Character Sketch of Paul

Within the undisputed letters of Paul one may see many different character traits of the apostle. He is no doubt passionate, faithful to Christ, and outspoken in his beliefs. Some might say that he even comes across as prideful a number of different times. In order to understand better what Paul’s character traits were, one must study the letters he wrote to his fellow believers as he served them and many others in ministry. Marion L. Soards says in “The Life and Writings of Paul”, “Since the epistles are what remain directly from Paul’s efforts as an apostle, one should examine them in terms of their organization and style to see if they offer further insight into the character of their author” (86). One must examine what Paul wrote and how he wrote it in order to better understand what different kinds of character traits may be correctly attributed to Paul. While there are many different character traits that can be attributed to Paul, four that are of particular interest are Paul’s sense of loyalty, his sense of hopefulness, his affectionate spirit, and his sense of humility.

Paul was loyal to what he knew to be true. He identified himself with Christ, and refused to accept any teaching that appeared to be contrary to what he knew about Christ. This is seen in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He writes, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6-7a, NIV). He says that the Galatians have gone astray by believing in a false gospel, and he rebukes them for this. He continues, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:7b-8, NIV). Paul was loyal to his faith in Christ, placing Christ above all else. He even went so far as to say that if he himself were to ever preach something false about Christ, he should be “eternally condemned.” In The Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians, J. Louis Martyn says of Paul, “Contemplating at a considerable remove the possibility that he should lose his bearings and preach a different gospel, he insists that everyone, including himself, is subordinate to the gospel of Christ and subject to God’s judgment” (114). Paul says that even if he preaches a false gospel, they should not listen to him, showing his strong loyalty to the true gospel of Christ. Richard B. Hays says in Volume XI of The New Interpreter’s Bible:

“Paul certainly does not anticipate proclaiming a different gospel, but by including himself hypothetically under the threat of curse, he makes an important point. He is not asking for the Galatians’ personal allegiance to him; rather, what matters is their allegiance to the gospel message. Even if Paul should stray and begin preaching something different, the Galatians should reject him and cling to the gospel” (206).

In saying this, Paul shows his characteristic loyalty to the gospel of Christ. He also refers to the angels in this passage written to the Galatians. He says that if even an angel comes preaching something false about Christ, the church should not listen to him. In this, he is saying that one’s loyalty to Christ must outweigh one’s loyalty to anything or anyone else. He is telling the believers that they must be loyal to Christ before being loyal to any person, even if that person is as well-learned as Paul. He says that they must be loyal to Christ before all, even if someone as spiritual as an angel himself comes to them. Christ must come first, and everything that everyone else says must agree with who Christ is, or else the Galatians should not listen to them.

Paul’s deep sense of loyalty was not limited to only himself. He also held a high standard of loyalty for other believers. His firm belief in loyalty to the risen Savior Christ was something that he felt should be present among all who professed to be Christians. Paul’s deep sense of loyalty is seen in his letter to Philemon. Something of notable interest that comes across well in Paul’s letter to Philemon is the idea that not only should believers be loyal in their commitment to serve Christ but believers ought also to be loyal in their commitment to help Christ’s apostles. For Paul, loyalty to Christ means committing to help those who have been called to preach the message of Christ to the world. For Paul’s dear friend Philemon, this would also include a commitment to help Paul. In the letter to Philemon, Paul asks Philemon to be reconciled to his slave Onesimus, who had apparently fled from his master. Paul asks Philemon to receive Onesimus back as a fellow brother in Christ for both his sake and for Christ’s sake. Paul writes to Philemon, “Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains” (Phi.1:8-10, NIV). Paul speaks on behalf of Philemon’s slave Onesimus, asking Philemon to receive him. Paul goes on to remind Philemon of his own position and loyalty to Christ and how he himself owes his very life to Paul because of the fact that Paul preached the gospel to him, thus leading him to find salvation in Christ. Paul says to Philemon, “So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me” (Phi. 1:17, NIV). He appeals to Philemon’s sense of loyalty to him. Paul knows that as a man who has apparently come to know Christ through the influence of Paul, Philemon will also most likely be compelled to comply with Paul’s wishes. Paul expects Philemon to act in the same kind of loyalty in which he has seen Paul act. F. F. Bruce says in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:

“If Paul does not give orders to Philemon, he at least expects ‘obedience’ from him, even if the obedience be acquiescence in a request rather than compliance with a demand. He is sure, he says, that Philemon will not only read what is written in his letter but read between the lines and see what Paul would really like him to – and do it” (222).

