Reflections on Epiphany
The season of Epiphany begins on January 6 with the celebration of the visit of the magi or wise men who follow the star to the child Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, bearing their gifts. It anticipates the Christian message going to all nations. The promised Jewish Messiah came also for the salvation of Gentiles. The revelation of Jesus as the Son is the content of the First and Last Sunday after the Epiphany. The First Sunday after the Epiphany celebrates the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The Last Sunday after the Epiphany celebrates the manifestation of who Jesus is on the Mount of Transfiguration. White is the liturgical color for these Sundays, while green is the color the Sundays between the First and Last Sundays after the Epiphany. The season concludes with Shrove Tuesday, the day before the beginning of Lent with Ash Wednesday. The length of the season will vary in accord with when Lent begins in the year. The festival originated in the Eastern church, where it at first included a commemoration of Christ’s birth. In Rome, by 354 the celebration of Christ’s birth was on December 25, and later in the 4th century the church in Rome began celebrating Epiphany on January 6. These days are the well-known Twelve days of Christmas. This understanding of the season is different from what we find in the East, in which it commemorates the baptism of Jesus and celebrates the revelation that the incarnate Christ was both fully God and fully man.
An epiphany is the appearance or manifestation of a divine being. A person can have an epiphany in the sense of a sudden manifestation, revelation, or perception of the nature or meaning of something. It refers to a moment when you suddenly feel that you understand, or suddenly become conscious of, something that is especially important to you. It can refer to an intuitive or insightful grasp of something, usually a simple, homey, commonplace, and striking event. It can even refer to an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure. It can refer to a revealing scene or moment. The term describes scientific breakthrough, religious or philosophical discoveries, but it can apply in any situation in which an enlightening realization allows an understanding a problem or situation from a new and deeper perspective. Psychologists, philosophers, and other scholars study epiphanies, particularly those attempting to study the process of innovation. Epiphanies are rare occurrences and follow a process of significant thought about a problem. Often, a new and key piece of information triggers them, but importantly, they require a depth of prior knowledge to allow the leap of understanding. Famous epiphanies include Archimedes's discovery of a method to determine the volume of an irregular object ("Eureka!") and Isaac Newton's realization that a falling apple and the orbiting moon are both pulled by the same force.
The following are links to studies of the texts and often homiletic and devotional material that relate to the theme. A primary source for my lectionary studies has been Homiletics.
I offer my studies of the biblical texts for Epiphany and for the Sundays after the Epiphany. These studies owe much to Homiletics, a lectionary magazine. I also find it valuable to see how Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg as theologians deal with these passages.
Epiphany
First Sunday After the Epiphany
The Baptism of the Lord is to many of us, one of the more obscure Christian festivals. But it is one that has, from the earliest days, been central to the church’s tradition. Eastern Orthodox churches remember this episode from Jesus’ life on the day of Epiphany, and Roman Catholic and Protestant churches typically do so on the first Sunday after. Jesus’ baptism is a suitable place for the church to begin recounting the story of his life and ministry. It is such an important story that all four gospels tell it in one way or another (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–23; John 1:29–33). Before Jesus does anything as a teacher and healer, he hikes up his robe, scrambles down the muddy riverbank and wades into the Jordan to receive baptism from John.Why does he do it? Theologians have long debated that question. Why must the sinless son of God receive this potent symbol of repentance and new life? Is he not himself the very wellspring of new life promised in the baptismal waters? Some theologians are quick to explain that Jesus does not need to receive baptism, but he lets his cousin push him down under the muddy water purely for our sake. According to that way of thinking, Jesus is like a swimming teacher, standing dry-shod by the side of the pool, modeling the breaststroke for the shivering gaggle of kids standing chest-deep in the water. He is modeling repentance, not actually doing it.Such explanations miss the point. What Jesus received from John that day was not a Christian baptism, but a Jewish one. In many first-century Jewish sects — including the one led by John — the pathway into any life of serious religious discipline leads through water. As the Israelites of old passed through the Red Sea, so any serious believer must do the same.
Psalm (All Years)
Year A
Year B
Year C
Second Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Third Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Fourth Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Fifth Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Sixth Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Seventh Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Eighth Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
Last Sunday After the Epiphany
Year A
Year B
Year C
However, I have a more tightly organized set of thought in my other studies to which I want to draw your attention. I begin with a development of the themes of the season through the texts and conclude with links to the further studies of the texts.
My purpose in this essay is to explore the theological insights contained in the texts for the season of Epiphany. I offer my distillation of these insights. I will then direct you to the biblical and theological discussion in another set of essays.
The Old Testament theophany anticipates the way the New Testament presents the revelation or manifestation of who Jesus is. Terms like Glory, Beauty, and Light will surround this manifestation. Such manifestations of the divine present the Lord as imminent in an event, such as on Mount Sinai or in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, but also protected divine transcendence. The divine word is an image of the power and the Glory of the Lord. The Bible begins with an affirmation of the creative activity of God. God is the source and origin of the material world. God graciously conferred existence on individuals. God affirms this existence and desires fellowship with each part of creation. God preserves creation, continues to care for it out of love and goodness toward what God has created. God will bring creation to what Paul declares in I Corinthians 15:28, in which God will be all in all. God takes time seriously. Creation is a testimony to the patience of God, who nourishes growth through time. The result of this creative activity is unambiguously “good.” God takes delight in what God has created. The word God utters creates the universe.
The divine glory connects with places like Zion, which has a beauty because of the divine presence, a soft image that suggests the power of attraction. The light of the presence of the Lord brings all nations to Zion, as people find peace and security there. The greatness of the Lord in Zion is to lead all people to exalt the Lord, since divine holiness longs to establish justice, fairness, and righteousness within humanity. The temple in Jerusalem becomes holy because of the presence of the Lord. The deliverance, healing, restoration, and forgiveness for the chosen people of Israel become a promise to the world. The divine mission of Israel as a chosen people of the Lord points to the nations. The light of the presence of the Lord Israel is for all people. Such texts evoke a sense of awe, reverence, and mystery. Such experience shifts attention away from or everydayness and toward the vastness of that which is beyond our little worlds. Such awe and wonderment concerning the world is the beginning of religious experience as well as the beginning of philosophical reflection (Kant).
Such glory and light is also associated with people, such as the enthronement of the king or the anointing of a prophet.
Two persons, Moses and Elijah, provide significant anticipations of the way the New Testament present who Jesus is. Moses enjoyed the company of the divine regularly and productively. The Torah instructed the people in the way they were to offer exclusive devotion to the Lord and the way they were to relate to their neighbors. The Lord established a covenant Israel through the unique quality of the relationship Moses had with the Lord. The unique quality of this relationship will form the background for the way the gospel presents Jesus as a fulfillment of that unique relationship that invites us to envision a righteousness that goes beyond the details of the Torah. Qualities of holiness, righteousness, justice, and peace predominate in such texts. The Lord is holy and calls the people of the Lord to a holy life. The covenant binds people by rules of conduct that safeguard their relationship with the Lord and their fellowship with others. Because God is good, holy, and love, God is also angry, chides, hurts, and casts into flames. The Lord meets us in zealous wrath as grace. Respect for the holiness of the Lord leads to contentment in the grateful acceptance of this grace.[1] As a holy people they are separate from other nations. The Lord elects Israel so that it will participate in divine holiness. We find the command repeated in I Peter 1:16. The holiness of God demands and enforces the holiness of the people of God. It means divine confrontation with humanity that leads to a human correspondence to the divine.[2] they are not to engage in (see the Ten Commandments) theft, deceitful business transactions, lying, or perjury, defrauding, reviling the deaf, or place an obstacle before the blind. They are to render just judgment. This includes not showing partiality to the poor (Exodus 23:3 as well). Those who were most vulnerable in ancient Israelite society — the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the resident alien — received protection by all members of society from the natural group abundance that provided more than a subsistence existence for its members. They are not to slander the neighbor or take advantage of a calamity that might come upon the neighbor. In one of the few times the Code prohibits an inward disposition, they are not to hate anyone to whom they are related. They have responsibility for their neighbor that may take the form of reproof, rebuke, confrontation, correction, and reasoning frankly with them. Such counsel was also part of the wisdom tradition. The idea draws a line between hate and offering correction. Given the context, one shows love to the neighbor by correcting and confronting the neighbor. Your silence may mean you become complicit in the sin. The Israelites have pledged loyalty to Yahweh. Their identity and the identity of Yahweh have bound together in a covenant relation. The holiness of this God demands and enforces the holiness of the people of God. It requires that the divine confrontation of the world and all humanity should find a human correspondence and copy in the mode of existence of this people. The Lord has chosen Israel as a people holy to the Lord, for the Lord has chosen this people to be a treasured possession of the Lord. Such covenant loyalty expresses itself as lovingkindness (hesed). Here is the basis of the abundant mercy of the Lord that blots out transgression.
