Calling His Disciples (part 1)

Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.”  They left their nets immediately and followed Him. – Mark 1:17-18  (NET)

With these words, Scripture offers the first report of the call and response of Jesus’ first disciples.  This occurs as Jesus “went along the Sea of Galilee,” where “He saw Simon and Andrew… casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen)” (1:16).  Repeating the thrust text of this study then, “Jesus said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.’  They left their nets immediately and followed Him” (1:17-18).  To these two are quickly added another two, as we read “Going on a little farther, He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending their nets” (1:19). 

This story is also told in two of the other Gospels.  In Matthew it is said that “As He was walking by the Sea of Galilee He saw two brothers, Simon (called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen).  He said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.’  They left their nets immediately and followed Him.  Going on from there He saw two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets.  Then He called them.  They immediately left the boat and their father and followed Him” (4:18-22).  It is unsurprising to find Matthew offering up a bit more information than what is to be found in Mark, as Matthew mentions that James and John are said to be in the boat with their father at the time of their call.  This adds an interesting dimension to the fact of their leaving to follow Jesus, as they are said to have left their father, with whom they are presumed to have been working up until that very moment. 

Luke’s treatment of the call of these particular disciples differs from that of Mark and Matthew, with far more information provided in what is really a different story.  There, Luke reports that “Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing around Him to hear the word of God.  He saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets.  He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore.  Then Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.  When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, ‘Put out into the deep water and lower your nets for a catch.’  Simon answered, ‘Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing!  But at your word I will lower the nets.’  When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets started to tear.  So they motioned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them.  And they came and filled both boats, so that they were about to sink.  But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!’  For Peter and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s business partners.  Then Jesus said to Simon, ‘Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.’  So when they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed Him” (5:1-11). 

Luke’s Gospel begins with this statement: “Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.  So it seems good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught” (1:1-4).  This would seem to imply that Luke is perhaps a bit more serious about his details, and that he wants his intricate details to be taken very seriously.  As Luke, because of his extensive two-part series (Luke & Acts), is considered to be more of a historian than the other Gospel writers (though this is probably up for debate, depending on what is meant when one seeks to define “history” or “historian”), his account of the call of Simon, Andrew, James and John becomes very interesting, as it is worthwhile to note the substantial differences and the detailed elaborations. 

In Luke’s account, which is presumed to have been built upon Mark’s account as a basis, Jesus is not merely going along or walking by the Sea of Galilee, where He sees these individuals and calls them to join Him.  Rather, the story speaks of Jesus preaching, His getting into Simon’s boat, the command to fish, the great catch, and the call to follow.  It is here that one learns that James and John were Simon’s business partners.  However, if one is surprised or put off that Luke’s presentation is different, though these differences should not cause an observer any real trouble, and if the rendition of the events that is on offer in his work is to be taken as perhaps a more accurate and expanded rendering of the events in question, then it is possible that an observer is going to be flatly shocked when he or she comes to the record of the calling of the first disciples when they come to John’s Gospel. 

Calling Down Fire (part 4)

In addition to what would have been a widespread cultural familiarity with the method that was employed, the message of “The kingdom of God has come upon you” would not have been unfamiliar.  Though it held particular and incredibly significant meaning to those that dwelled in the land of Israel, not only was it the case that Jesus’ disciples would not be the first to go out heralding the arrival of a messiah, and thus the arrival of the kingdom of God, but it was also the case that this was largely the same message that Caesar’s representatives dutifully carried into the world that he had conquered as well. 

Those that would come to hear this message of the kingdom of God, whether inside or outside of Israel as it was shared before and after the ordeal of the cross and the vindication of the Resurrection, were likely to have been familiar with the “gospel of Caesar.”  This “gospel” was, among other things of course (as the Caesar cult aided in the spread of imperial propaganda), that the Caesar was lord of all and the savior of mankind.  This message could easily be presented as the “kingdom of the son of god has come upon you; and you do not need to feel conquered, as Caesar extends his realm of peace and security to you.”  This should serve as a reminder that one would do well to always consider the setting into which the message of the Christ had come.   

