Theological Reflection on Gospel Lesson for Year C of Epiphany 2-8

Gospel in Year C – John 2:1-11, Luke 4:14-6:49

 

Introduction to Luke

In l:1-4 Luke gives a statement of his motive and purpose. Though Haenchen was reluctant to say so, this statement is over the whole two volume work.  Acts 1:1 refers to the "first book," which means Luke has stated in these four verses the purpose of the whole work. ln this, he uses classical Greek.  He tactfully expresses his dissatisfaction with previous narratives about Jesus and implies that his gospel will set the record straight and assure readers, addressed through Theophilus, of the integrity of their tradition.  The “assurance" is more than history but includes the basic teaching of the church.  Haenchen aptly describes the two-volume work as 'a work of edification." In Acts he refers to the gospel as "the first book." Thus, these two works are intended to be read together.  They comprise over one fourth of the total of the text of the New Testament.  It begins in Jerusalem before the birth of Jesus and ends with Paul preaching the gospel in Rome.  It is nothing less than a story of the working out of God's plan to offer salvation to humanity.  This salvation was anticipated by Israel, definitively announced by Jesus, and continues to be offered through the church.  

Luke-Acts carefully connects what God does in Jesus through the church to the promises made to Israel through its prophets.  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 not the prime mover of the narrative, even though he is the central figure.  It is God who determines the course of events in the story.  Events are described as being predetermined, as in 2:25, 22:22, Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, or directed by the Holy Spirit, as in 3:22, 4:1, 14, 18; 12:12.  God speaks directed only twice, in 3:22 and 9:35.  

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.  Jesus is viewed as the divinely commissioned agent who announces the God's will for Israel. 

Jesus is a prophet.  In 4:16-30 Jesus predicts that his mission will fulfill the words of the prophets and will meet the same reception as the prophets met before him.  

In this gospel, Jesus has a special concern for the poor and the outcast.  Among the outcasts are sinners, to whom Jesus' mission is especially directed.  Salvation history is the clear overarching theme of Luke-Acts.  

One should not confuse the question of the historicity of the Luke’s account with its historical perspective.  His accuracy as a historian can be challenged on modern grounds.  His concern for religious guarantee, proclamation, and teaching makes it fall outside the realm of modern history, but well within the standards of ancient literary writing.  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's historical value can be tested from other literary sources: Q, Mt, Mk.  As for Acts, the historical value is more questionable, since there are generally not parallels in other writings.  The modern reader, schooled in historical skepticism, can only remain somewhat agnostic about many of the events Luke records.  

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.

Luke worked with at least two literary sources.  

Mark, from which he takes his narrative framework, 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. 

Q, an important fund of teachings ascribed to Jesus, produced in the 40's.  It was written in Greek and was composed of about 230 verses.  There clearly is a common order discernable between Mt and Lk of the Q material.  There are doublets in Luke which suggest a Mk and a Q variant of the same saying.  Of course, no copy of such a document exists.  Nor does it contain narrative or a passion and resurrection narrative.  Another one third of the gospel has no known literary source.  Some of it is traditional and some of it Luke composes.  It has some similarities with the tradition upon which John is based.  

Luke itself was written around 85.  His use of the LXX may suggest he was a gentile convert to Judaism.  The Greek of Luke is the best of the canonical gospels. lt lacks Hebrew words, local Palestinian color, and direct citations from the OT.  Luke is not a mere compiler of sources. There is a general similarity between Luke and Matthew, both adding birth and resurrection narratives.  He frequently improved the Greek style and language of the stories in Mk and the sayings of Q. He thus changes the Mark historic present to a past tense.  He had a literary style in the prologue, a Semitic flavored Greek in the infancy narrative, and the normal style in which he wrote most of the Gospel and Acts, which was composed more freely.  He has 2,055 words, of which 971 are hapax legomena and 352 dis legomena.  Of the 2,055, 47 occur more than fifty times in the Gospel.  Total words are 19,404, combined with 18,374 in Acts.  There are 151 words which are characteristic of Luke. 90% of his vocabulary is found in the LXX.  For all the good Greek style, he also has a considerable number of semitisms.  He also frequently abbreviates Mark by omitting details that are circumstantial or anecdotal or that are not required for his purpose.  He will omit some Mark material when he views them as repetitious.  He omits material from Mark which do not contribute to the over-all literary plan which he imposes on the story of Jesus.  He transposed some Mk material for literary effect.  Luke tends to eliminate anything that is violent, passionate, or emotional. Even human emotion expressed by Jesus is eliminated.

The outline of Luke derives from Mark:

 

1.         John the Baptist setting the stage for Jesus

2.         Jesus' baptism, temptation, announcement of his message, and gathering of disciples,

 

3.         Teaching and healing in Galilee,

4.         Journey to Jerusalem, culminating in a symbolic action in the temple,

5.         Preaching in the temple, culminating in an eschatological discourse,

6.         arrest, trial, and crucifixion,

7.         discovery of the empty tomb.

 

Luke then extends this outline both directions.  At the beginning he adds a birth narrative, with heavily Semitized Greek, and at the end he adds appearance stories.  He also greatly expands the narrative of the journey to Jerusalem, where most of the special material to Luke is contained.  His ending of the story of Jesus is a fitting climax about a suffering messiah, supported by a proof from prophecy argument and a final commission to witnesses who are to await the promise of the Father, which is the Holy Spirit.

            Some scholars have a negative attitude toward Luke's theology among modern interpreters.  It can be discerned in the unique way he presents the kerygma, the structure of the gospel, the geographical perspective, the historical perspective in which Jesus is placed, the salvation history presented, the treatment of eschatology, discipleship as a response to the word of faith, repentance and conversion, and baptism, and the overall portrait of Jesus.  Jesus proclaims the fact of God's eschatological salvation, the decisive intervention in human history, proposing to Israel a new mode of salvation.  

            In his Christology, he presents the virginal conception through the power of the Spirit, the ministry of Jesus is guided by the Spirit, Jesus has a special relation to the heavenly Father, his resurrection from the dead and his ascension.  He is said to be Messiah, derived from Palestinian Judaism.  Jesus was a suffering Messiah, which is unique to Lk.  He is called Lord, which can be traced back to Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures.  This transfer took place in Palestine.  He is called Savior.  It was frequently used in the contemporary Greco-Roman world.  Yet, it also has connections with LXX.  He is called Son of God.  It was applied to pharaohs, Hellenistic and Roman rulers, mythical heroes, and famous persons.  It implied divine favor, adoption, and even power.  It did not have a messianic nuance.  It attributes a unique relationship between Jesus and the God of Israel.  He is called Son of Man, most often found on the lips of Jesus.  He is called servant.  He is called prophet, one like Moses, like Elijah returned.  Some suggest that the Elisha cycle of miracles is the best analogy for the collected miracles of Jesus, which would further connect him to the prophetic role.  He is called King by Pilate.  

            Some scholars think Luke waters down the theology of the cross, that it is no longer the "scandal" mentioned by Paul.  Salvation is said to be different than Paul, though one might wonder what is so wrong about that.  His concern is to connect Christ to the historical process.  He sees far-reaching connections between Christ and the Christian proclamation of Christ.  He does this by connecting the story of Jesus to Roman history, to Palestinian history, and to church history.  Luke does have Jesus say to the thief on the cross, "Today, you shall be with me in paradise." That shows an interest in salvation, though he does speak of it differently than Mark or Paul.  The call to repentance and conversion in Luke's gospel and his concern for discipleship suggest he is no less demanding.  Paul's theme of justification ought not to be criterion for judging all other early Christian writings.  Further, Luke and Paul undoubtedly agree on much more than they diverge.  Luke does speak of a suffering Messiah, and of the Messiah who "must suffer." The question is whether salvation is realized despite the suffering or through the suffering.  He alone calls Jesus "savior' among the gospel writers.  He speaks of forgiveness of sin and of peace and of life as the effect of the cross.  

            Some have found traces of early Catholicism here.  However, though he does trace a church dotting the Mediterranean with presbyters set up in all the churches by the apostles who are emissaries of the church in Jerusalem, there is no unique or uniform structured hierarchy.  It is a Spirit guided community.

            In terms of eschatology, Luke downplays the nearness of the return of Jesus and the end of the world.  This is where he corrects Mark.  This is not ascribed to a crisis in the early church over the delay, nor is it to be understood as a warning against a Gnostic identification of the Parousia with Jesus' resurrection and ascension.  The emphasis is owing to Luke’s desire to shift the emphasis in many of Jesus' sayings from the end to today.  He has dulled the eschatological edge of some of the sayings of Jesus to make of them a hortatory device for everyday Christian living.  Conzelmann has said that there are three periods: The Period of Israel, the Period of Jesus, and the Period of the Church.  Kasemann said that primitive Christian eschatology is replaced by salvation history.  Others claim Luke invented it, even though Paul too describes the effect of Christ in a salvation history perspective.  Matthew and John also refer to a fulfillment theme, and ordering of the affairs of human history in accordance with divine plan.  Salvation is not viewed as an historically unrooted act.  Though Luke's specific division into periods may be his own creation, that does make it less valid than the scheme provided by other Christian writers, including Paul.  Salvation is extended to the Jew first, and then to Greek, in this outline.  In Luke’s perspective, this was part of God's plan.  Others find fault with Luke in that his salvation history is viewed as a replacement of apocalyptic.  However, though it is not as imminent for Luke as for other Christian writers, it is a reality he expected, which will come suddenly and unpredictably.  The gift of the Spirit replaces eschatology.