The revelation of God in heaven unites with the revelation of God on the earth. Thus, the themes of creation and Torah unite in the meditation of the poets. Creation praises the Lord and testifies to the greatness of the Lord. Even nature serves the Lord. The works of the master reveal the master. The destiny of creatures is to praise and honor God and extol divine glory.[3] While nature is an inanimate object, human beings still approach it with wonder. In our praise we anticipate the eschatological praising of God. The wonders of the universe can reveal the excellence and beauty of God for those who have eyes to see.[4] The destiny of all creatures is to offer praise and honor to God and extol divine glory.[5] Thus, creation comes from the Lord as does the Torah. The Torah has power to bring joy and purpose to a human life. Torah is a revelation of the will of the Lord. Torah commands honor of God in our worship, speech, and use of our time. We may wonder if respecting parents, the property of others, telling the truth, faithfulness to a spouse or other matters, are right, good, and moral. Torah does not wonder. Torah says Yes, such behavior deserves respect and fulfillment in our lives. Torah will not tell us everything we are to do with our lives, and Torah will not tell unambiguously what to do in every situation. However, Torah will provide broad knowledge of the type of person we are to become and discern what that type of person would do in this situation. Happiness, (’ashre, Μακάριοι) has a close connection to that which we truly desire. Such happiness is the by-product of a life lived in reverence and awe of the Lord and taking genuine delight in being the kind of person who acts toward others the way the Lord intends as shown in the Torah. For Jesus, such happiness is the result of a life lived in genuine love of God with all that we are and have genuine love for the neighbor. We ought not to be afraid of happiness or of our desires. It is okay to figure out the kind of life we need to live to find genuine happiness. It is okay to pay attention to the desire of our hearts. In fact, we must do so, for our desire for sex, money, social acceptance, justice, having a good relationship with others, to feel special, to work hard, to play hard, to keep peace, to have power, to have knowledge, may be in alignment with the will and purpose of God or it may not be. The difference is crucial. Devotion to the torah was an important aspect of Israelite piety. Human beings need guidance in discovering the boundaries of a moral life. We do not know such guidance by instinct. We know them because we learn them through what others are willing to teach or through paying attention to life experience. He prays for the divine strength to keep the torah and live a life of integrity. The heart defines our affections and desires out of which our actions arise, for better or worse.
The prophets who genuinely speak the word of the Lord will receive a personal call from the Lord to their positions, as did Isaiah, Jeremiah, and II Isaiah, and they will testify that the Lord has provided them with the word needed in this situation faced by the people of God. An unusual example is Jonah, who avoided his calling at first, finally preaches a brief message of judgment upon Nineveh, and watches as they repent, and the Lord has mercy upon them. In this case, it was the prophet who needed conversion, opening his mind and heart to the possibility that Gentiles could repent and receive mercy. This story anticipates the call in the New Testament for the people of God to be a witness to the nations. It anticipates in Jonah the resistance Jesus will encounter in his ministry to the removing of barriers to witness to the Father. The prophet does not have armies or wealth. The prophet has words. The prophet is mediator between God and humanity, the recipient of revelation, and the proclaimer of what God has revealed.
Elijah becomes a model of prophetic vocation, who receives a surprising honor. In the Old Testament, most people die under the assumption that they will depart to Sheol, a dark and shadowy existence that is a pale reflection of life in our time and space. However, upon his death, a divine chariot carries Elijah immediately into the presence of the Lord. The life of Elijah parallels Moses in that the Lord communicates with both in the wilderness, both train their replacements, both display lack of self-confidence to carry out the commission the Lord gave them, both emphasize exclusive allegiance to the Lord. The vision of the servant of the Lord in II Isaiah is a further expression of the election and covenant the Lord has with Israel, even when the people are in exile. Israel is still a sign and witness to the world. Thus, as the Spirit anointed this servant, the Spirit anoints Jesus and empowers Jesus to fulfill his mission.
The attention of such texts shifts to the king, who is to embody justice and righteousness. The prophetic criticism of Israel and Judah includes the ineffectiveness of sacrifices that do not represent wholehearted obedience to the life of holiness and righteousness. Religious practices in post-exilic Israel were attractive to many people and satisfied many of them. A perennial risk of all religious observance is that it becomes not merely perfunctory but seductive, and the ritual, drama and social standing associated with postexilic Yahwism may have satisfied many psychological, emotional, and social needs that were wholly or in part unrelated to individual and social righteousness. Knowledge of Torah can be superficial in contrast to the wholehearted devotion of the priest or prophet. Such criticism is an anticipation of times when the Jewish people would be without the opportunity to fulfill the instructions regarding grain and animal sacrifice. They foreshadow a similar criticism Jesus would offer of the distinction between ritually clean and unclean animals and his criticism of the entire notion of ritual cleanliness, largely because it led to make the types of distinctions that kept people from table fellowship and therefore being witnesses to his Father. Humanity is to follow the path of what is good, which is to act human-to-human with justice and kindness, and toward the divine to live in communion with God by living humbly, modestly, and wisely. Such texts contain a universalist thrust in that the message and mission of Israel is to witness to the light and Glory of the Lord it has received to the nations. Since no human rule can fulfill all this, we may need to re-think the relationship between the people of God and the political order considering the future lordship of God.[6] The poets of Israel can refer to the ascension of the descendant of King David to the throne as the Lord looking upon the king as a father would look upon a son. The Lord had a special relationship with this human king that was to inspire the king to act with wisdom and justice. The kings of the nations were to recognize this special relationship. The New Testament will view the filial relationship between the Lord and the Davidic king as an anticipation of the unique relationship between Jesus and his Father.
II Isaiah expects the consummation of history. This future event will show that the God of Israel is the God of all peoples. Attention turns away from the past saving deeds of the Lord in the exodus and the conquest to the future of a new and definitive event of salvation and a related universalizing of the understanding of God in monotheism. The prophetic turn toward the eschatological future of world history remains the presupposition of Christian monotheism and its missionary proclamation. The prophet no longer views the self-demonstration of Yahweh by the exodus as the sole and ultimate self-revelation of the Lord. The ultimate acts of the deity of Yahweh are eschatological. Here, we find that Israel is not to remember or regard the past, for God is doing a new thing.[7] II Isaiah speaks of the creative power of the Lord in using the concept of divine creating for the bringing forth of what is historically new. Belief in creation becomes an argument for the expectation of a new saving action on the part of the Lord that will demonstrate afresh the divine power over the course of history.[8]
We find the special relationship between Jesus and his Father expressed specifically in the event of his baptism and in the event of his Transfiguration, both of which draw from the unique relationship Moses, Elijah, and the king have with the Lord. The New Testament points to Christ as the fulfillment of the hope for a faithful witness who would bring the nations to the God of Israel. While in conversation with the Torah (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah, Suffering Servant), Jesus moves beyond them and becomes Lord. The New Testament will emphasize the universalist thrust of the previous texts, fulfilling the hope contained in them. This event, this Moment, becomes significant for the offer salvation. This moment reveals the unique relationship of the Son to the Father and the life-giving bond the Spirit brings to the life of God and to the follower of Jesus Christ. The Spirit resting upon Jesus is a feature of prophetic literature as the life-giving presence of the Spirit empowers the ministry of Jesus. The Spirit grants freedom and a filial relationship with the father, fulfilling both the royal coronation of the Davidic King as son of the divine Father and the prophetic servant of the Lord. Thus, the Spirit led the early church to continue a process Jesus started in setting aside clean and unclean food regulations to reach the Gentile world, recognizing the Jew and the Gentile are alike before God. Here is a mystery concerning the plan of God that God has unveiled in Jesus, the promised Jewish Messiah and the Lord of all. Human history suggests a search for a connection with the divine, and in Jesus, the Christ and the Lord, the search finds fulfillment.