  

Before continuing to move forward, it is necessary to back up just a bit so as to continue what one hopes is an effective contextualization and historical integration.  Included within Jesus’ commands to His appointed disciples, He can be heard to say: “Whenever you enter a house, first say, ‘May peace be on this house!’” (Luke 10:5)  There would have been a number of reasons for giving this particular greeting, but there is one particular reason to which has already been alluded, which is that of the Caesar and Rome’s notion of peace. 

Remember, Luke still has the reader of his work situated within the mental context of that which he has previously written, as chapters nine through nineteen (which includes chapter ten) of his Gospel narrative are presented as a lengthy, single story.  As would have been familiar to the Roman government official (most excellent Theophilus) for whom Luke is presumed to have constructed his two-part series, Caesar’s peace---Roman peace, or the “pax Romana,” would have been part and parcel of the message of the herald of the Caesar, as Caesar (as Jesus would also be shown to do) “sent messengers on ahead of him… to make things ready in advance for him” (9:52a,c). 

What would happen if Caesar’s peace and gospel message about himself and his kingdom was rejected?  As has been previously indicated, it is quite likely that death would come upon those that rejected the message.  This death would have fallen until there were either no more rejecters, or until all willingly bowed the knee to accept his “peace.”  This is the context, as has been seen, for James and John wanting to call down fire from heaven and consume those that rejected Jesus. 

This would also be the context for Jesus’ rebuke of them for wanting to adopt Caesar’s forceful and deadly way and contra-kingdom-of-heaven way of establishing his rule and authority.  It would seem to be clear that, at that point, they did not understand Jesus’ true power or the nature of the kingdom and peace that He was bringing to the world, as they were likely to have been steeped in messiah and kingdom expectation that was rooted in forceful overthrow of a foreign oppressor by violent means and awe-inspiring displays of power. 

In My Father's House (part 2)

Returning to the review of the birth narrative, following Gabriel’s visit to Mary, the reader of the Gospel learns about Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, Mary’s hymn of praise to the Lord after the blessing from Elizabeth that was said to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, the birth of John, the restoration of Zechariah’s ability to speak along with his subsequent prophecy, the birth of Jesus, the visit of the shepherds, Jesus’ presentation at the Temple, the prophecy of Simeon, and the words of the prophetess Anna. 

Near the end of the birth narrative, the aforementioned Simeon shares some potentially troubling words.  He says, “Listen carefully: This child is destined to be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be rejected.  Indeed, as a result of Him the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed---and a sword will pierce your own soul as well!” (2:34b-35)  A sword will pierce her soul “as well”?  Based on her reported experience with the angelic messenger of the Creator God, Mary is said to have known that the Messiah that has been born to her was destined for glory and ultimately redemption for Israel.  So one could imagine her thinking something along the lines of “what’s the deal with all of this talk of swords and pierced souls?”  Of course, as Theophilus reads this narrative that has been compiled for him, he is in the position of being well aware that Luke is referring to the crucifixion to come, as Luke skillfully weaves this into his text. 

With this, the reader reaches the previously referenced chronological leap.  Luke, who treats Jesus’ youth in the same way as the rest of the Biblical authors (as seemingly irrelevant), quickly jumps ahead twelve years to present the story of Jesus in the Temple.  He does this before skipping over another eighteen years or so, which then marks the beginning of what has come to be called the third chapter and the longer narrative of the ministry of Jesus. 

Why the chronological divisions?  To answer that it is necessary to return to the purpose of Luke’s writing and the fact that he is always keeping the crucifixion and the Resurrection in view.  Apparently it is his desire and purpose to tell stories about Jesus that draws the attention of his reader to the event that would be referred to by the author of Hebrews as “the consummation of the ages” (9:26).  To that end, Luke has already successfully brought the mind of his reader (if that reader is aware of that consummating event) into a contemplation of the crucifixion with his birth narrative, and now, he will attempt to accomplish the same, with an inclusion of the Resurrection and Jesus’ Lordship, with the story of Jesus in the Temple. 

