par, after the baptism of Jesus, and marking the beginning of the latter’s ministry. Luke has expanded this, bringing in detail related to the episode narrated in Mk 6:14-29 par—an episode which Luke does not include. He also sets this notice prior to the baptism. The result is that, conceptually, John is “closed up” in prison and is not mentioned in the baptism scene which follows. Luke, of course, was fully aware of the historical tradition regarding John’s role (i.e. that he baptized Jesus), but the author wishes to put the attention entirely on Jesus in this scene (cf. Jn 3:30).

January 6: Luke 3:22

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Luke 3:22

The John/Jesus parallel of the Lukan Infancy narrative continues on into the Gospel proper—the account of Jesus’ baptism as narrated in the wider Synoptic tradition (Mark 1:2-11 par). The main difference in Luke’s account is that he records the beginning and end of John’s ministry at the same point (cf. the detail in Lk 3:18-20). This effectively clears the way for the introduction of Jesus’ ministry in verse 23. The Lukan narrative describes the baptism of Jesus as part of the process—the people being baptized—but the author also sets Jesus apart from the crowd through a simple syntactical variation. Verses 21-22 utilize a construction e)geneto de/ (“and it came to be [that]”) + infinitive—which is almost impossible to translate literally in English. The action is described with a succession of infinitives:

  • all the people being dunked [i.e. baptized]
  • the heavens opening up
  • the holy Spirit stepping down upon him {Jesus}
  • a voice out of heaven coming to be

John the Baptist is a transitional figure, between the Old Covenant and the New, associated specifically with the Prophets (1:16-17, 76ff; 3:4-6; 7:26-28)—the completion of the Age of the Law and the Prophets (16:16 par). As discussed at numerous points in the Lukan Infancy narrative, Jesus was seen as fulfilling the types and forms of the Old Covenant—and this process is completed with the baptism. In Matthew’s account, this expressed in terms of fulfilling the righteousness (dikaiosu/nh) of God (“so it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness”, Matt 3:15). In Luke’s version of the baptism scene, Jesus is among the crowd coming to be baptized, but is still set apart:

“And it came to be, among all the people being dunked, and (with) Yeshua being dunked and speaking out toward (God) [i.e. praying], and the heaven opening up and the holy Spirit stepping down upon him in bodily appearance as a dove, and a voice coming to be (from) out of heaven, (this voice said)…”

There is a definite Messianic significance to the baptism scene in Luke-Acts, indicated by several points:

  • The coming of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus (4:18 [Isa 61:1f], cf. verse 1, 14)
  • The declaration of Jesus as God’s Son, especially in light of Psalm 2:7 (cf. below)
  • The parallel declaration in the Transfiguration scene
  • The gospel statement in Acts 10:37-38

While these are common to the Synoptic tradition, several of the details are given greater emphasis in the Lukan account.

The Voice from Heaven

In the majority of manuscripts, the words of the heavenly voice (3:22b) match those of the other Synoptic versions: “You are my Son [su\ ei@ o( ui(o/$ mou], the (Be)loved One [o( a)gaphto/$]; I have good thought/consideration in you [e)n soi eu)do/khsa]”. There is probably an echo of Isa 42:1 here, a Messianic passage for which the parallel is even closer in the Lukan version of the voice at the Transfiguration (cf. below). However, in Codex Bezae [D], along with several Old Latin MSS and writings of the Church Fathers, the voice in Lk 3:22 actually quotes Psalm 2:7:

“You are my son; today I have caused you to be (born)”
ui(o/$ mou ei@ su/ e)gw\ sh/meron geg/nnhka/ se

This verse, of course, came to be a primary Messianic reference as applied to Christ, though usually in connection with the resurrection, not the baptism (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). The title “Beloved” (a)gaphto/$) in the Old Testament (LXX) tradition is associated especially with the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:2, 12; for a similar context, cf. Amos 8:10; Zech 12:10). For more on the text-critical issue in 3:22, cf. my note from a previous Christmas season.

The Transfiguration

The Messianic significance of the corresponding scene at the Transfiguration is due, in large part, to its position in the Synoptic narrative, following Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Anointed One (9:20) and Jesus’ first prediction of his coming death and resurrection (9:21-22). We also have the identification of Jesus with the Prophet figure-types of Moses and Elijah (cf. Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). In many MSS, the heavenly voice in 9:35 matches that of the majority text of 3:22; however, the best reading shows a slight difference:

“You are my Son, the One Gathered out [i.e. Elect/Chosen One]; I have good thought/consideration in you”

The title e)klelegme/no$, parallel to a)gaphto/$ in 3:22, more properly aligns the declaration with the (Messianic) Servant song of Isa 42:1ff. A related title e)klekto/$ is used in 23:35, in close connection with xristo/$ (“Anointed One”); cf. also the variant reading in Jn 1:34, where it is used with the title “Son of God”.

