Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, March 31, 2013 Read – Luke 24:1-13 It is still likely that Mark is the source for Luke’s gospel – of course that will end at this point since Mark’s story of the resurrection is incredibly short containing only eight verses and ending with the women leaving the tomb in fear and saying nothing to any one – the longer endings of Mark’s gospel are almost certainly additions from others who were not satisfied with Mark’s ending. Luke likely was not aware of any of them. Typical of Luke he has modified Mark’s story. We may have noticed by now that Luke has not named the women involved – that will come soon enough. Mark does, but Luke simply omits their names. Luke tells us they head for the tomb at first light on the day after the Sabbath – that would make it dawn on Sunday morning. They bring the spices they had prepared prior to the Sabbath. Obviously the women think that they will find the dead body of Jesus. All of the gospel writers are insistent on the fact that Jesus was really dead. Luke omits Mark’s comments by the women wondering how they will roll the huge stone away and simply tells us that when they arrived at the tomb they found that the stone had already been rolled back. Having entered the tomb they discover that the body is missing and Luke tells us they are perplexed with this occurrence – likely they assumed someone had stolen the body – now what were they to do? In their confusion the women see a vision of two angels dressed in dazzling apparel. Mark had said the women saw a young man dressed in a white robe. Readers of Luke’s gospel are immediately reminded of the scene at the Mount of Transfiguration where the disciples and Jesus are met by two men – Moses and Elijah – and that at that time it was Jesus whose clothes became dazzling white (Luke 9:29). At first the women do not seem to be impressed with the two men – they remain head down in sorrow although they are frightened. The words of the angels are striking – “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” They should have known better! But how could they? The next word the angels speak is also incredibly important – it is the word “remember!” What they are to remember is also very important – they are to remember what Jesus told them – that he would be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and on the third day rise. The next words in Luke’s gospel are crucial for understanding the whole message – Luke tells us that they remembered! We will need to watch for that word “remember” in the remainder of Luke’s gospel. Luke’s words are quite different from Mark’s – Mark had written that the young man told the women that Jesus was risen and that they were to go and tell the disciples, and Peter, that he was going ahead of them to Galilee where they will see him. In Luke’s gospel the disciples never go back to Galilee – neither does Jesus – everything is centered upon Jerusalem and the Temple there! We will need to think more about that later. The response of the women is also very different in Luke from what it is in Mark – as mentioned, in Mark they flee away speechless! – in Luke they return from the tomb and tell the eleven and all the rest. It is only at this point that Luke identifies who the women were – they turn out to be essentially the same women Mark had spoken of with the substitution of Joanna for Salome. The report of the women announcing what they have discovered and likely their joy upon “remembering” was not well received by the eleven and the rest – they thought it was an idle tale! In words that sound a lot like the story of the resurrection in John’s gospel, Luke tells us that Peter went to the tomb to check it out but he was not able to verify anything about the resurrection except that the tomb was empty and went back home amazed. Perhaps empty tombs alone are not enough to create believing faith! Readers of Luke’s gospel just know that something more has to be coming! And there certainly is. Next week we will move on the story of the walk to Emmaus.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, March 30, 2013 Read – Luke 23:50-56 For the most part Luke follows Mark in the story of the burial of Jesus. The one who takes Jesus from the cross and lays him in a tomb is Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. Luke speaks of Joseph with the same words that he has used to describe the first characters he introduced us to in his gospel – Zechariah and Elizabeth who were righteous before God (Luke 1:6)and Simeon and Anna who were looking for the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25). Joseph too was looking for the kingdom of God (Luke 23:51). We may be surprised to hear that he was a member of the Jerusalem religious establishment (Luke 23:50) but he had not approved of the proceeding. Perhaps we should not paint the religious establishment with such a wide brush and for that matter any group of people. Luke tells us that Joseph went to Pilate to ask for the body – perhaps, along with his longing for the kingdom of God, Joseph was also attempting to fulfill the Law which demanded that the body of even a criminal must be buried before sunset in order that the land would not be defiled (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Luke omits Mark’s mention that Pilate sought to verify that Jesus was really dead and moves immediately to the tomb. Only Luke tells us that it was a tomb in which no one had been laid and only Luke reminds us that it was the day of preparation and that the Sabbath was about to begin. The Sabbath would begin at sundown on Friday – it is Luke’s gospel that helps provide the dating for these events. Like Mark, Luke tells of the women who first witnessed where the tomb was and then prepared spices for a more proper burial in the days to come. And then Luke writes some of the more unusual, yet important words in his gospel – he tells us that they rested on the Sabbath, according to the commandments. Luke has been consistent in his demonstration that the followers of Jesus are faithful Jews hasn’t he!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, March 29, 2013 Read – Luke 23:18-49 Twice already Luke has told us that Pilate had decided that Jesus is innocent of insurrection and that he desires to release him. Pilate claims that Herod has concurred in that judgment. Luke is dealing with the question of who is to blame for the death of Jesus and at this point the political authorities are viewed as attempting to avoid the verdict of death. Readers of Luke may be wondering why Jesus was finally crucified – were the political authorities innocent! Luke shortens Mark’s story regarding the release of Barabbas in place of Jesus. Luke does not mention that there was a practice of Pilate to release a prisoner at the time of the Passover. Perhaps Luke really is a good historical researcher since there is no evidence outside of the account of Mark that such a practice ever took place. That does not mean that there was no such practice but it does call it into question. Luke does tell us that the next tactic of the religious establishment in Jerusalem is to ask Pilate to release a man named Barabbas. Barabbas as a real insurrectionist – a murderer! Quite a contrast to Jesus! Even the name, Barabbas, may have some importance. Barabbas means “son of the father” – Jesus was known to speak of God as his Father. Could Luke, and Mark before him, have been saying more with the release of Barabbas than simply the release of a notorious insurrectionist? Pilate hears their request, but returns to Jesus. By now the cry has begun for Jesus to be crucified – the punishment for insurrection which is exactly the accusation the religious establishment has brought against Jesus! For a third time – Luke himself reminds his readers that this is the third time – Pilate declares Jesus to be innocent asking what evil Jesus has done. Again Pilate announces his intention to release Jesus after having flogged him. The religious authorities persist and eventually they wear Pilate down – he gives in to their murderous request. Barabbas is released and Jesus is “handed over to their will” (Luke 23:25). As readers of Luke’s gospel we need to ask ourselves about Pilate and his actions in this story. It will be helpful if we gather a bit more information about Pilate from other historical documents from that time before we proceed. What kind of man was Pilate? Simply reading the biblical gospels leads us to think of Pilate as something of a weak leader who was easily manipulated by those he was to govern. We are also perhaps led to think of Pilate as someone who is really trying to do the right thing but is finally not able to do it. Other gospel writers even paint Pilate more boldly in these colors – having him wash his hands in innocence; having his wife warn him of an ominous dream about Jesus – Luke does not include any of these things. All of the other historical writings from this period paint quite a different portrait of Pilate! For all intents and purposes his was a violent and brutal leader who did not hesitate to abuse those under his power. Josephus tells stories of Pilate deliberately attempting to insult the Jewish people – perhaps in hopes of instigating a revolt so that he could put it down and gain honor. Philo concurs. In the end Pilate was finally removed from power by the Roman Caesar for abuse of power. Why do the portraits of Pilate in the Bible and those in other historical writings differ so much? Actually, they may not be quite as far apart as we might think – and Luke is a key to our further understanding. Luke does present Pilate as deciding that Jesus is innocent! That likely is a historical fact! But Luke also tells us that Pilate is willing to flog an innocent man – he really does not care about justice for Jesus! Luke has also told us of a time when Pilate mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1). In the end Luke does not paint Pilate in glowing colors after all – Luke is very aware of Pilate’s dark and evil side! It does not take much to come to the conclusion that Pilate is not acting in a wholesome and just way – rather that Pilate is acting in a cruel and cynical way – he is simply twisting the religious authorities and playing with them – pretending to be the “just” ruler when all along he is simply enjoying making the religious leaders squirm and incriminate themselves all the more. It does not take much imagination to think of Pilate thoroughly enjoying the proceeding! And in the end if Pilate was really concerned about justice – is he not all the more guilty for putting a man he knew to be innocent to death. The way that Luke tells this story actually incriminates Pilate as much as the religious authorities! And that is likely the truth historically. Pilate was not innocent. The religious leaders were not innocent either. Both are responsible for the death of Jesus! Part of the motive of all the gospel writers was to indicate that it was the Jewish leaders who were responsible for the death of Jesus. Only the Romans had the power to crucify and because Jesus was crucified it would be easy to think that the Romans were to blame. The gospel writings all want to make it clear that although the Romans killed Jesus – it was the religious leaders who instigated his death. That is certainly to be seen as historical fact. So, in the final analysis we need to see Pilate as equally guilty – he was not a man easily manipulated against his will but rather a coy and clever manipulator who reveled in the whole scene. History must know Pilate as the cruel leader he certainly was! At this point Mark goes on to tell of the soldiers taking Jesus into the palace and abusing him. It is at this point that Mark tells of the dressing of Jesus in the purple robe of a “pretender king” and being mocked, flogged nearly to death prior to his crucifixion. Luke does not tell any of this – he has already told of the dressing of Jesus in a gorgeous robe which was done by Herod’s men and does not repeat it here. Jesus is not flogged in Luke’s gospel. The scene now moves toward the cross and once again Luke is striking out on his own! Mark’s journey to the cross is incredibly short – only one verse! Without explanation Mark tells us that a man named Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry Jesus’ cross – Mark’s readers assume that this was necessary because Jesus has been flogged nearly to death. Luke’s journey to the cross is greatly expanded. Luke begins by following Mark and telling about Simon of Cyrene. Luke’s readers; however, need to remember that Luke has never told us that Jesus was