Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament

In Christopher Wright’s book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament he presents the concept of Jesus as Messiah. The two main issues he addresses are that of the Old Testament passages that refer to the Messiah and how the New Testament writers saw Jesus in the Scriptures, as well as the issue of Jesus’ own views on the role of the Messiah and how he fit in this role. The idea of Jesus as Messiah or Christ is not uncommon among Christians, but Wright shows how the concept of Jesus as Messiah actually has a much deeper meaning than what we generally think of today. Wright shows that the Gospels are filled with language indicating the nature of Jesus as that of Messiah. The Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament constantly refer back to Old Testament passages in their attempt to show that Jesus truly was the Messiah of Israel. Matthew’s gospel begins with the genealogy of Jesus. While this at first may seem like a boring passage simply showing that Jesus had a long human ancestry, this text goes deeper than that. It is a summary of the people of Israel and their history, saying that the history of Israel may be summed up completely in Jesus himself (34).

This genealogy begins with the person of Abraham and lists off fourteen generations until the time of King David, followed by fourteen more generations to the period of the exile, and finally fourteen more generations until we get to the birth of Jesus. Here, the genealogy ends. It begins with Abraham because of the Abrahamic Covenant (3). In the book of Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham saying that he would have a son, and that the descendants of this son would be great and numerous. God also promised that through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed. This was the role of Israel as Abraham’s descendants (4). They were to be a blessing and light to all the nations of the world, showing them the way back to God. However, Israel failed in its mission repeatedly. The second major stop in this history of Israel is with King David. God made a covenant to David as well, promising him that he would never fail to have an heir or a descendant of his sitting on the throne, fulfilling the role of king (5). This promise remained true until Israel reached the next major event, the exile to Babylon. Here, it looked as though God’s promise had failed and that he had given up all hope for Israel and its redemptive role in the world. However, the people of Judah returned from exile. The genealogy lists another fourteen generations from this time until the time of Jesus’ birth. The expectation at the time of the restoration of Judah is that the King of Judah, the one of David’s line would be restored to the throne. The history of Israel is then summed up with Jesus because Jesus is not only the one who will restore the Davidic dynasty in himself as the eternal king, but he will also fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant by becoming a blessing to all nations of the earth as Abraham’s seed. The Davidic Covenant became linked with the Abrahamic Covenant at some point after the time of David (5). This can be seen in the language of Psalm 72 where the understanding has become that the ruler who sits on David’s throne will fulfill a particular kind of role, one in which all nations on earth would be blessed through him (6).

In Matthew’s gospel there is an emphasis upon the fact that the fulfillment of Jesus as Messiah is not just something that is only for the Jews, but for Gentiles as well. (5)  This is seen in the list of women who are briefly mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. All of these were foreign women, most of whom bore children by questionable means. Yet, these are the people Matthew chose to include in his genealogy – Tamar, who bore twins by her father-in-law; Ruth, a Moabitess supposedly descended from an incestuous relationship; Rahab, a foreigner and a prostitute; Bath-Sheba, a foreigner who committed adultery with King David (4-5). Matthew did this on purpose. He wanted to show that even Jesus, the ultimate Jew, had Gentile blood in his veins, just as King David. The Davidic King must represent all nations so that all will be blessed. Also, Matthew gives very specific groups of fourteen in his genealogy, even leaving certain generations out, and altogether ignoring the generations before the time of Abraham (6). He did this because of the numerical significance with the groups of numbers being divisible by seven, an important number, and with Jesus being placed at the conclusion of all these sevens, showing that he is the ultimate completion of Israel and Israel’s purpose (7).

Another one of Wright’s main points is that of Jesus’ own perception of himself and his purpose. The writers of the New Testament go out of their way to show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah or the anointed one and that he is the true and final fulfillment of Israel, summing up the Law and the Prophets, and that Jesus is Israel’s true Davidic king. The Gospel writers use various passages from the Old Testament to show that the Old Testament predicted his coming and what he would do. Modern exegetes may find some of these uses of Old Testament passages by the Gospel writers to be taken out of context. An example would be the passage in Isaiah 7 where King Ahaz is told by the prophet that a “virgin” (LXX) with give birth to a son and he will be called Emmanuel, God with us. Matthew uses this passage, along with others, for his own purposes. This passage may not have been talking about Jesus, but about the circumstances of King Ahaz’s time. However, what Matthew did was not necessarily wrong. Yes, he takes these verses out of context and applies them to his own story of Jesus’ birth, but in Matthew’s understanding he was recognizing the similarities between what God had done in the past and what he had done most recently in Jesus. Matthew believed that what took place in the past had significance not only for the past, but for what had happened in Jesus in his own time (58).