Son of God

Drawing upon the earlier discussion of Jesus’ saying in Lk 2:49 (cf. the previous note), we may outline three ways of understanding Jesus as God’s Son in 3:22:

  • Identification with the people of Israel as God’s “Son” (Exod 4:22-23; Hos 11:1, etc). Jesus’ participation with the people in baptism may be intended to bring out such an association—cp. Lk 1:77 with Matt 1:21 (2:13-15ff).
  • The Messiah (the Davidic Ruler) as God’s Son (Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam 7:12-16, etc)
  • Sonship in terms of exalted, heavenly position and status. In early Christian tradition, the use of Messianic Psalm passages such as Ps 2:7; 110:1 were applied to Jesus in the context of his resurrection and exaltation (to the right hand of God). Eventually, this was also understood in terms of Jesus’ pre-existent deity.

The parallel declaration in 9:35 suggests that the second option is the one primarily in view. According to Gospel tradition (cf. Acts 10:37-38), it was at the baptism that Jesus was (first) identified as the “Anointed One”, though the title was applied directly only with Peter’s confession (9:20).

The Geneaology in 3:23ff

The Lukan situation is complicated by the peculiar insertion of Jesus’ genealogy at 3:23, directly following the baptism account. Essentially, it serves to introduce Jesus at the time of the beginning of his (public) ministry, but it plays on the same idea of sonship addressed in 2:49. There, Joseph was referred to as Jesus’ parent (vv. 41, 48a) or father (v. 48b), establishing the contrast with the saying of v. 49, where Jesus identifies God as his Father. In a similar way, the genealogy of 3:23 is introduced:

“And Yeshua {Jesus} (him)self, beginning (his ministry), was as though (about) thirty years (old), being the son, as it was thought/considered, of Yoseph…”

The genealogy—his legal ancestry through Joseph—continues through verse 38, all the way back to the first human being (cf. the Genesis creation account):

“…the (son) of Enosh, the (son) of Seth, the (son) of Adam, the (son) of God”

The line is thus traced back to God himself, God the Father (Yahweh/El). This turns out to be a very clever way for the author to restate the idea that Jesus is the “Son of God”. It should be noted that the word “son” (ui(o/$) is only implied, and is not actually present throughout the genealogy of vv. 24-38. Nevertheless, the basic concept is certainly there—Jesus’ true genealogy goes back to God. A literal treatment of vv. 23-38 would simply indicate Jesus’ common human heritage—of the people Israel, stretching back through their ancestors to the Creation. But the author’s actual emphasis is on the point of contrast—Jesus was only the son of Joseph in a conventional (and legal) sense; his true sonship is divine. The framework of the Gospel narrative means that the author (trad. Luke) did not really bring out this aspect of Jesus’ sonship until after the resurrection and exaltation. Yet it is certainly foreshadowed earlier in the Infancy narrative (1:32-35; 2:41-50) and here at the baptism.

January 6th was the older date commemorating the birth of Jesus in the Eastern Church. It was referred to as Epiphany (e)pifa/neia), or, more properly, Theophany (qeofa/neia), the manifestation (“shining forth”) of God on earth in the person of Jesus Christ. When Dec 25 was adopted in the East, Jan 6 came to be devoted more exclusively to a celebration of the Baptism of Jesus. For more on this important theme in Eastern (Syrian) tradition, see my earlier Jan 6 note.

December 15: Luke 1:5-6

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Note of the Day | No Comments

Luke 1:5-6

Today’s article begins the second part of the Advent/Christmas series, in which a specific verse or passage in the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke will be discussed each day. I begin with the Lukan narrative, and the opening verses Lk 1:5-6:

“It came to be, in the days of Herod king of Yehudah {Judea}, (that there was) a certain sacred-official [i.e. priest] with (the) name Zecharyah, out of the regular (priestly) turn of Abiyah, and the wife [lit. woman] for him (was) out of the daughters of Aharôn {Aaron} and her name (was) Elisheba. And both of them were just [i.e. righteous] in front of God, walking in all the (thing)s placed on (them by God) and (the) just (command)s of the Lord, without fault.”

As most Christians and students of the New Testament are aware, in the Gospel of Luke, the birth of Jesus is set parallel to the birth of John the Baptist, with the two accounts intertwined and connected throughout the narrative. The parallelism is more or less clear and precise, as for each figure (John and Jesus) there is:

  • A heavenly (Angelic) announcement of the child’s conception and impending birth, which includes a pronouncement regarding the child’s future destiny and role in God’s plan, following the pattern of similar scenes in the Old Testament
  • A miraculous birth
  • News of the birth being spread to neighbors and people in the surrounding area
  • Mention of the child’s circumcision and application of his name (given previously by the Angel)
  • An inspired oracle-hymn (or hymns), drawing heavily upon Old Testament imagery, which declares the child’s future role in God’s deliverance of his people
  • A notice regarding the child’s early growth, patterned after the Old Testament Samuel narrative

Other details only confirm and enhance these essential points. The Lukan narrative begins with John and his parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth), here in vv. 5-6ff, which sets the scene for the Angelic announcement. The section 1:5-25 may be divided into four parts:

  • Introduction of John’s parents (5-7)
  • The Angelic announcement to Zechariah, Part 1—Of the child’s birth and destiny (8-17)
  • The Angelic announcement to Zechariah, Part 2—The sign of the birth (18-23)
  • The Fulfillment: Elizabeth becomes pregnant (24-25)

From the standpoint of this series, the mention of John’s parents in vv. 5-6 is also significant as they are essentially the first names which appear in the narrative. They are venerable Hebrew names which ought to be examined briefly:

  • Zechariah—Hebrew [W]hy`r=k^z= (Z§½ary¹h[û]), transliterated in Greek as Zaxari/a$ (Zacharías). It is a sentence-name, which essentially means “Yah(weh) (has) remembered”; as such, it is one of many Hebrew (and Aramaic) names, still in use at the time, which contain a hypocoristic (shortened) form of the divine name (cf. the recent article on Yawheh). There are at least thirty men with this name mentioned in the Old Testament (and deutero-canonical books), including the famous 5th-century Prophet and an earlier priest who was stoned to death in the Temple court (2 Chron 24:20-22; cf. Luke 11:51 par) on the order of the king.
  • Elizabeth—Hebrew yb^v#yl!a$ (°E_lîše»a±), likewise transliterated into Greek— )Elisa/bet (Elisábet). The meaning of her name is a bit harder to determine; typically it has been rendered “God [°E~l] is my oath (i.e. the one to swear by)”, but it possibly could mean something like “My God [°E~l] is the one who satisfies, brings satisfaction”. In any case, it too is a sentence-name incorporating the divine name °E~l (“Mighty [One]”, i.e. “God”); cf. the earlier article. It is an ancient Hebrew/Israelite name, but found only once in the Old Testament (the wife of Aaron, Exod 6:23 [cf. below]).

It is unlikely that the author of the Gospel (trad. Luke) intended to convey the significance of these (Hebrew) names to his Greek readers, though he may have been familiar with their basic meaning. However, the underlying (historical) tradition he records tells us something important about the family background of Zechariah and Elizabeth. We may note two key points:

  • Indication of religious devotion in the worship of the (one) Creator God, Yahweh/El
  • A connection with the priestly line

Both points are made clear by the author in vv. 5-6. To begin with, Zechariah is specifically described as a priest, among those who served at regular periods in the Temple. In the case of Elizabeth, her lineage is identified even more precisely when she is referred to as one “from [lit. out of] the daughters of Aaron“, that is, a descendant of Aaron, bearing the same name as Aaron’s wife. Both of John’s parents should thus be regarded as coming from the Aaronid priestly line.

Concerning the first point, while one might assume that men and women from priestly families are (or at least ought to be) devout persons, the Gospel writer makes this quite clear for Zechariah and Elizabeth personally, in verse 6. The first clause (6a) states: “And they were both just/right(eous) in front of God”. The adjective di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”), used frequently throughout the New Testament, becomes an important keyword in Luke-Acts, appearing as a title of Jesus in Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14. It is also used of Simeon (Lk 2:25), a character sharing many features in common with Zechariah. The “righteousness” of Zechariah and Elizabeth is explained in 6b; note the chiastic structure of the clause, following the Greek word order exactly:

  • walking
    —in all
    ——the (thing)s placed on (them)
    ——the just (thing)s
    —of God
  • without fault

The participle poreuo/menoi (“traveling, walking”) carries the sense of regular, habitual behavior. This “walking”—that is, a particular way of life and conduct—is said to be “without fault” (a&mempto$) in “all the (thing)s…of the Lord” (e)n pa/sai$tou= kuri/ou). These “things of the Lord” are specified by two nouns:

  • e)ntolh/—usually translated “command(ment)”, but rendered above more literally as something “placed on” a person, i.e. a charge or duty which is expected to be observed or carried out. It refers here (in the plural) primarily to the various commands, injunctions, precepts, etc, in the Old Testament Law (Torah) which Israelites were to observe, in faithfulness to the covenant established with them by God.
  • dikai/wma—this noun, related to the adjective di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”), refers essentially to something which is regarded or declared to be right and just. Here, in the plural, it is parallel with e)ntolh/, referring to all of the commands, etc, in the Torah (the Old Covenant) which God has declared for his people, and which were to be fulfilled.

The adjective a&mempto$ (“without fault”) does not mean that Zechariah and Elizabeth were perfect or sinless, but that there was nothing wicked or improper in their daily life—their ethical and religious conduct—which was in clear violation of the Torah or God’s Law. All of this detail in verses 5-6 serves two main purposes for the author in terms of the narrative which follows:

  1. It introduces the important motif of the faithful/righteous ones in Israel, who remain obedient to God and patiently await the fulfillment of His promises.
  2. It establishes the Temple setting of the annunciation scene (i.e., explaining what Zechariah would be doing there), which likewise becomes a vital theme, both in the Infancy narrative, and throughout Luke-Acts. The Temple setting takes on even greater prominence in the episode(s) in Lk 2:22-38 (cf. also vv. 41-50).