Thus the story of Jesus in the Temple is introduced with Luke informing his audience that “Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem every year for the feast of the Passover” (2:41).  From this it can be reasonably (though not concretely) extrapolated that this is not the first time that Jesus has gone to Jerusalem with his parents for the celebration of the Passover.  Now, is it really reasonable to think that a “carpenter,” which is the title given to Joseph, made this journey ever year?  Well, one would do well to remember that Jesus’ father, Joseph, though a member of the artisan class and therefore not a peasant, is not necessarily a “nobody” in Israel.  He is of “the house and family line of David” (2:4b).  This is not insignificant.  Therefore, one could surmise that it would not be an unusual thing for him to make the trek to Jerusalem each year.  So it could be asserted (again, with reservation) that this is not Jesus’ first trip to Jerusalem.  Yet for some reason, Luke seizes on this particular journey and the story of this journey, telling the reader that “When He (Jesus) was twelve years old, they went up according to custom” (2:42). 

In My Father's House (part 1)

But He replied, “Why were you looking for Me?  Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” – Luke 2:49  (NET)

As one reads through the Gospel of Luke, it is worthwhile and necessary to keep in mind the presumed larger narrative purpose behind his writing.  He begins his telling of the story of Jesus with a declaration that he is going “to write an orderly account” (1:3) of “the things that have been fulfilled among us (1:1).  Quite naturally (as is the case for the rest of the New Testament authors), Luke always has the crucifixion and the Resurrection in view.  That view of the Christ-event, understandably and rightly (as it should for all believers as they view the world), colors all that he writes and all of the material that he presents. 

The recipient of his writing---the Roman official to whom Luke refers as “most excellent Theophilus” (1:3), is not receiving new information from Luke.  Rather, as seems to be indicated by the phrasing employed by the author, Luke’s works serves as a confirmation of the story, that Theophilus may “know for certain” (1:4) the things that he had been taught.  Presumably, Theophilus had been instructed concerning the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus (the main emphasis of the message of the Gospel that Jesus is Lord).  Thus, as he reads, he is not being introduced to Jesus little by little, only to be met with a surprise twist at the end of the story.  It is necessary to consider that what Theophilus already knows about Jesus (possibly as a believer himself that seeks to share the story with others) is also going to influence the way that he reads the story, with the seminal events of crucifixion and Resurrection never being far from his thoughts. 

So with a consideration of these things concerning author and initial reader, it will be useful and beneficial for any reader of Luke to also have the crucifixion and Resurrection at the forefront of thought, influencing the reading of the text, which thereby enables one to find those things influencing the telling of events and stories throughout the whole of the writing, rather than only finding the seminal events at the end of the book or only when Jesus speaks explicitly of His pending death and what He hopes will be His Resurrection. 

Because these things are determinative of all things for the one who seeks to live a life marked by allegiance to Jesus as King (the life of faith), it makes more than perfect sense to be able to read the crucifixion and Resurrection, and even the rest of the Gospel message that Jesus is King and Lord of all things, into the text whenever possible, especially as one considers that it is the Gospel itself (according to early believers such as Paul), and belief in such as reflected in word and deed, that is itself somehow the saving and transformative power of the Creator God.  It would seem that Luke wants to aid his reader(s) in this exercise. 

To this end, this study is going to take a closer look at the story of Jesus in the Temple.  This particular story occurs after what much be acknowledged to be a significant chronological leap in the text, as it follows immediately upon that section of Luke’s Gospel that is known as the “birth narrative.”  In the narrative that leads up to the story of Jesus in the Temple in Jerusalem, the reader learns about the prophecy of John the Baptist’s birth, his father’s (Zechariah) being unable to speak because he did not believe the words of the angel Gabriel, and the announcement to Mary that she was going to give birth to the Messiah. 

It is worth pausing and side-tracking here briefly here to make an interesting comparison and contrast between Zechariah and Mary.  When Zechariah hears the words of Gabriel that informed him that his wife was going to give birth to a son, he replies by saying “How can I be sure of this?  For I am an old man, and my wife is old as well” (1:18).  Gabriel responds by saying, “because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will be silent, unable to speak, until the day these things take place” (1:20).  When Gabriel tells Mary “Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name Him Jesus” (1:31), Mary responds with “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?” (1:34)  Effectively, Zechariah and Mary ask the same question, understandably relying upon the impossibility of what they are said to be hearing.  In response, Zechariah loses the ability to speak, whereas Mary is given a positive affirmation and further revelation from the angel. 