            Discipleship is the subjective reaction of human beings to the gospel.  The proper response of the disciple is that of faith, repentance and conversion, and baptism.  There are demands of the Christian life.  Following Jesus primary.  Giving testimony.  Prayer.  Right use of material possessions, which was rooted in Jesus' own teaching and example but expanded by him.  Christian community, an organized way of being the church, a Spirit guided community.

            In terms of his audience, Luke shows a strong interest in the universalism of the Christian message.  Jesus' offer of salvation comes first to Israel but is meant for the entire world.  He shows a sensitivity for a gentile audience.  He regularly translates or omits Aramaic terms in his sources, and often substitutes Greek names for semitisms. 

            He omits Mark’s story about the Syro-Phoenician woman, the one story most likely to offend gentiles.  He shows Jesus freely interacting with non-Jews and using them as positive examples in his teaching.  Jesus becomes more intelligible to Greco-Roman readers.  He sets the birth in the context of world history and traces his genealogy all the way to Adam.  Though he affirms that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, he is only gospel writer to refer to Jesus as savior, a Hellenistic title for divine deliverers.  That Acts places such an emphasis upon Paul suggests a gentile church that was an outgrowth of the Pauline missionary effort.  

            Eusebius reports Antioch to have been Luke's place of origin, and some would localize the composition of the gospel there.  

            In Luke's view, Christianity is both an international membership and indefinite in duration.  Luke-Acts can be seen as a charter document for a church taking stock for the long haul.  It shows how to understand its Jewish roots and how to live in an open-ended present, by following the teachings of Jesus as modeled by the earliest disciples in Acts, and by a continual openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The mission to the gentiles was neither aberration nor a desperate alternative for the mission to Israel.  It had been God's plan from the beginning that Jesus should be both a revelation to the gentiles and the glory of the people of Israel.  Jews accept Jesus at the beginning, but there were also Jews who blinded themselves to the clear line of salvation history which connected Jesus to the history of Israel.  Their blindness did not cause the mission to the gentiles, but it offered an explanation as to why the mission to Israel was now no longer a major issue in the churches Luke knew.  Unlike the Paul of Rom 11, Luke has Paul in Acts 28:25-28 accept the fact of a gentile church.

            Geographically, Luke shows how Christianity passed from Jerusalem of the Jews to Rome of the gentiles.  

            It was not until the end of the second century that the Christian community identified the author as Luke, a companion of Paul.  This tradition stems from an early analysis of the "We sections" of Acts.  This identification is now widely questioned because of the author's inaccuracies about Paul's career, comparing Gal 1:16-17 with Acts 9:19-29, and differences from Paul's thought as we know it from the Pauline letters.  The earliest tradition recognized that the author was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life.  He is not a native Palestinian.  He is obviously a well-educated person, a writer acquainted with the LXX.  He differs from other gospel writers in desiring to relate the story of Jesus not only to the contemporary world and culture, but also to the growth and development of the church.  The first reference can be found in the Muratorian Canon, dated in 170-180: 

"The third book of the Gospel: According to Luke.  This Luke was a physician.  After the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him along with him as one devoted to letters, he wrote it under his own name from hearsay.  For he himself had not seen the Lord in person, but, insofar as he was able to follow it all, he thus began his account with the birth of John." 

From the end of the century, lrenaeus could say: "Luke, too, companion of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel as preached by him." He further states: "That this Luke was inseparable from Paul and was his collaborator in preaching the gospel, he himself makes clear, not be boasting of it, but led on by the truth itself.  For after Barnabas and John, who was called Mark, had parted company with Paul and had sailed for Cyprus, he says, 'We came to Troas. ... "' In this way, Irenaeus established the apostolic origin of the gospel.  Again, at the end of the second century, in Prologue to the Gospel: "Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, by profession a physician, the disciple of the apostles, and later a follower of Paul until his martyrdom.  He served the Lord without distraction, without a wife, and without children.  He died at the age of 84 in Boeotian, full of the holy Spirit." Scholarly opinion can be divided into two areas.  One is that Luke was a Gentile Christian, the other that he was a Jewish Christian.  Fitzmyer concludes that he was a well-educated non-Jewish Semite, a native of Antioch, with Hellenistic atmosphere and culture.

            Besides writing his gospel, Luke also wrote a brief history of the early church.  Yet, Acts is hardly just history.  It is an apologetic in that it tries to demonstrate that the Christian mission is now a violation of Roman law.  Theophilus, to whom the book is addressed, may have been a member of the Roman court who received such a document and from Luke hoped to get a favorable hearing.  Luke wrote the book around 70 AD, given the familiarity with the conditions in Paul's day, and the prominence of Paul.  There are sources, mostly from histories from local communities, the “we” passages, and the speeches.  However, Luke shaped this material for content and for his own purposes.

In terms of the history of interpretation, Adolf von Harnack suggested in 1897 that in the criticism of the sources of earliest Christianity we are moving backwards to the tradition.  Ferdinand Baur in 1845 concluded that a “comparison of these two sources (letters of Paul and Acts) leads to the conclusion that given the vast difference between the accounts of the two sides, historical truth can only be either on the one side or the other.”  Harnack was followed by Wilkenhauser in 1921, Eduard Meyer, Hengel in 1979, Roloff in 1981, as well as social historians of early Christianity such as Judge in 1964 and Theissen in 1979.  Baur was followed by Wellhausen in 1907, Dibelius in 1924, Cadbury, Lake, and Jackson in 1920-1933, Knox in 1936, 1939, 1950, Riddle in 1940, Conzelmann in 1960, 1987, Haenchen in 1971.  As Acts itself sees itself as a historical account of early Christianity, academic theology must constantly be concerned with its historical value.

            In terms of the relationship between Luke and Acts, Munck notes that Acts is part of a two-volume work.  The preface indicates a close connection between the two.  

In terms of the language and style, Munck says that in Luke’s day, there was the merging of classical and common Greek.  However, the classical was reserved for the poetic and epic works.  The common was reserved for daily speech and letters.  Most of the Semitic cultures were bilingual.  Greek was considered the universal future language of the east.  

In terms of authorship, Munck makes the argument that Luke is not the author.  He notes that the author is clearly not an eyewitness of the events.  He records five visits to Jerusalem while we know from Paul’s letters he made only three.  Had the author been a companion of Paul he would have reported more about Paul’s early days.  The analysis of Acts shows that the author used traditions.  Where did these traditions come from?  It is likely that a co-worker of Paul wrote Acts.  There is the ring of authenticity in many of the accounts of Paul.  The evidence does not bear the assertion, however, that the author was a Gentile or a physician.  Some stress discrepancies between Acts and Paul’s letters.  Yet, if they agreed perfectly, scholars would be suspicious of that as well.  Bruce in his commentary on the Greek Text notes that it is most likely to be authored by Luke, rather than a vague companion of Paul.

            In terms of the historical sources of Luke’s two-volume work, Munck notes that Dibelius and Haenchen said Luke simply crated stories for edification.  However, there is solid evidence in the letters of Paul that conditions were favorable for traditions about the apostles to develop.  This is focused upon those references in Paul to a tradition and teaching that were received from the apostles.  The issue can be seen in three areas: the early chapters of Acts, to which Luke would not have been an eyewitness; the “we” passages; the speeches.  He believes that “we” passages need not have been from Luke, and that the speeches vary in the influence that Luke had upon them. Ludemann suggests the following sources: in Acts 15:40-21:36 Luke uses an itinerary supplemented by individual episodes.  Luke had an account of Paul’s trial in Caesarea before Festus.  Luke had written traditions from Hellenist groups at 6-8, 11, and 13-14.  Luke used several stories about Peter that he had in written or oral form in 3, 5, and 12.  In 1-5, he relied on individual oral traditions from the early period of the Jerusalem community.  He does not have a satisfactory explanation of the “we” passages.  The letters of Paul remain the primary source for historical verification. It is not likely that Luke used Paul’s letters for one of his sources, though he undoubtedly knew them.  The reason for this may have been the Gnostic use of Paul’s letters at the end of the first century which may have made them suspect.  It is also possible that they were so available that he assumed anyone in the church could read them, and it was his idea to provide information which might be lost if he did not record it.  The result is that the first task of scholars who study Acts is to separate what is Luke from what is tradition.  Then one can analyze the historical value of that piece of tradition.

            In terms of when Luke wrote Acts, Munck notes the reasons for accepting an early date: 1) The information about geography, history, and politics in Palestine, as well as provinces; 2) the prominence given to Paul; 3) The Gentile churches were forgetting their antecedents.  4) The positive attitude toward the Roman government would suggest a time before Nero; 5) the abrupt ending of the book; 6) very little acquaintance with Paul’s letter, whereas later a corpus would have been collected. All of this suggest a date around 62 AD; 7) No hint of the Jewish wars of 66-70 AD.

 

Theological reflection on the gospel lesson: 

 

            John 1:19-4:54 share various responses to Jesus. John shares various responses to Jesus in 2:1-4:54. In fact, the passage presents the first of two miracles performed by Jesus at Cana, the second being his healing of the official’s son found in 4:46-54. These two Cana stories frame a specific unit of material within The Book of Signs that includes the cleansing of the temple, Nicodemus’ visit with Jesus, John the Baptist’s final witness and Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman. The Book of signs extends to 12:50. 

John relates the story of the first sign in Galilee, the visit of Jesus to a wedding, and the miracle of water turned into wine (John 2:1-11, Year C Epiphany 2).