flogged. Pilate had threatened flogging as an alternative to crucifixion but had given in to the will of the religious authorities’ demands. Simon of Cyrene becomes for Luke a prime example of what it means to be a follower of Jesus – to “take up his cross!” There is no reason to believe that Jesus was not able to carry his own cross when one just listens to Luke’s version. Luke continues by telling of a great crowd following behind Jesus – the place where disciples are to be found – and lamenting what is happening to him. The repentance of faithful Israel is already beginning! Jesus addresses the lamenters with ominous words. They are not to lament for him but for themselves and for their children. Luke and his readers are looking backward toward the experience of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD – a time when those who had no children were more blessed than those who did. The Jewish historian, Josephus, tells in his book “The Jewish War” of the women of Jerusalem eating their own starving children in the days just before Jerusalem fell. Josephus also tells of many wishing that the rocks would fall and put them out of their misery! The same thing was said of the people of Jerusalem hundreds of years earlier when the Babylonians had besieged the city in 587 BC – as we have heard, the book of Lamentations tells of mothers eating the children out of desperation! Luke’s first readers would have heard his clear allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in this response of Jesus to the women who lamented his journey to the cross. Luke concludes the journey to the cross by announcing that there were two others who were led to the cross with Jesus to be put to death. The scene now moves to the cross. Luke both reorders and expands Mark’s version of the story. Mark names the place Golgatha. Luke calls it the place of the Skull. None of the gospel writers tell of Jesus being nailed to the cross – in three short words they tell of the actual crucifixion – “they crucified him!” Luke moves immediately to the first of three things Jesus says while hanging on the cross after having reported a second time that there were two others crucified with Jesus. Jesus declares, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).These words are missing from some of the manuscripts of Luke but they are almost certainly authentic – they fit Luke’s statements in the book of Acts, also written by Luke, that the leaders of Israel crucified Jesus out of ignorance about what they were doing! Forgiveness is being offered even now to a potentially repentant Israel! Psalm 22 had obviously become a lens through which Mark told his story of the crucifixion of Jesus. The reference to the dividing of Jesus’ clothing is an allusion to Psalm 22:18. Luke maintains Mark’s words along with the report that people stood by watching – another allusion to Psalm 22 (Psalm 22:7). Luke now speaks of the scoffing of the religious establishment as they mock Jesus calling upon him to save himself since he had saved others. There words are also reminiscent of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness when Satan’s refrain was “If you are the Son of God” (Luke 4:3, 9) – here they say “if you are the Christ of God, his Chosen One” (Luke 23:35). Luke moves now to the mockery of the soldiers who offer Jesus vinegar to drink. Mark had put that at the very beginning of his account and spoke of it as “wine mingled with myrrh” which was a sedative (Mark 15:23). The giving of vinegar to drink alludes to Psalm 69:21. Luke also announces that an inscription had been attached to the cross which read, “This one is the King of the Jews!” (Luke 23:38) – this was an obvious slur put there by Pilate to poke fun at the religious establishment – Pilate was indeed enjoying the whole spectacle! Mark had spoken of the inscription earlier just as Jesus was placed on the cross (Mark 15:26). Luke has been reordering Mark. At this point Luke steps out again on his own – only Luke tells us of the conversation that Jesus and the two criminals engage in. Mark had said that both criminals reviled Jesus (Mark 13:32). In Luke only one criminal engages in the reviling of Jesus calling upon Jesus to save all three of them if he really is the Christ. The other criminal is a great example of repentance and belief as he first rebukes the first criminal by announcing the both of them are receiving the reward for their punishment that they have coming. Then the he expresses faith in the dying Jesus by asking Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes to his kingly power. He becomes the first confessing Christian! And Jesus speaks for a second time promising this repentant criminal that today he will be with Jesus in paradise. The word “today” is important in this statement – Luke envisions the kingdom of God as a present reality and not just something that his coming at some future time – the kingdom of God is among the followers of Jesus already (Luke 17:21) and that reality comes today for this repentant criminal. Not only has Luke reordered Mark but he has also omitted much of what Mark said. Missing are the reference that it was the third hour when this took place (Mark 15:25). Missing are the passers-by mocking Jesus and wagging their heads at him (Mark 15:29). The crowd does not join into the mocking in Luke. Missing is the taunt that Jesus had claimed that he would destroy the Temple and in three days rebuild it (Mark 15:29). Missing is the bargain on the part of the religious authorities that if Jesus were to come down from the cross they would believe in him (Mark 15:32). And most significantly of all, Luke has omitted Mark’s reference to Jesus cry of dereliction when he said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!” (Mark 15:34). And along with it the mistaken reference to the possible coming of Elijah (Mark 15:35). More about that in a bit. The scene now moves to the death of the Messiah! Luke begins by following Mark remarking that it was now the sixth hour – Luke first reference to time – that would have made it noon. Once again Luke reorders Mark – Mark will wait until Jesus has breathed his last until he reports that the curtain in the Temple was torn in two (Mark 15:38). By not associating the tearing of the curtain in two with the death of Jesus Luke is likely giving it a meaning different from Mark – for Mark the “ripping of the curtain” is really the invasion of God into the world as it was at the baptism scene in Mark when the heavens were “ripped” open (Mark 1:10). For Luke, the tearing open of the curtain is most likely the giving of access to God – Luke and Mark likely have very different ideas in mind – Mark sees God coming to earth, “on the lose!” – Luke sees God opening the Holy of Holies to provide access to a repentant people. Interesting how different writer can see differing things in the same event – as follower of Jesus we have the privilege of seeing both! Once the curtain has been torn in two Jesus speaks once more in Luke’s gospel. These are Jesus’ last words according to Luke. They come from Psalm 31. They are words of one who is confident of God’s deliverance – “Into your hands I commit my spirit” (Psalm 31:5). Only Luke gives us these words. And having spoken with assurance Luke tells us that Jesus breathed his last. Both Luke and Mark tell us the words of a centurion – a Roman soldier who has observed the death of Jesus. The words are slightly different. Mark tells us the centurion said, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39) – the goal toward which Mark has been driving all along – in Mark’s gospel no other human being will recognize that Jesus is the Son of God except this man and he can do it only when the Messiah has died. For Mark, you cannot know who Jesus really is until you have seen the crucified Messiah! In Luke, the centurion said, “Truly this man was innocent!” (Luke 23:47) – the verdict of Pilate and Herod and the fellow criminal on the cross. What does Luke mean by this? Perhaps a better translation of the word “innocent” would be the word “righteous” – the word in Greek has both meanings. Jesus is the righteous one – the one who fulfills Israel’s destiny! In Jesus all of Israel are invited to righteousness – and along with Israel comes the nations. In Jesus all are set free – the goal to which Luke has been driving! As was noted above Luke omitted Mark’s only words spoken by Jesus while on the cross. One wonders why Luke did that – in fact why he omitted so many others things as well. Was it because Luke was somehow offended by the words Mark attributes to Jesus? Perhaps – the dying Jesus crying out “My God, my God, why have abandoned me” have troubled more believers in Jesus than Luke. In some ways they do sound rather inappropriate. But it is likely not that Luke was offended by Mark – he just had another need to fulfill in the death of Jesus. Mark nails the starkness of Jesus’ death and the final “killing” of any hope in human achievement. Mark centers all on the death of Jesus – and on the resurrection that is the victory of God. It is only by seeing the crucified Messiah that one can ever know God! Jesus died for humanity! And in his dying the barrier between God and humanity is shattered! Certainly Luke would not want to deny that. However, there is more to be said. The death of Jesus is also about the faithfulness of God – and of Israel – and finally of the Gentiles who will be grafted into Israel. For Luke, Jesus’ death was the ultimate act of faithfulness and trust in God. In his dying Jesus has fulfilled the destiny of Israel and opened the curtain to the presence of God. Luke will tell his followers that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to die so that salvation can be proclaimed to all nations in his name. Jesus’ words from Psalm 31 are appropriate – Jesus, and with him, all of Israel and the nations are delivered into God’s hands. Salvation is offered to Israel. The question once again is whether or not Israel will receive it. The hen is gathering her chicks under her wing – the question remains whether or not they will be gathered. God has visited his people – and the question remains whether or not they will receive him. Mark ends the scene with only a few women from Galilee standing at a distance and seeing what had happened (Mark 15:40-41). Luke’s ending is very different from Mark’s. Luke tells us that when Jesus had died the whole multitude who had come to watch left for home beating their breasts in repentance and grief over what had happened! The repentance of Israel has begun! But that is not the whole story. Luke tells us that all of the acquaintance of Jesus and the women who had followed him from Galilee were there, standing at a distance watching! The disciples did not abandon Jesus! They were there – overcome to be sure and confused about what would happen next but they were there! We need to recall that in the scene of the arrest Luke did not say that the disciples all fled. Faithful Israel is waiting – the presence of the disciples at the crucifixion is evidence of the openness that faithful Israel has. We have noticed that Luke has presented the disciples in a much more favorable light than Mark did. That is also true here.