Veil Of The Temple (part 1)

Then Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.  Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. – Matthew 27:50-51a  (NET)

Though the passage above comes from Matthew’s Gospel, this event is also recorded in the Gospel of Mark.  There, the author records that “Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed His last.  And the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom” (15:37-38).  In addition to Matthew and Mark, this event is also mentioned as part of Luke’s narrative of the life of the Christ, sharing that “The temple curtain was torn in two” (23:45b).  This is a very significant event, however, any recounting of what apparently is a significant happening in the minds of the synoptic authors and their communities, is absent from the Gospel of John.  All three synoptic Gospel writers are sure to include this event, because the tearing of the veil, from top to bottom.  Why?  It is because of the probability that the tearing of the veil is linked to the entire narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Of course, the author of the Gospel of John takes his own unique approach to telling the story of Jesus than that which was taken by the Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and it stands alone as something entirely different from the other three.  John, in some respects, appears to have been written for the widest possible audience, as the ranks of Christians from many nations had grown significantly by the time that it was said to have been composed (late 1^st century).  The wider audience, possibly composed of more Gentiles that Jews, may not have been in a position to grasp the overwhelming significance of what it was that had taken place when the veil, as reported by the rest of the Gospel accounts, was torn. 

Though these issues are always un-settled and up for debate, Matthew is generally perceived to be directed towards a primarily Jewish audience, while it is thought that Mark wrote to a specific audience that was largely non-Jewish.  Naturally, these are broad generalizations, though some of the language adopted and stories employed tends to bear out these positions.  However, the specifically Jewish terms employed in Mark suggest that Mark’s audience was a mixed audience of both Jews and Gentiles, thus providing a basis for making mention of the tearing of the temple veil.  Luke, together with Acts, was specifically written for a Roman ruler named Theophilus, but clearly, as it draws so heavily from Mark and employs a not insignificant amount of Jewish terminology and ideas, it is probable that its wider dissemination had a mixed but predominantly Jewish audience in mind as well.   

When something is mentioned so many times, and especially when it is mentioned as a component of the telling of the climactic event of all of history, it should be paid a great deal of attention.  Thus, those that seek to align themselves with Jesus and His way of mission, should make ever attempt to understand it as best they can.  So what is it that makes this veil so significant?  Why bring it up?  Why mention it in the way that it is mentioned, which is specifically in connection with Jesus’ death?  With this presentation, the veil of the temple seems to be given an exalted place in the telling of the Gospel of Jesus.  Is it deserved?  Well, not only do the Gospel authors include this information in the telling of their stories, but the Scriptural observer is first introduced to it in the book of Exodus. 

When the Creator God was said to be giving Moses the extraordinarily detailed instructions for the building of the tabernacle, a large number of curtains, or veils, are mentioned.  For one curtain in particular, the Creator God of Israel said, “You are to make a special curtain of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and fine twisted linen” (Exodus 26:31a).  Furthermore, Moses was “to hang this curtain under the clasps and brink the ark of the testimony there behind the curtain.  The curtain will make a division for you between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place” (26:33).  Apparently, this veil was of particular importance to Israel’s God, and as will be seen, the veil (or curtain) repeatedly finds itself as part of the narrative of the Scriptures.  Therefore, it can be understood to be part of God’s covenant faithfulness and His plan for mankind and His creation.

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 2)

The fact that there are both Jews and Gentiles in Jesus’ audience, based on geographic references, is an important point and must be taken into consideration as His words are examined.  Not only are there Gentiles present, but sight of the fact that Jesus is speaking (and his hearers are hearing, and Luke is writing) in Roman-controlled territory must never be lost.  It is Rome that is in power here.  Israel is subject to Rome.  The neighbors of Israel and any roaming Gentiles in Jesus’ audience are subject to Rome.  Luke himself is subject to Rome.  The individual to whom Luke purportedly writes (Theophilus) is quite possibly a high-ranking Roman government official, himself subject to Rome/Caesar. 