The first impression given by the narrative is that of a simple miracle-story. However, the mysterious words about the hour of Jesus, the lavish quantity of wine, the final remark of the writer and indeed the whole purport of the story make it clear that there is a deeper meaning behind the words of the narrative. This level of thought will push us to consider what John intended theologically and spiritually.

            This story encourages us to think of Jesus as accessible. We often think of Jesus as serious most of the time. Yet, 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.

            ¹ On the third day, referring to the previous scene of Nathaniel, giving time for travel. There was a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Today, Kefer Kenna, three-and one-half miles north of Nazareth, is where pilgrims go, but khirbet Qona, 9 miles north of Nazareth, is where this story occurs. Thus, the place will not make the wedding unforgettable. The wedding occurs in a typical small village. Further, the mother of Jesus was there. ²The hosts had also invited Jesus and his disciples to the wedding.

            When all four gospel writers variously depict Jesus either teaching about banquets or attending them, they underscore his connection with the arrival of the Messiah and the accompanying transformation of the world according to God’s holy purposes. The decision to highlight the wedding banquet at Cana is John’s way of signaling us that from the very outset of his earthly ministry, Jesus is the Christ whose every activity one must understand in relation to the revelation of his glory and messianic mission. As far as John is concerned, it is not surprising that the first of Jesus’ miraculous signs takes place at a wedding banquet. Indeed, considering the messianic symbolism throughout the Bible connected to wedding banquets, it would be surprising if Jesus did not do something miraculous like change water into wine.

            Jesus, his mother, and his friends attended an unforgettable wedding in Cana. No one planned for this wedding to be unforgettable. ³ When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." The wedding was just your typical, traditional wedding celebration with an average and pleasant reception — until the wine gave out. Customarily, hosts served the better wine first at Galilean wedding receptions. This makes sense when you think about it. You serve the good wine first when the palate is fresh and expectant. After a few pints, who cares? Both the guests and their taste buds are dull, and one can bring the cheap stuff out for the final slide into inebriation. However, to run out of wine before it is time was an unforgettable hospitality indiscretion that would have caused minor humiliation for the host if he did not fix the problem quickly. In short — it could have been a social disaster. Most of us have been there. We are part of the planning for a social event, a mistake occurs, and we panic. Of course, such a mistake is not the end of the world. In the great scheme of things, such social mistakes are minor. Picture a stressed-out host trying to find more wine while quietly badgering his servants. Picture the fear of the servants. Yet, for whatever reason, Mary, Jesus’ mother, got involved in the wine problem. We do not know why. She was a happy person and simply wanted the feast and joy to continue. Mary thought that marriages were worth celebrating. We can almost hear Mary saying, “Don’t worry about it, I’ll talk to my son — he can fix anything.” Wine at a wedding will lead to joy most of us have seen it happen. As the wedding banquet progresses, people become increasingly animated and happy. Wine at weddings also can give a spirit of optimism about the future. 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. Seated around family and friends and enjoying the finer things in life stirs up a sense that the happy couple and all those who celebrate with them are lacking in nothing. Yet, the response of Jesus to this event that would make the wedding unforgettable is a little surprising. ⁴Jesus said to her, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? The words of Jesus to his mother are jarring. They seem rude to most people who read them. He brushes her away. The Greek here literally reads, “What to me and to you, woman?” one could more colloquially translate it, “Woman, what’s it to me and you?” or “Woman, why are you bothering me with this?” or more loosely still, “Woman, please.” In other words, “Cry me a river.” “Why don’t you tell that to someone who cares?” This demonstrates a central Johannine affirmation of Jesus' freedom and non-contingency.  Also typical of John's Gospel is the way this story presents Jesus as strange, enigmatic, not self-evident in who he is. We will say of some people that they are who they appear to be. What you see is what you get. Such was not true of Jesus. He was not what he appeared to be. When we turn to the matter of the interaction between Mary and Jesus, there is room to interpret an element of humor. A quick exchange of words is peculiarly reminiscent of that awkward dilemma a child faces when put on the spot by a parent. Why is Mary concerned? Does she want Jesus to do something?  The text is not clear that Mary is asking for a miracle from her son. Some interpreters make much out of the apparent rebuke Jesus delivers to Mary; particularly the way he addresses Mary as “woman” instead of “mother.” "Woman" is not negative.  The word “woman” is certainly not a disrespectful form of address, but when used towards one’s mother among Semitic peoples, it is unusual and astonishing. It is unique for a son to address the mother this way.  Does Mary embarrass or anger Jesus? Does her approach embarrass or anger him so much that he does not even acknowledge her as his mother? Does Jesus view Mary’s request being beneath his pursuit of higher purposes? Is John highlighting this exchange to illustrate a distance between Jesus and Mary that underscores how Jesus thinks in terms of the heavenly concerns of his Father, while Mary — like Nicodemus in 3:1-15 and the Samaritan woman in 4:1-15 — focuses on earthly concerns? In any case, even though it was Jesus who performed this first public miracle, Mary saved that wedding day. She led Jesus to his first miracle. My hour has not yet come." Despite all the questions we may have concerning the words of Jesus to his mother, at issue for Jesus is the fact that his hour had not yet come. Jesus’ “hour” is his passion, death, and resurrection, which John takes up in chapters 13-20. "Hour" = passion, resurrection, ascension in John.  Even here, at the beginning of his gospel, we must consider that John might be alluding mysteriously to the full revelation of divine glory after the Cross and Resurrection. However, references to this hour throughout John’s gospel operate with an emergent understanding that even as Jesus’ hour has not yet come in full, it is already beginning to become evident during his ministry prior to the Last Supper. ⁵ His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Mary becomes a symbol. This “already” aspect may be why Mary ignores Jesus’ rebuke and directly tells the servants at the banquet to do whatever Jesus tells them.  Mary believes Jesus will intervene.  The manner is unknown.  Mary has sensed that Jesus will act, even though his answer remains mysterious to her. Mary is more than a pushy mom with excessive pride in her boy. Mary is not bragging but showing faith in her son who also happens to be the Son of God. In the context of the Gospel of John, we are not sure whether Mary yet knows for sure that Jesus is the Son of God. However, John and the intended audience for this gospel know. John portrays Mary knowing enough to rely on the value of whatever her son has to say — a portrayal in which Mary trusts the words of Jesus who is the Word. Mary demonstrates her firm belief that Jesus can save the situation. For those who already know “the rest of the story” of Jesus’ resurrection, Mary models the true disciple’s humble trust that whatever Jesus tells us will always reliably manifest the will of God ... that whatever Jesus tells us to do is always the right thing to do. One can compare this exchange to Jesus’ encounters with the Samaritan woman [4:1-26] as well as the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman [Mark 7:24-30/Matthew 15:21-28].

            ⁶ Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. A measurer is about 8 gallons. Note that the servants draw out water changed into wine from jars reserved for ceremonial washing. These jars hold water for purity rituals. The hosts of the wedding intended the water for the crucial religious practice of external cleansing before eating. However, Jesus uses this water to create something crucial to our internal nourishment. ⁷ Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." They filled them up to the brim. This shows the greatness of the miracle, the lavishness of the gift of Jesus. ⁸ He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward." Therefore, they took it. ⁹When the steward tasted the 120 gallons of water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom ¹⁰ and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine, giving deeper significance to the miracle, for this wine has come from Jesus, until now." This goes beyond symbolism. Such a setting summons up biblical images of the messianic era and messianic fullness, marked by wine and the abundance of fine foods. When Jesus changes water into wine, the transformation of the world according to God’s holy purpose is becoming a reality through the presence of Jesus — the Word, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ. Here, 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. The story has a sacramental use of wine. We have already identified the imagery of the wedding banquet as symbolic of the arrival of the Messiah and the accompanying transformation of the world according to God’s holy purposes. The miracle enacts the messianic significance of the setting. The ebb and flow of the wine is pivotal to the witness of John’s gospel to the revelation of Jesus’ glory and messianic mission.

            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 glory of resurrection is a disclosure to the universal end of all time and the coming again of Jesus as the promised Messiah.^[1]  The new wine breaks in upon and transforms the religious status quo. Through the creation of new wine, Jesus first reveals his glory — and his disciples believe in him. Have we the mature internal piety to taste and see Jesus for the Messiah he is? Are we already prepared to take Jesus at his word, as the Word? As a sign, the primary focus is on Jesus as the one sent by God to bring salvation.  His glory shines, and the disciples respond with belief. Cana reveals the glory of Jesus through the Messianic replacement and abundance theme. Such “signs” are “acts of power” in the synoptics. What is astonishing about the miracle at Cana is that Jesus himself makes no use of it to develop his revelation, probably due to its introductory character. The sign allows only a preliminary view of the glory of Jesus. Later, symbolic meanings, such as bread of life, light of the world, and resurrection and life, will become major themes of the signs Jesus performs. These observations raise a question and illuminate a possible answer. Of the Seven signs in John, only this one has no parallel to Synoptics at all. Yet, Mark 2:18-22 has an interesting parallel in that Jesus, in response to a question regarding fasting, refers to the fact that people do not fast while the wedding is happening and he follows that with a saying regarding not putting new wine into old wineskins. Further, is it really so different from the multiplication of the loaves? Given that John does not relate the Last Supper, such a mention of the abundance of wine, followed by abundance of bread in Chapter 6, suggest a heightened sense of the importance of the sacrament. The story completes the call of the disciples, wrapping up the activity of Jesus in calling his first disciples in 1:19-51, ending with 2:11, “and his disciples believed in him.” The disciples provide an example of responding to Jesus with belief. At the same time, the story commences the public ministry of Jesus with his miraculous power. The story of this first sign by which Jesus reveals his glory is both the climax of the foregoing, which presses on towards a visible manifestation of the messiah acclaimed but not fully known by his first disciples and the starting-point for the whole self-revelation of Jesus that John sees occurring through signs.  One needs to keep these two points of view in mind. Then, the faith of the disciples brought to perfection by the self-revelation by Jesus in signs, and the beginning of the signs, by which the peculiar nature of the Johannine portrayal of the earthly work of Jesus is signaled, one can appreciate properly the situation and significance of the first miracle of Cana. Jesus' first miracle ushers in his active ministry with chords of celebration and faithfulness. Mary puts her trust in Jesus' abilities, and through her openness to faith, the miracle occurs. As a result, the wedding party becomes more joyful than ever expected.