A subsidiary (narrative) purpose is to clarify the notice in verse 7 regarding the childlessness of Zechariah and Elizabeth. For a woman to be barren, or a family to be without children, was unusual and regarded as a reason for shame in the ancient world (cf. verse 25). The Gospel writer is essentially making clear that Zechariah and Elizabeth being childless was not the result of any specific sin or impiety on their part.

Women in the Church: Part 7 – The Gospels and Acts

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

Having explored the subject of Women in the Church in the Pauline Letters, it is now time to turn and examine the relevant information from the Gospel Tradition, and in the book of Acts. I will be dividing this article according to the following outline:

  1. Sayings and Teachings of Jesus
  2. Jesus’ Interaction with Women (in the Gospel Narratives)
  3. Followers of Jesus in Gospel Tradition
  4. The Role of Mary
  5. Women in Luke-Acts

1. Sayings and Teachings of Jesus

There are actually very few sayings by Jesus involving women recorded in the canonical Gospels, and most of these are simply proverbial and tell us relatively little about his views on the position of women and gender relations. Women are featured in a couple of parables (Matt 13:33 par; Luke 15:8; 18:2-5) as stock characters. Two groups of sayings are perhaps a bit more significant:

(a) Traditional references to a woman’s pains in giving birth, symbolic of the suffering of the human condition—especially in association with the coming Judgment at the end-time (Mark 13:8, 17 par), which, in the Gospel narrative is set generally in the context of Jesus’ own suffering and death (cf. Luke 23:28-29; John 16:21).
(b) The illustrative image of the widow, again as a typical figure symbolizing human suffering and injustice—Mark 12:40-43 par; Luke 4:25-26; 18:2-5; cf. also Lk 7:12.

In several passages, Jesus addresses the topic of marriage, most notably in: (1) the sayings/discourse regarding divorce (Mark 10:2ff, par Matt 19:3ff; Matt 5:31-32; Luke 16:18); and (2) the case involving marriage and the resurrection (Mark 12:18-27 par). The latter passage seems to downplay the importance of marriage, to some extent; and, indeed, one detects an ascetic tinge in a number of Jesus’ sayings, such as Mark 10:29ff par; Matt 19:12. By all accounts, Jesus himself never married; and, according to the narrative context of Mk 10:29f, a number of his disciples had apparently left their families in order to follow Jesus (v. 28). In this regard, it is interesting to note an extra-canonical saying of Jesus which goes a step further in denying the significance of sexuality and gender distinction among believers. It is preserved in at least three sources—the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas saying 22; 2 Clement 12; and in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.13.[92] (attributed to the “Gospel of the Egyptians”). Gosp. Thom. 22 is presumably the earliest occurrence (late-1st/early-2nd century):

Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples, “These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom.” They said to Him, “Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?” Jesus said to them,

“When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the Kingdom].” (Translation by Thomas O. Lambdin)

This (purported) saying has similarities with mystic-ascetic and “Gnostic” thought, as attested, e.g., in the Gospel of Philip §73, 78, and Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.15 (citing teachings of the Naassene sect). In 2 Clement 12:5 the saying of Jesus is explained to the effect that a male believer should not look upon a female believer as a woman, that is, according to her sexuality or physical/biological gender (cf. Gal 3:28).

2. Jesus’ Interaction with Women

The Gospels record a number of episodes in which Jesus interacts with women. In some of these narratives he is depicted as disregarding or challenging certain social (and religious) conventions regarding the proper interaction of men and women—at least, the narratives may be read this way. Note, for example, the reaction of Jesus’ (male) disciples in Jn 4:27. Most significant, perhaps, is his friendship with Martha and Mary (the sisters of Lazarus, acc. to Jn 11:1-3); the authenticity of this relationship is confirmed by the fact that it is attested (independently) in at least two separate strands of tradition—Luke 10:38-42 and John 11:1-44; 12:1-11. The declaration by Martha in Jn 11:27 regarding Jesus’ identity (as Anointed One [Messiah] and Son of God) holds a place in the Fourth Gospel similar to that of Peter’s confession in the Synoptics (Mk 8:29 / Lk 9:20 / Matt 16:16). At the very least, this indicates that Martha (and Mary) were believers and followers of Jesus (cf. below).

Many of the episodes show Jesus responding with compassion to the poor and outcast elements of society—a familiar and popular theme in the Gospel tradition. This produced some degree of negative reaction, even scandal, from onlookers and opponents, much as his willingness to associate with “sinners” (Mk 2:15-17 par; Lk 7:39; 19:7, etc). These are the episodes of note (“par” indicates parallel narratives in the other Synoptic Gospels; negative reactions are indicated by the verses in square brackets):

  • Healing of the women with a discharge of blood (hemorrhage)—Mark 5:25-34 par
  • Healing (exorcism) of the daughter of a Syrophoenician woman—Mark 7:24-30 par [note the exchange in vv. 27-28]
  • Healing (resurrection) of a widow’s son—Luke 7:11-17
  • Healing of a crippled woman—Luke 13:10-17 [v. 14]
  • Discussion with the Samaritan woman—John 4:1-42 [v. 27, a woman and a Samaritan no less!]
  • Response to the “adulterous” woman—John 7:53-8:11 [vv. 3-5] (an authentic tradition, if not part of the original Gospel)
  • Response to the “sinful” woman who anointed him—Luke 7:36-50 [vv. 39ff]
  • Response to the woman who anointed him at Bethany—Mark 14:3-9 par in Matt [vv. 4-5]; in John 12:1-8 the woman is identified as Mary, sister of Lazarus (the precise relationship between the two version, as well as Lk 7:36-50, remains much debated). Later tradition conflated the two figures—Mary and the “sinful” woman—with Mary Magdalene (also healed by Jesus according to Lk 8:2, and cf. below).