If Theophilus is part of a community of Jesus followers (those that confess that it is Jesus that is the true Savior of mankind, rather than the Caesar), then that community is also subject to Rome.  This is an altogether important consideration.  Those that read the Gospels must attempt to situate themselves alongside those that are in this situation of subjection, while also hearing Jesus according to the narrative that Luke has constructed for the hearing of these words, and the story of Israel (the covenant people).   

Consequently, for quite some time and up to that day, there was a strong under-current of revolutionary fervor against the Roman oppressors.  Naturally, this would have been widespread, but owing to Israel’s self-understanding that they were the unique covenant people of the Creator God, and their expectation that their God was going to act on their behalf, Israel’s fervor for revolution of some kind seems to have been almost always near the boiling point.  The Creator God’s people (Israel/Judah) wanted to escape from Rome’s oppression, and Rome was their enemy.  Holding that fact in mind as an attempt to examine the text is undertaken, allows more and more adding of a tremendously important historical realism to the situation, and makes the reader open and aware of the strong probability that there are most likely Roman soldiers present and within ear-shot of Jesus. 

Why would such be the case?  Well, it’s not difficult to image this being the case, as to this point in the narrative as presented by Luke, Jesus has invoked near-riots in Nazareth, has attracted crowds in Capernaum, has begun calling together a close-knit and hand-picked group of chosen followers, has managed to convince a tax collector to leave his work and follow Him, and He was regularly drawing attention from the religious leaders.  All of these things, taken together, could very well be viewed by the Romans as the beginnings of yet another messianic/revolutionary movement that was designed to come against their rule by force of arms.   

Thusly, it is quite reasonable to presume that the Roman authorities, working in conjunction with their client authority figures in Israel who would be dramatically, and from their viewpoint, negatively affected by any type of revolution, would have heard reports about this Jesus fellow.  It is reasonable to suggest that they would have had their collective eye on Him at some level.  By this time in their imperial expansion, the Romans would have had plenty of experience in identifying and dealing with those that opposed them, especially in Palestine, and would certainly be keeping a watchful eye on situations that might quickly escalate (again, in concert with those that they placed in power).  Large gatherings of a diverse group of people around a charismatic and dynamic individual could certainly be one of those situations.  So as not to give Rome a reason to move against Him, one can imagine that Jesus takes all of this into consideration and is going to be measuring His words quite carefully.     

Become A Christian? (part 2 of 3)

Though Paul’s message and its context would most likely not have been unfamiliar to Agrippa, it may very well have been so for Festus.  So he “exclaimed loudly, ‘You have lost your mind, Paul!  Your great learning is driving you insane!’” (26:24b)  Not only does this serve to point out that Paul had a reputation as a learned and well-studied man, which says something for the persuasive power of the case for the Resurrection of Jesus and of the Gospel message itself, but it also points out that all of this talk of the hope in God’s promise, the resurrection of the dead, and of the messiah, was completely lost on this Roman governor.  He was not able to operate inside a 1^st century Jewish mindset that was familiar with all of these terms.  Unfortunately, this is not unlike those in the present time that too often suffer from the same malady in their attempts to correctly approach and understand the message of the New Testament. 

Nevertheless, and undaunted by Festus’ insistence (and attempt at shaming Paul---ironic, as Paul appears to be wholly unconcerned with the honor and shame paradigm and struggle as it related to himself following his Damascus experience) Paul replies, “I have not lost my mind, most excellent Festus” (the use of which could make one think about the “most excellent Theophilus” to whom Luke & Acts are addressed, and thus providing an idea as to the status of the recipient of Luke’s two-part series), “but am speaking true and rational words” (26:25). 

Likewise, keeping in mind that Acts was a literary narrative that was designed to be read as a unit that is consistently and continually building on itself, Paul’s insistence on the fact that his words are both “true and rational” points to the “many convincing proofs” of the third verse of the first chapter of Acts.  The words used for “convincing proofs” imply evidence that could be presented in a courtroom setting as irrefutable proof of the facts of a case.  True and rational indeed.

Paul goes on to add, “For the king knows about these things, and I am speaking freely to him, because I cannot believe that any of these things has escaped his notice, for this was not done in a corner” (26:26).  So not only is Agrippa familiar with the terminology and substance of the things about which Paul is speaking, but Paul implies that Agrippa is also aware of what happened to Jesus, what is being said about Him, and about the violent vendetta that is being pursued against His ever-increasing band of followers and confessors. 

