The. Gospel of Luke. Introduction and Theology SECOND EDITION. Colourpoint Educational. Raymond Banks

Transcription

1 The Gospel of Luke Introduction and Theology SECOND EDITION Colourpoint Educational Raymond Banks

2 Contents Preface Abbreviations Map of Palestine at the time of Jesus An Introduction to the Gospel of Luke 1 Religious and political background Introduction to the Gospel of Luke Selected narratives in Luke s Gospel The words of Jesus The deeds of Jesus The Theology of the Gospel of Luke 6 Biblical criticism Christology Religious themes Theological significance of the words and deeds of Jesus Interpreting Luke Glossary Index

3 Chapter 1 Religious and political background IN THIS CHAPTER WE shall consider the beliefs, practices and traditions of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and their presentation in Luke s Gospel. We shall also consider Luke s presentation of Herod and Pilate. The Pharisees The Pharisees belonged to a Jewish religious party with which Jesus often came into conflict in the Gospels. According to the first-century Jewish historian and Pharisee Josephus (Ant ), there were about 6,000 of them towards the end of Herod the Great s reign (ie near the time of Jesus birth). There is currently scholarly disagreement concerning a range of issues relating to this group, including their name, origins, history, and influence at the time of Jesus. The last point is particularly a matter of vigorous academic debate. The current tendency is to play down Pharisaic influence at this time, in contrast to earlier scholarship which held that the Pharisees dominated Jewish society through the Sanhedrin and the synagogues. This makes it very difficult to speak with anything approaching certainty on these key areas. The uncertainty arises from differing estimates and interpretations of the three main sources relating to the Pharisees: Josephus, in his Jewish War, his autobiographical Life and his Antiquities of the Jews (all written in the later first century) the New Testament (second half of the first century) rabbinic literature (third to sixth centuries AD) Steve Mason notes that while all these sources present varying pictures of the 7

4 The Gospel of Luke Pharisees, they appear to agree that they were a non-priestly group who were regarded as experts in the Jewish laws; functioned as social power brokers between the ruling elite and the general public; promoted traditions additional to biblical laws; were concerned with matters of ritual purity and tithing; and believed in the existence of an afterlife, judgement and a spirit world 1. However, as Mason goes on to point out, scholars are generally not confident concerning, among other things, the meaning of the sect s name (whether, for example, separatists, consecrated or Persians ) and the time and context of their origins (Mason favours an origin in the second century BC, in the turmoil after the Maccabean revolt). JB Green notes that Luke is clearly interested in the Pharisees and that in his Gospel they have two main character traits 2. First, they are interpreters of the Jewish Law, who are concerned with its observance in daily conduct. This brings them into conflict with Jesus because of his association with tax collectors and sinners (5:30; 7:39; 15:2), his Sabbath practice (6:2,7; 14:3), his failure to observe ritual hand-washing before eating (11:38), and the failure of his disciples to fast (5:33). Jesus, however, criticises their focus on outward, ritual purity to the neglect of inward, moral purity, and their focus on meticulous tithing to the neglect of practising God s justice and love (11:37 44; see Criticism of the Pharisees, pp97 98). Second, in Luke the Pharisees are interested in promoting themselves. They love the seat of honour in synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplace (11:43). Only in Luke do we have the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, where the former self-righteously compares himself with others (18:9 14; see The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, pp ). Pharisees are also portrayed as lovers of money (16:14). Indeed, Green regards the main issue in Luke s characterisation of the Pharisees to be hypocrisy (12:1; see Hypocrisy, pp99 100; cf 13:15), which Green views not as insincerity but as failure to follow God s purposes. To these two characteristics we may add the Pharisees failure in Luke to recognise the identity and authority of Jesus (see 5:17, 20ff; 19:37 40). In short, the Pharisees reject God s purpose for themselves (7:29 30). Nonetheless, in Luke Jesus is invited by Pharisees to have table fellowship with them in their homes and accepts (7:36; 11:37; 14:1). He is addressed respectfully by them as Teacher (7:40; 19:39). Some even warn him of Herod Antipas threat on his life (13:31). This positive presentation of the Pharisees continues into Acts, where the Christian Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee (Acts 5:33 39; 15:5; 23:6; 26:5). It is notable too that despite Pharisaic hostility to Jesus earlier in the Gospel (eg 11:53), the Pharisees do not explicitly feature in the passion narrative which recounts Jesus trial and crucifixion the last mention of the Pharisees is in 19:39. Certainly, in Luke the Pharisees are characterised as distinct from the Jewish leadership, and are portrayed sympathetically in Acts 3. However, against the views that Luke has removed the Pharisees from his passion narrative to clear them from responsibility for Jesus death, and that he wants in his positive view of the Pharisees to emphasise the continuity between Judaism and the Church (both Pharisees and Christians believe in resurrection), JD Kingsbury makes several points 4. For example, Luke does connect 8