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, March 28, 2013 Read – Luke 22:39-23:16 The scene moves to the Mount of Olives. Luke shortens Mark’s story at this point since he has already spoken of the testing and prediction of Peter’s denial. Once they arrive at the mount the action moves immediately to the prayer of Jesus. Luke’s version is significantly different from Mark’s once again. There is no mention of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32 compared to Luke 22:40). Jesus does not single out Peter, James and John but warns all of the disciples to pray that they will not enter into temptation (Mark 14:33). Jesus withdraws from the disciples to pray asking if the cup might be withdrawn from him. This is similar to Mark although only Luke speaks of an angel from heaven coming to strengthen Jesus (Luke 22:43). Only Luke tells of Jesus sweating what appeared to be like great drops of blood in his agony (Luke 22:44). The agony of this encounter is intense indeed and very real. Luke does not report that Jesus returned three times to find the disciples sleeping – in Luke’s version Jesus returns only once (Compare Mark 14:37-41). And only Luke explains the reason for the disciples sleep is because they are sorrowful (Luke 22:45). Readers of Luke are reminded of the scene on the Mount of Transfiguration where the disciples are also fighting sleep, something only Luke reports (Luke 9:32). Upon his one and only return Jesus does ask his disciples why they sleep but gone is the reprimand that appears in Mark. There is no mention of the spirit being willing but the flesh being weak (Compare to Mark 14:38). If anything Jesus is sympathetic of his disciples and he once again invites them to rise and pray that they do not entering into temptation. The words are barely out of Jesus’ mouth when Judas appears leading a crowd. Unlike Mark, Luke does not identify the crowd being made up of chief priests, scribes, and the elders (Mark 14:43) – there is no mention of just who this crowd is in Luke but Luke’s readers can be sure this is not the same crowd that protected Jesus in his encounter with the religious authorities. Luke tells us that Jesus took the initiative and asked Judas if he had come to betray him with a kiss – Jesus is clearly in control in spite of what will happen to him. Mark had placed the initiative for the kiss in Judas’ control (Mark 14:43). Readers of Luke are reminded of his discussion from earlier regarding the necessity of the disciples buying a sword when those around Jesus ask if they should strike. There is no immediate reply from Jesus and someone does strike cutting off the ear of the slave of the high priest. At that point Jesus puts an end to the scuffle with the word, “Enough!” Only Luke tells us that Jesus healed the man’s ear. Now Luke identifies those who have come out against him as the chief priests and captains of the temple and the elders and asks them why they have come in the cover of darkness when Jesus has been working in the open every day – and then Luke gives an interpretive answer – “this is your hour and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Sometimes what one does not say is as important as what one does say. It is important to notice that Luke does not say that all the disciples abandoned Jesus and ran away. In fact, earlier when Mark had warned them that they would all fall away (Mark 14:27), Luke chooses to simply omit what Mark says. Luke does not tell us exactly what the disciples did – but if he wanted us to believe that they all abandoned Jesus all he would have had to do was quote a few more words from Mark. Once again Luke has presented the disciples in a far more favorable light! The story now moves to the trials of Jesus. It is at this point that Luke differs more significantly from Mark – and from all the other gospels – than at any other point in his gospel story. One can’t help but wonder if Luke has indeed decided to follow another source. We will need to think about that as we proceed. Mark tells his readers that immediately upon his arrest the religious establishment in Jerusalem convened and began the trial of Jesus (Mark 14:53). That trial would have happened in the dead of night. Luke simply tells his readers that upon his arrest Jesus was taken to the house of the high priest and held in custody during the night (Luke 22:54) – no trial proceeding begin until morning (Luke 22:66). More significantly, the content of the trial proceeding is significantly different in Luke. There is no mention in Luke of the false witnesses who are used to attempt to convict Jesus (Mark 14:57). There is no mention of the charge against Jesus that he had said that he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (Mark 14:58). There is no mention of the High Priest interrogating Jesus directly and asking him the direct question, “Are you the Christ?” (Mark 14:61) – and, most significantly, no answer from Jesus, “I am!” (Mark 14:62). In Luke’s proceeding Jesus is asked, “If you are the Christ, tell us” (Luke 22:67) and Jesus answer is, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer” (Luke 22:67-68). Luke inserts an additional question from the authorities, “Are you the Son of God, then?” and Jesus answer is ambiguous, “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70). Jesus will make the same response to Pilate to his question. This is hardly the same response. There is no mention of the high priest tearing his clothing as a sign of the guilt of Jesus (Mark 14:63). There is no mention of the charge of blasphemy (Mark 14:64). The official proceedings do not conclude with the mocking of Jesus – Luke had related that information earlier as having taken place during the night while Jesus was in custody (Luke 22:63-65). The charge against Jesus is never mentioned in Luke’s version of the trial – unless we are to understand by implication that he is accused of claiming to be the Son of God since it is after his response to this question that the authorities say that they need no further evidence having heard it from Jesus’ own lips (Luke 22:71). There is enough of Mark to lead readers to assume that Luke is still using Mark as his source – however Luke has certainly done considerable editing! Readers of Luke need to ask why Luke may have done this. Why does Luke move the proceeding to daytime? Perhaps Luke was aware that proceeding at night would have been illegal and thus invalid! Luke does want his readers to know that the religious establishment in Jerusalem was responsible for handing Jesus over to the Romans – but he wants them also to know that their proceeding were legal and valid – they acted on behalf of the Israel that did not welcome the visitation of God. Trying to explain why Luke stripped Mark of all the other details is far more challenging. Perhaps we will be able to think more fully about that after we have heard the proceedings before Pilate. Because Luke has moved the legal proceedings to the daytime, his story about the denial of Peter comes prior to any of Jesus’ trials. That may not be very important – but it does take away some of the drama that all three other gospel writers invest in the event. In Mark, Matthew, and John, Peter is clearly on trial at the very same moment Jesus is on trial – John better than any weaves the two stories together (John 18:12-27). Here Luke is following Mark more closely although there are a few modifications – Luke does not say that Peter invoked a curse upon himself; and most significantly, Luke has Jesus turn and look at Peter following the third denial. That look along with the cock crow led Peter to remember – his turning again had begun! The scene now moves to the trials before the government officials. Once again there are great difference between Mark and Luke – even greater than the previous trials. The only place where they are in concert is in Pilate’s question of Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Mark 15: 2 = Luke 23:3)! Jesus’ response is the same in both Mark and Luke – the same ambiguous response, “You have said so” that Jesus made when the religious authorities asked him if he was the Son of God. Prior to the question Luke tells us the religious establishment had accused Jesus of perverting the nation, forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ the King (Luke 23:2). Significantly there is no mention of claiming to be the Son of God which seems to be the crux of the matter in the religious trial! Such an accusation would not have registered with Pilate – he could care less! Mark tells us that Pilate went on to question Jesus further. When Jesus refused to respond Mark tells us Pilate was amazed and was left only to wonder! Luke does not mention any other questioning by Pilate and moves immediately to the first of three pronouncements by Pilate that he finds Jesus innocent. The religious leaders will not accept this verdict and persist claiming again that Jesus has been leading an insurrection from the time he began in Galilee. The mention of Galilee appears to give Pilate an out – if Jesus is from Galilee then the government authority they need to appeal to is Herod Antipas who is the ruler of Galilee. Pilate attempts to pass the buck. Only Luke tells the story of the trial of Jesus before Herod Antipas! Readers of Luke’s gospel need to remember that twice before Herod Antipas had played a part in the story. When the crowds were wondering just who Jesus was and some of them wondered if perhaps he was John the Baptist raised from the dead, Herod Antipas had said that he knew he had killed John so Jesus certainly could not be him – and Luke tells us that Herod tried to see Jesus (Luke 9:9). Later Luke tells us that some Pharisees came to warn Jesus to flee from their territory because Herod was attempting to kill him (Luke 13:31). The actual meeting between Herod and Jesus is rather uneventful in Luke’s telling – it must have been incredibly disappointing to Herod – Jesus refuses to say a thing! The religious authorities continue with their accusation of insurrection. Herod seeks a sign and gets none. In the end it is Herod’s soldiers who dress Jesus up as a “pretender king” clothing him in gorgeous apparel and send him back to Pilate. Luke informs us that Pilate and Herod became friends that very day – which may be more a fulfillment of Psalm 2:2 than reflecting historical reality – at least according to other historian of the time such as Josephus and Philo who maintain the disdain between Herod and Pilate through the reign of each. Since only Luke had told the story of Pilate sending Jesus to Herod, only Luke tells the story of the response of Pilate upon Herod’s return of Jesus to him. Though Herod does not make an official proclamation that Jesus is innocent – at least one that readers of Luke’s gospel are privileged to hear – Pilate concludes that Herod has also concurred that Jesus is innocent. At this point both of the political authorities involved have declared Jesus to be innocent. In what is an even more official sounding proclamation Pilate makes his second declaration that Jesus is innocent and announces his judgment that he will have Jesus flogged and then released. Flogging itself would have been a life-threating punishment that some did not survive; however, Pilate could care less about that – his point was that he did not find the accusations against Jesus credible – he was no insurrectionist! The religious establishment of Jerusalem will not be satisfied and they will persist in their appeal to Pilate.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, March 27, 2013 Read – Luke 22:1-38 We have now reached the end of the story. It is important to note that at this point all four gospels converge to tell essentially that same story. That has led many interpreters to the belief that a “Passion Narrative” precedes any of our present gospels, including Mark. That is likely to be the case – whether or not this “Passion Narrative” was a written source or only the oral telling of the most significant part of the story of Jesus. Having said that, it is important also to say that each of the four gospel writers has significantly shaped the story in his own way. If the theory that Mark is the first gospel writer, and that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as one of their sources is true, then it is also important to notice that Luke has once again significantly edited Mark. Luke’s gospel differs so significantly at points that some interpreters have hypothesized that Luke is using additional sources along with Mark. That may be the case, but it is impossible to make that determination. It is possible that Luke had only Mark at his disposal and that the changes are his working with Mark and do not come from elsewhere. We have been witness to Luke’s substantial editing all along the way and to see Luke doing that here is not unusual. In the end it really does not matter. At any rate it seems evident that Luke is still using Mark as the skeleton for his narrative. Mark tells us that is was now two days before the Passover (Mark 14:1). Luke drops out the reference to two days and says that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was drawing near (Luke 22:1). Neither of these changes is really all that significant – the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread refer ultimately to the same event. Luke joins Mark in pointing out that the chief priests and scribes were seeking a way to kill Jesus but that they are unable to do so because the people support Jesus. At this point in the story Mark tells of Jesus being anointed for his burial by a woman at the house of a leper named Simon (Mark 14:3-9). Luke omits this story – likely because he has already told a version of the story of a woman anointing Jesus feet with her tears in the house of a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:36-50). Because Luke omits this story at this time the effect in Luke’s narrative is that Luke joins the desire of the chief priests and scribes to kill Jesus with