It has already been
noted that Jesus was “proclaiming the Gospel” (20:1) in the Temple courts, thus
provoking the challenge as to His rightful authority to do and say what He was
doing and saying. What was the Gospel?
The recipient of
Luke’s narrative, as well as those that would be the primary audience for his
record of the life and ministry of Jesus, would have already understood that
the Gospel message was that Jesus is the Lord of all (in a world where the
regularly pronounced and well understood gospel message was that Caesar is lord
of all). Backing up into the nineteenth
chapter to find support for the idea that this was part of Jesus’ Gospel
pronouncement (as He was now openly challenging the Temple authorities, and
doing so in a way that would provoke a response by the civil authorities as
well), one reads about Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, in which it was
pronounced “with a loud voice” (19:37), “Blessed is the king who comes in the
name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
(19:38)
To that, Luke adds
that “some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, rebuke Your
disciples.’ He answered, ‘I tell you, if they keep silent, the very
stones will cry out!’” (19:39-40) Here, Jesus allows Himself to be voiced
as the king. By His own words (using rather
obvious hyperbole about the ability of stones to make a point---perhaps an
ironic point about the stones of the Temple itself, which Jesus will soon say
will be “thrown down”?---stones are a recurring theme here in the latter part
of Luke), Jesus indicates that this pronouncement of His Gospel will never
cease.
Quite interestingly,
though the Pharisees (along with the experts in the law) have composed one half
of the chief antagonists to this point in Luke’s telling, they drop out of
sight after this statement. From this point on, the antagonists are only
going to be the chief priests and the experts in the law, with an appearance by
the Sadducees coming later in the twentieth chapter. What is it that
accounts for this turn of events? How is it that the Pharisees, according
to Luke’s presentation, have no hand in the events of the twentieth through
twenty-fourth chapters of Luke?
While the Gospels of
Matthew and John have the Pharisees involved, at some level, in Jesus’ arrest
and execution and the plot to counter the story of the Resurrection, Luke does
not. Neither, for that matter, does Mark. Though one cannot know
precisely why the Pharisees drop out of Mark at a point that is roughly
equivalent to the time that they drop out of Luke (apart from the fact that
Luke is said to rely heavily on Mark in the construction of his narrative), one
can confidently surmise as to the reason why the Pharisees, who have been the
constant companion of the experts in the law, drop out of Luke precisely as the
events that will lead to Jesus arrest and crucifixion begin to unfold.
It is possible that
this has to do with a number of Pharisees, following the Resurrection and in
the formative years of the church, being won to the claims of the Gospel and
joining the growing community of adherents to the covenant rooted in the confession
of Jesus as Lord of all. As it relates to Luke’s work, evidence of this
can be seen in the book of Acts. In the fifteenth chapter of Acts, it is
reported that the Pharisees have a role in the church community, as Luke there
records that “some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed
stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order
them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:5). Though the opinion that would
be rendered by the church council would come to weigh against that opinion, it
does demonstrate that some Pharisees had joined the Jesus movement. This
may serve to explain why Luke withdraws the Pharisees from his narrative at the
point of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.
No comments:
Post a Comment