Paul continues and says, “Do you believe the prophets, King Agrippa?  I know that you believe” (26:27).  This would have been standard rhetorical practice in that day, and it works to successfully put Agrippa on the spot.  With this reference to the prophets and Agrippa’s presumed belief in what has been written, it seems that Paul might have some inside information about Agrippa’s stance concerning the claims being made about Jesus.  Agrippa, perhaps taken aback by what Paul has said, defensively and perhaps even nervously replies, “In such a short time are you persuading me to become a Christian?” (26:28) 

This is quite the interesting statement/question that emanates from Paul, and it carries with it some dramatic implications.  This is not about whether Paul was trying to get Agrippa to confess Jesus and so be saved, or to have a personal religious experience, or to convert to a new religion.  This use of “Christian” by Agrippa would probably have caused Festus to perk up his ears.  Christian?  This word was not used to identify someone’s religion or set of privately held beliefs in the hope of the afterlife.  This word was used in a political context.  In that day, the term would identify a person’s loyalties.  It could be a dangerous association. 

Preparing For The King (part 4 of 5)

Moving along from Zechariah’s declarations concerning his son and the King, we meet up with the “shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8b).  Here, Theophilus is presented with what, for him, is going to be a familiar refrain.  However, that refrain is going to be directed at a different person than the one to whom it generally directed.  Ultimately, this is less about the shepherds themselves, and more about what it is that the shepherds are going to hear, when “An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were filled with fear” (2:9).  In the midst of this amazing sight, what did the shepherds hear?  They heard the angel say “Fear not, for behold I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (2:10). 

There are those words “good news” again.  By now, we are able to quickly make the connection and draw the analogy related to that connection.  Theophilus will understand that the “good news” is another reference to a King, and there is little reason to doubt that even a group of simple shepherds would have understood what it was that being said.  Going further, the angel says that this good news, this Gospel (the birth of the King!), is going to serve as the source of joy for all the people.  All the people?  Is this meant to convey the idea that even though Caesar ruled an extraordinarily large empire, that it is nothing compared to the coming kingdom, and that the new-born King of which they are about to hear, is going to be a King over the entire world?  Is this a king to whom every knee will bow?

Continuing on, we find that familiar refrain used when we read  “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, Who is Christ the Lord” (2:11).  Following quickly on the heels of the “good news,” the shepherds hear this amazing statement.  More importantly, Theophilus and all who would read this “narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us” (1:1b), have stumbled upon an incredible proclamation.  Once again, and this would not be lost on anybody, we have a challenge to Caesar.  Once again, we have testimony being presented about a King.  How so?  Well, as we have already discussed and expounded upon, the word “Lord,” or “Kurios” here in the Greek, was a title held by Caesar.  Not only that, but in that day, it was not uncommon to hear Caesar also referred to as “savior,” with the Greek word “soter,” serving this purpose.  This first announcement concerning the birth of Jesus had all of the elements of a royal proclamation. 

When seeking to understand the story of Jesus, and particularly the birth narrative, it cannot be repeated enough that these honorific titles, reserved for the Caesar when used in the context of “good news” (evangelion), are being foisted upon another that, by all appearances, had no legitimate claim to them.  The Caesar (specifically Augustus) is the one hailed as the “savior of the world”.  For the world under the heel of Rome in that day, it is Augustus that is the lord of all.  It is he, truly, that is the anointed one (a christ, a messiah) for the whole world and all the peoples of the world, as well as the one responsible for bringing joy to all peoples, with peace and good will towards men. 

These words being penned by Luke and heard by Theophilus (and eventually all peoples) were not then new in the least.  They were quite familiar, but were (and because of the Resurrection, are) being co-opted and applied, quite unexpectedly and retroactively (as Luke writes his narrative well after the events of the life of the Christ, though he undoubtedly shares the oral traditions concerning Jesus that had sprung up and taken shape quite early), to a man that had been crucified by the order of Rome.  We can never lose sight of the fact that the things that are now being said about Jesus, first to shepherds (according to Luke) but now to a member of the Roman aristocracy, along with the titles that are on offer, were routinely declared about and applied to the one then recognized and widely worshiped as the king of the world and the son of god.  