            The sign reveals the glory of Jesus, but only to those who look at it with believing eyes. As a means of self-revelation by Jesus, it has the same force as his words. As appears from the great miracles to come later, the words of revelation by Jesus do no more than disclose the real meaning of the sign more fully. Such a discourse does not follow the first sign. We are to gather its Messianic and Christological meaning from the presentation itself, especially from the points stressed. We can see this in the close connection in the final remark John makes. The revelation given in the signs is a revelation to those who have the eyes of faith and respond to an act of God with believing in its truth. By noting that the miracle at Cana is the first sign, the writer calls attention to the beginning of the self-revelation by Jesus before the world, which is to be fully public. Nevertheless, the choice of “to see” to express the experience of faith is not without significance. There is no transfiguration, no temporary elevation of Jesus to a heavenly mode of being in John. Even the walking on the waters contains no such trait. This is no accident. John takes the Incarnation so seriously that he never removes the veil of the flesh, and he never displays the divine glory of Jesus except to the eyes of faith. One may ask whether the disciples of Jesus have already attained the full insight of faith at the miracle of Cana, since misunderstandings still beset them in the upper room. However, what the writer means is that their faith had received an essential impulse from the sign at Cana: their faith has grown stronger within them and richer in content. This is clear from the Christological formula “they believed in him.” The faith of the disciples that contains in principle the full Christological faith is also a headline to the readers of the Gospel. Yet, the miracle may have a deeper meaning for the writer. At the marriage, it is not the wine in itself, or the wine in contrast to the water, which constitute the pregnant signs. The significance of the wine is as a gift of Jesus, a sign that comes from him and points to him. As a gift of Jesus, the wine also is significant. Jesus gives it at the end of the wedding, and it is so precious and copious that it is one of the eschatological gifts of the Messiah.

            An account of the opening of the Galilean ministry of Jesus (Luke 4:14-21, Year C Epiphany 3).

            Luke 4:14-15 is a summary of the preaching of Jesus, giving an overview of the Galilean ministry of Jesus. ¹⁴ Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, suggesting one form Trinitarian relationships will take in the life of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son,^[2] returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country. ¹⁵ He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone.

            Luke 4:16-30 is the story of the visit of Jesus to Nazareth. The source is Mark 6:1-6a, with its parallel in Matthew 13:53-58. Luke has lengthened the story from material other parts of Mark to create a summary type of passage. 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. Luke identifies how he sees the mission of Jesus in his ministry through Old Testament prophecy.

            ¹⁶ When he came to Nazareth,^[3] where his parents had brought up, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. Jesus shows he was a religious man, making time for attendance at the synagogue. Jesus will refer to a previous ministry in Capernaum (verse 23), indicating that his return to Galilee was not as direct as the placement of this account suggests. He clearly had done ministry in Capernaum before this event in Nazareth. He stood up to read, ¹⁷ and the attendant gave the scroll of the prophet Isaiah to him. The text is not clear as to whether this passage was the assigned reading for the day or whether chose it for its content. He unrolled the scroll and found the place in Isaiah 61:1-2 where it says: ¹⁸ "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, referring back to verse 14, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. One can reasonably conclude that the relationship of the Spirit to the baptism of Jesus is part of the original core of the Jesus tradition and as such is the fulfillment of prophecy.^[4] The fulfilled prophesy relates to God laying the divine Spirit on the servant of the Lord, and in this case, Jesus has fulfilled the prophecy.^[5] He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free (imported from Isaiah 58:6), ¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (the Jubilee year of Leviticus 25)." ²⁰ He rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue fixed on him. For Luke, the anchor of the ministry of Jesus is in his Jewish roots in the synagogues.  Early religious historians holdup Luke's rendition of this event as the earliest record we have a typical first century synagogue service. The tremendous popularity Jesus immediately begins to garner suggests that there was more than just "teaching" going on.  For Luke, this incident is not an excuse for Jesus to move outside of Galilee or outside of Israel to preach his message.  Rather, that encapsulating event reveals Jesus' identity, provides a scriptural basis for the scope and focus on his ministry and provides an anticipation of all the various types of responses Jesus' message will evoke.  ²¹ Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."A theme of Luke will be the fulfillment of Scripture. Jesus is so bold as to suggest that the prophetic words of liberation spoken by Isaiah find fulfillment in his own person. In quoting from Isaiah, Jesus is saying that 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.  The reading from Isaiah relates God’s promise to rescue and care for the downtrodden Israelites who are returning from exile in Babylon. The message of this passage coincides with the content of the news brought by Jesus. This day, the acceptable year of the Lord, has dawned. 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.^[6] For Jesus to assert that the jubilee year has inaugurated with his arrival is to focus on the forgiveness for all debts, all sins, that the Messiah brings.  Jesus' pronouncement is clear -- those present have just heard Isaiah's prophecy spoken by the very one his words sought to describe.  He, Jesus, is the Messiah and the one who will bring about all Isaiah had promised. This “today” heralds the coming of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy.^[7] The prophet proclaims salvation through the breaking in of the lordship of God. 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.^[8] 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.^[9]

In saying such extravagant things about Jesus, Christians can only mean that he fulfills this passage of scripture in a provisional, proleptic, and anticipatory way. He fulfills this passage during his ministry. As readers of the story of Jesus, we need to pay attention to the ways in which the words and deeds of Jesus demonstrate his embodiment of the prophesy. The church needs to see itself as a continuation of this ministry. The truth of the nature of this fulfillment rests in a redemptive future for humanity and the rest of creation, anticipated in the resurrection of Jesus.

A continuation of the story of the visit of Jesus to Nazareth (Luke 4:21-30, Year C Epiphany 4). ²¹ Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." A theme of Luke will be the fulfillment of Scripture. Jesus is so bold as to suggest that the prophetic words of liberation spoken by Isaiah find fulfillment in his own person.  For Jesus to assert that the jubilee year has inaugurated with his arrival is to focus on the forgiveness for all debts, all sins, that the Messiah brings.  Jesus' pronouncement is clear -- those present have just heard Isaiah's prophecy spoken by the very one his words sought to describe.  He, Jesus, is the Messiah and the one who will bring about all Isaiah had promised. This “today” heralds the coming of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy.^[10] The prophet proclaims salvation through the breaking in of the lordship of God. 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.^[11] 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.^[12]

²² All spoke well (to bear witness) of him and were amazed at the gracious words (or the outward beauty of his words) that came from his mouth. Thus, those listening provided testimony to support the veracity of what he said, and what Jesus said had an outward beauty that attracted one to it. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” Mark 6:2b-3 is the source, but Luke offers a summary while Matthew 13:54b-57 and Mark follow each other closely. The point is that Jesus has no distinguished heritage. So impressive is Jesus, apparently, that some present are led to wonder aloud whether such eloquence could possibly belong to the carpenter’s son whom they watched grow up.  The question implies that he is trying to elevate himself above his undistinguished heritage. ²³ He said to them, in a way that suggests their question rubs Jesus the wrong way and responding sharply responding to the buzz about him. “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’^[13] Further, you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ ” Capernaum was a fishing village 20 miles northeast of Nazareth. In 4:14-15, Luke has said Jesus preached in the synagogues around Galilee. Luke will not record a visit to Capernaum until the next section, 4:31-41. Oddly, the statement implies that Jesus favors Capernaum or that he is being unfair to Nazareth. Yet, Capernaum comes under judgment from Jesus (10:15). ²⁴ He said a proverb, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.”  The source is Mark 6:4, which Matthew 13:57 follows more closely than does Luke, and an indirect one John 4:44. The point seems to be that the rebuff of Jesus by the residents of Nazareth is ironically proof of Jesus’ prophetic identity. The response of Jesus is to offer a bit of wisdom. Jesus’ philosophical interpretation of his rejection further demonstrates the depth and truth of his wisdom. As we would expect, Jesus responds to what the people are saying and thinking about him. These words ought to remind us to be open to receiving the mystery contained in people who are familiar to us. In fact, our familiarity with them may blind us to the mystery concealed in them. Out of that mystery, however, may well come a word of from the Lord we may miss precisely because we are so familiar. We need to exercise care.

The response of the people of Nazareth, even their endorsement, underscores his intent to distance himself from counterfeit prophets and align himself with renown prophetic heroes like Micaiah and Jeremiah (I Kings 22:13-28; Jeremiah 5:30-31; 23:16-17). Jesus foreshadows his teaching in 6:22-23, 26, warning his disciples to beware when others speak well of them, for the Jewish people in their history could speak well of false prophets. He also sets the stage for his subsequent pronouncements. The response underscores a central theme of Luke, in that his own people will reject Jesus and pagans will accept him.  Jesus, then, is assuming that the desire to see miracles on the part of the citizens of the town (note again that this desire is put on their lips by Jesus!) implies a lack of confidence in the authenticity of his prophetic status and identity. However, Luke turns this perceived rejection by means of two examples drawn from the Old Testament in which the Lord sends two of the most prominent prophets of Israel away from their own people to foreigners.  The point seems to be that the rebuff of Jesus by the residents of Nazareth is ironically proof of Jesus’ prophetic identity.