The second Sunday after the Epiphany in each of the years includes a reading from the Gospel of John. In John 1:29-42, John the Baptist offers the testimony that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In Isaiah 53:7, the suffering servant is willing to sacrifice his life for the people of God. John recognizes that Jesus has priority. He saw the Spirit of God come upon Jesus at baptism. This reminds us of the servant of the Lord in Isaiah, on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests (11:2, 42:1) and thereby anoints the servant to bring good news to the oppressed, to bring healing to the brokenhearted, and to release people from the prison they have made for themselves (61:1). The Spirit is empowering the Son to glorify the Father. The Spirit fills Jesus at the beginning of his public ministry. Andrew was among the disciples of John the Baptist who follows Jesus and invites his brother Peter. Along with the first disciples, we are to take that decisive step to come and see. In John 1:43-51, John relates how Philip and Nathanael come to Jesus. Now in Galilee, Jesus invites Philip to follow him, and then Philip finds Nathanael, to whom he testifies that Jesus is the one whom to Moses in the Torah and the one about whom the prophets wrote. Nathanael refers to him as Rabbi, and then as the Son of God, the title that the poets of the Old Testament often gave to the King of Israel. Conversion involves recognizing and acknowledging who Jesus is through personal encounter with Jesus.[9] The segment concludes with Jesus saying Nathanael will see heaven open and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, a title that may unite the human divine titles already given, providing another image of the identity of Jesus. John 2:1-11 is the first of the signs offered in the Gospel of John. In this story, Jesus is providing alcohol, wine, for a party. He is providing the best wine. He does this for the ordinary, if joyful, event of a wedding. Jesus’ miracle echoes his teaching in the synoptics concerning the necessity of new wineskins for new wine (Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39). This miracle also echoes the new meaning Jesus gives to wine in the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper. Through Jesus, the new wine is superior to the old. Through Jesus, the new wine transforms us out of mannered external piousness and into mature internal piety. In the Old Testament, writers often tied wine and wedding imagery to the hope of eternity. In fact, the Lord will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear (Isaiah 25:6). Wine at a wedding celebration can also help you recognize the blessings of the present. The story has a sacramental use of wine. So, what does all this mean? 11 First, Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and, second, revealed his glory; and third, his disciples believed in him. John intricately connects these three statements. This suggests that we are to take the miracles of Jesus as signs in the sense that they point to the identity of Jesus, to the hidden presence of the rule of God in his ministry that will unveil itself in the resurrection of Jesus. The story completes the calling of the first disciples in that they believed in him. It also has an intricate connection with John 6 and the multiplication of the loaves. John offers a heightened sense of the importance of the Lord’s Supper.
Jesus opens his public ministry in Galilee, filled with the Spirit (Luke 4:14-15), teaching in their synagogues, an indication that Jesus was a devout and religious man who had gained respect among the religious leaders of his day.
Mark (1:14-20) describes the message of Jesus as proclaiming (κηρύσσων) the gospel or good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of God. “The time (καιρὸς) is fulfilled (Πεπλήρωται). God is the one fulfilling time in this way. Mark is not referring to chronos (extended time), but kairos (the right time for something to happen). According to Mark, the right time is after the arrest of John and the right place is the moment of the arrival of Jesus in Galilee. At this time, God steps into human history in a unique and decisive way. If the time finds its fulfillment, the fulfillment comes in a moment, an event, in the arrival of Jesus. This real event occurs as a particular event and a particular time, a center around which all other times will revolve. The time before has moved toward Christ. The time after Jesus moves away from this event. Humanity has time because Jesus had his time. We have the fullness of our time because we orient ourselves to and live considering the time Jesus has.[10] The second piece of the proclamation of Jesus in Mark: and the kingdom or rule of God has come near (ἤγγικεν). Jesus spoke of the rule of God as close or already present but hidden, and thus in a way that frustrates ordinary expectations. The rule of God has both present and future dimensions. We might go a step further to say that Jesus thought of the rule of God as all around him but difficult to discern. The third piece of Jesus' proclamation in Mark is the same message John preached - the call for people to repent (μετανοεῖτε).Matthew summarizing his message as one of repentance because of the immanence of the rule of God places him in line with John the Baptist, as well as Hosea. The end of the ministry of John signals that his time is past and in his aggressive arrest by Jewish authorities anticipates the end toward which the ministry of Jesus is heading. Although the word for repentance is not common in Jesus, the summons to subordinate all concerns to seeking the reign of God in human life implies a conversion to God. To repent does not mean merely to turn away from a specific sin but turning toward God in faith and obedience. The final piece of the summary of the proclamation of Jesus in Mark is the call to believe (πιστεύετε) in the good news (εὐαγγελίῳ). In Mark, belief is trusting in the coming rule of God. It involves a letting go of the things to which we cling to for security and identity. Believe the good news that the rule of God is arriving. Where Jesus is, there the rule of God is actively at work. James and John not only leave the security of their vocation, but they walk away from the safety of their family ties and support structures. The ancient household, with the father at the top of the hierarchy, the wife playing a key role at the top, children, and servants/slaves and their families, as well as those too old to work, could be a large unit, such as 15-40 persons. Sons were important for the continuation of the household. For sons to depart in this way represented a dramatic break with their anticipated future. Making this decision without securing the permission of the father was a violation of the cultural code, not to mention an act that could put the welfare of the whole family at risk. For Jesus, however, the urgency of the rule of God means people must put aside normal expectations. We clearly see the disruptive nature of the call of Jesus.
The calling of the first disciples in Galilee (Mark 1:16-20=Matthew 4:18-22) provides an ideal image, a metaphorical situation, a symbolic moment, of Christian discipleship in which one hears in Jesus a call from God that changes the course of a life, allows Jesus to transform that life, and therefore one leaves the prior life behind to embrace the new life to which Jesus calls. It resembles the choice Elijah makes of Elisha as his successor and the vision of Jeremiah. The gospels continually emphasize the theme of renunciation. Jesus issues an authoritative call. Then, the person responds to the call Jesus issues without hesitation. The call Jesus extends first to Simon and Andrew is that he will make, which we might think of shape or train, them into those who fish for people. The disciples will not be passive students absorbing what their teacher says. As fishing is demanding work, so will discipleship be demanding. It is a call to participate in the mission of Jesus. The power of this charge, of this invitation to be in service to Christ, is the only detail that is of concern. The particulars of the lives these anglers leave behind are not the concern of the gospel story. Dropping everything, they follow Jesus into a new life of discipleship. Jesus calls them to come to him, to follow him, and to make something specific of them. These men have a new calling in their seeking and gathering. We see here the meaning and purpose of the election of individuals for the proclamation to the many, for the creation of the church with its task in relation to the world. They will share in his prophetic office.[11]
Luke 5:1-11 is a version of the calling of the disciples that foreshadows the appearance of the risen Lord to Simon/Peter. Certain events that the gospels have during the life of Jesus are anticipations of the end, which is the resurrection of Jesus by his Father through the life-giving power of the Spirit. In this case, Luke utilizes the idealization of the human response to the call of discipleship to be a disciple and creates his own idealized disclosure of the identity of Jesus to Peter, one that anticipates the appearance of the risen Lord to Peter. Luke takes a teaching story and transforms it into an epiphany experience. When Simon Peter, indicative of his impending new identity as a disciple saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord (Κύριε), for I am a sinful (ἁμαρτωλός) man!” As in the similar incident in John, Peter is ashamed in the presence of Jesus because he had disowned him three times and fled the crucifixion scene. In the present narrative context, Peter’s response makes little sense. However, after the crucifixion, such guilt becomes understandable. Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah have this instinct as well, as they try to escape the divine call. Jesus invades the sphere of this man, but Peter wants him to depart from his sphere because he does not feel worthy. The call of Jesus has gone forth to the sinner. In fact, as the call of Levi reminds us, Jesus has come to call sinners rather than the righteous. The sinful man becomes worthy due to the call of Jesus and is therefore able to witness.[12]
Among the early acts of Jesus was that of an exorcism, liberating a man with an unclean (ἀκαθάρτῳ) spirit on the Sabbath in a synagogue in Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28=Luke 4:31-37). As he devout Jew, he attended synagogue. The disciples will continue to do so after he dies. These were religious people in the best sense of the term. The invitation by the head of the synagogue for Jesus to teach suggests he had some training and was already known as a skilled interpreter of Torah. He teaches with authority that religious leaders lack. His first significant act is to overthrow demonic power. Having an unclean spirit meant he would be isolated. For Mark, the crowd joins him in saying Judaism has lost the ability to speak with authority and to liberate those oppressed.