5 Religious and political background the Pharisees with Jerusalem (5:17; 19:39), whose leaders rejected Jesus; the Pharisees are linked with the scribes/teachers of the law and through them with the chief priests (eg 5:21,30; 23:10), and in Acts Luke regards all the Jewish leaders as being guilty of the death of Jesus (Acts 3:17; 13:27). TASK Outline what we know about the Pharisees and Luke s characterisation of them. The Sadducees Josephus tells us that this Jewish group existed in the second century BC, during the Maccabean period. Unfortunately, we know little of any certainty about the Sadducees, despite certain beliefs and characteristics that are often confidently attributed to them 5. Along with Josephus, the New Testament and rabbinic literature are our sources of information. The origin of their name is unknown, although it has been connected by some with the Hebrew word for righteous (saddiq) and the priest Zadok at the time of David (eg 1 Kings 1:32). Josephus says that they did not believe in an afterlife or rewards or punishments beyond death, and that they believed in human free will. He also states that they followed only the written Law, rather than traditions (unlike the Pharisees). Thus, they are characterised as being religiously conservative. Again, he associates them with the wealthy and higher class, noting that they did not have the support of the general public. The high priest Ananas is identified as a Sadducee. The rabbinic writings record disagreements between Sadducees and Pharisees over matters of ritual purity, civil law and the Sabbath, and there is reference to Sadducean denial of belief in resurrection. In Luke s Gospel, we read of them in one place where they pose a question to Jesus which is motivated by their rejection of resurrection (20:27 40). This attitude to resurrection is noted again by Luke in Acts, along with their rejection of belief in angels or spirits, in contrast to the Pharisees (Acts 4:1 2; 23:6 8). In Acts, they are also associated with the priests and the temple, as well as the Sanhedrin (4:1; 5:17; 23:6). Matthew often links Pharisees and Sadducees (eg 3:7; 16:1), implying that they had much in common, which Josephus also claims. NT Wright has drawn attention to the political usefulness of Sadducean beliefs 6. Their belief in free will was compatible with maintaining a position in power. Conservative rejection of new laws and traditions was a safeguard against the destabilising influences of innovative revolutionaries who would threaten their position. Also, since resurrection was used as a metaphor for the restoration of Israel to power, which would again threaten Sadducean power, it was advantageous to reject any belief in resurrection. Furthermore, rejection of the afterlife in general suited their focus on the affairs of this world. Whether or not this is an unwarranted politicisation 9