Jesus will offer two examples, the verses unique to Luke. In this first example, 4:25-26, Jesus alludes to the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath found in I Kings 17:1-24. ²⁵ But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; ²⁶ yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. The example anticipates and summarizes the theme of the Gospel of Luke. A major theme of Luke is the Christian mission to carry the gospel to pagans. After God has brought a severe drought upon the whole land of Israel because of its unfaithfulness, the Lord sends Elijah outside Israel to the small town of Zarephath, which is on the coast of the Mediterranean just south of Sidon, an area that is also suffering under the drought.  There Elijah comes to the aid of a poor widow who shares her last bit of food with him.  First, he promises that her flour jar and oil jug will miraculously stay filled until the drought ends (I Kings 17:14), and later he resurrects her only son after he dies of an illness (I Kings 17:17-24). The second example, verse 27, comes from the successor to Elijah, Elisha. ²⁷ there were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naima the Syrian.” When Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, develops leprosy, he decides to seek out the prophet Elisha, about whom he has learned from a young Israelite slave girl (2 Kings 5:1-5).  Naaman eventually finds Elisha, and after overcoming his stubbornness, follows Elisha’s advice and receives healing for his affliction (II Kings 5:8-19). In both cases, then, a prophet of Israel provides miraculous assistance to non-Israelites.  How do these accounts function in Luke’s narrative?  In short, they serve to foreshadow the important Lukan themes of the rejection of the gospel by the Jewish people and the subsequent turn to mission to the Gentiles.  Throughout the gospel of Luke, we find signs that point to the rejection of Jesus by the people of Israel.  Examples include Jesus’ laments over Jerusalem (13:31-35; 19:41-44) and parables like that of the great dinner (14:15-24).  Of course, the most significant example of rejection is the condemnation to crucifixion on the part of the leaders of the Jewish people (22:66-71).  At the same time, there are clear indications that Luke envisions a mission to the Gentiles, as one can see in the song of Simeon (2:29-32) and the parable of the wicked tenants (20:9-18, esp. 20:16).  In the book of Acts, we further learn that these two themes have a close relationship. The mission to the Gentiles becomes possible precisely because of the rejection of the gospel by many of the Jews (see Acts 13:44-52 for a good example of the relationship between these themes).

Jesus points to other heroic figures in the Jewish past, prophets whom the people did not receive well, but whom history has placed within the canonical prophets of the Jewish people. Human beings do not always recognize the hero, but in Jewish tradition, God had a way of offering a verdict on the truly heroic figures of Jewish history. Jesus is placing himself in that line of heroic figures. He will have his defining moment throughout his ministry, as he points the way to what God is like and what human beings can be within the rule of God. Of course, the chief defining moment will be the final hours of his life. The verdict of his heavenly Father will come in the resurrection.

In verses 28-30, we see graphically the response of the hometown to Jesus. ²⁸ When they heard this, rage filled all in the synagogue. ²⁹ They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. ³⁰ However, he passed through the midst of them and went on his way. Jesus’ chilly reception at Nazareth and his allusion to prophets whom God had sent to those outside Israel thus encapsulate Luke’s grand narrative plan whereby the failure of the Jews to accept the gospel en masse ultimately becomes part of God’s plan to bring the message of salvation to the Gentiles.  In Luke’s hands, then, the pattern by which he will understand the ministry of Jesus derives from the great prophets of old, whom the people continually harassed but whom also remain faithful to the call and message the Lord gave them. The end of this passage in Luke simply reinforces this portrait.  Just as so many prophets had narrowly escaped violence at the hands of the people to whom they prophesied, so, too, Jesus walks right through the angry mob that seeks to throw him down a cliff because of the offense of his words.  This shocking attempt of the Nazarenes to kill Jesus, one of their own, poignantly foreshadows the successful plot to kill him hatched by those in Jerusalem whom his prophetic message also stung.

This religious crowd shifts quickly from supporting Jesus to acting violently toward him. They are among the many occasions in history when pious people turn violent. In the 20^th century, the four dictators most responsible for killing millions, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, were committed atheists (the first three) or unconventional (Hitler) in their beliefs.^[14] Yet, the sacred texts of the major religions all have isolated passages that, in the wrong hands, could seek divine justification for violence. One can only hope that believers will have a way of interpreting such passages that will lead to peace.

Jesus was unafraid of offending people. His hometown of Nazareth rejected him. Many of the towns and villages of Galilee rejected him. He offends his family to the point where they consider him insane. He entered vigorous debates with religious leaders, whom he also offended. His disciples at least did not understand him. Jerusalem rejected him. He told parables in which the host of a banquet invites people, and they refuse to come. Of course, the ultimate offense was the willingness to crucify him.

Continuing his ministry in Galilee, Jesus performs a miracle that leads to Simon recognizing Jesus as Lord (Luke 5:1-11, Year C Epiphany 5). This material borrows from the call narratives of Mark. However, it has features like that of a resurrection appearance to Peter, even as described in the transfiguration story. One way to read the gospel narratives is that they provide anticipations of the end, resurrection, during the ministry of Jesus. Luke’s genius was to remove both stories from their “original” literary setting and bring them together. Luke chooses this way to narrate the enlistment of the first followers of Jesus. Luke substitutes the simple call we find in Mark of the first four disciples for the story of a miraculous catch of fish that culminates in the recruitment of Peter, along with James and John. Luke uses the idealized narrative of the call of the disciples found in Mark and creates his own idealized account of a disclosure of the identity of Jesus to Peter, one that anticipates the appearance of the risen Lord to Peter. None of the accounts are history, but presentations of an ideal response to the invitation of Jesus. The discrepancies Luke introduces are a small price to pay for the enriched elements of the notion of call and witness that we find here.^[15] The text provides a psychologically plausible background for the call of the disciples that Mark does not have.  According to Luke’s account, Jesus had already embarked upon a profoundly popular ministry in Galilee.  Now, in chapter 5, Luke begins to develop another aspect of Jesus' message -- his desire to put together a team of disciples to work with him.

Luke 5:1-3 sets the location of the call and miracle. Mark 4:1-2 inspires this part of the account in Luke.From his watery perch, Jesus can address the crowds, while Simon, laboring over his nets, keeping a sharp eye on his boat, hears every word. At this point, the first interest of Luke is Simon. Luke had already foreshadowed the relationship between Jesus and Simon in 4:38‑39 when Jesus heals Simon's mother‑in‑law. By the time Jesus appears on the shores of the lake of Gennesaret, the fishing grounds of Simon, he is a known figure to Simon with an established record of accomplishment. His family has once before experienced Jesus' healing touch. This time Jesus encounters Simon not as a healer but as a teacher.

Jesus enters the sphere of the life of this man. We see a quick succession from the scene of the action of the Word of Jesus and the sign that accompanies it. If we understand the incident in this way, we can see the parallel with Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.^[16] Peter plays a key role in this gospel, and thus he is the first disciple characterized by Luke. In the apostolic list in 6:14, he is simply Simon. The reader of Luke also scarcely encounters the Peter who struggles and falters, as in Mark, Matthew, and John. Instead, the narrative of Luke presents Peter much more positively. This positive portrayal prepares a reader for the Peter of the Acts narrative, a strong missionary who leads well and rarely stumbles. One can understand Luke’s particular characterization of Peter through that which Luke omits from the narrative of Mark and the additional details Luke adds about Peter’s life. First, Luke does not include the gospel traditions about the rebuke of Peter (Mark 8:32-33/Matthew 16:22-23) after the passion prediction. Second, Luke does not record the specific censure of Peter in the garden of Gethsemane. In Mark and Matthew, we find both recording Jesus’ reprimand of Peter (Mark 14:37/Matthew 26:40), in Luke Jesus addresses an indefinite group of sleeping disciples (Luke 22:45-46). Luke also reports additional information about Peter that bolsters his image. In Luke 22:31-34, even though Peter will deny Jesus three times, Jesus provides a unique assurance to Peter, lest he fall into the hands of the devil. Finally, Luke is the only one of the synoptic writers to grace Peter with an individual experience of the resurrection (Luke 24:34).