Among the early healings by Jesus was the private healing of the mother-in-law of Simon (Mark 1:29-31=Matthew 8:14-15=Luke 4:38-39). The healing says little nothing about faith directly, although in context, the disciples have exercised faith by leaving all to follow Jesus. The standard elements of a physical healing are present in the diagnosing of the illness, a request for help, a healing action, and the effect on the sick person. Jesus heals on the Sabbath, an anticipation of future debates with religious leaders regarding what is allowable on the Sabbath. The home of Simon and Andrew may have been a rendezvous for Jesus and his disciples at an early stage. The healing power of Jesus works here through a gesture. The effect upon her is that it empowers her to perform acts of hospitality toward her guests. . Jesus helps her, and then she goes about helping the others.
Mark 1:32-34 (Matthew 8:16 with a citation regarding the fulfillment of scripture, and Luke 4:40-41) is a summary of healings in the evening.
Mark 1:35-39 (Luke 4:42-43) is the story of the departure of Jesus to a lonely place. Jesus may have often withdrawn from the crowds to pray. In that sense, the story is an ideal story. He desires to reorient himself to the will of God in prayer. He wants to proclaim the message in their synagogues, giving us a model of the ministry of Jesus in the region of Galilee with its growing expectations of what may happen. At this point, we find no tension between Jesus and the synagogues or those who serve as their leaders.
Early in his ministry Jesus healed a leper (Mark 1:40-45=Matthew 8:1-4=Luke 5:12-15). The leper offers Jesus the choice of whether he will heal, which elicit the response of compassion (σπλαγχνισθεὶς ) from him. Jesus ignored the ritual rule and touched him, a touch that immediately results in his cleansing, which allow him to go to the priest (are they in Judea?) to receive the pronouncement that he is ritually clean and allowed to return to normal social interactions.
Another early healing in Capernaum involved a paralytic and the faith of his friends that led to a conflict with the scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:1-12-Matthew 8:1-8-Luke 5:17-26, having likeness to John 5:1-9 & Acts 3:1-10). It acts a transition in that it has a healing story (v 1-5, 11-12) providing the framework for a conflict (v 6-10), the next stories related to controversies being 2:13-17; 2:18-22; 2:23-28; and 3:1-6. Mark refers to Capernaum as the home of Jesus, which given that Jesus refers to himself as having nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:20=Luke 9:58), has some ambiguity as to what it means. He is speaking the word of God to them when the friends of the paralytic bring him through the roof. Jesus saw their faith, in the sense of an assertive trust in the ability of Jesus to heal, shine through. Jesus expresses himself affectionately toward the paralytic, and in a surprise declares his sin forgiven. Forgiveness of sins and salvation suggests that those who accept the message are no longer outcasts. They share in the salvation of the rule of God. The conflict occurs in the authority of Jesus to forgive sin. The concern is whether Jesus has committed blasphemy, an act punishable by death. For Mark, as the Son, as the Christ, he has the authority to forgive sin. The healing points to the far more significant prison in which the man lived.
The calling of another disciple, Levi/Matthew (Mark 2:13-14=Matthew 9:9-10=Luke 5:27-29) is another ideal response to the call of Jesus. This calling leads to a pronouncement story concerning eating with sinners (Mark 2:15-17=Matthew 9:11-13=Luke 5:30-32). The disciples Jesus gathered around him generated conflict with religious leaders. The importance of the inclusion of tax gatherers and sinners in the table fellowship is that this fellowship guarantees participation in eschatological salvation. The participation is from God. It means the rescuing of the lost. Those who accept the message are no longer outcasts. They share in the salvation of the rule of God. The presence of salvation also relates to the removal of the barrier that separates from God.[13] “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. This saying is a secular proverb that Jesus uses here to instruct the religious people of his day. I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” Jesus does not categorically deny the validity of the Pharisees' faith. Indeed, he refers to them as "the righteous." They are not outside the project of the rule of God. In fact, Jesus characterizes them as already inside. Therefore, he is not concerned with them. His concern is to broaden the circle to include those whom the Pharisees have placed outside, to expand the table, and to call more folks to live in the present reality of the rule of God. Jesus wants his contemporaries to see that the reality of the rule of God is near and among them, especially in those religious authorities have labeled as outsiders. We can see the rule of God in those with whom we associate around food, friends, and family. He wants his righteous contemporaries to see, know, and taste the goodness of the rule of God among us. Yet, Jesus gave offense due to those included in his table fellowship. The meals Jesus held or shared characterized his coming and the conduct of his disciples. When he accepted invitations from others, he made known his readiness to grant fellowship with him to those who issued the invitation. Others felt this to be especially scandalous in some cases because by his participation the table fellowship that he granted or accepted became a sign of the presence of the reign of God that he proclaimed and a sign of the acceptance of the other participants into the future community of salvation. The granting of acceptance of table fellowship by Jesus removed everything that separated people from God and his salvation. It meant the forgiveness of sins, so that table fellowship was a real symbol of fellowship with God and of participation in the future of the reign of God.[14] There is ample room for all to feast at the table of the grace and goodness of God.
The practice of Jesus regarding fasting provoked conflict (Mark 2:18-22=Matthew 9:14-17=Luke 5:33-38). The story suggests it is a later event in the ministry of Jesus. Contrasting the practice of fasting between John the Baptist and Jesus is an implied criticism of Jesus. The response of Jesus clarifies the situation in that his presence is more like a wedding, which is incompatible with fasting. The time of his presence with his disciples is a time of eschatological joy.[15] Jesus is the Messianic bridegroom, suggesting that the rule of God promised in apocalyptic has at least proleptically arrived in Jesus. The reality of the rule of God is among them, so much so they can see, know, and taste the goodness of the rule of God, so the old practices of Judaism are incompatible with the newness of the presence of the rule of God.
Luke 4:16-30 (lengthening the story in Mark 6:1-6a=Matthew 13:53-58) becomes a summary of the preaching of Jesus in the context of his visit to Nazareth. Luke has made this summary relate important theological themes in his plan for the Gospel and Acts. The incident shows the teaching of Jesus as a fulfillment of the Old Testament. It was the custom of this devout and religious man to attend synagogue. The head of the synagogue asks Jesus to read the text for the day, and it galls upon the Isaiah 61:1-2 text, where the Anointed One brings good news to the poor, proclaims release of captives, recovery of sight to the blind, importing letting the oppressed go free from Isaiah 58:6, and to proclaim the year of the favor of the Lord (described in Leviticus 25). What the prophet pronounced among the exiles finds fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus. Thus, this text foretells the very activities that Jesus' Galilean ministry is about to undertake--release, and recovery. This day the message of peace sounds in their ears. This day takes place the liberation that Isaiah proclaims. The reason is that Jesus is present as the One anointed and sent by God, who has the authority to declare liberty with his word and accomplish it with the act of the Word, to bring in the new age in the person of Jesus. He accomplishes it as he speaks. What Jesus proclaims becomes actuality the moment Jesus does so. The proclamation of Jesus is the blast of the trumpet that inaugurates the new year of the Lord. The time that Isaiah proclaimed is the time of Jesus.[16] Jesus is so bold as to suggest that the prophetic words of liberation spoken by Isaiah find fulfillment in his own person. Since the figure of the messenger of eschatological peace still had a role in Jewish life in the days of Jesus, we cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus understood his message in these terms. He proclaimed the reign of God to be imminent, breaking in already in his own work and with acceptance of his message, and accompanied by the deeds of salvation to which the prophet referred.[17] This today, with its fulfillment, with its intimate connection with the name and history of Jesus, is the content of the apostolic message and the meaning of the life of the apostolic community. The today of the church is the acceptable year, the great Sabbath, the fulfilled time of Jesus.[18]His words lead people to witness concerning him and admire the beauty of his words. Some asked if he was simply the son of Joseph, suggesting he has no distinguished heritage. Could the son of a carpenter speak with such eloquence? Jesus places a secular proverb upon their lips, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’[19] He speculates that they want Jesus to do in Nazareth what he had already done in Capernaum, a village 20 miles northeast of Nazareth, suggesting that he favors Capernaum over Nazareth. Jesus, then, is assuming that the desire to see miracles on the part of the citizens of the town implies a lack of confidence in the authenticity of his prophetic status and identity. However, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown (based on Mark 6:4=Matthew 13:57 and indirectly with John 4:44), suggesting that the rebuff by the residents of Nazareth demonstrate the validity of the prophetic ministry of Jesus. They at least suggest that familiarity can blind us to the truth and wisdom the familiar contains. We may need to be more open than we tend to be to the people who are familiar to us. The rejection by Nazareth foreshadows the rejection Jesus will receive later in his ministry. Jesus will offer two examples in verses unique to Luke. In pointing to the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath in I Kings 17:1-24, Jesus refers to the unfaithfulness of Israel leading Elijah to go outside Israel to provide relieve from a drought to a non-Israelite. The second example comes from Elisha in II Kings 5:1-5, where the prophet ministers to the need of the non-Israelite Naaman. For Luke, these ancient stories foreshadow the turn of the early church from their Jewish beginning to the Gentile world. Jesus did not shy away from offending people, even the people of his hometown, when it served the truth of his message. The angry response of those attending synagogue, the desire to kill Jesus, is a painful example of how devout and religious people can turn violent. Their attempt poignantly foreshadows the successful plot to kill him hatched by those in Jerusalem whom his prophetic message also stung.