The gospel writers use much language to describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic King of the Old Testament promises.  However, Jesus does not really use this kind of language when he is referring to himself throughout the gospels. Wright says that Jesus more thoroughly identifies himself with the Son of Man as referenced in the book of the prophet Daniel, especially in chapter 7, as well as the Suffering Servant as portrayed in the book of Isaiah, especially in chapter 53 (148-58). However, the Son of Man in Daniel does not seem to very well portray the picture of Christ in the gospels even though Jesus referred to himself as “son of man” (153). He identifies the most with the Suffering Servant (154). In Jesus’ time, the passages in Daniel and Isaiah and some elsewhere had come to be seen for the most part as referring to the coming of the Messiah in Israel’s history. Jesus seemed to agree with this conclusion and, seeing himself fulfilling these roles. However, Jesus’ view of himself also differed considerably from others in that many believed that when the Messiah would come, he would overthrow the Romans and Jesus did not intend to do this (138). He identified much more with the Suffering Servant who would carry the sins of his people upon himself. With this understanding, Jesus would go to the cross and die, dashing the hopes of many of his followers who did not understand the nature of the Suffering Servant and how to reconcile this picture with that of the all-powerful Son of Man. While this may have dashed the hopes of many, Jesus truly does fulfill the expectations of both the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man in both his death and his resurrection.

At the time I was reading this book, I was also reading Scot McKnight’s King Jesus Gospel for Prof. Robertson’s evangelism class. These two books had some very similar things to say about the role of Jesus as Messiah, so I kept getting the two books mixed up. However, having looked back upon this book, I believe that it is superior to McKnight’s book. McKnight got caught up on his own pet peeves about the church and this served as the basis of his look at Jesus as Messiah. Wright looks at Jesus as Messiah on a much more academic level. Wright is also does a much more thorough job when looking at the history of Israel He goes into the details of the texts, and this is something that I appreciate. I think that often when people try to take a serious look at these texts they wind up talking too much about what they personally have gotten out of the texts. While this is certainly a valid thing to do, it becomes tiresome after the third or fourth rant. Wright, however, does an excellent job in presenting the facts and details of the passages he uses without getting caught up too much in his own opinions. While his opinions are obviously present, he gives fair treatment of various perspectives and possibilities without being too quick to jump to conclusions.

Something I enjoyed about Wright’s book was that he provided a fairly thorough look at the various scriptures of the Old Testament that refer to the concept of the Messiah as well as looking at the various kinds of covenants and their contexts within the Old Testament (77-101). Wright’s book was a helpful resource for my paper on Psalm 72 because of his conversation on these covenants. I was previously aware of the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants coming into play with Psalm 72, but after looking at surrounding psalms I saw how these two covenants are not the only ones to which the psalmist refers back. The psalms speak of Mosaic and Noahic covenants as well. I enjoyed examining Psalm 72 further, using Wright as a reference and guide, to see if this particular psalm contained hints at other covenants besides those of David and Abraham.

Another thing I appreciated with Wright’s book was the issue of Jesus’ human identity in his recognition of his role as Messiah. I find it fascinating to think about how Jesus first learned that he was the Messiah. I think we often do not think about this because we assume that because Jesus was God he of course knew it all along. Yet, I appreciate learning more about how the Jews had come to view the Messiah during Jesus’ lifetime and how they thought that the one who would be Messiah would not necessarily know until God revealed it to them at some point in their life. Wright made me wonder when Jesus might have realized this for himself as well as getting me to think about many other thought-provoking issues and concepts.

Deconstructing Mark

Within the world of deconstruction is seen the dismantling of the hierarchical system of binary oppositions as established within the realm of structuralism. Structuralism, with its very modernist approach, sought to place specific rules and boundaries upon the interpretation of the text. Deconstruction seeks to take apart the text bit by bit in order to understand the broader meaning of what has been written without limiting itself to the boundaries established by structuralism.