Luke now offers an account of the miracle (4-9a) and the call of Simon and the disciples (9b-11). It has a close parallel to John 21:1-11, where the risen Jesus appears to Peter and the disciples on the Sea of Galilee in connection with a miraculous catch of fish.  Indeed, some scholars suggest that Luke may have been trying to set a pre-resurrection precedent for that post-resurrection fishing trip.  The two stories are versions of the same tradition. Luke takes a teaching story and transforms it into an epiphany experience. The crowd has disappeared. Their swift vanishing act also indicates that Luke may have woven two stories together at this point. Jesus now turns his full attention to Simon, whose nets he has finally washed and readied for the next evening's fishing expedition. ⁴ When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” Jesus' command should have brought raised eyebrows and incredulous looks from Simon and his fellow fishers. Prime fishing hours were long past.  ⁵ Simon answered, “Master, we have worked all night long (wearisome toil or even travail) but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.” Simon's reply reflects the fence he was still straddling at this point. Having witnessed Jesus perform a healing miracle in his own home and having now heard Jesus preach the Good News, Simon knows there is something special about Jesus. Simon feels compelled to explain to Jesus his fishing experience for the day.  Although he makes sure that Jesus is aware of the fruitlessness of this endeavor, Simon agrees to follow the command of Jesus, his new "Master." In verses 6-7, Luke now emphasizes the enormity of the miracle performed by Jesus. ⁶ When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break. ⁷ Therefore, they signaled their partners in the other boat, suggesting they had not journeyed far from shore, to come and help them. Moreover, they came and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. The details provided by Luke testify to the miraculous nature of this huge catch of fish. Simon is at last fully convinced of Jesus' divine power and presence. ⁸ However, 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. Yet, one need not see his admission of sin as further evidence that Luke took this account from a post‑Resurrection confession by Peter. The terminology Luke employs expresses a general, moral sense of unworthiness and fear‑‑which all who find themselves in the presence of divinity would naturally feel. Note, also, that in Peter's outburst, he no longer addresses Jesus as "master" but instead switches to kyrios or "Lord" ‑‑ a term that in these circumstances conveys far more than a respectful "sir."  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.^[17] 9 For he and all who were with him were amazed (θάμβος) wonder combined with fear, suggesting recognition of the divine) at the catch of fish that they had taken; ¹⁰ and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. For some scholars, this feels like an awkward reference to the presence of other future disciples. If he has Mark in front of him, he is tipping his hat to the call narrative in that Gospel. Luke immediately refocuses attention on the relationship between Jesus and Simon. Jesus does not in fact depart from the sinner but calls him.  Luke aims the discipleship charge specifically toward Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, in words like those we find in Mark, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching (ζωγρῶν, meaning “to capture alive” and “to revive or make alive”) people.” Luke avoids the violence suggested by the net in the call narrative of Mark. The first meaning of the term Luke uses fits well with the acts of hunting or fishing, the disciples’ former life, and the second meaning denotes the life on which they are about to embark. Through the plurality of meanings in this verb, one can perceive the depth of Jesus’ teaching and the genius of his apostolic call. The first apostles were to capture human beings while they were biologically alive, but through their capture, the disciples would make them spiritually alive. The miracle is a symbol of what Simon will experience in his fishing for the kingdom.  Simon is a leading missionary in Jesus' cause.  Note Luke’s "you shall be taking them alive," = "catching." What anglers do to fish is not good for the fish.  However, Luke has the implication of saving from death and preserved for life. ¹¹ When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him. Thus, although Jesus directs to the call to Simon, the undefined “they” respond to the call. The response is immediate and dramatic. The anglers bring their boats ashore abandon them, even with the fish still in them. In Luke's "call" text, 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 neither Luke's concern nor theirs. 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. They will make a transition from what they made of themselves to what Jesus wants to make of them, to make them fish for people is to make them apostles, men of a commission that Jesus gives them, the commission to seek and gather people. These men have a new calling in their seeking and gathering. To fulfill this calling, they must leave their nets and boats to follow Jesus. Jesus calls them to this discipleship. 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.^[18]

Continuing his ministry in Galilee, Jesus delivers a message on the plain (Luke 6:17-26, Year C Epiphany 6). Although the message continues to verse 49, this Sunday we consider the beatitudes and woes in the first part of the message.

Luke 6:17-19 is a summary statement of the crowds following Jesus. in Luke a large and varied crowd of listeners has gathered to seek healing from Jesus' hands and to hear truth from Jesus' preaching. Three types of individuals make up this multitude. ¹⁷ He came down with them and stood on a level place, standing amid this needy crowd, with a great crowd of his disciples, including 1) the twelve and 2) a larger group who identified themselves as committed to the way of Jesus and to be his witnesses, and 3) a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon. This third group had not yet committed themselves to the way of Jesus. Luke also places importance upon the needs of the crowd. 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.

Luke 6:20-26 has material from Q and the source unique to Luke. 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.  

Jesus preached a significant sermon early in his Galilean ministry. One might call it his inaugural sermon. The sermon on the plain becomes a sample of the preaching of Jesus.  Luke has stressed that the people came to listen.  Now he shows Jesus' response and his giving a challenge to them.  Although surrounded by a crowd, ²⁰ Then Jesus looked up at his disciples and said. He addressed the sermon to his disciples. By using his eyes to hold his disciples' attention, he lets his closest companions know that these words are of particular importance for them. Before Luke begins the recitation of blessings and woes, he masterfully intertwines this public discourse with a private lesson specifically for Jesus' chosen disciples.

^20b“Blessed are you who are poor (πτωχοί), for yours is the kingdom of God.[19] Jesus pronounces a beatitude promised to God's poor, oppressed people, with the need for them to show love and mercy. Those blessed are those who outwardly whom we should pity.  God’s future action will meet their present need.  Jesus' blessings are a proclamation of the way the world is in the Kingdom of God.  Note that there are no imperatives here, no exhortations to do better. The poor refers to those who are "so poor as to have to be," that is, those who are completely destitute. Jesus does not find any blessing in being poor; he does find that God's promise makes the poor blessed.

²¹ “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. The second beatitude has an intimate relation to the first. For where there is poverty there is surely hunger. Again, Luke's text emphasizes a bodily condition, not a spiritual malaise. The particle "nun" (now) focuses this beatitude because while hunger did not describe a social status like poverty, for many, hunger was a constant in their lives. Jesus' blessing promises that this unwanted companion God will banish and instead God will at last fill the hungry. Their hunger is for "now," but God will give complete and unwavering satisfaction. True spirituality, then, focuses our attention upon “now” rather than escaping our “now” for another world.^[20]

In pronouncing this blessing, Jesus demonstrates two aspects of his messianic authority. He reveals that the rule of God is near. He proclaims his authority to declare this kingdom of God as the special possession of the poor. Upon those who have nothing in this world, Jesus bestows the whole of the kingdom. A life without political power or material prosperity was neither inevitably defeated nor depressed, but instead somehow blessed.  The Cynic epistle, in a similar vein, says: "Practice needing little, for this is nearest to God, while the opposite is farthest away." The rule of God is this ability, this wisdom, to incorporate adversity into the enjoyment of contentment.

“Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. The third beatitude Jesus proclaims upon those who "weep now" (again the "nun" particle focuses the time and place). The Lucan term for weeping expresses general sorrow, not some specialized mourning over the ways of the world. This weeping accompanies everyday life and its losses. Luke contrasts this weeping with ordinary laughter in his elevated declaration that those with tears will comfort ("paraklethesontai"). Those who mourn receive comfort. Mourning here is over one’s own sin as well as the sins of others. It suggests mourning over the state of the world. God will replace the mourning of this age with the comfort of the next age. It suggests strengthening and consoling. We also need to note the prophetic promise is the year of the favor of the Lord will bring comfort those who mourn and gladness instead of mourning (Isaiah 61:2-3). 

²² “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. ²³ Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. What kind of reception can Jesus' followers expect? What would happen if the answer were to have others hate, exclude, revile, and attack you? Being "defamed" ("casting out your name as evil") refers to an official excommunication from the synagogue ‑‑ an attack leveled by one's entire community. Jesus' surprising revelation to his disciples is that this experience of rejection is in fact a sign of blessing. Pannenberg reminds us that the reference to the Son of Man here may not be “authentic,” but the general New Testament reference to Jesus as the Son has its basis in the way Jesus referred to God as his Father.^[21]

Some scholars have suggested that the pointedness of the "woes" in Luke's beatitudes section indicates that many of these listeners may have been actively hostile toward Jesus and his message. 

²⁴ “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. The "woe" declared upon those who are rich in this world stipulates that these rich ones have nothing to look forward to at all. Having "received their consolation," that is, they have all their receipts, they have no future claims whatsoever.

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.^[22] Jesus is reminding us of the challenge in leading a human life out of its challenges can come a new person with renewed vision and purpose.

²⁶ “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets. Jesus directs the linked declarations in verses 22 and 26 to those who have at least established themselves in some sort of relationship with Jesus. 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.^[23]

Thus far, the message of Jesus is promise and peril. The promise of God’s blessing upon the needy at the end of the age is beginning to be fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, and that very approach of the end holds out peril to those who would seek to arrogate those blessings only to themselves. Judgment is as sure as blessing.

Jesus continues his inaugural sermon in Galilee (Luke 6:27-38, Year C Epiphany 7). This portion of the message represents a concern for ethics. 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.  

Scholars call these parenetical hortatory sayings, aphorisms, and parody. They are a form of discourse that exaggerates certain traits for comic effect. Such sayings have the design of producing insight, prompting the listener or reader to react differently to acts of aggression. 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.^[24] 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. Interestingly, in the circumstances of the first centuries of Christianity, the church applied these sayings literally. Christians could not be part of the armed forces of the Roman Empire. The reason is obvious. The Empire could call upon you to arrest and kill Christians. As Christianity no longer experienced persecution, the application of the rule changed. Once Christianity had some responsibility for the culture, the application of the rule changed. 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.