The first discourse of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, needs to receive careful attention if we are to give priority to the teaching of Jesus in the shaping of a Christian life. In Luke 6: 18 They had come to hear him. They were as hungry for the word as they were for the works of Jesus. They had come to receive physical healing of their diseases from Jesus. Further, Jesus cured those whom unclean spirits troubled. Jesus offered what we might call a form of spiritual and emotional healing as well. 19 And all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them. The sermon constitutes what scholars call the “little interpolation” in the material Matthew and Luke had in Mark. They have reworked the sermon in their unique ways. Matthew has incorporated material from other settings and group them topically in his presentation of the Sermon on the Mount. Luke has omitted some of the sayings in Matthew. Matthew has a tightly structured sermon, while the presentation in Luke has a loose construction. We can surmise that Jesus preached a significant sermon early in his Galilean ministry. One might call it his inaugural sermon.
The distillation of the insight Jesus offers concerning the life of the people of God we find in the beatitudes deserves prayerful reflection in the context of a consideration of the happy life. The proclamation of the rule of God in Jesus begins with the beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12). The Bible contains certain clarifying moments, texts that state with directness and clarity what this sacred text wants to communicate to tis readers. The beatitudes are one of those clarifying moments. What are followers of Jesus supposed to look like? How does Jesus define the life God blesses? In what does a happy life consist of? They are to recognize their complete dependence upon God, concerned with the suffering in this world, meek before others, hunger and thirst for what is right, be willing to suffer for what is right, be merciful to others, have inward and outward purity, and make peace in a world divided. I am not suggesting that any of this is easy. Yet, it is simple and direct, as Jesus puts it, at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. In the woe pronounced in Luke 6:24-25, we find an element of compensation for the suffering and deficiencies of the present world, which is part of the eschatological transformation that will take place. Those compensated now and find satisfaction in what they receive now, and therefore no longer yearn for the coming salvation of God, will be those whom God shuts out of the participation in salvation.[20] In Luke 6:26, the "woe" that Jesus warns the disciples to stay away from is the experience of acceptance, the disaster of having "all speak well of you." Jesus contrasts the historic treatment of genuine and false prophets to demonstrate his disciples' own acceptance or rejection by their communities. The false prophets, those crowd‑pleasers who used smooth words to hide evil intentions, stand as a warning to all who may be tempted to accommodate the gospel message to make it more acceptable to everyone. Followers of Jesus need to reconcile themselves to adversity. In fact, we need to consider that when the culture or the tribe to which we belong smiles upon us, we need to have some caution.[21]
The proclamation of the rule of God involved reflecting upon discipleship and the relation of that discipleship to the Old Testament (Matthew 5:13-20). In the days of Jesus, metaphors like salt and light took on a quite different meaning than we would have today. Light can be very fragile, but even in small quantities it makes quite a difference. When the darkness is particularly great, one does not need a huge amount of light to make a significant difference. Light and salt depend upon their environment to have the influence they are to have. The church is not everything you need. Your families, your neighborhood, your work, your government, are all vital parts of your life. Yet, the church has a message and a life that is to enlighten and salt every part of your life. Salt and light exist for the benefit of its environment, providing purification, seasoning, preservation, and for the benefit of that which it illuminates. Jesus reminds us that our witness in the world can weaken. This fact should not surprise us. We know we are sinners. We know we are not perfect. Yet, it should sadden us that sometimes, the salt does not taste like it should. Sometimes our light does not shine as it should. We blend in too well at times with our surroundings so that others could not tell much difference between the world and us. In relation to the Old Testament and Judaism, Jesus did not have the goal of dissolving or setting aside Judaism. He was a devout Jew who attended synagogue, prayed regularly, participated in the feast days, and knew the Torah and the prophets. He was a religious man of his time and place. His teaching regarding the Torah occurs within the perspective that the Torah remains valid, even if we need to shift our perspective regarding the Torah and see it through the eyes of Jesus.
Jesus proclaims the rule of God in the context of establishing a distinctive vision of that in which righteousness consists of (Matthew 5:21-48). For him, Torah challenges us to examine our life before God, doing so in way that compels us to examine our interior life and not just if we externally act in accord with the commandments. Such righteousness goes beyond that of the scribe and Pharisee, those who claim to be such experts in Torah. Jesus will take the 10th commandment, with its command directed toward the heart and thus toward the inappropriate desire for the property or wife of the neighbor and recognized that each of the 10 commandments suggested such a righteousness that went beyond external compliance and dealt with the heart. Sin arises from the human soul, in the spirit and in the heart before it expresses itself in external acts.
Thus, the sixth commandment says the people of God do not murder, but Jesus says the command forces us to look upon the anger out of which murder arises. If we have not murdered anyone, it may be because we have not confronted the circumstances that we need to be angry enough that it becomes a strong temptation. This interpretation of the commandment suggests we need to move toward forgiveness and reconciliation. Thus, the seventh commandment says the people of God are not to commit adultery, but Jesus says the command forces us to look upon the lust out of which the act of adultery arises. A thorough examination of Jesus and Paul on divorce shows that while in some cases divorce was allowable, given the immanent nature of the rule of God it was not advisable. Given the social significance of the ancient household, divorce had a large societal impact. Further, when we look upon the compassion Jesus showed to a woman who had multiple sexual relationships (John 4), the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8) and extending forgiveness to a woman with a loose sexual history (Luke 7), we can note that Jesus refuses to isolate them or heap upon them shame and guilt. He refused to create barriers for those caught in the powerful and intricate web of human desire. As with all human action, the reasoning process that justifies them are serious matters that relate to the priority of becoming Christian in every phase of our lives and thus the formation of our character as human beings. Thus, the seventh commandment says the people of God are not to give an oath falsely, but Jesus says the command suggests that we are to be reliable, honest, and truthful in all we do. Thus, a well-known rule for the equitable administration of justice by the people of God was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but for Jesus the command raises the issue of retaliation and revenge when another does evil to us. Jesus will use parody, a form of expression that exaggerates traits for comic effect with the purpose of producing insight into the nature of the aggressive act.
Non-violence is the wisdom Jesus offers, expressed in the graphic form of turning the other cheek and having such a loose relationship with the things you own that you give more to the one suing you than asked, meaning one should not get involved in such lawsuits at all. Jesus even advises non-violence when confronted by the occupying Roman empire. Jesus advises such a loose relationship with what we own that we give to anyone who begs from us. The design of such actions is to produce bewilderment and retreat in the one doing evil, which assumes one can make a moral appeal to them. As wisdom, such sayings are applicable only in certain settings. To state the obvious, those who are political leaders cannot apply such sayings. Living in a violent world, non-violence can be a way to de-escalate tension, but for some types of confrontations non-violence will increase violence. A provocative use of the saying looks to changing the behavior of the aggressor toward peace. In some situations, the nature of the aggressor has no possibility of such change. On a personal level, to stand by and allow an aggressor to kill one’s neighbor when one could use force to stop it is not an act of love nor is it provocative. Rather, such a stance is cowardly. On a corporate level, to do nothing to free slaves in the south, to stop the extermination of Jews in Europe, or to stop Muslim extremists who want to erase freedom from the earth and replace it with Sharia law, far from provocative behavior, becomes cowardly, unjust, and lacking in love for the betterment of humanity. Bringing together Leviticus 19:18 with Psalm 139:19-22 and 137:1-9, the inference many drew was to love the neighbor and hate the enemy, but Jesus says we love the neighbor even if the neighbor has become an enemy. Such an approach to the enemy creates the possibility of peace and partnership by overcoming evil with good rather than hatred, revenge, and retaliation. Handling hostility with restraint creates the conditions for a change in the relationship. The objective is liberation from the menace of unresolved hostility. The way one loves the enemy is to pray for those who persecute you, becoming children of the Father in doing so, since the Father patiently bestows the blessing of nature upon the evil and good, the righteous and unrighteous. Such behavior distinguishes the people of God the natural inclination to retaliate. Reacting to hostility in these ways suggests a pure, undivided heart in fulfilling the way Jesus views Torah. It invites the people of God to have a form of perfection suitable to a human life that includes the type of love God has for all.