Within the context of the deconstructive thought process of postmodernism lies the idea that there is more than one specific meaning to any given text. There are many layers of meanings that may be applied. Those with this view believe that the author had multiple meanings when he wrote what he did and also that many more meanings can be found within the text without a connection to the author and his original intent for the text. “A deconstructor begins textual analysis by assuming that a text has multiple interpretations and that it allows itself to be reread and thus reinterpreted countless times.”[1] While this idea of multiple meanings in a text sounds like a very postmodern way of thinking, it is actually a very old way of interpreting the Scriptures. One can see this type of thinking in the four-fold method of interpreting Scripture as seen in the early schools of the early church. Along with this would be Philo’s methods of allegory. However, this way of thinking goes much farther back in time than this. The ancient Jewish rabbis had a saying that said, “To every text is seventy faces,” indicating that they believed in multiple meanings and interpretations of the scriptural texts. These various meanings of the texts which the rabbis discovered came to be known as midrash, or their own interpretations or commentaries on what the Scriptures said and meant.

In order to find the multiple meanings behind the text, one must first stop assuming that there is only one meaning to what has been written. If one believes that there is only one specific meaning behind a text then they will not be open to examining the many other possible meanings of that text. “When beginning the interpretive process, deconstructors seek to override their own logocentric and inherited ways of viewing the text.” [2] One must detach themselves from modernist and structuralist ways of thinking about the text. Structuralism seeks to find the meaning of the text based on its own principles. Deconstruction sees these principles as weak and limiting and wishes to establish its own ways of interpretation. Deconstruction seeks to abolish the hierarchies established by the binary oppositions found in the structuralist methods of interpretation. Within structuralism is seen the idea that binary oppositions may be found and established within the text with one opposition being more significant or superior to its counterpart. Deconstruction states that one opposition is not necessarily more important than its counterpart. They may be of equal importance or value.

Also, with structuralism, one bases their interpretation upon preconceived ideas of rank and value of certain things. “According to Derrida, Western thought has always been built on binary oppositions […] The first term in each pair, as Derrida notes, is ordinarily assumed to be superior to the second and is elevated over it.”[3] For example, within the binary opposition of heaven and earth one would assume that heaven is of greater importance than earth – the spiritual realm over the physical realm. This is why when these two words are listed together – “heaven and earth” – heaven is listed before earth, instead of listing them as “earth and heaven.” Deconstructive thought says that one must question whether or not the rankings and the hierarchies that have been given to these binary oppositions are indeed the best way of looking at them. If one believes that heaven is more important than earth then this will influence greatly how they interpret any passage of Scripture relating to heaven and earth. Deconstruction asks, “What if we reversed the order? What if our preconceived notions and ideas of hierarchy are skewed? If the structuralist idea of heaven being more important than earth is not true, then how would that affect the way we interpret all other texts?” In reversing the order that these two concepts of heaven and earth are ranked within the structuralist mindset we may discover that earth is just as important as heaven or perhaps even more important than heaven. In reversing the order and so reinvestigating the significance of the various binary oppositions within the text, one may discover that there were in fact much deeper meanings to what was said in the text than what had been previously understood which was based upon perhaps faulty understandings on the relationship of one thing to another.

Deconstruction does not want the reader to be limited to what has always been understood as the major themes of the text. Deconstruction sees the obscure parts of the passages as being of great importance as well. With the example of heaven and earth, heaven would have been considered the major and more important theme, and earth the afterthought or the obscure idea; but with the reversal of the placement of the binary oppositions within the text, the obscurity of earth becomes less obscure and perhaps even just as important as the traditionally higher-elevated heaven. With this particular example - the reversal of “heaven and earth” to “earth and heaven” - one may find deeper levels of meaning now that the structuralist hierarchy has been pushed to the side for the moment. The new levels of meaning that one may take from this particular example could be such ideas as God’s creation of both heaven and earth as perhaps being of equal significance. Perhaps earth is just as important of a creation as heaven in God’s mind. Perhaps the physical aspects of His creation are just as important as the spiritual aspects. Perhaps the life lived on earth is just as important as the life lived in heaven. Perhaps this would also imply that the physicality of our makeup as humans could be just as important as our spirituality. These are just a few examples of what could be implied through the reversal of the binary oppositions within a text.