Philemon is in a very real sense Paul’s disciple, and Paul’s strong loyalty to Christ and those who preach Christ most likely has had considerable influence on Philemon’s loyalty to Christ and his loyalty to those who preach Christ, including Paul. This being known Paul calls on Philemon to show this loyalty that Paul has shown to him through Christ but accepting his fellow brother in Christ and lawful slave Onesimus. Paul has full confidence that Philemon will be just as loyal to the love of Christ as his teacher Paul has been in his example to him. Paul writes to Philemon, “I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask” (Phi. 1:20-21, NIV). It is interesting to note that while Paul appears to have every confidence in Philemon that he will keep his loyalty as Paul has and do the right thing he still appears to find it necessary to remind Philemon of this loyalty. In addition to all that he has said, Paul also asks Philemon to prepare a room for him so that he may have a place to stay when he visits the church of which Philemon is a part. Paul adds, “And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers” (Phi. 1:22, NIV). In this request, Paul shows that not only is Philemon loyal to him, but he is loyal to Philemon. Paul desires to be reunited with his friend and brother in Christ. Paul’s association and friendship with Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus has not caused him to forget in friendship with Philemon. In this letter, Paul shows his loyalty to Philemon which is a result of the bond both of them share in Christ.

Paul has a hope that has been planted deep inside of him. He makes clear that this hope that he speaks of and that he has experienced came through Christ. He is hopeful of what he believes Christ will do in the future, and he has hope that eventually everything that has gone away from God will one day in some way or form be redeemed through Christ. This hopefulness is characteristic of Paul and is seen coming through in his letters to the churches. In 1^st Thessalonians, Paul writes to the church and tells them about his hope in the return of Christ that will take place in the future. He also tells the church of his hope in the resurrection of the dead through Christ. He wants the Thessalonians to share in this hope that he has. He tells them, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope” (1^st Thess. 4:13, NIV). He tells them this because he wants them to have the same hope that he has. They had been concerned because some of them had been dying and Jesus seemed to be taking a long time in coming back. They wanted to know what would happen to the believers who died before the return of Christ. F. F. Bruce says in The Word Biblical Commentary on 1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians, “[T]he death of their friends filled their hearts with sorrow and they needed a message of reassurance, based on a more precise statement of the Christian hope” (104). Paul recognizes their sense of hopelessness in their questioning and he responds by trying to convince them that there is hope in the resurrection. Bruce continues, “Hope was one of the chief emphases of the gospel; it was a feature of Christian existence. Believers in Christ are contrasted with ‘others who have no hope.’” (104). Paul is saying that they should take hold of this same hope that he has already taken hold of and that he is expressing in his own life and character. He says to them, “Therefore encourage each other with these words” (1^st Thess. 4:18, NIV).

In Romans, Paul also speaks of this hope that he has experienced and that has become very much a part of his own character. He lets the Roman Christians know that he is not ignorant of suffering and that he understands how hard it is for people when they have gone through suffering having gone through much suffering himself. He lets them know that may have hope in their suffering because of Christ just as he has hope in his suffering through Christ. He says that because of Christ we are able to rejoice in our sufferings. He says, “And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us” (Rom. 5:2b-5, NIV). Paul has hope in his sufferings because he knows that through Christ suffering can lead to other things which are good. He recognizes that suffering is something that changes who a person is on the inside, and he knows that through Christ this change can be a very good thing. He says that a person’s character is changed by suffering and that this very thing leads to hope. He says that hope is something that does not disappoint. In saying this, he shows that not only is he a hopeful man, but he also has hope in hope, itself. He has hope that his hope will not disappoint him. James R. Edwards speaks of this hope that is characteristic of Paul in the New International Biblical Commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans:

“Especially important is Paul’s statement that hope does not disappoint us (v. 5). The Greek word for disappoint, kataischynein, is a cognate of the same word in 1:16, ‘I am not ashamed (epaischynein) of the gospel.’ It recalls, despite everything to the contrary, that the believer’s trust in the gospel is no empty fantasy. The Jewish Christian concept of hope dwarfs the ancient Greek idea of hope. For the Greek hope was little more than an eventuality, a possible outcome of current circumstances. But for Jews and Christians hope is anchored to the person and promises of God” (137).