6 The Gospel of Luke of Sadducean theology, it reminds us that religious beliefs and practices are not totally isolated from their political context. TASK Discuss what we know about the Sadducees and their role in Luke. Herod Antipas Herod Antipas, to be distinguished from his father Herod the Great (Lk.1:5), was born around 20 BC and was tetrarch 7 of Galilee and Peraea from 4 BC to AD 39 (Lk.3:1,19; 9:7). He was responsible for the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Lk.3:19-20; 9:7-9). John had rebuked Antipas for marrying Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip, and, Luke adds, because of all the evil things he had done (3:19). Antipas was already married to the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, but divorced her to marry Herodias. John s rebuke of Antipas was probably due to the Old Testament law forbidding marriage of a brother s wife (Lev.18:16; 20:21). In confronting a ruler John was exercising his prophetic role, similar to Old Testament prophets such as Elijah, who challenged Ahab, king of Israel (1 Kings 21). Luke does not provide the specific reason for Antipas execution of John, though the other synoptic Gospels say that Herodias was behind it (Mt.14:3-12; Mk. 6:17-29). Harold Hoehner 8 has argued that Antipas was an able ruler, but was influenced to do reprehensible deeds by his ambitious wife Herodias. The first century Jewish historian Josephus put Antipas execution of John down to fear that John s popularity might lead to an uprising (Ant ). Josephus also states that Antipas defeat in AD 36 by his former father-in-law Aretas, who was avenging Antipas divorce of his daughter, was viewed by some Jews as God s judgement on him for his execution of John (ibid ). Antipas also had dealings with Jesus, as well as John the Baptist. Two references unique to Luke are relevant here. Some Pharisees warned Jesus that Antipas wanted to kill him, which elicited Jesus description of him as a fox (13:31-33; see p112 of current book for comment). And we also read of Antipas role in the trial of Jesus (23:6-12; see p of current book for comment). Scholars such as John Dominic Crossan have argued that Antipas urbanisation of Galilee and parallel impoverishment of its rural life provides the economic and social conditions that explain Jesus mission. However, a recent examination of relevant literary and archaeological sources by MH Jensen 9 regards this view as unwarranted by the evidence and as seeking to explain too much with too little. Antipas and Herodias, due to the latter s persuasion of her husband, went to Rome in AD39 to seek the title of king for Antipas. But Agrippa I (Acts 12), Herodias brother and Antipas nephew, made accusations against him. Antipas and Herodias were then sent into exile by the emperor Caligula. 10

7 Religious and political background TASKS Outline Luke s presentation of Herod Antipas role in relation to: a) John the Baptist and b) Jesus Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judea (AD 26 36/37; cf Lk 3:1), in whose jurisdiction and under whose authority Jesus was crucified. In 1961 archaeologists uncovered in Caesarea a stone partially, yet indisputably, inscribed with his name and that of the Emperor Tiberius, along with Pilate s title prefect. Our sources for Pilate, in addition to the New Testament, are Josephus and the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (around 20 BC to AD 50). Thus, we have Christian and Jewish perspectives of Pilate. His insensitivity to Jewish religious concerns is apparent in the Jewish sources. Josephus reports (Ant ; Jewish War ) that Pilate brought into Jerusalem Roman standards bearing images of the emperor. The soldiers would have given divine honours to the standards. Jews went to Pilate s residence in Caesarea to protest. His threat of military force against the protesters was ineffective, since they showed their willingness to die over the matter. To prevent an uprising, Pilate withdrew the images from Jerusalem. He also took money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct in the city, and provoked Jewish protests. Pilate s soldiers moved among the crowd in civilian dress, armed with clubs (rather than swords) which they used on the people with fatal consequences (Ant ; Jewish War ). Philo mentions that Pilate placed votive shields bearing the emperor s name, although not his image, in Herod s palace in Jerusalem (Embassy to Gaius 38, ). Jewish protesters, including Herod s sons, were ignored by Pilate. They appealed to the Emperor Tiberius himself, who was furious with Pilate and ordered the removal of the shields. Finally, Josephus recounts (Ant ) the incident which led to his dismissal as governor of Judea. In AD 36 Pilate s soldiers engaged in battle with followers of a Samaritan prophet who were gathering at Mount Gerizim. His brutal treatment of this group led to complaints against Pilate before his superior, Vitellius. Pilate was sent to Rome for trial before the emperor, but arrived after Tiberius death. Both Philo and Josephus characterise Pilate as a cruel, greedy and oppressive ruler. His disregard for Jewish religious beliefs is evident too in the pagan symbols on the coins issued during his reign. While other governors of Judea generally had inoffensive images such as grapes or trees on their coins, Pilate had a ladle used by Roman priests for wine in honour of the gods, or a curved staff which was the symbol of the Roman official (augur) who predicted the future. Luke also refers to Pilate s brutality when he records that he had mingled the 11