A good example of this concept being applied in the Gospel of Mark can be found in Mark 2:23-28. In this passage, Jesus and his disciples are walking through a grain field on the Sabbath when his disciples begin to pick pieces of grain and eat them. The Pharisees see this and complain to Jesus, letting him know that his disciples are working on the Sabbath and not obeying the Law (vv.22-3). Jesus responds by reminding them of the story of King David when he went into the temple and gave the consecrated bread to his men to eat when they were hungry and in need (vv. 25-6). While this does not necessarily say that the sacredness of the bread was not important, it does imply that the people who ate the sacred bread were just as important as the bread itself. In this is seen the idea that the earthly things may be just as important as the heavenly things. This is further seen when Jesus himself in verse 27 reverses the binary oppositions held by the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that the heavenly – the Sabbath – was more important than the earthly – man. Jesus turns this hierarchy on its head when he says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (v. 27). Jesus himself is applying one of the principles of deconstruction when he does this.

There are several examples within the Gospel of Mark where Jesus is seen reversing the binary oppositions of the day as they were interpreted by the Pharisees. In the story of the calling of Levi, Jesus is seen eating at Levi’s house among the tax collectors and “sinners.” The Pharisees observe this and point out to his disciples the questionability of the company he is keeping (Mark 2:15-6). Jesus responds by saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (v. 17). In saying this, Jesus is reversing the binary opposition of “healthy over sick.” He instead places greater significance on the sick. This does not necessarily lower the importance of the healthy, however, since the obvious goal is to make the sick people into healthy people. It does say, though, that the sick people are just as important as the healthy people, and that God cares just as much about the sick as He does the healthy, or that He cares just as much about “sinners” as He does the righteous.

Jesus also reverses the binary oppositions of “first and last” a number of times within the Gospel of Mark. In Mark 9:33-7, Jesus asks his disciples what they were arguing about on the road, but they keep silent because they had been arguing about which one of them was the greatest. Jesus then says to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all” (v. 35). Jesus reverses the binary opposition from “first over last” to “last over first” and in doing so places the position of “servant” into a position of honor.

Later, in Mark 10:35-45, Jesus is approached by James and John who ask him if they may sit at his right and his left in his glory. Jesus tells them that they do not know what they are asking, and the other disciples become upset with the two brothers. Jesus then calls all of them together and tells them that if any one of them want to be great, they must learn to be a servant, “and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (v. 44). Jesus again places the last above the first, and in so doing ranks being a slave or a servant above the position of ruler, thus reversing the normal understanding of this binary opposition which stated that those who are ranked first in their position in life are more important than those who are ranked last.

This reversal which places the role of servant above other roles is key to understanding the Gospel of Mark. The disciples have much difficulty in understanding this concept. They expect Jesus to be a powerful and domineering ruler who will establish the kingdom of God. They do not understand that Jesus must come as a servant in order to bring in the kingdom. It is ironic that those who are closest to Jesus fail to see him for who he really is. This reversal of the concept of first and last also applies to Jesus’ reversal of bigger and smaller. In Mark 4:30-2 Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed. It is an unspoken implication that the people believe that bigger things are more important than smaller things, but Jesus tells them that the mustard seed starts out as the smallest only to become the greatest later. This does not say that bigger things are bad. On the contrary, the goal is that the smaller things become bigger. However, this does seem to say that the smaller thing is just as important as the larger thing, especially since the larger does not exist without first being small. This understanding of these binary oppositions is reflective of what Jesus is trying to teach about the kingdom of God and about himself. He is saying that in order to bring in the kingdom that he will rule he must first be a servant – he must first be small. Jesus displays this reversal in his existence as a human – God made into flesh. The disciples, however, fail to recognize just how important this concept is, which leads to another binary opposition which is discussed quite readily in Stephen Moore’s article on the deconstruction of Mark.