the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Only Luke tells us that Satan had entered into Judas and thus is the real force behind the betrayal (Luke 22:3). Luke also tells us that Judas was looking for an “opportune time” to do his deed – a remark that recalls how Luke ended the story of the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the desert. There Satan was said to leave Jesus until an “opportune time” (Luke 4:13). There has been much speculation regarding the motives of Judas – none of the gospel writers give an explicit reason why he did what he did – for Luke, Judas is mostly a tragic character – others will implicate Judas as being greedy. For the most part Luke follows Mark in his account of the preparation for the Passover. As for Mark, the story recalls Jesus making arrangement for his entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Luke does add one interesting touch to the story – he alone tells us it was Peter and John who Jesus sends to make the arrangement (Luke 22:8). It is in the telling of the events of the eating of the Passover that Luke differs most from Mark – and Matthew who follows Mark closely. First of all Luke does not identify that there is a betrayer in their midst until after they had eaten – Mark reveals this information as the meal begins (Mark 14:18). Only Luke tells of Jesus’ intense desire to eat this Passover and of his prophesy that he will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:15-16). The fact is that in Luke’s telling of the story Jesus does not eat. As the meal itself begins Luke tells us that Jesus took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to his disciples to divide among themselves – again Jesus does not drink but says that he will not drink of his cup until the kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:17-18). Only Luke tell us of this first cup which is followed by the bread. Following the cup Luke tells of Jesus taking bread, giving thank, breaking it and giving it to his disciples to eat, saying to them “This is my body” – these are words that are also found in Mark. Luke, however, has added words to Mark’s account – Luke’s exact words are, “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19-20). This expansion of Mark’s words sounds a lot like the words found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 where Paul tells the Corinthians that he is passing on the tradition regarding the Lord’s Supper that he received. This one of those places interpreters point to as evidence of another source than Mark. Perhaps that source is only in the memory of Luke who picked it up in his experience of the Lord’s Supper – an event that happened very early within the life of the church. Next Luke tells of Jesus taking a cup after the supper and giving it to his disciples to drink – thus following the pattern he found in Mark. How are we to understand all of this? What is this business of two cups? Perhaps the best way to understand it is to reflect upon the experience of the Passover – in the Passover four cups of wine are used. So, it is possible that Jesus spoke twice in regard to the cup. Where Luke received that information is impossible to determine but the scenario is possible – and it may be that Luke has indeed used a source other than Mark – after all he told us in his introduction that he was aware of what others had written. In Luke’s gospel it is only after the supper has finished that Jesus reveals that a betrayer is at hand. Mark had let that word out early in the night. Luke’s words are similar to Mark’s though only Luke tells of the reality that the Son of goes as has been determined but woe to the man who betrays him (Luke 22:21-23). The response of the disciples in Mark carries with it an implied negative response. They all say, “Certainly it is not I.” In Luke the response is far more tentative and it seems all of them know they are vulnerable and that they might be the betrayer. In Luke’s version of the story the betrayer is never identified during the meal – it is only at the moment of betrayal at Gethsemane that it becomes clear that it is Judas. Luke inserts a very interesting section into his gospel at this point. Actually it is something he found in Mark. Mark had spoken much earlier in the story, right after the last time Jesus predicted his death and James and John misunderstand and seek the seats of honor in the kingdom (Mark 10:42-45) – material that Luke had omitted at that time. Luke tells us that a dispute broke out among the disciples at the close of the Passover meal regarding who was the greatest among them – the same problem faced in Mark at that point when James and John claimed the best seats. The words in Luke come right out of the culture of that time – Gentile who lord it over others who are called “benefactors” – benefactors were wealthy people who got others to do their bidding by providing for their living. These wealthy ones really didn’t contribute anything to the society except perhaps a job for some with less – they maintained their high status and the expense of all those around them. The landholder in the parable who sent his son to receive a share may well have been such a benefactor. The Jewish people despised all benefactors – Herod having been both a benefactor to others and in tow to his benefactor, Caesar. Jesus says that the greatest in his kingdom is the one who is servant to all. Once again Luke’s warning about the threat of wealth comes to mind. Luke backs up the words he found in Mark by more words he found in “Q” – Matthew shares these words in a different context in his gospel. Jesus tells his followers that there are indeed appointed to a kingdom and that they shall rule over the twelve tribes in that kingdom – but their rule will be one of grace and benevolence since they will rule as Jesus rules. In Luke’s account Jesus predicted Peter’s denial while they are still at the place of the Passover before they leave for the Mount of Olives. Mark will tell this story after they have arrived there. While it seems clear that Luke has the same event in mind, he has greatly expanded upon the theme and made the story far more ominous. Luke’s skill as a writer shines. Only Luke tells us of Satan’s demand to sift Simon like wheat (Luke 22:31) and as readers we are immediately reminded of Judas and Satan. Only Luke told of Satan’s involvement in Judas’ actions. Will the same thing happen to Simon as to Judas? Luke draws Peter and Judas closer together than any other gospel writer and in the process reminds all of us readers that we are like both Peter and Judas – we have some of each within us. Though Jesus’ words to Peter are ominous they are hopeful – Jesus says that even though Peter will fail that after he has returned he will strengthen his brothers. Only Luke gives this assurance. The familiar words regarding the fact that before the cock crows in the morning Peter will have denied Jesus three times agree with Mark’s account. Before they leave for the Mount of Olives Luke will tell us of one more mysterious event – only Luke tells us about this. Jesus reminds his disciples that they were without need when they were sent on their missionary journey – they were to have no provision along with them. Now Jesus tells them no provision will be made – in fact those who have no sword are to sell their outer garment to buy one. What could Jesus possibly mean by that? So much for non-violence? Luke’s quote from Isaiah 53:12 provides the clue – the suffering servant in Isaiah will be numbered among the transgressors – so must Jesus and the possession of swords will accomplish that. As Jesus is arrested the sword will be used and evidence will be provided to Jesus’ accusers that he is indeed among those who transgress.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Read – Luke 21:1-38 With Jesus’ question regarding how the Messiah could be both David’s Lord and David’s son the dispute between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem comes to an end. While we have noted that Luke has basically been following Mark there are a few things that we should note about how Luke has edited his source. First of all Luke has transferred the responsibility for the dispute squarely upon the religious establishment in Jerusalem and away from the Pharisees. Jesus has disputed with the Pharisees in the past but Luke has characterized that dispute as at least somewhat friendly. Jesus has eaten with many Pharisees. Once the scene moves to Jerusalem the Pharisees disappear and the far more hostile religious establishment of the chief priests, scribes, and principle men of the city are the antagonists. Secondly, Luke has transformed the dispute to demonstrate that what is really happening is that Jesus is reclaiming the turf. Jesus is not against Jerusalem but only against the religious establishment and he “takes back” the main site of Jewish faith. Third, along with this is Luke’s transforming the story in such a way that the Temple remains a positive place. For all intents a purposes Mark’s Jesus comes to destroy the Temple – it has become irrelevant – Luke’s Jesus knows that the Temple will indeed be destroyed but that will be a great tragedy. Luke’s Jesus deeply laments the rejection of Jerusalem and the consequent destruction that will result. All of these differences might be rather subtle but they do shade the story – and they probably provide part of the answer to why Luke decided to write an “orderly account” in order to proclaim the truth as he understood it. Luke is not critical of Mark – he just knows that another voice is needed. Both Mark and Luke are right in their proclamation. Once the controversy has come to silence Mark provides his readers with a great contrast between the religious leaders who love to appear as righteous and of high standing but actually devour widows through their self-righteousness and a poor widow who actually fulfills true righteousness by giving all she has into the Temple treasury – the very institution that is devouring her. For the most part Luke simply follows Mark with little change. Mark had a way of lifting up many of the “unnamed” people as worthy examples of true discipleship. That technique has been less important for Luke – but this woman certainly is such a character for him too. Luke has told stories of wealthy people who are invited to “sell all they have, give to the poor, and come and follow Jesus” – this woman does exactly that. She and Zacchaeus are Luke’s prime witness about how to handle wealth. Luke has actually dealt with some of this material regarding the woe against the religious establishment earlier in his gospel in the chapter 11. There he weaved bits of material from here in Mark’s gospel with more material he found in “Q” – at this point in Matthew’s story he presents and extended discussion of the woes against the Pharisees that sounds a lot like Luke 11. One of the most important events that happened in the last two thirds of the first century was the Jewish revolt and subsequent war against the Romans – 66-70 AD. That war was the result of a long period of frustration for the Jewish people that had been brewing since at least the reign of Herod the Great. Herod was the puppet of Rome and deeply despised. Following his death and the emergence of his sons as rulers and eventually the Roman governors of Judea the situation did not get better but rather became worse and worse. Eventually something had to happen and the Jewish War was the final straw. It was a foolish move on the part of the Jews – they had no chance to win – however their resolve was fed in some ways by “messianic fervor” on the part of some who thought that if they acted God would deliver them. It was a desperate time. The material that is sometimes referred to as the “synoptic apocalypse” which is found in the thirteenth chapter of Mark, the twenty-first chapter of Luke, and the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew is all about this event. In fact, a good case can be made that the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was one of the catalysts that spurred Mark to write his gospel – it may not have been the main motivation for Mark but likely was one of them. The Jewish War and its outcome which resulted in the total destruction of the Temple caused a great crisis within Judaism. What does it mean for Judaism to have lost its center? How is the faith to go forward? The aftermath of the Jewish War saw the annihilation of the religious establishment in Jerusalem – the Sadducees disappear from history as do the rebellious Zealots. The Chief Priests and the High Priest no longer have any power. Only