²⁷ "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, also in Matthew 5:44, placed first in the list of ethical concerns for rhetorical effect. It has become one of the most central commands of Christian texts. People of the ancient world considered it something new. It creates the condition of the possibility that now permits the reader to imagine the heretofore inconceivable notion of overcoming evil with good, to use Paul's terms, or the defeat of enmity through different means than those of hatred and retaliation.  The initial imperative depends upon the preexistence of these other sayings to think itself.  This is a memorable aphorism because it cuts against the social grain and constitutes a paradox: those who love their enemies have no enemies.  Enemies are not those we love; those we love are not usually our enemies.  Jesus gives counsel here that cuts against the grain of customary wisdom.  The secret hope is that such love could turn an enemy into a friend. It invites the listener to imagine a new possibility of overcoming evil with good. Interestingly, Diogenes, a Greek Cynic philosopher, gave similar advice: "When asked by someone how to repulse an enemy, he replied, 'You be kind and good to him."' The phrase "love your enemies," would lose its rhetorical force, if the activity of love in the imagined confrontation were somehow to eliminate or ignore the hostile character of the stated enemy.  It is a strategy for handling unfriendly opposition.  Love your enemies becomes a way to take care of the jerks. Abiding hostility provides the context for the injunction.  This counsel to love your enemies has the purpose of forming a certain social character.  One of the morally salient features of the teachings of Jesus was precisely this ability to handle hostility with notable restraint and calculated inversion. 

On a practical level, one wonders if it asks too much of a disciple. Paul is not squeamish about writing of his enemies. II Peter 3:12-22 will call enemies irrational animals, and so on. Not only that, if one reads Matthew 23 from the perspective of a scribe or Pharisee, one might not feel the love from Jesus. One could even wonder if the ethical teaching of Jesus is so high that it fails to produce solid and practical results in the followers of Jesus. Some people would say it violates the basic biological, anthropological, and psychological dimension of the human being. Church history, with its crusades, wars between Protestant and Catholic, forced missionary endeavors, and anti-Judaism in Christian Europe, all suggest as much. Jesus continues that disciples are to pray for those who persecute them, so that they may be children of their heavenly Father. However, we need to meditate upon these sayings and think of ways in our setting that we can practice an unusual object of love. His advice may feel impractical and idealistic. Yet, it may be the most practical and realistic thing Christians could practice. Such love is provocative and may bring a change in the enemy, but such love can liberate us from the bondage of hate. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”^[25]

Jesus of Nazareth lived among enemies. The follower of Jesus has a vocation in which he or she will need to have the courage to live among enemies Christianly. The rule of God is amid its enemies. If we only want to be among friends and among those whom we think of as devout, then we are avoiding the suffering that is part of our vocation.^[26]

You love your enemies by 1) ^27bdo good to those who hate you, 2) ²⁸ bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.  3) ²⁹ If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also (Matthew 5:39); and 4) from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt (Matthew 5:40). This notion is a case parody, with an extremely narrow focus that has broad application.  In this case, it points to a situation that rarely occurs.  One could not take such a saying literally without comic effect.  When taken literally, it can produce insight, prompting the listener to react differently to acts of aggression.  In fact, the proposed response reverses the natural human inclination: when struck, we tend to strike back.  The demand level on the follower of Jesus through such a saying is high.  The use of the singular “you” makes this very personal: you offer the other cheek; you give up your coat and cloak.  In Semitic culture, striking someone was a form of insult among Jews and Romans.  It was a sign of challenge in which the aggressor was ready for a real fight.  In this verse, a certain proactive strategy of passive resistance is apparent.  Not always successful, the same behavior may nonetheless frequently produce a holding pattern, delayed attack, bewilderment, and retreat, if not defeat on the part of the predator.  The Stoic philosopher Epictetus said, in a similar vein: "Does anything seem strange to him?  Does he not expect worse and harsher treatment from the wicked than actually befalls him?  Does he not count it as gain whenever they fail to go to the limit?  'So-and-so reviled you.' I am greatly obliged to him for not striking me.  'But he also struck you.' I am greatly obliged to him for not wounding me.  'But he also wounded you.' I am greatly obliged to him for not killing me." He also said, "Now the Cynic must have such patient endurance that most people will think that he is insensate and a stone.  Nobody reviles him; nobody beats him; nobody insults him.  But his body he himself has given for anyone who wants to use it as they see fit." By not feeling the need to protect what they had, every material means of manipulating and imposing oneself on Jesus and his followers in Galilee had been taken out of their enemies' hands.  Under the circumstances, such injunctions were smart moves. We cannot meaningfully understand such statements as the demand for an extraordinary exercise of moral virtue, but only as the marching order never to allow the rejection and opposition that they encounter to divert them from their accepted role as witnesses of the reign of God in which they must love, do good, and bless. They cannot be witnesses of the rule of God in any other way. They must witness in this way, even though they meet with enmity, hatred, cursing, and affliction.^[27] The text offers one more way to love your enemies. 5) ³⁰ Give to everyone who begs from you, and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again (Matthew 5:42). Obeying Jesus here could leave one naked. Such an action would move against the natural inclination of suing in return. The point of the saying is that one should not involve oneself in such lawsuits at all. Here is another case parody.  If taken literally, it is ridiculous; the person would soon be destitute.  It cuts against the social grain.  The philosopher Crates once said: "You will be able to open your purse easily and to give away freely what you draw out with your hand: not as you do now, calculating, hesitant, trembling, as those with shaky hands.  But you will regard a purse that is full as full and after you see that it is empty, you will not complain." Note the casual approach to cash and collateral.  This is subversive wisdom of the Cynic regarding money and its proper management.  Significant deviation from the usual habits for handling such an issue belongs to the teaching of Jesus and his effort to upset the social order or disorder created by these patterns of both thought and action.  One should see everything in these verses as part of the regular daily grind of a subjugated people's struggle to survive.  Personal violence and theft are as normal a part of everyday existence as the more peaceable exchange of goods and services. It provides yet another example of how one should express the love of the enemy.  The use of the singular “you” makes the difficult response direct and personal: “You give go beggars.” 

³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you (Mathew 7:12). The standard of behavior is how one wants to be treated by others.  Thus, if I wanted others to treat me as a king, I should treat others as though they were kings.  If I want others to love me, I should love others. For some, the flaw in the saying is whether there is a calculating egoism.  Does it suggest that one should not go beyond self-interest? However, the saying more likely means that, given the natural tendency of human beings to retaliate and seek revenge, we need to adopt another set of values. Such questions raise the possibility propose at least a relativizing of this saying and they may even evaluate the saying in a negative way. In other words, Christian ethics must go beyond the mere consideration of what we would like others to do to us. 

³² "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them (Matthew 5:46-47). This phrase suggests the motive clause for the phrase "love your enemies." Only by behaving in a patently different fashion from the normal patterns of typical collegiality would they be able to realize their distinctive virtue. ³³ If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.  ³⁴ If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.  ³⁵ But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. This is the only place in Q that one can become a child of God.  Jesus could demand of his hearers that they should show themselves to be the children of their heavenly Father by loving their enemies as God causes the sun to shine on both the good and the bad.^[28] The fact that God's sun shines on all, regardless of comportment and accomplishment, means that no prevailing standard form of civic righteousness exists that God might validate.  Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher, expressed a similar thought: "... the Cynic has made all persons his children ... In this way, he approaches them all and cares for them all. ... It is as a father that he does it, as a brother and as a servant of Zeus, who is father of us all." Verse 35 is a reminder to love the enemy, expecting nothing.  Jesus calls his listeners to imitate God's penchant for meeting out unmerited mercies and love.  It a natural conclusion of the message presented to have Jesus remind his followers not to judge others. Being the children of God is the essence of the Christian life, which we see here in the promise that the love of enemies makes us children of God.^[29]

³⁶ Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Such perfection suggests a pure, undivided heart oriented toward fulfilling what Jesus has commanded of disciples. Such sayings suggest that divine love is not restricted to those whose moral performance is superior. We find here the perfection of the goodness of the Father demonstrated in the sun shining on the good and bad alike.^[30] We find here an echo of the statement in Deuteronomy that the people are to be holy since the Lord is holy. Belonging to God in this way means separation from the world of sin.^[31] The theological tradition applies references to creation here to the whole Trinity in its involvement in creation.^[32] Here is a thought in the preaching of Jesus that by his message and work the Father shows us the mercy that pardons our sins. Paul would apply the thought to the death of Jesus.^[33] Thus, one can abide in the love of God only as one passes it along to others.^[34]

³⁷ "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned (Matthew 7:1). Paul, as part of his argument against the Jewish person standing in judgment of the Gentile, says one has no excuse, for when one judges others, one is also condemning oneself, because the one who judges does the same things (Romans 2:1). James offers that since humanity has one lawgiver and judge, we are not to judge our neighbors (James 4:12). The fact that they do not site Jesus as a source for the saying is interesting. Yet, on the lips of Jesus, I wonder if not judging is a part of that mercy God showers down upon the just and unjust.  

^37bForgive, and you will be forgiven; ³⁸ give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap (Matthew 7:2). The promise of bounty following upon forgiveness is reminiscent of the rewards guaranteed for Christian performance in Mark 10:29-30.  While no merchants would dare to be caught doctoring their scales, neither would they "press down" or "shake together' a measurement to assure customers a maximum amount for their money.  In God's extravagance, the "good measure" is poured out until it is "running over'- spilling over the sides of the measuring device and filling the robe-pocket or lap of the receiver.  This is what God wants to pour out to us, Jesus declares, if we will only offer the same to others.

^38cFor the measure you give will be the measure you get back." One could interpret this proverb as "eye for eye."  

Christians are not sent to the world to judge, to condemn, to evaluate, to classify, or to label. When we walk around as if we must make up our mind about people and tell them what is wrong with them and how they should change, we will only create more division. 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.^[35]

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. 

