CHAPTER 19
The first half is a new story, but one that plods old
ground. A tax collector pledges to
Jesus that he’ll give half of what he has to the poor (it’s the least he can
do, given that he admits he extorted from the poor). He’ll turn a new leaf, though, and be good. Jesus thanks him and says he’ll be saved for
this.
Yeah, that’s not such a good one. First off, he hasn’t done anything yet. He’s just announced his intention to do it. Let’s see the follow-through before
salvation. Second, he’s being saved for
giving money to the poor- though he only has it because he extorted from the
poor. Under those circumstances, why is
he allowed to keep half? Doesn’t that
strike anyone as being badly off? If
Christ tells another rich guy that he must give up all his possessions to gain
entry into the kingdom of salvation, then why does this guy get off so
easily?
The next part of this chapter is the parable from Matthew 25
that tacitly condones charging interest rates.
Oh, and Christ finally enters Jerusalem. It’s about time – Luke had Christ departing
for the big town back in Chapter 9.
When Christ enters town, his followers proclaim, “Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord.
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest.” You know, if Pilate was walking around and heard them say that,
he probably would’ve had Jesus executed on the spot. Excuse me – did you just publicly call this man “the king”? Oh, king in the name of the Lord, not early
powers – but just two centuries ago the Maccabbees rebelled in name of
God. Better be careful about that “K”
word.
Christ also immediately foretells the doom of
Jerusalem. I don’t recall him doing
that so swiftly in either Matthew or Mark.
In fact, he does it even before the incident at the temple. That also comes here in Luke – but after
Christ says the town is so, so doomed.
And it’s also a shorter incident that before. (checks). It’s six verses
in Matthew, five in Mark, and just four verses here in Luke. Yeah, I already know the story, but an event
this big typically gets plenty of detail no matter what.
CHAPTER 20
We get a host of famous Christ teachings – so famous that I
believe they’ve all appeared in Matthew and Mark already. Let’s see – he jousts with the Pharisees
about what authority he has to give these teachings. (He asks them what authority John the Baptist had, and when they
don’t respond, neither does he). He gives some parables, he gives unto Caesar
what belongs to Caesar, and denounces the scribes. Well, that’s one thing different. In previous gospels, he mostly denounced the Pharisees, but here
the enemy is the scribes. It’s the same thing to Luke, I guess.
The Sadducees also joust with Jesus. They ask him about life after the
resurrection. This isn’t about Jesus’s own personal upcoming resurrection, but
about when the kingdom of God will arrive and the dead will rise. The upshot is that there is no gender
difference after that happens – we’ll all be like angels.
CHAPTER 21
Again, it’s teachings that pretty much all of the gospels
cover. Jesus salutes a poor widow for contributing to the church, because it
hurts more for her to give than it does a rich person.
Then Christ gets apocalyptic on us. He foretells the destruction of the Temple,
and not only that – but tells of the persecution that the Christians will have
to endure. The talk of persecution
makes this sound like it was written well on later, not the talk of Jerusalem
and the temple. Heck, I can half-see
Christ saying that will happen. But the
persecution sounds much more like a lived experience for the people writing
these gospels, in this case Luke. You
get more detail and emotion put into that part, I think. But don’t worry – the Son of Man will come.
You just need to be vigilant until then. And with those final teachings, we now head
into the typical three-chapter for a gospel: betrayal, death, and resurrection.
CHAPTER 22
Luke starts off the betrayal chapter differently than
Matthew and Mark. First, it’s the
scribes that are seeking to ruin Jesus, not the Pharisees. I guess it’s all the same to Luke. (As our Gentile gospel writer, I guess he
didn’t have as strong a command on the inner-workings of Jewish religious
sects. So screw it – just call them
scribes).
Second, Luke actually gives Judas a motivation. The others just have Judas betray
Christ. Well, Matthew partially gives
him a motive – 30 silver pieces. But
that only happens after Judas decides to betray Christ, so it’s not clear how
much a motivation that really is. Mark
is totally silent on why Judas betrays Christ.
But Luke has a reason: the devil made him do it. Luke tells us: “Satan entered Judas.”
Well, that’s a reason.
I don’t know if I believe that one.
It’s too pat and trite an answer.
OK, so the stakes are high here, but did Judas lose all free will? On a seemingly unrelated note, Luke also
leaves out the bit where Christ has perfumed oils put upon him. Both Matthew and Mark note that just before
Judas betrays Christ, but it’s not here.
There’s an implicit argument in those gospels that Judas betrayed Christ
because of that. It’s never stated like
that, but given the lack of reasons given and the timing; it’s a reasonable
default interpretation. So it’s all the
more interesting that the gospel that tries to give Judas a different
motivation entirely ejects that story.
Then comes the Last Supper, and according to Bart D.
Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus,” in this scene there is reason to believe the
manuscript we have has had an addition made by an early scribe. During the meal, Christ says, “This is my
body, which will b given for you; do this in memory of me.” Problem: in our oldest and best recovered
copies of Luke, it’s just “This is my body” and not the rest of it. Either a scribe added in the rest, or an
earlier scribe accidentally deleted the key phrase. The former is more likely.
Sometimes a scribe would miss a line because the page he was copying
form had two straight line with similar words in it. That doesn’t happen here though.
And you can figure why a scribe would add it. As it was, the thing
sounded a little underwritten. Compared
to the other gospels it was, so you bring Luke up to code by adding in the
line.
After the Last Supper, Christ tells his apostles that one of
them will betray him. This also sparks
debate about the apostles in all the gospels, but this time it’s
different. This time, they just debate
amongst themselves who it is. None of
them deny it here, and in the other gospels they always do. That sounds more realistic. Jesus just laid a bomb on them, and denial
is a natural reaction.
Actually, right after the bomb is dropped, Jesus tells the
apostles their role. They are to spread
the word and send it out to all the people.
For doing that, they will be able to sit on the thrones judging the 12
nations of Israel. OK, Jesus had said similar things in the previous gospels –
but not right here. This is some pretty
weird timing. How do you segue from
telling the apostles that one of them is a betraying to giving out marching
orders to them all? That’s quite the
shift in focus.
In fact, he then shifts back and forth one more time. Christ follows that up by telling Peter
about the upcoming denial. Then Jesus
shift back, and tells them how to handle themselves in their upcoming
trials. Jesus keeps alternating back
and forth and it’s weird.
OK, so everyone goes to rest, except for Jesus. Then comes a scene that Bart D. Ehrman
informs us isn’t in the oldest copies of the Gospel of Luke. Well, most of it is in the oldest known
copies of Luke – Christ goes to the Garden, and prays. Then he goes back to his apostles. But there is a two-verse bit in the middle that
isn’t in the oldest copies. In fact, my
Bible has the verses in brackets, with a footnotes saying it’s not in the
original texts. The bit: “And to
strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat
became like drops of blood falling upon the ground.” That’s one of the more memorable images of Luke – sweating like
it was blood.
But it’s not in the oldest copies. Why the addition?
Theology. Some early bands of
Christians denied that Christ had ever been actual flesh and blood. That didn’t suit their view of this world
being bad and the other world being good.
Their favorite gospel was Luke, because it has Jesus in the most
not-of-this-world. (Wait until the
execution next chapter for a since of what this means). So you put a moment where Christ appears
very human to negate their early brand of Christianity.
In fact, Ehrman notes that without the above verses, the
remaining passage is a chiasmus, which is a literary structure. In such a passage, the first statement
corresponds to the last one; the second to the second-to-last and all
throughout. It’s an intentional design,
and it’s how Luke was designed – but the blood sweat messes it all up.
It’s seven statements without the blood sweat. In the first
one, Christ tells his disciples to pray to avoid temptations. Second, Jesus leaves them. Third, he kneels in prayer. Fourth – in the
heart of the chiasmus – Jesus prays to God.
Fifth (in a part that mirrors the third section) Christ kneels from
prayer. Then he returns to his
disciples (mirroring the second part), and then he addressed them, using some
of the same words he used in the first part.
It’s a classic chiasmus. But the
blood sweating comes and messes up the structure.
Well, Christ is arrested.
This time the apostles ask Jesus if they should fight back and he says
no, don’t. When the priest’s servants
gets his ear cut off anyway in the initial scrum, Christ heals it right
there. That’s mighty nice of him. It’s also not found in Matthew or Mark.
Peter denies Christ thrice, and though that’s where the
other gospels end this chapter, this one keeps going. His interrogation is in this chapter. They ask him if he’s the Son of God and he replies “You say that
I am” and that’s enough to convict.
Wait – that’s a terrible reason to convict. He hasn’t really confessed, you dummies. But, they’re out to kill him, so no matter.
CHAPTER 23
I’ve read that Luke is supposed to be the most anti-Semitic
of the gospels, but so far I haven’t seen too much evidence of that. But you get some here in the all important
crucifixion chapter.
Meet Pilate. He’s
the Roman official in charge of sentencing Christ, and for the life of him, he
can’t find anything that Jesus did wrong.
Oh sure, he’s like that in all of the gospels, but great googily-moogily
is he ever going overboard here.
Three times he tells the Jews that this man has done nothing
wrong. That’s a new Bible record. But each time he says that, the Jews just
push back, angrier than before. It
reminds me a little of the top of Luke, where the gospel writer tries to sell
his case a might too much. Also, I’ll
point out that this is not the historical record we have of Pilate. He was a ruthless administrator, willing to
do whatever it took to maintain his order and power. In a situation like this, he wouldn’t worry much about just or
not, right or wrong. Order and power –
why bother kicking up a fuss about some hick son of a carpenter? Well, doing so lets Rome off the hook for
Christ’s death – and puts the blame squarely upon the Jews.