Ethics directs attention at the resolution of concrete problems or specific cases as well as the further specification of an established or developing way of life. What is the concrete situation in life that must be imagined for the ethical instruction given here, if taken at face value, not to register in practice merely an open invitation to repeated abuse by others and self-destruction? What is the logic of this speech? How do its various parts fit together? Why "love your enemies"? The problem dealt with here is the experience of hostile opposition: the various predicaments provoked and suffered by the early Jewish-Christians because of their decided social marginality. The result is a skillfully argued piece of early Christian ethics, helping further to articulate in both word and deed as a moral posture the underlying ethos of the Christians of this period, most of whom lived around Galilee. Clearly, this life was on increasingly under fire. They assume that people want to be like God. They also assume that God will reward the faithful. The supreme art of the world government by God is to cause good to come from evil, and in this way to overcome evil with good, as Jesus commanded his disciples to do.[22] That may well be the intent. Yet, at the least, the demands of Jesus do not consider their consequences, which might be very ambivalent: it also could happen that the one who strikes winds up for another hit, that the poor person without a cloak must freeze and that one strengthens the hostile occupation power! There is a piece of conscious provocation in these sayings. It is a matter of alienation, of shocking, a symbolic protest of the regular rule of force. They are the expression of a protest of any kind of spiraling of force which dehumanizes the human being and of hope for a different behavior of the person from that which is the everyday experience. In these sayings, we might find a gentle protest and an element of provocative contrast to the force that rules the world. These commands intend to find obedient persons to obey them. One understands provocative renunciation of force as an expression of love. The point is that a provocative use of this saying intends that nonviolence lead to the possibility of change in the aggressor. However, we also have experience of people for whom such nonviolence is a sign of weakness that invites more violence. The point is that an absolute application of this rule without regard to context is hardly the intent of Jesus.
I have focused upon these sayings as part of the wisdom teachings of Jesus. He offers wisdom for how disciples are to relate in a social and political environment in which they have no obvious power. The only power they may have is to awaken the conscience of those in power. As wisdom, it requires the cultivation of wisdom to know when and how to apply it. Loving the enemy is a good strategy if the enemy has at least the basic requirement of ethics. Turning the other cheek will work if the other has a modicum of decency. Jesus is suggesting that if you show the smallest amount of compassion to the enemy, it will provide the opportunity for a new insight the enemy did not have.
Another theme of the proclamation of the rule of God in Jesus challenges us to what has priority in our lives and the path of trust in that priority that moves us away from anxiety (Matthew 6:24-34). Here is the true theme of the doctrine of divine providence.[23] We cannot live our lives with multiple priorities, for eventually one will emerge that will reveal that to which we are loyal. For Jesus, clarifying this choice involves giving priority to God or giving priority to the accumulation of wealth. Given the nature of trust in God, we have no reason for anxiousness regarding this life. Human beings are anxious and fearful about many things. They become burdens that slow us down. We allow them to define our lives. The anxious person longs for certainty in a world that will never be such. Such anxiety and fear become our prison. The necessities of life are important in our lives but providing them does not define our purpose in life. To do so will lead to the experience of the senselessness and emptiness of life. Is there something more to life? Drawing examples from nature is always complicated, for nature can be cruel. The hunt for food consumes the lives of most animals, so there is an anxious quality to their lives. However, all animals have emerged out of evolving natural history in a way that assures that the necessities for life have the possibility of satisfaction. This fact shows the care of the Father for that which the Father has brought to life. The Father sees to the needs of each creature the Father has brought into existence.[24] Every living thing is precious to the Father, and not just a means to a higher end, so the care of the Father extends to the relations of the parts of creation to each other.[25] The goodness of the Father expresses itself in the fact that all animals can be confident that the resources they need for survival are present. The point is not that starvation will not happen. The point is that anxiety about that possibility will do nothing to satisfy the necessities of life. Thus, plants do not have to work to express the natural beauty they possess, even though their lives and beauty are fleeting. The beauty of nature exceeds that of Solomon and thus of any human creation. Human beings tend to doubt the reality of the goodness and care of the Father for all that the Father has created. Given the reality of the breadth and depth of suffering we see in creation, this is understandable. Having trust in the Father does not cause the necessities of human life to come to us out of thin air. We still must work to eat, drink, or wear clothes. However, getting our priorities straight will mean that the purpose of our lives is larger than providing the necessities of life. The natural inclination of human beings is to give inappropriate priority to the necessities of life. Such anxiety reflects fixation upon self. The people of God are to envision a larger purpose for their lives, fixating upon concern for the rule of God.[26] If our vocation is to become Christian and we fulfill that calling of God upon our lives, then we can have trust and confidence that providing ourselves with the necessities of life is part of that vocation. We form our identity by devotion to that which God wants to form in us, integrating the necessities of life into that devotion. The Father knows what we would need to fulfill that destiny.[27] If we took the Father as seriously as Jesus suggests, we would have undivided devotion to the rule of God rather than undivided devotion to earthly goods.[28] The concern of Jesus for the rule of God needs to be the concern of the Christian, so we need to learn what that concern will look like in a human life.[29] Such devotion implies conversion.[30] The uniqueness of the God who comes to rule excludes all competing concerns. If one is open to this rule, God already comes with this divine rule.[31]
Christians are not sent to the world to judge, to condemn, to evaluate, to classify, or to label. Jesus has said clearly that we are to be compassionate like the Father and refuse to judge or condemn, but to practice forgiveness even toward the enemy. In a world that constantly asks us to make up our minds about other people, developing such a presence in the world seems impossible. However, for those who long for reconciliation, it is one of the most beautiful fruits of a deep spiritual life.[32] Thus, he could use a grotesque comparison of a speck and a timber to provoke thought concerning how we are so quick to judge the other when we have plenty about ourselves that one could judge (Matthew 7:3-5=Luke 6:41-42). The retort of Jesus asks the provocative and rhetorical question involving not gathering figs from thorns nor grapes from a bramble bush (Matthew 7:16=Luke 6:43-44). The general common lore observation is that good trees bear good fruit and bad trees bear bad fruit, and therefore a good tree does not bear bad fruit and a bad tree can bear good fruit. In a possible apocalyptic reference, the tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire (Matthew 7:17-18). Just as a tree is known by its fruit, so the fruit of one’s life will express what is in the heart (Luke 6:45).
In Luke 6:39, because they themselves are blind, Jesus scoffs, these authority figures would only lead others into a pit with them. He grants (Luke 6:40) that a disciple is not above the teacher, but everyone qualified will be like the teacher. Jesus puzzles as to why they refer to him as Lord and do not do what he says. However, the version in Matthew reframes the question into a statement not everyone who calls him Lord will enter a life ruled of God. Such a profession is important, but it must be followed up by doing the will of the Father in heaven, for which we pray in Matthew’s version of the Lord is Prayer be done on earth as it is in heaven. Becoming a faithful doer of the word is the only way to reflect a life ruled by God (Matthew 7:21=Luke 6:46). In Matthew 7:22-23, some will say to Jesus on the day of judgment, when he determines who will enter the rule of God, calling him Lord, and saying they prophesied, cast out demons, did many deeds of power in the name of Jesus, but Jesus will say he never knew them, so they as evildoers must depart. Could persons who do all these things subvert the way of Jesus? They may have dramatic spiritual gifts, but they may not have the interior life or character valued by the community. People who possess such dramatic spiritual gifts have no assurances and may in fact be serving evil. External displays of religiosity are not always safe indicators of internal character and righteousness. Character and genuine righteousness are more important. Reflecting the rule of God in our lives is not a matter of the grand gesture, mighty words, or exercising prominent gifts.