As wisdom, we are not to apply these sayings as if they were law or commands that we are to obey regardless of circumstances. Pacifists who appeal to these sayings are wrong for that reason. They approach legalistically what Jesus viewed as wisdom. The wise person knows how and when to apply such sayings. To use a separate set of wisdom sayings, the wise person knows how and when to apply the wisdom contained in the notion that the rolling stone gathers no moss and how and when to apply wisdom contained in the notion that we must look before we leap. Both sayings represent wisdom when properly applied by the wise person to a specific set of circumstances. The same truth applies to the wisdom of Jesus here. Part of discipleship is learning when and how to apply this wisdom to the situation the follower of Jesus may face today. The problem with the pacifist view of these sayings is that they approach legalistically and absolutely when Jesus intended as wisdom for ad hoc and contingent settings. 

In the world in which you and I live, evil is still present in overt and covert ways. I am convinced that one of the signs that we are in the presence of an evil person is how the person responds to weakness. If the person sees another who is weak and responds with compassion, we have someone with whom we can hope to have a moral conversation. However, if someone sees weakness and sees an opportunity to take advantage to build up oneself, we have a different case. Cruelty to animals can be a sign. Cruelty to infants and children can be such a sign. People who go down this path have crossed a moral bridge into the territory of evil. Such persons do not need followers of Jesus to turn the other cheek. They need followers of Jesus who will stop them from inflicting their evil upon others. Followers of Jesus will show love for their neighbors if they stop such evil persons from projecting their evil into the world. The same truth applies to nations. Nations who have become beastly in the use of their power to oppress others need to have good nations who will stop them. 

I have stressed that we must not take what Jesus says here literally or legalistically. Rather, the point of such stark and abrupt sayings is to get us to think about the way we engage others in this this world. Specifically, the concern is confronting a hostile social environment. For him, the setting involved occupation by foreign power. Yet, let us not kid ourselves. All of us face a hostile environment at some points in our lives. People and governments have approached us aggressively. Our natural tendency is to fight back. While such a response may be the right one, Jesus is inviting us to consider another path that may defuse a potentially violent situation. Knowing when to do so is wisdom according to Jesus. Even then, it may seem that what Jesus asks of his followers is impossible. It may seem like he is too idealistic. Yet, behind Jesus' words are the vision and the conviction that God will bring in a reign of peace. In God's reign, there will be no violence and former enemies will join in love and reconciliation. In God's reign, words of blessing and forgiveness will overcome cursing and condemnation. To live as a disciple - and this is the key - is to live today as one who already belongs to this new sovereignty. Disciples listen to different music, respond to another source of direction, and trace a different pattern on the world's canvass. 

The members of Luke's church caught a glimpse of this new reality every time they went to church. There around the Lord's Table were old enemies, now made friends. Roman soldiers and those they had oppressed pass the bread and the cup. Jews and Gentiles, hated adversaries, now clasped hands and said, "The peace of Christ be with you." Anybody who grew up in a roiling turbulence of Palestine would have said that this kind of community was flat impossible. However, "what is impossible for mortals is possible for God," and the proof was there every Sunday. They got up from that table and went into the world, living out here and there, now and then, the way of life they had experienced in worship.

Jesus concludes his inaugural sermon in Galilee (Luke 6:39-49, Year C Epiphany 8). Jesus stresses his disciples need to value him as their teacher and build their lives upon what he taught. He strongly contrasts his teaching with other teachers.

³⁹ He also told them a parable: "Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?Such a saying has the ring of a proverb and thus of common wisdom of the time. Yet, it also has an edge it to it that is typical of the sayings of Jesus. Jesus further insults the leaders by calling them "blind guides of the blind." This rub denies the Pharisees the privilege of claiming their celebrated title as "leaders of the blind." Because they themselves are blind, Jesus scoffs, these authority figures would only lead others into a pit with them.  Paul also refers to Jews in the congregation who are sure that they are sure guides for the blind, light to those in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, and a teacher of children (Romans 2:19-20).

⁴⁰ A disciple is not above the teacher. The saying finds a reflection in John 13:16 as well. Such a proverb reinforces the traditional superior and inferior relationship that Jesus usually sought to modify. Everyone who is fully qualified will be like the teacher.

Part of the proclamation of the rule of God is that Jesus challenges us not to judge (Jike 6:41-42=Matthew 7:3-5). ⁴¹ Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?  ⁴² Alternatively, how can you say to your neighbor, 'Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. The grotesque comparison of a speck or sliver and timber is an exaggeration we come to expect from the sayings of Jesus, designed to provoke thought. The image is vivid, exaggerated, and humorous that calls attention to faultfinding. Critics should concentrate on correcting themselves. This saying is consistent with the counsel to love enemies, forgive others, and imitate divine tolerance.

 ⁴³ "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit.  ^44a For each tree is known by its own fruit (Matthew 7:16a, 20). ^44bFigs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.  We have here a quip about thorns and brambles.  It is striking, involving pairs not normally associated. They dramatize a point that the text leaves unexplained. The rhetorical question is provocative and absurd. It sounds like a retort ⁴⁵ The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.This group of sayings is part of proverbial wisdom. 

Since the sermon on the plain has focused upon love for enemies, it would seem appropriate to discuss that love here. If we were to believe in nothing we cannot see, then we should have to give up believing in love. One might slip through life without love. Yet, from all that we know in the New Testament, eternity will not allow us to escape love. Without love we have lost everything. Love is the way we build eternity into our temporal lives. Yet, this love arises from within. The place from which love comes has a hidden quality. Yet, arising from hidden places within, it influences all we do and say. Hidden springs may feed the quiet lake. The love of God is the ground of all human love. Yet, we know this hidden life of love by its fruits. I John 3:18 reminds us that all too often we are content with speaking about love than allowing love to form our lives. True, love comes from the heart, but we also find it true that love forms the heart. We need to hear such a word addressed as a challenge to us. We must not think of the address and challenge for someone else. We need to fear ourselves at this point. Jesus has made us aware that we know each other by our fruits. Our sin is deep enough that such a saying will lead us to judge others. Part of the image here is that like knows like. One who has allowed eternity to shape the heart through love will recognize its fruits.^[36]

 ⁴⁶ "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I tell you (Matthew 7:21)? It contrasts two responses to the teaching of Jesus, one that produces action and another that does not. This is a common complaint by teachers. Any teacher or sage could have said it. However, 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. Paul wonders if Jewish teachers practice what they preach and teachers others to do (Romans 2:21-23).

⁴⁷ I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them.  ⁴⁸ That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built.  ⁴⁹ However, the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house (Matthew 7:24-27)." The image of the two foundations belongs to common Israelite, Judean, and rabbinic lore.  Several rabbis of the late first and early second centuries created similar parables to stress the need of putting teaching into practice.  Those who listen to Jesus’ teachings but do not act on them lay one kind of foundation; those who listen and then act build the other kind of 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.

²⁴ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. ²⁵ The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. ²⁶ And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. ²⁷ The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [47.1] 479.

[2] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 266. 

[3] Matthew 4.13 and Luke 4.16 agree in using the relatively rare name Ναζαρα (Nazara) for Nazareth. Mark 1.14-15 lacks this name. A major agreement. However, the parallel gospels will direct us to Mark 6:1-2 and Matthew 13:53-4, where they refer to Jesus coming to his own country and Luke uniquely refers to Nazareth. Understood in this way, it becomes a case of Matthew and Mark agreeing against Luke, which is one of the reasons for the Q hypothesis. 

[4] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 280.

[5] (Jeremias 1971), 54-5.

[6] Barth CD, IV.2 [64.3] 197, 205, I.2 [14.1] 51.

[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 306, Volume 3, 10.

[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 456.

[9] Barth, CD, III.2 [47.1] 468-9.

[10] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 306, Volume 3, 10.

[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 456.

[12] Barth, CD, III.2 [47.1] 468-9.

[13] It has numerous forms in non-biblical literature, as well as Thomas 31:2. The saying is unique to Luke.

[14] Gill, Robin. “Killing in the name of God: Addressing religiously inspired violence.” Theos, July 16, 2018, theosthinktank.co.uk, retrieved July 23, 2018.

[15] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.4] 589-91.

[16] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.4] 590.

[17] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.4] 590.

[18] Barth, CD, II.2 [35.3] 443-4.

[19] We all agree at first sight that Christ is more likely to have blessed the poor, than the poor in spirit. "In spirit" looks like an editorial safeguard against misunderstanding: to be in lack of money is not enough. St. Luke's phrase, then, is the more primitive. But on the other hand, St. Luke's eight beatitudes-and-woes with their carefully paired antitheses are not a more primitive affair than St. Matthew's eight beatitudes, but very much the reverse. And the phrase "in spirit" cannot stand in St. Luke's beatitudes-and-woes without overthrowing the logic of the paragraph. The poor are opposed to the rich. The poor in spirit would challenge comparison with the rich in flesh, but that does not mean anything. Thus St. Luke may well have read "in spirit" in St. Matthew and dropped it in obedience to the logic of his own thought. 

[20] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, inspired this thought.

[21] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 364

[22] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 3 p. 639.

[23] John Wesley.

[24] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 525.

[25] King, Martin Luther Jr. “Loving your enemies” (a sermon preached at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, on November 17, 1957). The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University website, kinginstitute.stanford.edu. Retrieved August 1, 2021.

[26] Inspired by —Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together  (Harper Collins, 1954), 17-18.

[27] Barth, CD, IV.3 [71.5] 625.

[28] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 372.

[29] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 212.

[30] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 432.

[31] Systematic Theology Volume 3, 491-2.

[32] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 326. 

[33] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 433.

[34] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 211.

[35] —Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Essential Henri Nouwen (Shambhala, 2009), 159-160.

[36] Inspired by Soren Kierkegaard Works of Love, Chapter 1.