the Pharisees and the Christians remain – and we do need to remember that at that time Christianity was still at heart a form of Judaism. Mark’s answer was to make the claim that the most important event in the first century was not the Jewish War but the death and resurrection of Jesus that happen about thirty years before that war. For Mark, the crucifixion of Jesus marked the end of the Temple – the curtain is torn in two and God is set loose in the world through the risen Jesus. Each of the gospel writers needed to deal with the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. For the most part John simply ignores it. But Mark addresses it squarely in chapter thirteen and as a consequence Luke and Matthew who use Mark as their main source must also address it. Of course Mark cannot tell the story as a “current event” within the “storyline” of his gospel. So the event it told as a prediction of what is to happen – and there is every reason to believe that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. That Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem is not much in question – anyone could see that coming. How to explain what happened and why is a deeper issue and Mark is the first to take it on. It is likely that Mark wrote his gospel during or just shortly after the Jewish War and that Mark seems convinced that the war and the destruction of the Temple was a sign of the impending end of all things and the promised return of Jesus in the clouds of heaven. Interpreters of Mark have long sought how to deal with the words of Jesus recorded by Mark in which Jesus says, “This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mark 13:30). Did Jesus get it wrong? Or, did Mark? What did Jesus mean? We will get to Luke’s dealing with this issue later. In fact, now that we have set the stage for the discussion, it will be helpful to look more closely at how Luke edits Mark’s story to make it his own. Actually Luke had already begun to deal with this matter earlier in his gospel. In the seventeenth chapter Luke told us that the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming and Jesus told them “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20-21). These words are found only in Luke! He is already dealing with what he found in Mark 13. At that point in the story Luke tells us that Jesus goes on explain further to his disciples about all of this warning them about those who say of the coming Son of Man, “Lo, here!” or “Lo, there!” since the coming of the Son of Man will as obvious as “the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other” (Luke 17:24). Luke does not share Mark’s perception that the destruction of the Temple is a sign of the promised coming of the Son of Man. As we return now to Mark 13, the first thing to observe is that while Luke is obviously using Mark as his source he also makes significant changes. First of all Jesus makes his declaration within the Temple itself and not from the Mount of Olives as Mark has it (Mark 13:3). This has more to do with Luke’s appreciation for the Temple but it already says something about what Luke intends. The disciples are not the audience for Jesus’ words in Luke – an unspecified group within the Temple is. This is no private speech to the insiders as it is in Mark but for all to hear. To be fair to Mark he does warn against listening to false prophets who will lead many astray – Mark sees these things as the “beginning of the suffering” and not the end itself (Mark 13:6-8). Significantly though, Luke does not see these things as the beginning of anything! – he leaves out Mark’s words about that (Luke 21:8-11). When Mark arrives at was for him the crux of the matter – the “desolating sacrelige” – Luke changes to a description of Jerusalem “surrounded by armies” (Mark 13:14 compared to Luke 21:20). The “desolating sacrilege” was a code word that linked back to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC which led to the Maccabean Revolt. While that story is not found directly in our Bible we hear of it in the vision of Daniel which are about that very event in 168 BC (Daniel 9:27 & 12:11). Mark saw this as a clear sign that the end was about to happen. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was almost certainly what Mark is referring to as the “desolating sacrilege” – and Luke certainly takes it that way by making it even more evident – but Luke also removes the destruction of Jerusalem as a sign of the end – it is just part of what happens in this world! While Mark tells us that the tribulation will be so great that if God had not shortened those days the whole world would be lost (Mark 13:19-20), Luke sees the destruction of Jerusalem as the outpouring of God’s wrath which will lead to the unspecified “time of the Gentiles” – a time that Luke likely envisioned as lasting for awhile (Luke 21:23-24). Of course Luke would be amazed that almost 2000 years have gone by! – but his subtle dealing with Mark does demonstrate that he is not willing to view the destruction of the Temple as the sign of the end. Luke omits Mark’s further warning at this point not to be led astray by false prophets (Mark 13:21-23). When he picks Mark up again, Mark is speaking of the radical events in nature that mark the coming “Day of the Lord” which Mark used to bring that whole tradition from the OT into his account. This language sound a lot like Luke’s contention that the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning lighting up the sky. These signs are the genuine ones that will be evident to all that the promised coming of the Son of Man is indeed being fulfilled. One could make an argument that this is what Jesus actually said when questioned by his disciples and that Mark is the one who mistakenly associated the destruction of the Temple with the immediate end. A case can be made that this is what Luke has done. That Jesus will return as promised is not in question either for Luke or for Mark – Jesus did promise exactly that. It is the perception of the meaning of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that is at question. Because Mark had now moved to the “day of the Lord” material, Luke can retain Mark’s declaration of Jesus that “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mark 13:30-31 = Luke 21:32-33). Perhaps Mark was also leaving a way out since his final comments are “of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father in heaven” (Mark 13:32). Luke omits Mark’s “parable” of the owner of the house who leaves his servants in charge and commands them to watch for his return (Mark 13:33-37). This is one more subtle way in which Luke has moved away from thinking of the return of Jesus as immediate – Luke would not be opposed to watching, but the need in not immediate. Luke has used some of this material from Mark 13:32-33 elsewhere in his gospel (Mark 13:33-34 = Luke 19:12-13; Mark 13:35 = Luke 12:40; and Mark 13:36-37 = Luke 12:38). The point is that Luke envisions at least a somewhat longer period of time elapsing before the promised return of Jesus that Mark does. As if in anticipation of the lengthened time, Luke sums up this section by warning his readers not to be “weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, that the day come upon you suddenly, like a snare for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth” (Luke 21:34-35). Only those who expect an extended time need such a warning. Luke has modified Mark’s view but he has retained the fact that an end will come. That is what is most important! Luke concludes with words that bring us back to the present time. He tells us that Jesus spend every day in the Temple teaching the many who came to hear (Luke 21:37-38).

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, March 25, 2013 Read – Luke19:45-20:47 Luke continues to use Mark as the skeleton of his story. What one notices is that Luke has made significant changes to the details of these stories. All four gospel writers tell the story of Jesus driving the sellers from the Temple. John places this episode near the very beginning of his gospel (John 2:13-17). That has led some to suppose that Jesus did this twice. That judgment is based on the belief that the gospel writers are really attempting to record the “history” of Jesus much like a news reporter. If it is true, as I have argued, that we really don’t know the exact ordering of things and that each gospel writer has created their own “storyline” the need to claim that Jesus must have cleansed the Temple twice disappears. I hope that our observation that Luke has significantly reordered Mark at times presents convincing evidence to support my view. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter – however I think that forcing the gospel writers to act like news reporters and holding them accountable to present chronological facts in proper order does violence to the word of scripture. We end up making writers say what they did not say in order to satisfy our preconceived notions. Better thinking about what the inspiration of scripture really means would be helpful. In this section Luke significantly changes Mark. The actual telling of the driving of the sellers from the Temple takes one verse for Luke – at most two (Luke 19:45 or 19:45-46) Mark takes three verses (Mark 11:15-17) and besides that Mark surrounds the episode with the strange story of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-21). The whole episode of the fig tree is missing in Luke – he simply drops it out. Mark had also separated Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem from his cleansing of the Temple. Mark says Jesus entered Jerusalem and the Temple and then went to spend the night and return on the next day to cleanse the Temple (Mark 11:11). Luke compresses the entry into Jerusalem and the driving out of the sellers to one event – Jesus enters Jerusalem and goes directly to the Temple and drives out the sellers (Luke 19:45). You may have noticed that I have been referring to Mark’s version as a “cleansing of the Temple” and simply reported that Luke says Jesus “drove out the sellers.” Mark’s version is far more violent – Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers and sets the birds loose. Jesus does not even let anyone carry an item through the Temple area (Mark 11:15-16). Luke doesn’t mention any of this – only that Jesus drove out the sellers. Each looks at this episode with a different point of view. For Mark this is really a cleansing – in fact a destruction of the Temple – the episode of the withering, dead fig tree highlights that view. For Luke, all that is needed is a purification of the Temple – the Temple itself remains precious for Luke. The followers of Jesus will end Luke’s gospel daily in the Temple and the book of Acts will begin by being centered on the Temple. Luke knows the Temple will eventually be destroyed but for him that is a tragic occurrence. Luke began his gospel with faithful Zechariah in the Temple. Mary and Joseph went to the Temple to have Jesus circumcised and to offer the proper sacrifice for Mary’s cleansing. Jesus went there as a twelve year old and called it his Father’s house. The Temple is not a negative thing for Luke. Mark sees things much differently – the Temple must go because it has become a perversion of God’s way in the world. Both Mark and Luke have their reasons for their point of view – and we need to let each speak. Luke does retain Mark’s words of Jesus combining Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. And Luke is well aware that Jesus’ actions lead the chief priests and the scribes – Luke adds to Mark “the principle men of the people” – to decide that Jesus must be killed (Luke 19:46-48). Luke does not dispute the fact that Jesus’ actions are the cause of the rejection he will now suffer – but remember, Luke sees this as the visitation of God to his people and the tragic mistake that they make in not welcoming God. Malachi 3:1-3 echoes in the background of Luke’s story as we noted earlier. Following the strange episode of the disciples asking Jesus about the withered fig tree, Mark tells his readers that Jesus avoids answering their question and instead tells them that if they have faith they can tell a mountain to be taken up and cast into the sea. We noted earlier that Luke had related a somewhat different version of this episode (Luke 17:6) and he omits it here. Following Mark, Luke now relates the struggle that unfolds as the Messiah comes to the Temple. It is really important that we notice that all of the episodes in Luke take place within the Temple – Jesus has purified it and claimed it! Luke does not