Paul’s hope is solid. His hope is not the hope of the Greeks which would say that something may or may not happen. Hope for Paul is tied directly to his faith. He knows that his hope will not disappoint him because he knows that God will not disappoint him, and his faith in God is unwavering.

Paul may also be seen as one who has an affectionate spirit for his brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. His affection for them is seen in the opening of his letter to the Philippians. He says to them, “God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:8, NIV). Paul has such affection for his brothers and sisters in Christ that he claims to be filled with this deep since of longing to be with them. William Barclay says in The New Daily Study Bible of this verse, “The literal translation is: ‘I yearn for you all with the bowels of Jesus Christ.’ […] These, the Greeks believed to be the location of the emotions and affections (21). Paul is letting them know just how deep his affection is for them when he says this. He tells them that this is proper. He says to them, “It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me” (Phil. 1:7, NIV). Paul’s affection for these people is such that he says to them that they are in his heart. He seems to be indicating that his affection for them is caused by a deep connection that they have with each other. This connection is still present and felt even when they are separated and can no longer see one another, which shows just how deep his affection is for them.

Paul’s great affection for his fellow believers also comes through in the letter that is commonly referred to as 2^nd Corinthians. In this letter, as well as in the previous remaining letter to the Corinthians, it is clear that Paul has been disturbed by reports from the church in Corinth. He has come to find out that there are those within the church who have exchanged the truth of the gospel for lies. There are some among them who are still living in deep sin and who have not allowed themselves to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. They still indulge in the sinful nature and remain slaves to that nature. Paul is distressed by this because of his obvious loyalty to Christ, but he is also distressed by this because he himself has deep concern and affection for the Corinthians. He says to them, “For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you” (2^nd Cor. 2:4, NIV). He recognizes that those who have been sinning have done so to their own destruction.  This pains Paul because of his love and affection for these people. Linda L. Belleville says in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series on 2nd Corinthians, “Thlipsis (distress) and synochē (anguish) are virtual synonyms for personal pain brought about by oppressive circumstances” (72). The reason Paul felt this distress and anguish was because of his deep love for the Corinthians. Belleville continues, “Here, they refer to the deep emotional turmoil that Paul experienced as he wrote this letter to the Corinthians, very much like the anxiety a parent feels when faced with the prospect of exercising discipline” (72). He refers to one brother who has sinned grievously and he says that his sin is not just something that affects him, but also those other believers who know this man. Paul writes to them, “If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely” (2^nd Cor. 2:5, NIV). Paul feels hurt in his heart because he knows that what this man has been doing has caused pain to occur among the other believers. Paul recognizes this and he shows that when the other believers feel pain he also feels pain because of his great affection for them. He cares for them deeply.

Within Paul’s letters one can see that while Paul is passionate and firm in his faith and in the life he now lives in Christ, he also knows humility. He recognized that he does not deserve this calling that he has received from God. He writes of how he used to be an enemy of the church, persecuting it, but that God in His mercy called him out of this life and made him to be an apostle of Christ to the Gentiles. He is humbled by God’s love and grace towards him, and by the great privilege he has to proclaim the good news of Christ to the world. He knows that he is unworthy of all he has received. He says in 1^st Corinthians, “For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect” (1^st Cor.15:9-10a, NIV). He recognizes that it is only by God’s grace that he has become an apostle of Christ. Marion L. Soards says in the New International Biblical Commentary on 1 Corinthians, “Having mentioned the encounter with the risen Jesus that constituted his call, Paul goes on to explain the significance of God’s grace as he knew it from that experience. He understood grace to be unmerited and transforming” (320). Paul saw the calling of Christ upon his life as an act of grace and he goes on to say that he has worked harder than all the other apostles, but rather than being arrogant about this he claims that it was only by the grace of God that this was even possible.