8 The Gospel of Luke blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices (13:1; see p107). This incident is not mentioned in any other source, unless it refers to the deaths that followed Jewish protests at Pilate s seizing of temple funds (see p11). All the Gospels and Acts state that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as does the Roman historian Tacitus in about AD 115 (Annals ) and, possibly, Josephus (Ant 18.63ff; however, there is debate about the authenticity of this passage). A contrast is often drawn between the Christian portrait of Pilate in the Gospels and the Jewish characterisation of him in Philo and Josephus. While the latter portray him as strong-willed, aggressive and unconcerned about offending the Jews, the former present him as a weak, indecisive leader who is easily manipulated by Jewish leaders. It is often held that the Pilate of the Gospels has been so portrayed in order to maximise Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, while at the same time minimising the embarrassment of the fact that the founder of the Christian movement was executed by the Romans (cf Lk 23:1 25; Acts 3:13 15; 13:28 29). However, Helen Bond has argued that this contrast is too neat and simplistic 10. She maintains that the characterisation of Pilate in Philo and Josephus is shaped by theological concerns, and that the portraits of Pilate in the Gospels are more complex than the traditional view assumes. In this view, Pilate was not as harsh as the Jewish sources imply, but sought to maintain a balance between his accountability to the emperor and the concerns of the Judeans. A contrasting view of Pilate, however, has been presented more recently by Warren Carter 11. Carter asserts that, far from portraying Pilate as weak and indecisive, the Gospels, as well as the Jewish sources, present him as an astute and arrogant agent of imperial power, who manipulates events in the interests of that power and its allies (the Jewish leaders). However, even if the Gospels do appear to have a weaker Pilate than that of the Jewish sources, it may be because Pilate had to tread more carefully at the time of Jesus execution due to wider developments, such as his provocation of the emperor (see p11). No one in the New Testament has more references to Pontius Pilate than Luke (Lk 3:1 2; 13:1; 20:20; 23:1 25,52; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; on Lk 23, see p163ff). Bond sees Gentile Luke s characterisation of Pilate as shaped by his desire to relate the story of Christian beginnings to Roman history, and to present the Romans as divine agents in the history of salvation (cf Acts 4:27 28). Despite the imperfections of Rome s governors, such as Pilate and Festus, they did not regard the early Christian movement as a political threat. Luke s picture of Pilate, according to Bond, served a wider aim namely that of defending the Roman Empire in the eyes of the early Christians. TASKS a) Discuss the claim that our sources for Pontius Pilate present contrasting portraits. b) Comment on the role of Pilate in Luke. 12

9 Religious and political background Endnotes 1 Mason, Steve, Pharisees in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds Craig A Evans and Stanley E Porter, Leicester: IVP, 2000, p786 2 Green, New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, Cambridge: CUP, 1995, pp Gowler, DB, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts, New York: Peter Lang, Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress, 1991, pp22,148 5 See Sadducees by Gary Porton in Dictionary of New Testament Background (op cit), pp Wright, NT, The New Testament and the People of God, London: SPCK, 1992, pp Literally ruler of a fourth part, but came to be used of a ruler lower than a king. 8 Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ, Cambridge: CUP, 1972; also published by Zondervan, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, Bond, Helen, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Cambridge: CUP, Carter, Warren, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press,