As part of common Israelite, Judean, and rabbinic lore, those who listen to Jesus’ teachings but do not act on them lay one kind of foundation; those who listen and then act are wise as they build upon a solid foundation. The first invites destruction in the deluge, the second will withstand the final test. One displays wisdom when one builds one’s life on being a faithful doer of the word of Jesus (Matthew 7:24-27=Luke 6:47-49).
To conclude, I offer a few reflections on the nature of the gospel material.
For Matthew, historical events in the life of Jesus fulfill the promises of salvation made by God. The teaching of Jesus moves into the foreground through their compilation into six major discourses. Jesus becomes a new Moses in bringing together Torah and prophetic insight into the priority of doing justice, loving kindness, and walk humbly with God. While there have been many interpreters of Torah, Matthew will elevate Jesus above all others as to the one who offered a valid interpretation of Torah and the one who has the prophetic insight to offer the proclamation the people of God needed in this time.
The Gospel of Mark has the purpose of meeting the urgent needs of the Palestinian community, on the verge of a Jewish-Roman war. The suffering of the Christians, pressured by Jews and Romans, made urgency ad conflict even more central. Thus, his gospel shortness material, focuses on events, and arises out of the suffering of the people. He faced a community that doubted, wondering about its own legitimacy and the ability of Jesus to save. Mark begins with a victorious presentation of Jesus, but in Chapter 8 a shift occurs toward the cross and suffering of Jesus and its influence upon the lives of followers. The center of this gospel is the confession of faith by Peter.
The promise and fulfillment theme in Luke-Acts is how Luke uses the Hebrew Scriptures. Christianity, rooted in Israel by the birth of its founder to Jewish parents and by the mark of the covenant, has as much right to recognition as a lawful religion in the Roman Empire as Judaism itself. The historical perspective that governs the two-volume work is that Christianity is the logical and legitimate outgrowth or continuation of Judaism, and specifically Pharisaic Judaism. He wants to pass on to a post-apostolic age a tradition about Jesus which is related to the biblical history of Israel and to insist that it is only within the stream of apostolic tradition, represented by Peter and by Paul, that one finds this divinely destined salvation. Luke sets the story of Jesus within this larger story. Jesus is viewed as the divinely commissioned agent who announces the God's will for Israel. His historical concern serves a theological end. He sees the events that he is to narrate as a fulfillment, and this reveals his historical concern as subordinate to a theological one. Luke speaks of the divine plan for salvation of humanity that is being realized in the activity of Jesus: see 7:30, Acts 2:23, 4:28, 13:36, and 20:27. He speaks of God having predetermined things that have taken place, as in 22:22, Acts 20:2, 17:26, 31, 22:14, 26:16. The idea of a plan underlies what Jesus says or does, often with the fulfillment of scripture. He often speaks of such fulfillment.
This significant moment of baptism in the life of Jesus finds a connection with a significant and life-changing moment in our lives. When we receive baptism, we are publicly uniting ourselves with and standing with Jesus. In that sense, it becomes the basis for the early church to invite new believers to submit to baptism as well. Baptism becomes the first step in the human decision that recognizes the faithfulness of God to the person receiving baptism. The faith of the person will include obedience and uniting personal life with Jesus. In identifying ourselves with Jesus in our baptism we are making a significant step toward identifying who we are. Baptism is a sign that the favor or grace of God rests upon us. Baptism is a form of anointing us for ministry. Baptism is a sign that we have committed ourselves to the reign of God. As the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist stands at the beginning of his public ministry and had implications throughout that ministry, so our baptism stands at the beginning of our vocation to become increasingly a Christian. We identify ourselves with the course of the life of Jesus, as he lived in submission to the will of the Father to the point of death and receiving the gift of eternal life. This includes experiencing the freedom and power that the gift of the Spirit brings to embrace a new life and vocation and enjoying a relationship with the Father as that of a child of the Father. The Holy Spirit is that “mystical” power to which we must open our minds and hearts and to receive. The Spirit is God with us in our experience. We need to allow ourselves to let the Spirit encounter us, address us, and then we need to respond to the address. We need to move in the direction the Spirit bids us. The Spirits bids us into deeper communion with Christ and with others. The Spirit that engages us from the depths of our souls, and is indeed the source of our lives, seeks to shape us into the image of Christ. Baptism symbolizes a shift of our sense of identity away from self and toward Christ. God calls Christians into fellowship with the Son, identifying us as children of God. We are children of the heavenly Father, and our calling is to live as children of the heavenly Father. Our vocation in life is to learn to live in this world as representatives of our heavenly Father. Since baptism is open to all persons, all of us have a calling from God.
Those who are disciples of Jesus today rely upon the integrity and reliability of the apostolic witness. Scripture holds a special place for us today because God breathed life into it, and therefore, it becomes life to us, if we are open to receive it. Scripture is “useful” in that it teaches us positive matters we are to believe, as well as reprove and correct our belief and practice. It trains us in righteousness, so that we who belong to God may become proficient for good works. Jesus provides an example of reading scripture through his elevation of the commandment to love God with heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love the neighbor as oneself. He is consistent with the prophetic criticism of the entire festival and sacrificial system when divorced from wholehearted obedience to the covenant and to the prophetic vision of the people of God becoming servants of the Lord who must suffer to become a light and witness to the nations. He extends that criticism to another important part of the Torah. Thus, while the Old Testament and Judaism yet today take the purity legislation seriously, the New Testament took the purity laws, the regulations concerning clean and unclean foods, and the entire festival and sacrificial system, and interpreted them as finding their fulfillment in an unexpected way in the suffering servant, Jesus of Nazareth.
I will explore the texts Epiphany Day, the First Sunday after the Epiphany, and the Last Sunday after the Epiphany (Transfiguration Sunday). These are the observances that connect with the Epiphany theme of a manifestation of who Jesus is.
From the Second to the Eighth Sunday, we are in common time, which means a theme does not unify the selection of the texts for each Sunday.
The Epistle Lesson follows its own course during this season is I Corinthians 1:1-II Corinthians 3:6. For the preaching so inclined, it provides an opportunity to dig into the Corinthians correspondence of Paul and give expository sermons. This portion of the writings of Paul carries the theological weight of the theology of the cross, the Body of Christ, spiritual gifts and love, and the resurrection of Jesus and its hope for humanity. This study calls for much patient reflection.
I have a study of the Psalm and Old Testament reading. This study focuses upon the importance of the Torah and Moses as well as the rise of the prophet, with emphasis upon Elijah. The calling of the prophet receives special attention. The movement of these texts toward Transfiguration Sunday and its disclosure of the relationship between his Father, Moses, and Elijah is obvious. For the preacher and the student of theology, it is a wonderful opportunity to reflect upon the ways in which Torah and prophetic calling anticipate the sending of the Son.
The Gospel Lesson for Year A, Year B, and Year C portray Jesus as interpreter of Torah and as prophet who proclaims the word. Each year begins with a reading from the Gospel of John 1:18-2:11, and then commences with readings from the early Galilean ministry of Jesus from the gospel focus for that year. My studies begin with my introduction to each of the three gospels. The gospel readings have pointers toward Moses and Elijah that from the New Testament perspective find fulfillment in the proclamation of Jesus.
I offer a few comments about the first three gospels.
The gospel is not biography but reports the good news of what God has done in Jesus. The report has the purpose of bringing people to faith in Jesus. Gospels contain both reports of events and an explanation of the significance of these events. Jesus is the hero of this story, and the author views everything from that perspective. Only an insider can write a gospel, for a detached observer may be able to give a rational account of the events, but not the meaning of them. In terms of historical setting, John the Baptist died in 27 AD and Jesus would die in 30 AD.
Bible scholars have for centuries used certain methods of study that seem alien to the person in the pew. My intent is to make this material increasingly accessible. The concept that Jesus did not say certain things attributed to him will seem strange to many readers of the bible. The fact that the Gospel of John contains almost no material that scholars consider reliable concerning Jesus of Nazareth is surprising to many. I have designed my reflections to relate the best of modern scholarship regarding these matters.
A puzzle among scholars is the relationship between the first three gospels known as the Synoptic Gospel.
For many scholars, Luke had a source for his writing in Mark, from which he takes his narrative framework. It was written in Greek and produced around 70. Of Mark's 661 verses, 350 have substantial similarity in Luke. In other words, Luke has 7,036 of Mark's 8,485 words. Further, the sequence of episodes in Luke closely follows that of Mark.
They contain a variety of similarities.