Paul’s humility is also seen in his letter to the Philippians. He describes Christ and how Christ came to earth in humility, even though He was God. Stephen L. Harris says in The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction, “Urging the Philippians to place others’ welfare before their own, Paul cites Jesus’ behavior as the supreme example of humble service to others” (364). Paul says that we all must become like Christ in humility, serving one another. Paul has applied this humility, the humility of Christ the Servant to his own life, and he calls on other believers to do the same. He points to Christ’s example of humility as an example for all believers as he recites a hymn, saying:

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:5-8, NIV).

This idea of humbling oneself as Christ did is what Paul calls on all believers to do. He includes himself in this command. He is not exempt. Just as Christ did not refuse to let go of His authority and position as God, so should all who follow Christ be willing to give up their place in life for the sake of Christ, considering all others to be of greater worth than themselves. One must also be willing to give up his or her life in order to be a servant like Christ was. For Paul, this was likely true in the literal sense as well as spiritually. Paul shows his humility in his desire to be like Christ in Christ’s perfect humility when he became a man. Just as Christ “humbled himself and became obedient to death” so also it is commonly believed that Paul experienced death for the sake of Christ his Lord.

Within the undisputed letters of Paul one may see many different character traits of the apostle. While it is true that much more could be said about the many different character traits of Paul, these four character traits have plenty to say about the man Paul himself. It is clear that he was a man of God and that he eagerly desired to serve Christ who had redeemed him and to proclaim the message of the gospel to all he could. These character traits of loyalty, hope, affection, and humility come across within Paul’s letters to his fellow believers. While there are many different character traits that can be attributed to Paul, four that have been of particular interest are Paul’s sense of loyalty, his hopefulness, his affectionate spirit, and his humility.

_____________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Harris, Stephen L.  The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction.  6th ed.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Powell, Mark Allan, ed.  The New Testament Today.  Marion L. Soards. “The Life and Writings of Paul.” Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 45. 1&2 Thessalonians. F. F. Bruce. Colombia: Word, Inc., 1982.

Martyn, J. Louis. The Anchor Bible. Galatians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Barclay, William. The New Daily Study Bible. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Osborne, Grant. R., ed. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. 2 Corinthians. Linda L. Belleville. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1996.

Gasque, W. Ward., ed. New International Biblical Commentary. Romans. James R. Edwards. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1992.

Keck, Leander. E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume IX. Richard B. Hays. “The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2000.

Gasque, W. Ward., ed. New International Biblical Commentary. 1 Corinthians. Marion L. Soards. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1999.

F.F. Bruce. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

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.

The "Good Old Days" of the Church

It is a mistake to yearn for “the good old days” of the church as recorded in the New Testament because the church that is present today is just as good or bad as the church of that time. The church of today is not all that different from the church that existed back then. As Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and also, “Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions.” If one were to actually study what the New Testament records about the early church they would recognize that the early church did not always have things altogether. There were people in the church back then who were as “messed up” as some of the people in the church of today. For example, Luke records in the book Acts on the death of Ananias and Sapphira who had willingly lied to the Holy Spirit in the presence of the church. Another example in the book of Acts of how the church was not necessarily always on top of things is that of the food distribution among the Greek and the Jewish widows. While this possible discrimination was not likely a willful act on the part of the church and the church did correct this issue when it was brought to its attention, this is still an example of how the church of yesteryear is not something that the church of today should attempt to wholly replicate in every aspect. Also, within a study of the church as portrayed in the New Testament writings, one must recognize the very backwards nature of the church in Corinth to whom Paul ministered. While one must take into consideration all of these negative aspects of the church of the past, one must also admit to the numerous admirable qualities of that church. The New Testament authors write of a church in which the Spirit of Christ was present. That same Spirit is within the church of today. The New Testament records amazing miracles and healings as well as radical evangelism. It is incorrect (and very “modernist” in reasoning) to assume that simply because one does not see things like this happening in the church today that they do not in fact happen at all anymore. This is simply not the case. Miracles, signs, and wonders still accompany the church of today. This is especially seen in the continents of Africa and Asia, but the truth is that these things happen in America as well. My guess as to why many within the church of America do not witness miracles is because they do not believe in them. The church of today is just as good or as bad as the church that is pictured in the New Testament. When people put too much focus upon the style that was appropriate for the New Testament setting believing that church should be done in exactly that same way today, they begin to lose sight of the church itself and how it should exist in today’s settings.

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.