One of the main points of Stephen Moore’s article is that within the Gospel of Mark there is seen the binary opposition of insider vs. outsider. Normally, the insider would be the one considered as the more privileged or the greater one of the pair. However, Moore points out that often the disciples are left clueless as to what Jesus is trying to communicate to them, making them outsiders to his message. So it would seem that those who are on the inside, the ones who know Jesus the best, are really on the outside because they have very limited understanding as to who Jesus actually is. However, Moore also points out that within Mark’s gospel those who would normally be considered as outsiders, those who should not have understood who Jesus was, were the ones who understood who Jesus was more than his closest friends. The crowds tended to not know who Jesus was, Jesus’ disciples did not always have a good understanding of who he was, and even his own family said that he was out of his mind. However, there are examples within Mark of outsiders, of non-Jews, recognizing Jesus for who he really is. An example Moore uses in his article is that of the centurion who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus. When the centurion sees all that happens and how Jesus died, he exclaims, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39). This Gentile, this Roman, this outsider, sees Jesus for who he really is, and in doing so becomes an insider. Mark shows through this reversal of the positions of these binary oppositions that Christianity is not for the Jew alone, but for the Gentile as well. Many of those who should have been insiders - the Jews - were outsiders, and a number of those who should have been outsiders - the Gentiles - were insiders. This concept is also seen in the story of the faith of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30). In that story, this Greek woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter who is suffering from demon-possession, and Jesus quotes to her a saying that says it is not right to give to the dogs the food that belongs to the children, indicating the established belief that the Jews were more important than the Gentiles. The woman responds by saying that “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28). Jesus tells her that this is a good reply and then heals her daughter. In this example, one sees Jesus’ inclusion of the Gentiles as well as the ability of the Gentiles to be considered as insiders.

Another example of the inclusion of the Gentiles as insiders can be seen in the two different stories of Jesus feeding the crowds. In the first account – the feeding of the five thousand – Jesus miraculously provides food for all of the people who have come to hear him teach. After the meal, the disciples pick up twelve basketfuls of leftovers. In the second account – the feeding of the four thousand – Jesus miraculously provides food for all of the people who have come to him, and after the meal the disciples pick up seven basketfuls of leftovers. It is important to note that in the first account, the miracle occurs in the land of the Jews. The second feeding occurs after Jesus and his disciples have traveled to the land of the Gentiles. It is also important to remember that the land of the Jews was referred to as “the land of the twelve” because of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that the land of the Gentiles in this area was referred to by the Jews as “the land of the seven,” which referred to the seven pagan nations that had lived there. It would seem then that the number of baskets leftover after each meal is related to the places in which the meals were eaten as well as the people who ate. It would seem that Jesus is telling his disciples as they gather the leftovers that they must gather disciples not only from the twelve tribes of Israel but also from the lands of the pagans. In giving this picture, Jesus includes the Gentiles in his kingdom, placing them as insiders. The irony of this comes later in Mark when Jesus mentions “the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod” (Mark 8:15). The disciples think he is talking about how they had forgotten to bring bread along. Jesus rebukes them for their lack of understanding and asks them if they remembered how many basketfuls of bread were left over from the five thousand and the four thousand. They tell him that there were twelve and seven. Jesus then asks, “Do you still not understand?” (Mark 8:16-21). The passage ends this way, with the disciples not understanding what Jesus is trying to tell them. Again, those closest to Jesus have become outsiders when they should have been insiders. It is even more ironic that the thing in this passage that they fail to comprehend is Jesus’ indication that the Gentiles are to be included as insiders.

These reversals of binary oppositions which are seen in Mark continually indicate to the reader that the Gospel is not something that only the Jews may receive. It is for Gentiles as well. The Jews did not understand and became outsiders. The Gentiles were the ones who ended up embracing Jesus. The binary opposition of “Jew over Gentile” which stated that the Jews were God’s chosen people and superior to the Gentiles is then placed on its head since the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah and the Gentiles ended up receiving him. Moore goes on to say that this reversal became commonplace over time. However, instead of the Gentile Christians being placed on an equal level with the Jews, the Gentiles eventually came to be seen as superior to the Jews. It is this line of thinking which led to such events as the crusades in which Gentile Christians not only slaughtered Muslims, but Jews as well. Stephen Moore points out that this is also the line of thought that eventually led to the slaughter of six million Jews by Nazi Germany in the holocaust of World War II. Moore points out that while it is true that the Gospel of Mark does not portray Jesus’ Jewish disciples in the highest regard and does indeed elevate the Gentile Christian, the placement of the Gentiles as superior to the Jews has taken the reversal of the binary opposition too far. Moore points out that Jesus’ disciples eventually do not remain in their ignorant and cowardice state. While Mark’s original ending does not show this and ends with the women knowing about the resurrection but being too afraid to tell anyone, the extended edition of Mark does give a glimpse of things that are to come. Jesus’ Jewish disciples will no longer be ignorant and cowards, but will become the founders of the church which took the Gospel to both the Jew and the Gentile and proclaimed that in Christ there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). So deconstruction’s reversal of the binary opposition does not always mean that the traditionally inferior thing should be placed above the traditionally higher one, but deconstruction does say that the traditional hierarchies should most definitely be rethought.