3. Followers of Jesus

By all accounts, the first followers of Jesus (those called by him) were all men. This is certainly true with regard to his closest disciples, the circle of Twelve in early Gospel tradition (Mark 3:13-19 par; Acts 1:13, 16ff). These were the men whom Jesus sent out, on at least one occasion, to preach and work miracles in his name (Mk 6:7-12 / Matt 10:5-15 / Lk 9:1-6; 22:35ff). This is the fundamental meaning of the word apostle, from a)poste/llw (“set/send forth”); and the Twelve were closely identified with this title in early Tradition (Mk 3:14; 6:30 par; Lk 22:14; Acts 1:2, 25-26, etc). Luke records a separate tradition (or version) where Jesus sends out a group of 70 (or 72) disciples on a similar mission (10:1-12); most likely these also were men, though this has to be inferred from the context. This limitation of discipleship and missionary work to men may simply be a product of historical circumstance, since the idea of itinerant female preachers and healers traveling about would have been shocking indeed to the cultural sensibilities of the time. And yet, we do have at least one notice that there were women followers of Jesus, in Luke 8:1-3, where it is stated that Jesus passed through the cities and villages “proclaiming the good message of the kingdom of God…”

“…and the Twelve (together) with him, and (also) some women th(at) had been healed from evil spirits and infirmities… who served/ministered to them [i.e. Jesus and the Twelve] out of the (thing)s under their (control) [i.e. their goods/possessions]”

These women are identified as: (1) Maryam {Mary} called Magdalene, (2) Ioanna {Joanna} wife of Chuzas, (3) Susanna, as well as “many others”. It would seem that their service was more or less limited to material aid and support. This same tradition is confirmed by (and may actually derive from) the notice in Mark 15:40-41. Indeed, the women followers of Jesus play an important role in the Passion and Resurrection narratives, part of the earliest Gospel narrative, and attested variously in all four Gospels (the Synoptics and John):

  • There were women standing a distance away, watching the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 15:40-41, par Matt 27:55-56; Luke 23:49; also John 19:25). It is said that they had come with Jesus from Galilee, where they had helped in the work of ministry (Mk 15:41, cf. above). Mark and Matthew single out three who will take part in the next episode—Mary Magalene, Mary mother of James (and Joses), and Salome. Luke likewise mentions the first two (Lk 24:10), while John records a different set of four (or three) women who stand nearby: Mary (Jesus’ mother), Mary’s sister and/or Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
  • At least some of these women continued watching as Jesus was taken down from the cross, to see where he would be buried. Each of the Synoptics narrates this somewhat differently:
    Mark 15:47: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of (James and) Joses saw where Jesus was buried
    Matt 27:61: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting opposite the tomb
    Lk 23:55-56: The women followed and saw where/how he was buried, then returned to prepare spices and ointment
  • According to Synoptic tradition, Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James/Joses came early the next morning to see the tomb (Matt 28:1) and anoint the body (Mark 16:1-2; Lk 24:1). Mark mentions a third woman (Salome), while Luke may indicate the presence of others as well (Lk 24:10). The tradition(s) recorded in John differ in that Nicodemus brings the spices, etc to anoint Jesus before his burial (Jn 19:39-40) and Mary Magdalene is the only woman said to come to the tomb that morning (Jn 20:1ff).
  • The women (as variously mentioned): (a) see the empty tomb, (b) are greeted by angel(s) announcing the resurrection, and (c) encounter the resurrected Jesus. This common outline is old and reliable, but the specific details in the narrative (Mk 16:1-8, [9-11]; Matt 28:10; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1-2, 11-18) vary to an astonishing degree, and are actually extremely difficult to harmonize intelligibly (for those who wish to do so).
  • The women (or certain of them) report the empty tomb and the resurrection to the other disciples, including the Twelve (Matt 28:10, 11, 16; Luke 24:9-12, 22-24; John 20:2ff, 17-18; [Mark 16:9-11]).

It can be said that Mary Magdalene (and other of the women) were the first to see the resurrected Jesus, and the first to preach the Gospel (i.e. announce the resurrection). Understandably, this has been a popular point to make by modern-day preachers, in relation to the question of the role of women in the Church. The point is dramatized even further by the tradition of the disbelief of the disciples (including the Twelve) at hearing the news ([Mark 16:11, 14]; Luke 24:11). This detail is likely to be authentic (on objective grounds), since the later tendency was to downplay anything which cast the apostles in a negative light (but see how it also enhances Peter’s role, Lk 24:12 cf. Jn 20:3ff).