make significant changes to Mark in any of these stories – with one exception – in Luke the Pharisees are never mentioned! The first episode addresses the heart of the matter – who is in authority? This is a question of turf – whose turf is it? In one way this is clearly the turf of the chief priest and elders since they run the place. But in a real way Jesus is reclaiming the turf. The tactic used by the chief priests with the elders and their scribes is to ask Jesus a question in hopes of getting him to convict himself before the Roman law. Jesus skillfully avoids the trap and the question with a question of his own about John the Baptist. Round one goes to Jesus. Now Jesus tells the parable of the wicked tenants. This is another of those places where Luke may have been “playing” with a parable to let it say something quite different from the intention of his source, Mark. Jesus is telling this parable to the people in Luke’s gospel. It’s a story about an absent landholder who seeks to get his money from the tenants. The story reflects a real situation of that time. Absentee landlords had swallowed up most of the land. Tenants had once held that land but had been forced through corrupt practices to lose it to these absentee landlords. So, the hearers of the parable may well have sided with the tenants in the story – very different from us who naturally side with the landlord. When the question is asked what the landlord will do to these tenants and the verdict is delivered that he will destroy them and give the vineyard to others, the crowd cries out, “God forbid!” (Luke 20:16). What a strange response! Only Luke has this response in his gospel. It does make one wonder. If Luke was in fact “playing” with the parable he likely was not fully successful. The allegorical interpretation simply demands that God is the landlord, Jesus is the son, and the tenants are the villains. There is just no other way to hear the story – so perhaps Luke wasn’t “playing” after all. It is at least interesting to ponder whether Luke has a double meaning going on, though. One can imagine the hearers thinking one thing – that Jesus is going to justify the tenants – only to have it suddenly dawn on them that the parable works in a completely different way – and they will need to adjust their thinking to fit that interpretation. At any rate, as in Mark, the religious leaders, who are apparently overhearing the parable, get that its meaning is directed against them. Psalm 118:22-23 echoes in the background of this parable as does the famous story in Isaiah 5 where Israel is compared to God’s vineyard – a vineyard that does not produce good grapes. Psalm 80 also echoes the story of the vineyard and we ought to read all of these verses in this context. The battle is engaged again as Jesus is confronted with the question – “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Mark had said that it was the Pharisees and Herodians who asked the question (Mark 12:13). Luke does not mention the Pharisees and identifies the questioners as spies (Luke 20:20). As with Mark, Luke knows that these questioners are not sincere – they are attempting to trap Jesus. They think they have the ideal question – if Jesus answers, “Yes, it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar” the whole nation would have been against him. Had Jesus answered, “No, it is not lawful to pay taxes to Caesar” the spies would have had evidence to hand Jesus over to the Romans as an insurrectionist. Jesus avoids the question, turning it back on those who ask it. And we are left to think for ourselves – what does it mean to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s? Round two goes to Jesus. Luke agrees with Mark that the questioners in the third encounter are Sadducees – those who do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. That the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead is well verified from other historical sources such as Josephus. The Sadducees were of the wealthy class of people and those who ran the Temple. From their members came the high priest and all the other priests. The Pharisees were laymen. Historically there was a constant battle between the Pharisees and Sadducees – they did not like each other. The Sadducees were the ones who collaborated with Rome in order to maintain power. They had much to lose if violence broke out against Rome and they would have been desperate to have Jesus handed over to the Romans. In fact, when the Jewish War of 66-70 AD ended, the Sadducees disappear from history – they lost everything. Only the Pharisees continued and they went through a major transformation following the war. Actually, the Christians were also a Jewish “sect” at their beginning so one might say that only Pharisaic Jews and Christian Jews survived the war. As in the previous story, the Sadducees think they have the perfect case with which to ridicule Jesus. They suggest a ridiculous case of a woman who winds up being married to seven brothers, following the law of Levirite Marriage (Deuteronomy 35:5-6). Jesus’ answer is more straightforward this time – using the scriptures of the Sadducees, Jesus argues that the resurrection is not simply a continuation of this world but a whole new world and that God has shown himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who are all understood to be still alive in God’s kingdom though they have all died in this world. Round three goes to Jesus. At this point Luke omits Mark’s story about the man who comes to ask Jesus what is the greatest commandment. Luke has already told that story (Luke 10:25-28) and does not repeat it here. Once again we see Luke’s freedom in reordering Mark. Luke picks up Mark again with the next story of controversy – Jesus initiates this conflict. The issue is how the Messiah can be both David’s Lord and David’s son. We have lived so long with the thought that Jesus is the Son of God that we have a difficult time perceiving the conflict in this story. The issue was important in that time since some thought of the Messiah as only a human agent of God. Therefore it would be easy to think of the Messiah as David’s son – but not so easy to think of the Messiah as David’s lord. Yet, Psalm 110, which was thought by everyone to have been written by David, has the words, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand…” Christians over time reinterpreted much of the scripture hearing it is light of the Messiah Jesus, the Son of God. Don Juel has written an excellent book regarding this reinterpretation titled, “Messianic Exegesis” for those who would like to read more about this. It will be better if we comment about the last few verses in our reading today in connection with the story of the widow who put her whole living into the Temple treasury.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, March 24, 2013 Read – Luke 19:28-44 All four gospel writers tell the story of Jesus entry into Jerusalem in words that are strikingly similar. We have not mentioned the gospel of John very much since most of John’s story is not found in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). From this point on the story in all four gospels begins to converge. Lest we think that they all tell the same story however, we need to be watching for the modifications. Luke is basically following Mark. The first part of the story relates how Jesus sent two of his disciples into the town to fetch a donkey for Jesus to ride in a procession into Jerusalem. This is not the first time Luke tells us that Jesus sent disciples ahead to prepare the way. We need to recall the sending of disciples into the village of the Samaritans when Jesus began the journey (Luke 9:52). It appears in all the gospel stories that Jesus has made arrangements ahead of time with the owner of the donkey – though all four gospel writers also want to picture Jesus has a prophet who keeps his word. The story is a bit ambiguous. Once the donkey is secured Jesus begins his journey into Jerusalem. He would have come over the top of the mountain and looked down upon the city. Even the today the view is spectacular. The site is the Mount of Olives and that is significant for the story. The prophet Zechariah had prophesied of the coming day when the Messiah’s feet would stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4-5). In Zechariah’s vision the mountain is split in two as a cataclysmic sign of the impending “Day of the Lord.” That does not happen in the story however the recollection of Zechariah’s words is important. It was also Zechariah who prophesied that the Messiah would come riding on a lowly donkey (Zechariah 9:9). The gospel writers, Luke included, want their readers to be mindful of these words. Only Matthew specifically quotes from Zechariah at this point – the others are content only to make a clear allusion. We are so used to thinking of the cutting and spreading of palm branches in this story that we might be surprised to see the Luke leaves that part out. We will learn soon enough why Luke has done that. Luke joins the others in telling about the crowd travelling with Jesus removing their outer garments and spreading them on the road. In a symbolic gesture they are divesting themselves of their symbols of status. The whole event may also recall the enthronement of Solomon as king (1 Kings 1:33-35) and of Jehu’s rise to power (2 Kings 9:13). Finally, the words of Psalm 118 are ringing through the air – “Blessed be the king who comes in the name of the Lord” (Psalm 118:26). And Luke’s readers immediately recall the lament over Jerusalem of Jesus spoken long ago on the journey – “And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Luke 13:35). The words of Jesus are coming true. The next words in the story are uniquely from Luke and they are words that recall the previous experience when some Pharisees came to warn Jesus about Herod (Luke 13:31). Once again Pharisees arrive bidding Jesus to stop what he is doing. Our immediate impression is that these Pharisees are enemies of Jesus and their rebuke is meant as a hostile affront. That may in fact be the case – but there is at least another possibility and that is that these Pharisees meant well and their actions were really meant to protect Jesus. We are so used to thinking of Pharisees as the “bad guys” that we have a hard time imagining any of them as well motivated. Perhaps what was really going on what that the Pharisees recognized just how offensive the actions of Jesus were toward the Roman authorities and the powers that be in Jerusalem. They recognized what Jesus was doing – he was coming as the long awaited Messiah – and by doing that Jesus put himself at great risk. It is worth noting that Luke will not include the Pharisees in any of the attacks against Jesus in Jerusalem – it will be the other religious leaders, the chief priests, the scribes and the Sadducees, who do the attacking and the convicting and the handing of Jesus over to death. Whether the Pharisees were hostile or not in their warning of Jesus, Jesus will have none of it. From at least Luke 9:51 we have known that Jesus was resolute about fulfilling the destiny God had ordained for him – a destiny that had been revealed by Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration – the “exodus” that Jesus was to accomplish in Jerusalem (Luke 9:28-31). Once again Jesus breaks forth in lament over Jerusalem. With weeping voice Luke’s Jesus describes almost exactly the scene of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem as Josephus will describe it years later. The Romans cast a bank up around Jerusalem to prevent anyone from either coming in or going out. In the end few survived the siege – they were dashed to the ground and even children were killed in the slaughter. And not one stone of the Temple area was left on top of another – Jesus would say those words later and it would lead him to be asked when this would happen. It is very likely that Luke wrote after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD at the end of the Jewish War of 66-70AD. These words and this description are found only in Luke. And most significant of all the words in the lament of Jesus are the concluding words – “because you did not know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:44). No more passionate and painful words have ever been spoken by Jesus. Luke has been proclaiming the gospel of Jesus as the visitation of God to his people – the gathering of the people of God under God’s wings – but they would not! We noticed before that Luke left out the palm branches – they were a sign of joy – but there is no joy in the visitation. It is not the time for palm branches according to Luke. There are a few OT passages that are alluded to in this scene. The visitation of God to his people and to his Temple recalls the words of Malachi 3:1-2. These words will also be appropriate to recall when Jesus enters the Temple to drive out the money changers. Jeremiah 6:6-21, 8:18-21, 15:5, and 23:38-40 sound the same passion of God upon the destruction of the first Temple by the Babylonians. It is likely that Luke was aware of those words too. This was the second destruction of the Temple – both events were filled with pain. Psalm 137 and Isaiah 29:3-10 speak the same language as we find here. Luke and the people of that day had resources to recall as they reflected on the fate of Jerusalem. For Luke, the whole scene is not a joyful entry – it is the painful approach of the Messiah who knows that he will not be welcomed – Israel does not know the time of God’s visitation.