___________________________________________________


[1] Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall), 126.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Stephen D. Moore, Deconstructive Criticism: Turning Mark Inside-Out, ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), 98

New Testament Topics: The Travel Narrative of Luke

Within the center of the Gospel of Luke lies a section of Scripture known as “The Travel Narrative” or “The Journey to Jerusalem.” This section of the gospel begins at chapter nine, verse fifty-one, and extends until chapter eighteen, verse fourteen. This travel narrative fits into the overall theme of Luke-Acts by the way it attempts to show the reader that Jesus came not only for the Jews and the law-keepers, but for the Gentiles and sinners as well. Luke appears to be a very Jewish work, but it deals with issues that the early Jewish Christians would have been facing, such as what to do with the Gentiles (Powell 60). This travel narrative is unique in many ways to the four gospels, including the three synoptics. While other gospels show Jesus and His disciples making their way on up to Jerusalem, Luke’s presentation of this event contains much material not seen in any of the other gospels. It is thought that much of the material Luke incorporates into this section of his gospel came from a source or sources not used in any of the other gospel accounts. These sources or source are known as “L” among New Testament scholars. What does not come from the “L” source in this section is thought to be derived from the “Q” source and Mark’s Gospel. This travel narrative contains a number of materials found in the other gospels; however, there are a great number of materials unique to this gospel (Fitzmyer 265).

In the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, the writer states that he intends to write an orderly account of the life of Jesus. When one comes to “The Travel Narrative” portion of this Gospel, however, one may recognize that this portion of the story differs from the rest of the narrative. While much of Luke appears to be in chronological order, and interested in being as historically accurate as possible, this section deviates from this pattern. “The Travel Narrative” does not pay strict attention to the order of events. For some reason, Luke decided to deter from his orderly account. However, when one looks at the structure of “The Travel Narrative” one may see that this part of the story does in fact follow an orderly pattern of thought. The arrangement of the material within this section is not according to chronology, but rather to theme.

The New International Biblical Commentary suggests that this portion of Luke is arranged according to certain themes presented in the book of Deuteronomy, and that each theme in Luke is presented in the same order as they are presented in Deuteronomy (167). For example, the event towards the beginning of “The Travel Narrative” where Jesus sends out the seventy (or seventy-two) is seen to parallel or correspond with the seventy who accompanied Moses when he went up the mountain. If this is the case, then Luke would have had to have been very familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. This idea also draws attention to the fact that Luke’s Gospel portrays a message that is different in a way than the message of Deuteronomy. While the gospel-writer does not reject Deuteronomy, he does present similar materials to those seen in Deuteronomy in a rather different light than the way they are presented in Deuteronomy.

Luke’s Gospel contains the message that Christ came to save not only the Jews, but the Gentiles (goi’im) as well. Everything within Luke’s Gospel can be seen as an attempt to show that Christianity or following Christ is not limited to the Jews. This is one reason why Luke takes Jewish ideas and concepts such as those found in Deuteronomy and presents them in a way that is favorable to the Gentiles (Evans 167-8).

At the beginning of “The Travel Narrative” it is stated that Jesus turned His face toward Jerusalem. This verse lays the foundation for all that is about to take place. From this point on, the story of Jesus is based for the most part upon His teachings, rather than upon the actual events, presumably that were given on His way to Jerusalem. These teachings are grouped together according to theme, and one should not think that one of Jesus’ sayings was immediately followed by the next. While this may be possible, it would appear to be more likely - and this taking into consideration the placements of different teachings in the other gospels as well - that the sayings and teachings of Jesus are presented according to theme, as well as according to the various points the gospel-writer was trying to make.