Preparing For The King (part 3)

In the world of that day, it was Caesar that was great, it was Caesar that was the son of the most high, it was Caesar that was clearly ruling over the people of the house of Jacob, it was the Roman empire that was never going to end, and it was Caesar that was called the son of god.  Clearly, this is a revolutionary and subversive message that was being proclaimed by the community that claimed allegiance to Jesus.  Is it any wonder that it was so persecuted?  It is no wonder that Rome went to war against this message of Jesus and attempted to destroy the people that would dare to proclaim that Jesus was King, not just of Israel, but of a kingdom that encompassed the entire world---a kingdom that exceeded that of the vast Roman empire.

That message continues to be reinforced as the story unfolds.  When Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, Elizabeth greets her and calls her “the mother of my Lord” (1:43).  “Lord” there is “kuriou.”  In first century context, and in the context of what has already been presented in regards to the titles bestowed upon Jesus, this is more kingly language.  As Theophilus, and anyone else who would happen to read this, would immediately be reminded that it is Caesar that is generally referred to as “kurios,” or “Lord.”  While “lord” is certainly an honorific title, used in both formal and informal pleasantries, the construct of Luke makes it very clear that references to Jesus as “Lord” indicate that he is such both like Caesar and ultimately of the Caesar. 

From there, with an apparent understanding of, and with reference to what had been told to her about her Son and His role as King by the angel, Mary goes on to speak in language reflecting the covenant that God had made with Abraham, saying “He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty.  He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever” (1:51-56).  Again, as we read through this, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this information has been collected and sent to a believing Roman government official who would, no doubt, be sharing this with his circle of friends and associates, perhaps even hearing it in the first time in the company of that circle.  All of the kingly language, and preparations for a people and a world to receive its King would not go un-noticed. 

A few verses later, the author has Zechariah picking up where Mary left off, continuing the reference to the covenant that God had made with Israel through Abraham, which they hoped would be fulfilled in their messiah---in their King.  It is said that Zechariah “was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying, ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, the oath that He swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days’.” (1:68-75) 

From there, Zechariah re-directs his thoughts toward his own newly born son, saying that he “will be called the prophet of the Most High” (there’s that kingly language again), and that he “will go before the Lord (kurios) to prepare His ways” (1:76).  As we reflect on this, could we not agree that not only was John sent to prepare the way for the King, but that Theophilus was being encouraged to continue preparing the way for the King in service to that King, and that we, having “certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:4), also are charged with an ongoing preparation for the way of the King through the preaching (in both word and deed) of the Gospel?   

Preparing For The King (part 2)

As we read through Luke, and as it relates to a people being prepared to receive their king, we have to keep in mind that this writing had a specific purpose.  That purpose is stated in what came to be recognized as the first four verses of the work.  There, we read, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the words have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:1-4). 

So what we there find is that this work is directed to a man referred to as “most excellent Theophilus.”  Scholarship and archaeology have come to point out that the title “most excellent,” when used preceding a name in official communication with stated purposes not unlike what we find here in Luke, was often directed towards Roman government officials of what was called “The Equestrian Order.”  This must be borne in mind because of the language that we will find being used, beginning with the record of Gabriel informing Zechariah, that he “was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news” (1:19b). 

This use of “good news” is not to be taken lightly, and along with Luke’s purpose of presenting a global king and kingdom, it demands to be heard within its immediate cultural context so as to grasp its import and impact.  The Greek word used here for “good news” is “evangelisasthai,” which is a derivation of “evangelion,” the word that is commonly rendered as “gospel.”  Because the word that is presented as “good news” was generally and primarily reserved and used in reference to the Emperor (Caesar) or to events that enhanced the glory of the Roman empire, this would have been highly impactful to this Roman government official to whom this book was directed.    