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, March 23, 2013 Read – Isaiah 59 Once again it is with harsh words that Isaiah laments the unfaithfulness of God’s people. Perhaps there is little in this chapter that helps us in our understanding of Luke’s gospel. At best we are made aware again of just how difficult it is for God to gather his people under his wings. Luke has portrayed the ministry of Jesus as the visitation of God to his people. God comes to save. But Israel is not open to the visitation of God. We are soon to hear Luke’s story of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem – an event we have come to know as Palm Sunday. It is with anticipation that the crowds following Jesus must have made their way up the steep approach to Jerusalem from Jericho. Jericho is about 800 feet below sea level. Jerusalem is about 2500 feet above sea level. The distance is about 13 miles. The journey was not easy. Jesus was resolute in his desire to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). Now he is about to arrive. His destiny is set by God. As Simeon put it, that destiny will mean the rise and fall of many in Israel. Like Isaiah, the Messiah will confront the rejection of God – but also the reception of those who are faithful.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, March 22, 2013 Read – Isaiah 58 I suspect that Luke liked Isaiah 58 – especially the words regarding the fast that God takes delight in. The first part of the chapter reflects upon the possibility that religious practice and ritual can actually lead us astray. Doing the right religious things and thinking that somehow the doing of them will suffice does not work. It’s not about fasting! Rather it is about caring for the poor – “loosing the bonds of injustice, undoing the thong of the yoke, letting the oppressed go free, breaking the yoke, sharing our bread with the hungry, and our homes with the homeless, covering the naked” (Isaiah 58:6-7). When God’s people do these things then the light of God shines in the world. This theme, of course, is also found in the words Jesus quoted in the Nazareth synagogue from Isaiah 61. In fact, Jesus reached back and grabbed the idea of letting the “oppressed go free” from this chapter. This is the ministry of Jesus in a fallen world. And this is the ministry that Jesus calls his church to center itself upon. We are invited to reflect upon our own lives and the ministry of our church as we hear these words of Isaiah, Luke, and Jesus.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, March 21, 2013 Read – Isaiah 57 Isaiah 57 is a harsh chapter to read. We would just as soon skip it – something I almost decided to do. Isaiah has these glowing visions of the coming Messiah and the victory of God. He also is aware of the hostility of people toward God. As we hear words like these we are reminded of the lament of Jesus over Jerusalem. How often God would gather his people under his wing but they will not be gathered. There is a mystery in the will of humanity – a mystery we all share. There are times when we don’t want to listen to God either. As Lutherans we often speak of Law and Gospel. The Law is that which accuses and kills. The Gospel is that which brings what is dead to life. As people we need to hear both Law and Gospel. In fact it was Luther’s contention that we cannot hear Gospel until we have heard Law. Only the dead can be raised to new life. Of course we can hear Law without Gospel. Such hearing of the Law does us little good – unless it prepares us to hear the Gospel which is that God and God alone can give us life. We are hearing mostly Law in today’s reading. We hear it with one ear open to hear the Gospel of Jesus. Isaiah speaks true words in chapter 57. They are words that put to death. They are words that prepare us to hear the Good News of the Messiah who brings the dead to life.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, March 20, 2013 Read – Isaiah 56 We have noticed Luke’s concern for the outcast and the poor. Several times Samaritans have been lifted up as good examples of those who are welcomed by Jesus. The theme of Isaiah 56 sounds a similar word – foreigners and eunuchs who were once restrained from participation among God’s people are welcomed. Luke shared Isaiah’s vision of the welcome of all people into God’s kingdom. Perhaps some of Luke’s vision comes from his reading of Isaiah. Though this is certainly an emphasis of Luke it is not absent from the other gospel writers and was surely something that was important to Jesus. When we speak of it as Luke’s concern we should not think that he has moved beyond Jesus – Jesus is the one who welcomed outcast and sinners. We can be thankful to Luke for highlighting what Jesus has already done. Incidentally, it is from this chapter of Isaiah that Jesus quoted the words, “My house shall be a house of prayer” as he drove the money changers out of the Temple. We will need to talk more about that when we get to that part of the story in Luke’s gospel. As we hear Jesus, Luke, and Isaiah we need to reflect upon the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of our own churches. Do we welcome the outcast and the sinner? Or, are we plagued with the judgmentalism that has so often lived within church people? Today is a good day for self-reflection.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, March 19, 2013 Read – Isaiah 55 We have noticed how Luke is dependent upon the Prophet Isaiah for his understanding of the Messiah. At the inauguration of the ministry of Jesus Luke tells the story of Jesus reading from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth and claiming that Isaiah’s words have been fulfilled today in the coming of Jesus (Luke 4:16-21). When John the Baptist sent messengers to ask if Jesus was the coming Messiah or if they should look for another Jesus tells the messengers to go and tell John what they see and hear – the blind receive their sight, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor have good news proclaimed to them (Luke 7:18-23). These are the things Isaiah envisioned would happen when the Messiah arrived. Clearly Isaiah was important for Luke and for the early Christians. We are going to take a few days to hear more from Isaiah. Today we look at Isaiah 55. We have noticed Luke’s concern about the threat of wealth – that concern is echoed in the words of Isaiah today – “Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread?” (Isaiah 55:2). Isaiah invites his hearers to trust in God – and in God’s word. Luke has been proclaiming God’s word to his readers and we can be assured that as Isaiah puts it that word of God will not return empty to God – it will accomplish its purpose. Our study of God’s word works that way in our lives – the more we put into it the more we get in return. Reading the Bible is not easy. It takes work and diligent study – investigation of the world in which the Bible was written and close analysis of the writers. We have God’s promise that our work will not be left empty – God will bless it.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, March 18, 2013 Read – Luke 19:11-27 Luke tells us one more parable before Jesus makes his way up the mountain and into Jerusalem. This is a parable he shares with Matthew – he found it in his “Q” source. Matthew tells the parable much later in his gospel, at the end of the controversy stories in Jerusalem just prior to the death of Jesus (Matthew 25:14-30). We know Matthew’s version of the parable better because it is much clearer. It is obvious that Luke has been “playing” with this parable and it may be that Luke has edited it to say the opposite of Matthew! If we listen to the way in which Luke tells the story we discover that Luke may not have been approving of the outcome of the parable. Luke has just told us a story about a rich man who is saved. Now, Luke tells us a story about “how the world works” when a rich man entrusts his wealth to others. The rich man in this story is hated by others – only Luke tells us that. Luke sets the context of the story in the near arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem and the expectation that the kingdom of God is soon to arrive too – something that Luke does not fully agree with – the coming of the kingdom of God is far more complicated than simply a victory won by Jesus. We’ll need to wait to talk about that later. For us to fully appreciate Luke’s version of this story we need to hear about an event in history that really caused most Jewish people to be angry. When Herod the Great died he had designated his son, Archelaus, to be his main successor. Josephus tells the story of Archelaus travelling to Rome to receive his kingship upon the death of his father. The people of were so angry with Herod the Great and so fearful that now his son would only continue his oppressive ways that they sent a delegation to Rome to argue before the Emperor that Archelaus should not become king. They succeeded to a point since Archelaus was only given rulership over Judea and his brothers were given rulership over other parts of the country – none was designated king! Antipas, the Herod we know most closely with the story of Jesus was given rulership over Galilee and Philipp was given the lands north of Galilee. There is every reason to believe that the people of Luke’s day remembered these events. And Luke has told this story to remind them of the failed attempt of Archelaus to gain power – only Luke mentions these things in his version of the parable. The “wicked” king comes home. He has entrusted his wealth to others one of whom has multiplied it ten-fold, another five-fold. Actually Luke tells us he had given wealth to ten servants – only three are mentioned in the outcome. The last servant knows just how wicked the king is so, out of fear, he simply kept the wealth and now he is ready to return it – at no loss to the wicked king, but no gain either. He is punished for his prudence and for his fear – and in the end of the story the king is said to put to death those who had opposed his receiving the kingship in the first place. Again, Josephus tells the story of Archelaus crucifying 600 people upon his return. What does all this say about Luke’s use of this parable? Could it be that Luke is not really praising the servants who turned the wealth of the rich king into more wealth? The king does the praising but he is a wicked king! In fact, could it be that Luke is really warning his audience one more time about the threat of wealth – and the awful reality that in this world wealth has power! Wealth can destroy and oppress others. Luke does not end this parable by saying, “Go and do likewise!” Jesus is on his way to face the powers of this world. Jerusalem lies just ahead. Luke has been warning about the threat of wealth and he has just told us a wonderful story of how Jesus can save even a rich man. Could it be that now he once again tells us of the opposite possibility – a rich king who has conniving servants who know “how the world works” and multiply a wicked king’s wealth at the expense of the poor? Could it be that that is why Luke placed this parable here in his gospel? Could it be that our understanding of Matthew’s version of this parable has conditioned us to read Luke’s parable in the wrong way? Something to think about.