According to Acts 1:14, women were together (along with Jesus’ mother Mary) with the Twelve in the ‘upper room’ following Jesus’ ascension, and may have been present (at the historical level) in the post-resurrection scenes in which Jesus addresses and commissions his followers (Matt 28:16-20; Luke 24:33-49, 50-53; John 20:19-29). Acts 1:4-11 seems to assume only the Twelve (Eleven), as also in Mark [16:14-20]. In 1 Cor 15:6, Paul mentions an appearance by Jesus to more than 500 disciples, which certainly would have included a good number of women (cf. below). Somewhat surprisingly, Mary Magdalene does not seem to be part of early Christian tradition (outside of the resurrection accounts) and is not mentioned in the book of Acts.

4. The Role of Mary, Jesus’ Mother

Of all the women in Christian Tradition, (the Virgin) Mary, mother of Jesus is by far the most prominent. And yet, it is quite surprising how little she appears in the earliest strands of tradition. In the core Synoptic tradition, she hardly appears at all, briefly in one episode (Mark 3:31ff par); otherwise, she is only mentioned in Mk 6:3 / Matt 13:55. She has a somewhat larger role in two scenes in the Gospel of John—the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:3-5) and with the women and the ‘Beloved’ disciple at the cross (Jn 19:25-27). The latter episode presumably has greater symbolic meaning, perhaps suggesting that Mary is now the “mother” of the disciples (i.e. the Church). Of course, she is central to the Infancy narratives in Matt 1-2 and Luke 1-2 (as well as in later extra-canonical Gospels), and this would be the primary basis for the subsequent Catholic/Orthodox veneration of Mary, already evidenced in the so-called Proto-Gospel (Protevangelium) of James (early-mid 2nd century).

It is the Lukan narrative in which Mary plays the most prominent role, in several significant scenes:

  • Lk 1:26-38—The Angelic announcement of Jesus’ coming conception (and birth), indicating how she has been favored by God (v. 30), and will be touched by the presence and power of God (vv. 35-37)
  • Lk 1:39-56—The visit to Elizabeth, who utters the inspired blessing (vv. 42-45), and which is the occasion/setting for the oracle by Mary (in a few MSS it is by Elizabeth), the so-called Magnificat (vv. 46-55)
  • Lk 2:1-20—The birth and visit of the Shepherds; most significant is the statement in verse 19 that Mary “kept all these utterances [i.e. by the shepherds, etc] (close) together, throwing (them) together in her heart”. This shows her in the process of considering the meaning and significance of Jesus’ birth and the wondrous events associated with it.
  • Lk 2:22-35ff—The encounter with Simeon set in the Temple precincts, in the context of fulfilling the purification ritual (following childbirth), etc (vv. 22-24). Such details are brought out, in part, to show the faithfulness/devotion of Joseph and Mary in religious matters (vv. 21, 39, 41ff, 51). A portion of Simeon’s oracle is directed to Mary (v. 35, cf. my earlier note for more detail).

We may also mention her role in 2:41-51, which contains at least one important point of emphasis—that Jesus’ natural (family) relations are subordinate to his relationship to God (the Father), cf. the juxtaposition in vv. 44, 46, 48, and Jesus’ famous statement in v. 49.

According to some commentators, Luke’s version of the episode in Mark 3:31-35 par has been (re)interpreted to show that Mary, along with Jesus’ natural family (brothers, etc), are among those who believe and follow him (cf. the separate note on Lk 8:19-21). Whether or not this view is correct, Mary is clearly depicted as a believer in Acts 1:14, where she appears together with the Twelve (Eleven) apostles, other women followers, and (notably) Jesus’ brothers (at least some of them). Interestingly, Mary is not mentioned by name elsewhere in the New Testament, being referenced only indirectly in Gal 4:4 (cf. also Rom 1:3), and possibly the scene in Revelation 12 (vv. 4b-6).

5. Women in Luke-Acts

Many scholars and commentators have noted that, generally, the Gospel of Luke gives more attention to women. In addition to the expanded role of Mary in the Infancy narratives, etc (cf. above), we may point out the following episodes or details unique to Luke:

  • The role of Elizabeth (Lk 1:5-7, 13, 18, 24-25, 36, 39-56, 57-60ff), set parallel to Mary (part of the wider John/Jesus parallel in the narrative); she, like her husband Zechariah (vv. 67-79) is “filled with the Holy Spirit” and utters a prophetic announcement (vv. 42-45). In a few manuscripts, she is also the one who delivers the Magnificat (vv. 46-55).
  • The mention and description of Anna (2:36-38), a (female) prophet, just as Simeon was inspired to utter a prophetic oracle. They both are aged figures, frequenting the Temple precincts, representative of the righteous/pious ones of Israel (i.e., the Old Covenant) who are looking forward to the coming redemption (vv. 25, 38).
  • Sayings, parables and healing miracles involving women (cf. above)—Lk 4:25-26; 7:11-17; 13:10-17; 15:8-10; 18:2-5. As indicated above (section 1), such episodes in the Gospel tradition tend to relate to human suffering and injustice, which often afflicts women who are in an especially vulnerable position (widows, etc). Luke gives greater emphasis to matters involving the poor/outcast and what today we would call social justice. To these we can add the scene of Jesus being anointed by a “sinful” woman (7:36-50), seemingly a parallel version or ‘doublet’ of Mark 14:3-9 par; John 12:1-8, but with many important differences. Note also the scene on the way to the cross in Lk 23:28-29.
  • References to Mary Magdalene and the other women who followed Jesus—Lk 8:1-3; 23:49, 55-56; 24:1-12, 22-24—which, for the most part, Luke inherited as part of the wider Gospel (and Synoptic) Tradition (cf. above).

When we turn to the book of Acts, right away we see women, including Jesus’ mother Mary, among the close followers of Jesus waiting together in Jerusalem, in the ‘upper room’ (Acts 1:13-14). Women are certainly to be counted among the 120 who are likewise gathered together (1:15ff), and present when the Spirit comes upon them all on the day of Pentecost (2:1-4ff). This interpretation of the scenario is confirmed by the use of Joel 2:28-32 in the great Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter which follows (2:14-36, vv. 17-21). In that Scripture God declares that (in the last days)

“…I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy…”
“(yes,) even upon my (male) slaves and my (female) slaves will I pour out from my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy…”

The implication is clear: God gives out his Spirit upon all believers equally, male and female alike, regardless of socio-economic position (i.e., even upon slaves). The implications of this equality are not really followed through in the narrative of Acts, but they are dealt with, to some extent, by Paul in his letters (cf. the earlier articles in this series, esp. Parts 1 and 3 on 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Gal 3:28). The only female prophets specifically mentioned in the book of Acts are the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). There are also several passages where believers are distinctly referenced as “men and women” (5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2; 22:4; cf. also 17:4, 12). These references should not be limited to men and their wives—they are unquestionably to be read in the more general sense of male and female believers. Several of the verses refer to men and women sharing together in the persecution faced by believers (8:3; 9:2; 22:4). Elsewhere in the narratives, there are a number of episodes where specific women are involved; in at least some of these, we can infer that they likely played a significant role in the spread of Christianity and the establishment of churches:

  • 9:36-42—The disciple Tabitha/Dorcas, who was healed from a serious illness by Peter
  • 12:12ff—Mary the mother of John Mark, whose house apparently was used as a meeting-place for believers (a house-church? cf. Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15)
  • 16:11-15—Lydia, who along with other (prominent) women of Philippi, became believers during the missionary work of Paul and Silas (and Timothy, etc); she apparently hosted Paul and his companions in her house for a time (v. 15)
  • 17:34—Damaris, a woman specifically mentioned, apparently one of the few converts during Paul’s brief (and turbulent) stay in Athens
  • 18:2ff, 18, 26—Priscilla (or Prisca), with her husband Aquila, was a leader/minister in the churches of Corinth (1 Cor 16:19), Ephesus (cf. 2 Tim 4:19), and then (apparently) back in Rome (Rom 16:3). They hosted congregations in their house, and were close companions of Paul. Priscilla was a capable enough teacher in the faith to instruct Apollos “more accurately… (about) the Way [of God]” (Acts 18:26); the extent to which she may have done this in consort with her husband would seem to be of relatively little importance. However, it appears to have been troubling enough for the author/editor(s) of the “Western” version of Acts (D gig syr copsah arm al), that her name was either omitted from the text or placed after her husband’s (cf. the UBS/Metzger Textual Commentary [2nd edition], pp. 413-14). Some traditional-conservative commentators today might sense the same difficulty.

Note of the Day (Luke 8:19-21)

By | Note of the Day, Supplemental Study | No Comments

Luke 8:19-21

Today’s note is supplemental to the discussion on the role of Mary in the Gospel and early Christian tradition (in Part 7 of the current series on Women in the Church). As I noted previously, Mary is mentioned only twice in the core Synoptic Tradition, appearing briefly in just one episode: Mark 3:31-35 (with parallels in Matthew and Luke). The Markan narrative sequence (essentially followed by Matthew) can be outlined as follows:

  • 3:19b-20—Narrative introduction; and cf. the context of Jesus’ healing (exorcism) miracles in vv. 10-12
  • 3:21—Notice regarding the (negative) reaction by Jesus’ companions/relatives (lit. “the ones alongside”), declaring “he stands out of (himself)”, i.e. is beside himself, out of his mind, etc
  • 3:22-30—Jesus/Beelzebul episode:
    (i) The reaction by Scribes from Jerusalem to Jesus: “He holds Baal-zebul!”, “In (the power of) the chief of the daimons he casts out the daimons!” (v. 22)
    (ii) Two sayings/illustrations by Jesus, the second of which refers to the blasphemy (lit. “insult”) against the Holy Spirit (vv. 23-29)
    (iii) Comment/explanation by the Gospel writer (v. 30)
  • 3:31-35—Jesus’ true family: (a) narrative setting (vv. 31-32), (b) reaction and illustrative statement by Jesus (vv. 33-35)