Near the beginning of “The Travel Narrative” Jesus is said to send his disciples on ahead of Him to prepare the way. However, when they come to a Samaritan town, and the Samaritans find out that Jesus is on His way to take care of business in Jerusalem, the Samaritans say that He and His disciples are not welcome. When the disciples report this news to Jesus, James and John (the sons of Zebedee) ask Jesus if He would like them to call down fire from Heaven upon these Samaritans. This may in fact be a reference either by the gospel-writer, or by the young disciples themselves to the famous prophet Elijah. The disciples would have known the story of Elijah calling down fire from Heaven to consume the commander and soldiers when they came from Samaria to arrest him. James and John believed that if Elijah would call down fire to destroy unbelieving Samarians, then Jesus would certainly do no less. However, Jesus rebuked the two disciples for saying such a thing. Luke uses this event to show that Jesus did not come to destroy life, but to save it. He also shows that Jesus had compassion on the Samaritans, thus indicating that Jesus came not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well (Powell 61). This is the first reinforcement of Luke’s theme of salvation for all people presented in “The Travel Narrative.”

The verses immediately following this show Jesus talking to three different people. It is likely that these three people did not approach Jesus at the same time, but that Luke recorded three different conversations and grouped them together based on their theme and in order to make a point. The three potential disciples all wish to follow Jesus, but they have various things that they would like to do first. Jesus tells each of them that if they really want to follow Him, they must give up all of these other things. This is a hard teaching, because Jesus is asking them not to do things that were considered good, even important for an individual to do, but Jesus is saying that following Him is more important than even ones family ties. There is also another reference to Elijah here. One man states that he would like to go say good-by to his family before following Jesus. This is the same request that Elisha made to Elijah when he received his calling. Elijah allowed Elisha his request, but Jesus says that whoever “puts his hand to the plow and looks back” is not fit for “service in the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). This is also a reference to the same story, for Elisha was plowing when he received his call.

In chapter ten, Jesus sends out the seventy (or seventy-two) to the towns ahead of Him to prepare them for His arrival. Jesus then is recorded as saying that those Jewish towns who reject Him will receive a worse punishment than the wicked pagan nations who did not have a chance to receive Him. Jesus indicates that the wicked Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon, and even Sodom and Gomorrah, will receive a lesser punishment than the Jewish cities that reject Him. This would appear to be another attempt by the gospel-writer to show that the Jews are no better than the Gentiles. Jesus even says that if the miracles that had been performed in the Jewish cities had been performed in the wicked Gentile cities they would have repented.

Throughout Luke, the gospel-writer has a way of turning things on their heads. He portrays Jesus as being one who has no problem with messing with people’s traditions if they interfere with the Kingdom of God. In this way, many role-reversals may be seen presented. In verse twenty-one Jesus praises His Father for hiding “these things from the wise and learned” and instead revealing them to “little children.”

Jesus also shows His willingness to upset tradition when it interferes with the Kingdom of God when he is tested by an expert in the law. Both the torah-teacher and the rabbi (Jesus) agree that the best thing one can do is to love God with all of their being, and to love their neighbor as them self. The torah-teacher sets Jesus up by asking him who his neighbor is anyway, and Jesus responds by telling a parable. In the parable Jesus says that both a priest and a Levite saw a fellow Jew left for dead on the road to Jericho, and they left the man there and went on their way. Jesus’ point is that these two thought that the laws of cleanliness were more important than the law that said to love your neighbor. Jesus then says that a Samaritan came along and helped the Jewish man left for dead. Jesus says that even this Samaritan knew which was the more important law. In making the good man a Samaritan Jesus is again showing that Gentiles are no worse than the Jews (Powell 61).

Jesus is also recorded as allowing Mary to sit at his feet like he allowed his disciples to do and listen to his teachings. This is another example of Jesus’ overturning the laws of social norms when they interfere with the Kingdom of God. Jesus came not only for men, but for women as well (Powell 63). When Martha tells Jesus to rebuke her sister Mary for not helping her with the meal preparations, Jesus says that Mary “has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her” (Lk. 10:42).

Chapter eleven begins by Jesus teaching His disciples how to pray, and then a grouping of teachings is listed on prayer. This is followed by an account of Jesus driving out a demon and a list of several sayings relating to the topic. Jesus then goes on to say that the people He has been speaking to are wicked. He emphasizes the thought that the Gentiles are no worse than these people by referring to the Ninevites who repented at Jonah’s preaching, and the Queen of the South, who sought out Solomon’s wisdom. He says that they will condemn “this generation” at the judgment for not receiving Him.