As Theophilus continued reading (or listening as it was shared by a tradent), he would come to the story of Mary.  With Mary, the language of preparation for a King would become even stronger and more pronounced.  As the author communicates a similar experience to that of Zechariah, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary, telling her that she had “found favor with God” (Luke 1:30).  Favor, in a world defined by honor and shame, and in which the patron and client relationship was prevalent, pervasive, and determinative, would have been a crucial component of the message to Mary, and it would not have been lost on someone such as Theophilus, who, like everyone else in his world, would have been well-versed in the dynamics of the patron client relationship, and the ongoing desire to secure favor from a patron. 

It is worth digressing for just one moment to point out that Mary had not found this favor through any efforts of her own, but that God’s favor was being bestowed upon her, the evidence of which would be the fact that she was told that she would “conceive and bear a son,” and that she would “call His name Jesus” (1:31).  This was most definitely the unmerited favor of God poured out upon Mary, and she is placed in the position of client to her patron, the Creator God of Israel, now owing Him service, gratitude, and loyalty. 

This name, Jesus, which means “Jehovah Saves,” was quickly followed up by a few more titles.  The kingly language comes at us and Theophilus quite quickly, as we read that “He will be great” (1:32a), that He “will be called the Son of the Most High” (1:32b), that “the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David” (1:32c), that “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever” (1:32d), and that “of His kingdom there will be no end” (1:32e).  Is there any doubt as to the mission of Jesus and what Luke desires to make known about Him?  A bit further on we read that Jesus shall be called “the Son of God” (1:35b).  That’s quite an impressive list to read, especially in a world that is ruled by Caesar, and is the one for whom such language (especially “son of god”) is generally reserved.  

Salvation For This House (part 1 of 2)

He entered Jericho and was passing through.  And there was a man named Zacchaeus. – Luke 19:1-2a  (ESV)

The first ten verses of the nineteenth chapter of Luke tell the story of Zacchaeus.  As we go through this story of Zacchaeus, attempting to understand the truths conveyed herein, we must bear in mind to whom this Gospel of Luke has been written.  It has been written to a Roman government official, a believer, presumably a Gentile, named Theophilus.  That is important as it relates to this story.

It is said of Zacchaeus that “He was a chief tax collector and was rich” (19:2b).  In this role, he would have been quite hated by a sizable majority of the people of Israel with whom he came into contact, as he worked to collect taxes on behalf of the oppressive Roman government.  Thus, he served to perpetuate and enforce the rule that the people wished to throw off and bring to an end.  For what it’s worth, he would also have been known as a publican.  

The people of Jericho gathered to see Jesus, the one that they had heard about, and who some had come to believe might very well be the promised Messiah.  Though there were many views of the Messiah, one that was quite prevalent was one in which the Messiah was the individual that had been purposely sent by their Creator God to overthrow those who presumed to rule over God’s chosen people.  Not surprisingly, with the stir that the presence of Jesus created wherever He went, Zacchaeus wanted to see this Jesus as well. 

It is reasonable to presume that he also would have been fully aware of what was implied by messianic claims, especially as it related to his own job and his livelihood.  Normally, though he would have been the object of the scorn of the members of the family of Israel, being the chief tax collector would have afforded him a place of honor (though begrudging) when it came to significant happenings and public events, but in this case the people ignored him, which is understandable because of what was implied by all this talk of Messiah.  Of course, as is generally noted when people talk of Zacchaeus, it did not help that “he was of small stature” (19:3b). 

We all know how the story goes.  Zacchaeus, this chief tax collector for Jericho, “ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He (Jesus) was about to pass that way” (19:4).  Would that not have been an odd sight for the people of Jericho?  Their hated chief tax collector, was climbing a tree so that he could get a glimpse of the Messiah, the One that was about to put him out of a job.  Not only that, but he ran.  Both of these activities were considered to be dishonorable, and a respectable man would not engage in them.  

Putting aside the potential shame of climbing a tree (hints of Jesus’ own ignoring of shame to come when He would effectively “run ahead and climb a tree”?) Zacchaeus had elevated himself so that not only was he going to be able to see Jesus, but also so that Jesus could see him.  It is likely that the people thought that Jesus, upon seeing Zacchaeus in the tree, would have some harsh words for him.  However, something quite surprising happens when Jesus encounters part of Rome’s oppressive cabal.  “When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.’  So he hurried and came down and received Him joyfully” (19:5-6).