Note how this sequence draws upon two important themes from earlier in the narrative:

  • Miracles of healing by Jesus (vv. 1-5ff), which includes exorcism of evil spirits (or daimons [“demons”]) (vv. 10-12)
  • Opposition and hostile reaction to Jesus by the religious authorities (vv. 1-6)
  • Jesus together with his disciples (vv. 7ff, 13-19a)

In 3:20-35, the central episode combines the first two of these themes—(a) Jesus’ power over the daimons and (evil) spirits responsible for disease, etc, and (b) hostile reaction by the religious authorities. Framing or bracketing this episode are two shorter episodes involving the reaction to Jesus by his (natural) relatives and companions, identified as:

  • “the ones alongside of him” (oi( par’ au)tou=)—v. 20, and
  • “his mother and his brothers”—v. 31

In the first instance, “the ones alongside” Jesus may refer to his relatives and neighbors. Upon hearing the things he was saying and doing (the healing/exorcism miracles?), they “came out [e)ch=lqon] to grab/seize him”, thinking that he was ‘out of his mind’. At the very least, this indicates that Jesus’ relatives (or companions) did not understand who he was or the nature of his ministry. The second scene is less negative: Jesus’ family (his mother [Mary] and brothers) came [e&rxetai] and stood outside of the house (or room) where Jesus was staying and teaching, etc., and sent (a messenger) to call for him. Matthew’s version adds the detail that they were “wishing to speak to him” (v. 46), and narrates the words of the messenger (v. 47, missing in some manuscripts): “See, your mother and your brothers have (been) stand(ing) outside, looking to speak with you”; in Mark, the crowd around Jesus gives this information to him (3:32). Jesus response is:

“‘Who is my mother and [my] brothers?’ And looking around at the circle (of people) sitting around him, he said: ‘See!—(here is) my mother and my brothers! [For] whoever would do this will of God, this (one) is my brother and sister and mother.'” (vv. 33-35)

Jesus clearly is contrasting his natural family with those (his followers, etc) who do God’s will—i.e., his religious or spiritual family. Matthew’s version makes this even more clear: instead of “looking around” at the people, Jesus stretches out his hand over his disciples (12:49) before making the declaration.

Luke (8:19-21), it would seem, has changed the emphasis of this scene, in several ways:

  • It no longer occurs in the context of the Beelzebul episode (narrated in 11:14-23), thus removing it from the theme of hostile/negative reaction and opposition to Jesus. It also is no longer set parallel with the reaction of Jesus’ companions in Mk 3:20 (Luke and Matthew both omit or do not include this scene).
  • In the Lukan narrative context, the episode follows two Synoptic parables (8:4-18) which effectively emphasize faithful discipleship and response to the Gospel, in which the true disciples are contrasted with those who fall away or are not faithful. Moreover, the chapter begins with a notice (8:1-3) of Jesus’ close disciples who are sharing in his ministry work—this includes a number of women (vv. 2-3; cf. Mk 15:41).
  • In the episode itself, there is no contrast between Jesus’ natural family and his disciples; almost certainly Luke has omitted this detail on purpose.

Here is how the episode reads in Luke’s version:

“And his mother and his brothers came to be alongside [parege/neto] near [pro$, lit. “toward”] him, but were unable to hit [i.e. meet] together with him through the throng (of people); and the message was (sent) to him: ‘Your mother and your brothers have (been) stand(ing) outside wishing to see you’. And answering Jesus said to them, ‘My mother and my brothers—these are the (one) hearing and doing the word of God!'”

We find less of a contrast or division—his family outside, Jesus and his disciples inside—in this version. Moreover, his mother [Mary] and brothers have come near to Jesus and wish to see him, but are unable to reach him through the crowd. In the Lukan context, this suggests that Mary and his brothers wish to be together with Jesus, as disciples, like the Twelve and the women mentioned in 8:1-3. Luke would count them as followers of Jesus—that is, as believers—but they are separated from him by circumstances related to his ministry work (i.e. the crowds). Earlier in the Infancy narrative, we find a similar image of Mary responding in faith and obedience (Lk 1:38, 46ff; 2:21-24, 39, 41), wishing to understand the nature of the miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ birth (2:19); but true belief/understanding would not result without difficulty and struggle (and division) along the way (2:35, 44-50). That there was some degree of misunderstanding and opposition toward Jesus by his family and relatives is indicated, not only in Mark 3:20, but by the narrative detail in John 7:1-10 (cf. also Mk 6:1-6 par; Lk 4:22-30). Ultimately, the Lukan interpretation of the scene in chapter 8, suggested above, is confirmed by the notice in Acts 1:14, where Mary and Jesus’ brothers are there, as believers, together with the Twelve and the faithful women—all in the same room, with no separation.