In fact, in order to make his case, Luke garbles up some
details of previous gospels. Mark and
Matthew had the Romans engage in a custom where they’d free one prisoner a year
at Passover. In this case it was Jesus
or Barabas. That isn’t quite how it
goes in Luke, though. Here, Pilate
never makes any such offer. Instead,
when he insists that Jesus should be freed because he’s innocent, the angry
Jewish leaders say he should free Barabas instead. Wait – what? Who brought
up that option? What does that have to
do with the Jesus case.
Luke gives us some odd details the other gospels lack. At one point there is a jurisdiction dispute
between Pilate and Herod. We learn hat
both men become friends over this affair, and agree that Jesus is
innocent. Again – the officials aren’t
to be blamed – just them Jews.
Eventually, Pilate relents and orders the execution.
Once again, Christ doesn’t carry his own cross. It’s that Simon the Cyrenian who does it
again. (Also, shouldn’t that be Simon
the Syrian? That is what the word
means, right?)
On the cross, Jesus comes off very differently than he did
in Mark and Matthew. Instead of asking Lord, why have you forsaken me?, Christ
is much more calm and collected. In
fact, there is no sign he feels any real pain here at all. (There is a reason why this is the gospel of
choice for those who believed that he was never a flesh and blood human). In Luke, Jesus says from the cross: “Father,
forgive them, they know not what they do.”
Similarly, while he again between two criminals, this time
only one castigates him. The other
defends Jesus, and Jesus calmly responds by telling his defender that he’ll
join Christ in heaven. Finally, just
before dying, Jesus says, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” That’s a very different image of Christ from
Matthew and Mark, where he is desolated and denigrated by all.
Oh, and I left out one key bit. As in the other gospels, the veil in the Temple’s holiest spot
rips. But it’s different from Matthew
and Mark. There, the veil rips right
after he dies. In Luke, it rips just before
he dies. This has some key theological
differences. The veil separates God’s
part of the temple from the rest; it’s where God dwells with the Children of
Israel. In Matthew and Mark, the
ripping of the veil signifies that God’s place is no longer just behind a
veil. Christ’s death allows God to go
among all people. That’s why it rips
just after Christ dies – the sacrifice made the change possible. But in Luke, the veil rips just before. It’s because God is angry with the
Jews. How can you kill my only son like
that? Jerks. The heck I want any place in your lousy temple.
Christ is buried, setting us up for the resurrection.
CHAPTER 24
Once again, Jesus rises from the dead. Luke makes a much bigger production out of
it. In Mathew, the apostles aren’t
initially sure what they’re seeing. In
the original ending to Mark, the apostles never see him – in fact, no one
really does. (An ending tacked-on later
changes that, and that’s the version in most Bibles).
It starts off with three women going to the tomb: Mary the
mother, Mary Magdalene, and Joanna.
Luke earlier mentioned Joanna, but the previous gospels didn’t, but here
she is. When the women get there,
though, there are two men “in dazzling garments” who tell the terrified women
that Christ isn’t there. So far, it’s a
slightly more crowded version of the Mark story.
Unlike the original Mark story, however, this time the women
tell the apostles. They don’t believe
the women, in a Biblical version of the glass ceiling. Peter goes anyway, and sees the Christ-less
tomb.
Now Christ appears to some followers on the roadside. But he’s traveling incognito and they don’t
recognize him. Jesus feigns ignorance
about what has just happened, too. They
figure out who he is – and he vanishes.
Now it’s finally time for the main event – Christ appears to
his apostles. They first think he’s a
ghost. (That’s sensible – especially
given how he just disappeared in the last part). But he shows them his hands and feet. He tells them to touch him to see if he’s real. Then he asks if
they have any grub. They’re
stunned. Sure, he said he’s return –
but now he actually is retuning.
Oh, please note one key difference with the previous
gospels. Matthew had the seeing take
place back in Galilee. The original
Mark story had the man in the tomb instruct the women to tell the apostles to
go to Galilee to see Jesus. (Admittedly, the later added-on ending has Jesus appear to them in
Jerusalem – but the point is, when Luke was written, all stories of Christ’s
return came in the north, not Jerusalem.
Now it’s taking place in Jerusalem.
After a brief bit of words, Christ
ascends to heaven. The end.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
It’s an interesting book, but I’m getting some gospel
fatigue. Almost all of its high notes
have already been hit. It might be a
better read than Mark, but I definitely see why Matthew is the most popular
one. Luke has his moments, but he tries
too hard sometimes, like during the birth miracles.
It’s a good gospel all things considered.
No comments:
Post a Comment