1. They have similarity of arrangement. All three are based on the same general historical structure: baptism, temptation, Galilean ministry, Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, last journey to Jerusalem, arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection. They mention only one Passover.
2. They have similarity of content, style, and wording. If the contents could be put into 100 units:
Gospel Peculiarities Coincidences
Mk 7 93
Mt 42 58
Lk 59 41
Mt/Mk/Lk 53
Mt/Lk 21
Mt/Mk 20
Mk/Lk 6
This suggests to many scholars that Mark provides the basic structure for the other two gospels. Thus, Mark would be the first complete gospel written. I stress this does not make it more historical or less theological. All the sources that are behind the gospel writers are theological documents and are gospels in the sense that the hope is that in the presentation the reader will be moved to follow Jesus. Under this scenario, Mark would have completed his gospel by 70 AD. The early Christian writing known as the Didache had its first edition completed in 60-80 AD. Matthew was completed in 85, and Luke in 90, and John in 90, though the final edition was not until 100. All this suggests that there were sources unique Matthew and Luke.
3. In cases where all three report the same incident, two of them agree more closely in style and wording as compared with the third. Sometimes Matthew and Luke agree even to the extent of wording, but Mark omits that section. This fact has suggested to some a hypothetical document, Q, as a document that Matthew and Luke had before them when they wrote their respective gospels. It was written in the 40s and in Greek. It consists of 230 verses. There are doublets in Luke which suggest a Mk and a Q variant of the same saying. From my studies, the material that Matthew and Luke share, but are not present in Mark, was completed in 50-60 AD. Another one-third of Luke, for example, is unique to Luke and some of it is traditional material. The Gospel of Thomas was written 60-70 AD, as the Gospel of Signs in John 2-11. However, there are agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark that are difficult to explain under this theory.
There also significant divergences:
1. They have some considerable differences in both arrangement and vocabulary over many points of detail.
2. Some sections of common material have little verbal similarity, while authors place others in different historical settings.
3. Each gospel contains material peculiar to that gospel.
Scholars have offered other solutions.
1. Lessing proposed an original Aramaic Gospel of Nazarenes, which later authors abstracted and translated into the gospels we now have.
2. Schleiermacher proposed that the apostles kept records of isolated words and deeds of Jesus as eyewitnesses knew them. These were later collected into the present gospels.
3. An interesting alternative to what I have suggested is that Matthew was first, Luke had Matthew in front of him as he wrote his gospel, along with other material unique to Luke, and Mark is the last gospel written out of the urgency of events surrounding 70 AD.
Where Matthew and Luke give the same saying of Christ, Luke's wording sometimes has the more primitive appearance. Since the more primitive form is sometimes Matthew's and sometimes Luke's, it is more reasonable to suppose that they used a common source, which now the one modified, and now the other. In addition, Luke follows the Mark material closely, while the Q material Luke treats differently in providing a different context from that provided in Matthew.
My biblical studies experience leads me toward the hypothetical existence of Q as a source for Matthew and Luke. However, I am open to other approaches. In 125-175 AD, Papias says, "Matthew collected the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, but each man translated them as he was able." It may well be that an early source of sayings existed, that Matthew was its author, and that a writer brought that material together with Mark, and that Luke for his reasons used the significant unique material he had and rearranged materials for his purpose.
C. S. Mann in the Anchor Bible leans toward Matthew being prior, coming from a Jewish-Christian school before 65 A.D. Luke was written with Matthew available to him, as well as his own unique material. Mark is a conflation of both gospels.
Edward C. Hobbs (1980) suggests a different path. He agrees with the findings of Harnack and of Loisy, rather than with those of Dr. Streeter. For much the most part the Matthaean forms look the more original. He thinks a different theory from that of a hypothetical document called Q accounts for the evidence we have. Luke had two sources, Matthew and Mark, in front of him. He liked the teaching contained in Matthew and the movement in Mark, so he chose Mark for the framework of his gospel and interspersed teaching material dispersed differently from what he found in Matthew. The long section 9.5l - 18.l4 that provides most of this teaching slows down the action. He breaks off the hectic Galilean ministry account with a narrative of his journey to Jerusalem devoted to giving us as readers a pause to reflect upon his teaching before his trial, death, and resurrection. Thus, while Matthew presents Jesus as a Jewish Rabbi patterned after Moses, Luke portrays Jesus as a traveling philosopher of wisdom, teaching in aphorisms and parables. We may be frustrated with the less coherent and organized arrangement of the teaching of Jesus in Luke, but we can assume he had his reasons for re-working his material. In nine and a half chapters of lively narrative St. Luke gives us the nativity and childhood, the relations with John Baptist, and the major events of the Galilean ministry: the works of power, the appointment and mission of the Twelve and the Seventy, the feeding of multitudes, the confession of Peter, the Transfiguration. In eight chapters more he gives us the teaching and in the remaining six and a half returns to unencumbered narrative for the events at Jerusalem. The discourses of Jesus in St. Luke's middle part are conceived in episodes of moderate length, one following another. Fresh episodes arise, but nothing much happens; the teaching is the thing, but the teaching is unsystematic because episodic. He is not dividing and re-arranging existing material, he is presenting his vision of the gospel according to his inspiration. And inspiration works in such a field as this by novelty of combination. Every episode in these chapters puts together two texts at the least which had not been combined before, and the new combination reveals the point that St. Luke is specially inspired to make.
What did Luke do with Matthew's overall structure? Here Farrer achieves a tour-de-force. Matthew's Hexateuch organization is briefly summarized (it had been presented much more fully in his book on Matthew and Mark, and then he argues that the plan is neither adopted nor rejected by Luke, but allowed to stand with the weight of the teaching redistributed, placing the bulk of it in the Deuteronomic position. A short sermon at the foot of the Mountain in chapter 6, following Matthew's plan, sets the stage for a Second Law, much fuller and following the structure of Deuteronomy itself. (This part of Luke's method is examined in detail in another essay in the same volume, immediately preceding Farrer's: Christopher F. Evans, "The Central Section of St. Luke's Gospel," pp. 37-53. Evans shows in detail the remarkable coincidence in the sequence of Deuteronomy and of Luke's central section.) It is this focus on Deuteronomy which accounts for much of Luke's repeated mining of the Matthean text for materials suitable to his own teaching section. Further confirmation of another portion of this Lucan plan was offered two years later, in "St. Luke's Genesis," by M. D. Goulder and M. L. Sanderson, who showed Luke's success in constructing a much more detailed and interesting Genesis than Matthew had done.
Farrer concludes with a surprising point, for that time. The result of the abandonment of the Q Hypothesis will be to allow us to see Matthew's creativity better. Matthew had a source, namely Mark; but he also stood in the stream of a living oral tradition, as Mark did, and he was free, as Mark was, to draw on it and be creative with it. Matthew's work takes on quite new colors when seen in this light, an observation confirmed later by Goulder in striking fashion.
My experience still leans me in the direction of the hypothetical existence of Q. My studies of the first three gospels assume that it is theory that accounts for most of the evidence. However, I admit that if were to live long enough, it would be interesting to me to re-work my studies of Luke with assumption that he had Matthew in front of him.
[1] (Church Dogmatics III.2 [30.1], 364-368)
[2] Barth (Church Dogmatics II.2 [66.1], 501)
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 51.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 246.
[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 12.
[9] (Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999], 193)
[10] Barth (Church Dogmatics III.2 [47], p. 459-461)
[11] Barth, CD, II.2 [35.3] 443-4.
[12] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.4] 590.
[13] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 332.
[14] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 284-5.
[15] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 331.
[16] Barth CD, IV.2 [64.3] 197, 205, I.2 [14.1] 51.
[17] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 456.
[18] Barth, CD, III.2 [47.1] 468-9.
[19] It has numerous forms in non-biblical literature, as well as Thomas 31:2. The saying is unique to Luke.
[20] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 3 p. 639.
[21] John Wesley.
[22] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 525.
[23] (Church Dogmatics III.3 [48.3] 40)
[24] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Vol. II, 35)
[25] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Vol. II, 53)
[26] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Vol. II, 249)
[27] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Vol. III, 640)
[28] (Schweizer, Matthew, 164)
[29] Barth (Church Dogmatics IV.3 [71.6] 654)
[30] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Vol. II, 311)
[31] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Vol. II, 330)
[32] —Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Essential Henri Nouwen (Shambhala, 2009), 159-160.
No comments:
Post a Comment