Later, Jesus again flips tradition on its head by not washing before the meal at a Pharisee’s house. Jesus uses this as an opportunity to point out that there are more important laws than washing ones hands, and the Pharisees have decided to follow the less important laws while ignoring the most important laws of loving God and loving neighbor. More of Jesus’ sayings against the Pharisees are recorded at the beginning of chapter twelve.

Luke then gives a record of Jesus’ sayings in regard to putting faith in God rather than in material things. The parable of the rich fool is recorded here, as well the famous “lilies of the field” series of sayings. Luke then records a series of teachings by Jesus on the Second Coming, saying that one must be ready for this event. Jesus calls all to repentance. In the midst of this call, Luke records a unique teaching of Jesus. Jesus goes against popular thought and says that people who had been killed tragically were not being punished by God for sin. They were no more guilty than anybody else. In this passage, Luke records the healing of the crippled woman on the Sabbath. In both stories or teachings, Luke appears to use Jewish symbolism. He uses the number eighteen to describe both the number of people tragically killed as well as the number of years this woman had been crippled by a spirit (Keck 273). The fact that her infirmity was caused by a spirit is significant. The number eighteen is essentially the same as six and six and six, indicating that her infirmity, as well as the tragic deaths of the others, were directly related to Satan. It is fitting then that Jesus heals this woman on the Sabbath, the seventh day. In this way, Luke uses Jewish convention to tell his version of the gospel. At this point, Jesus also reiterates the fact that the Pharisees have chosen to make certain rules, such a strict interpretation of keeping the Sabbath more important than the law of loving ones neighbor.

After this, Luke records Jesus’ sayings about the Kingdom of God, and includes a foreshadowing of Jesus’ soon coming death in Jerusalem. Luke also records the account of Jesus healing a man during the Sabbath meal at a Pharisee’s house in the same place where he records Jesus’ sayings on inviting the poor to banquets rather than the rich (Powell 61).This leads into Jesus’ story about the great wedding banquet. Luke then records a number of Jesus’ sayings, such as His words about counting the cost of what one does, salt without saltiness, and placing the command to follow Him above the command to love ones family.

In chapter fifteen, Luke records three of Jesus parables on searching for what is lost. In these stories, Jesus paints a picture of God that shows His character. He shows that God is a God who loves everybody dearly no matter what they have done, and longs desperately to bring them back into His presence. In the parable of the lost son, Jesus ends His story with the older brother deciding whether or not to welcome his brother back into the family as his father has done. In this way, Jesus is telling his audience to go against their tradition of excluding those who have rebelled against the community. Jesus tells them that they should always be ready to welcome these people back.

In chapter sixteen come some of Jesus’ more difficult teachings. At the center of this section of the narrative is the message that one must choose to love God over money (Powell 61). Jesus tells the story of the “shrewd” manager, and of the rich man and Lazarus. Within chapters sixteen and seventeen Luke adds some sayings of Jesus on divorce, sin, faith, and duty which seem unrelated to the other themes. Luke then reiterates the fact that Jesus is on His way to Jerusalem and proceeds to tell a story about Jesus healing ten lepers, but only the Samaritan leper coming back to thank Him. In this way, Luke again places the hated Samaritans in a favorable light.

Jesus again speaks of the coming of the Kingdom of God, pointing out that this is a spiritual kingdom. However, he goes on to say that while the Kingdom is spiritual it will take on physical form some day. Jesus then begins to speak of prayer and its part in the coming of the Kingdom. He says to pray and never give up, and he tells a story about a tax collector and a Pharisee who both prayed, but the tax collector was the one whom God accepted because he was the humble one. This is how “The Travel Narrative” ends. Up until the end, Jesus is portrayed as one who is not only for the Jews and the righteous law-keepers; He is shown throughout the narrative to be for everyone.

_______________________________________________

Sources

Evans, Craig A. (ed.) New International Biblical Commentary, 5th printing. Hendrickson Pub., Inc.: 2002. Peabody, Mass.

Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction, 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill: 2009. New York.

Powell, Mark Allan. (ed.) The New Testament Today. Westminster John Knox Press: 1999. Louisville, Kentucky.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (ed.) The Anchor Bible. The Gospel according to Luke I-IX. Bantam Doubleday Dell Pub.: 1970. New York.

Keck, Leander E. (ed.) New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. IX Luke John. Abingdon Press: 1995. Nashville, TN.