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, March 17, 2013 Read – Luke 18:31-19:10 We have noted that Luke is once again following Mark. That is true of the next section of his gospel but we need to also notice that Luke has done some serious editing of Mark. In his typical way of putting the disciples in an unfavorable light, Mark paints a picture of Jesus, out in front of his frightened disciples, beckoning them to follow, likely against their will (Mark 10:32). Luke drops this picture and simply reminds his readers that they are going up to Jerusalem – something that Luke has done often. From Luke 9:51 on Luke has constructed a “travel narrative” however not much about the actual journey is told – Luke has had to remind his readers from time to time that they are indeed on a journey to Jerusalem. Mark had constructed a tightly knit unit in which Jesus makes three predictions of his impending betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection in Jerusalem. Each of those predictions had been followed by a story of misunderstanding on the part of the disciples. Luke has retained these three predictions and added three more (Luke 9:22 = Mark 8:31; Luke 9:43-44 = Mark 9:30-32; Luke 12:50 = No parallel in Mark; Luke 13:31-35 = No parallel in Mark; Luke 17:25 = No parallel in Mark; and Luke 18:31-33 = Mark 10:33-34). In the process – and, because his “travel narrative” is so long – Luke has taken the impact of Mark’s construction and nearly obliterated it. The “Passion Predictions” are far more important to Mark than they are to Luke. In fact, Luke uses them to describe what has already happened by the time he has written his gospel. In his typical fashion Mark follows this third and final “Passion Prediction” with a story of misunderstanding on the part of the disciples – James and John ask for the “best seats in the house!” (Mark 10:35-40). Luke drops this story out – likely because it was so negative of the disciples and Luke has consistently attempted put them in a more favorable light than Mark did. But Luke is aware of the story. Following the obnoxious request of James and John, Mark tells of the other disciples grumbling about them – actually they are disappointed that they didn’t think of it first! Jesus strongly rebukes them and tells them that they are acting like “Gentiles” who lord it over others and that such behavior is not appropriate for followers of Jesus – to be great is to be the servant of all. Luke will take these words from Mark and move them to a later point in his gospel during the controversy in Jerusalem (Mark 10:41-44 = Luke 22:24-27). We will need to talk about Luke’s use of this story then. Following Mark, Luke moves directly to the story of giving sight to a blind man at Jericho. Mark had named this man, Bartimeaus, and tells the story just as Jesus is leaving Jericho – the last of Jesus’ actions before he makes the final journey to Jerusalem and the death that awaits him there (Mark 10:46-52). Luke drops out the name and tells his readers the healing of this blind man happened as Jesus was entering Jericho (Luke 18:35). Jesus has more to do in Jericho. Only Luke tells the story of Zaccheaus – it is another of his masterpieces! As we reflect back over Luke’s gospel we are amazed at the many great stories and parables only Luke tells us! Jesus reading from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth, Peter and the great catch of fish, the woman anointing Jesus’ feet with her tears in Simon, the Pharisee’s house, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable of the lost sons, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to name some of the more memorable ones. The story of Zaccheaus joins this group of marvelous stories only Luke tells us. No doubt one of Luke’s goals in writing his gospel was to warn his readers of the threat that wealth presents to people. Most of his warnings have been tragic – the story of Zaccheaus is the last story Luke will tell about the perils of wealth and it is a very positive story. It is clear that Zaccheaus is a rich man! He begins the story as a rich man and there is no reason not to believe that the story ends with Zaccheaus as a rich man – certainly Zacchaeus has less wealth at the end of the story than the beginning but he is still a rich man. When we last heard Luke talking about the threat of wealth we were confronted with the awful truth that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God on his own – but that with God all things are possible. Zaccheaus is proof that God is able to save even rich people! We met a man earlier in Luke’s gospel who earnestly wanted to inherit eternal life but was not able to because when Jesus invited him to sell all that he had and give to the poor and come follow him, the man was not able because he loved his wealth too much – he was possessed by his wealth! He went away sorrowful and Jesus watched him go with a heavy heart – the man was not willing to be gathered under the wings of Jesus. What is different about that man and Zacchaeus? Jesus does not tell Zacchaeus to get rid of all he has – Jesus does not need to because, at the presence of Jesus, Zacchaeus freely abandons his wealth at the pure joy of seeing Jesus. Zaccheaus trusts Jesus and not his wealth. In fact, Zaccheaus goes far beyond what the OT would have required of him. The point is not that it is Zaccheaus’ actions the save him – it is the action of Jesus welcoming Zacchaeus under his wings that saves Zacchaeus! Zacchaeus finds his place in the shelter of the Lord! It’s about trusting Jesus. And in his joy Zacchaeus is free from the power of wealth – he will use it and it will not “use” him. One gets the impression that even if all his wealth was to disappear Zacchaeus would still be filled with joy! The lost has been found – reminiscent of the story of the lost sons!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, March 16, 2013 Read – Luke 18:18-30 Luke has never really left his concern about the threat of wealth in this section of his gospel although that concern has slipped into the background. At this point Luke’s concern about wealth comes into clear and bold focus – this whole story is about the perils of wealth. As we noted yesterday, Luke is now following Mark once again. Luke does not modify Mark to a great extent. Luke’s version is slightly shorter and more tightly written but the point is the same. The story is reminiscent of the lawyer who comes to Jesus seeking eternal life and winds up hearing the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Mark will tell about that man later in his gospel as part of the controversy in Jerusalem (Mark 12:28-34). We have every reason to believe that the man in this story comes with an honest request – he is not trying to trick Jesus but is sincere in his inquiry. That will not be the case in Jerusalem of those who question Jesus. Even when the man claims that he has observed all the commandments from his youth he is not being insincere. He is naïve however, since he fails to recognize that because of his great wealth he has failed to observe the very first and most important commandment of all – “You shall not have any God’s before me.” For Luke, this is an example of how the threat of wealth works – wealth has a way of blinding the wealthy. The same, of course, was true of the rich man in the Lazarus story – he couldn’t really see Lazarus. The man in the story leaves Jesus in sorrow, and in Luke’s version, the sorrow of Jesus is also noted as Luke tells us that Jesus looked at him and loved him. We are reminded of the lament of Jesus regarding Jerusalem – “How often I would have gathered you under my wings as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings but you would not!” This man will not be gathered under wing – his wealth prevents him. Having told the story, Jesus goes on to explain the perils of wealth in terms that are frightening to the disciples and likely to all of Luke’s hearers. “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the Kingdom of God!” “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” Unfortunately, later interpreters of Jesus have tried to explain this saying of Jesus by inventing a so-called camel’s gate through which a camel would crawl through on its knees having been relieved of its burden. Nothing could be further from the truth about this parable. The truth is camels cannot go through the eye of a needle! The invention of stories like the story of the camel’s gate are little more than the attempt of wealthy people trying somehow to find an excuse for their love of wealth! The hearers of Jesus get the point! And the point frightens them – “Then who can be saved?” Of course we all know the answer – “NO ONE!” However, Jesus goes on to say that what is impossible for human beings is possible for God – God can save even rich people – and the story of Zacchaeus that Luke will soon tell will be proof of it! Readers of Luke’s gospel are reminded of the words spoken to Mary when the announcement the coming birth of Jesus was made to her. How can this be? “With God nothing is impossible!” (Luke 1:37).

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, March 15, 2013 Read – Luke 18:9-17 The parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee and the story of Jesus blessing the children which are our reading for today present us with a distinct contrast. That’s probably why Luke joined them together in his gospel. Only Luke tells the parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee at prayer. The previous parable had also been about prayer and the need to not lose heart – to be persistent even though suffering seems contrary to what one might expect within the kingdom of God. We have noticed that prayer is an important part of Luke’s gospel – more important than for any other writer. So what is prayer to be like? The Pharisee represents one idea about prayer – the Tax Collector another. It is interesting that the prayer of the Pharisee resembles the prayer of the psalmist in Psalm 17. In a rather back-handed way the Pharisee is thankful to God that God has led him to the “good life.” He is not without defense from the OT. Can one not be thankful for not having fallen victim to the enticement of sin in this world? On the other hand the Tax Collector’s prayer resembles the prayer of the psalmist in Psalm 51. The point is that both prayers seem to have some relevance in the religious life of Jewish people. Why is one condemned and the other praised? The hook in the parable is that the Pharisee trusted in himself and the Tax Collector trusted in God – and that makes all the difference. The Pharisee has the appearance of righteousness – and appearance turns out to be all there is. Of course this parable has a strange way of grabbing Luke’s readers by the ears and making them painfully aware of human nature – who of us has not thought to ourselves, “Thank God I’m not like that Pharisee”? Ouch, how easy it is to become what we don’t want to become! Luke’s lesson is that prayer is about trusting God. And that leads us to the other story of the day – the story of Jesus blessing the children. Children were the lowest of all people in the society of Jesus time – they were below women and just above slaves. Children were not important. Jesus used children as examples of what it means to be a follower. He will use children again in Luke’s gospel. We do not know why the disciples tried to keep the children from Jesus. All three synoptic gospel writers tell this story. None of the writers tells us the motive of the disciples. Since Mark generally puts the disciples in a negative light it may be that the idea comes from Mark and Luke and Matthew are simply stuck with it – or it may be that the story reflects exactly what happened – which means that we are back to wondering why the disciples reacted as they did. For Luke, placing this story next to the story of the self-righteous Pharisee emphasized the fault of the Pharisee and highlights the rightness of the Tax Collector. We should notice how Luke has softened the story – Jesus does not become indignant with his disciples. We have noticed how Luke continually puts the disciples in a more favorable light than Mark did. Before we leave these two stories it is important for us to notice that Luke has once again picked up Mark as his main source. Luke will continue to follow Mark with modifications for the rest of his gospel. As was mentioned previously, Luke picks up Mark almost exactly where he had left off following him. The one episode that Luke omits is Mark’s story of the Pharisees testing Jesus about divorce. As we noted, Luke has already dealt with divorce in a much shorter context and may have simply chosen to omit Mark to avoid being redundant – or perhaps Luke wanted to omit Mark’s sharp criticism of the Pharisees. Not only does Luke put the disciples in a more favorable light but he also consistently puts the Pharisees in a more favorable light. We will see that trend continue as we move along in Luke’s gospel.