New
Testament (Gospels)
Leander
Keck
1/7/93
In the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, questions on the gospels tended to be historical. For instance,
attention was on the historical Jesus.
It is in this milieu that we are studying the gospels. There are four gospels, three of which are
similar (synoptic). Even though Matthew
and John were written by eyewitnesses, they diverge. Still, there are attempts to harmonize the
four gospels and to get back to Jesus himself, with reliability being in terms
of being close to the historical events.
What is the relation between the gospels and the life of Jesus? The assumption is that by going back to what
Jesus actually said and did, we can reach true religion. Today, there is a moral objection to the
inherited Christianity.
We depend on the gospels. We need a historical understanding of
them. We need to account for differences
between the gospels and actual events. According
to Reimarus, the gospels give a distorted picture of Jesus in order to
construct a new religion. Are the
gospels reports, or is the historical information in them incidental? Does the modern concern for historicity cause
us to ask the wrong questions? It is
important to know where the gospels are, so we can read them. Were the gospels written by Christians for
Christians? There is a bias in them in
favor of both Jesus and Christianity. How can Jesus be distinguished from the
religion in the gospels? Has Jesus been
Christianized? By whom? The gospel writers? It is generally presumed that there must have
been some continuity between the historical Jesus and the gospels. The gospels contain a selection of Jesus’
words and deeds, important to early Christians even if they are not
historical. The important point is how
the words and deeds of Jesus in the gospels affected the beliefs and identity
of the Christians.
Paul’s letters and Acts are the
earliest Christian writings, yet they are not close to the historical. But we still want a historical
explanation. For instance, ‘Word of the
Lord.’[1] What is meant by it? For instance, was it revealed by Jesus after
he rose from the dead? Also, 1
Corinthians 15:3: ‘Christ died…scriptures’.
Which scripture? One could even
ask if there were really twelve disciples.
What about Judas? The focus is
death and resurrection. In 1 Cor 7:10, Paul gives advice to the church at Corinth . There is no distinction between the Lord’s
opinion and that of Paul. In 1 Cor.
7:11,23, there is no reference to Jesus when it would be expected. In Romans 8, there is no hint of Jesus and
the Lord’s Prayer. Also, there is no
hint of Jesus in Romans 13. Moreover,
Paul does not mention the miracles, the birth story, or the conflict with the
Pharisees. Instead, Paul’s focus is on
the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Why? Perhaps Paul’s audience already
knew the history. Or, perhaps Paul
didn’t know about them. Or, perhaps it
is because Paul was not a disciple; rather, he was an apostle, an emissary of
Jesus sent out to missionize. Paul
appeals to certain aspects of Jesus’ tradition for the life of the new
religion. This is not to say that Paul
limits himself to the death and resurrection aspect. In Acts 20:35, he quotes Jesus saying that it
is more blessed to give than to receive.
In Acts 13, he mentions John the Baptist, but there is no mention of
what Jesus said. So, we turn to the
gospels, to form criticism. Form
criticism of the Gospels focuses on the nature and function of the Jesus
traditions in the churches. Whereas form criticism of the Gospels concentrates
on the pre-gospel oral tradition and the traditions of the early church[2],
redaction criticism focuses on the making of the Gospels as theologically
shaped portrayals of Jesus.[3]
Form Criticism
Objections to form criticism:
- The influence of Christianity
today. Transmission is presupposed
of Jesus’ role. Gospels are seen as
the expression of the faith.
Borncohn said that tradition and the gospels are primary sources
for knowledge of early Christianity, the historical being secondary.
- The gospel writers were
collectors and editors. Form
critics assume a tradition from oral to written forms.
- Originally, small snippets of
Jesus sayings, then they were grouped.
- Form follows function in the
structure. Given the form, the
function is inferred. The function
tells something about the early Church.
The presumption is that only that which is necessary for the church
to function has been retained. That
form follows laws is questioned.
- Functions, or habits of use,
are assumed to shape tradition. Sitz
Im Leben: the setting in life.
For
instance, the pronouncement story[4]
is just a snippet to get the idea of Jesus across. Only that which is essential for the point to
be made is included in it. The fishing
story: only what is essential for the teaching. Wisdom sayings show Jesus as a
teacher, heroic sayings show the special qualities of Jesus.
The historical question was so
strong in its effects that it distorted transmission of oral sayings into being
known as contents of Jesus’ life and of the church. Tradition expanded after being pared down
from the belief that the spirit continues to speak via church teachers.[5]
The boundaries are as permeable membranes.
Given this, how can be know that Jesus actually said what we think he
said? Use the negative criterion:
subtract anything Jewish, and statements like Christian belief. The result is a unique Jesus, but such a
figure would be neither Jewish nor Christian.
1/13/93
There is a paradox in the gospels:
everyone knows the gospel, yet no one does.
Some are lost, while others know only by title. The definition of a gospel is difficult. The four main gospels are not titled as
such. They were additions. Also, the title ‘gospel’ was assigned to a
variety of texts. Thomas is not a narrative, while the Gospel of Truth is a
meditation. We think we know about the
gospels, but we make inferences to illuminate the texts as working
hypotheses. Yet this is not evidence.
Historical Criticism
Reconstruct the past changes much as
possible, so to read the texts in their proper context. Read for nuances, for what was ‘new’ to the
first audience. What were the
controversies? What was parochial? What
was important to that audience? The
transmission from oral to written forms requires reliable texts, an overview of
early Christianity, an early Christian society in the Greco-Roman world, and an
internal life of Christian groups.[6]
There has been progress in
historical criticism during the twentieth century. New texts, inscriptions and proclamations
were found, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of Peter. Also, an enhanced methodology has been
developed. But most of what was
available is lost. This raises the
question of the reality of our knowledge.
Reliable texts are basic. The
process of getting the synoptic gospels did not consist of oral tradition from
Jesus being turned into writing. We
don’t know the number of copies made, nor if they agreed or were of more than
one version. There are no autographs. Also, the oral tradition continued after the
gospels were written, and that influenced later gospels. We surmise that copiers made corrections,
such as in Matthew, and that there was assimilation.
For instance, in Mark the events of
Jesus were chosen, as they were most useful to the faith. Secret events were withheld, and sayings were
added. The book was left in Alexandria . The letters of Paul give the best available
evidence, but they deal only of his church in the 50’s. There were regional differences and gaps. For
instance, the effect of the Jewish revolt in the 60’s is evident in it. The gospels were not written in Jerusalem . We don’t know where they were written, so we
don’t know about their setting or how it might have had an impact on the
writing. We do know, however, that the
Christians in the larger society became increasingly gentile. But what were the demographics and
proportions? What kind of Jews joined
the new movement? What kind of
gentiles? For instance, what were their
social standings and reading styles?
What literary style was used? How
did Christianity spread? By
travelers? In short, how would the
gospels have been interpreted in their cultures? Does Luke’s concern for the poor and women
come from Jesus or is it a reflection of Luke’s society? We don’t know of the tensions between the
Christians and Jews, or between the Christians and the Baptists. How did the
Christians relate to the political forces?
This would affect the treatment of Pilot.
Internal Life of
Christian Groups
What role did wandering charismatic
men have? What of the early Christian
prophets and teachers? What was the
governance structure? James, the brother
of Jesus, was de-emphasized while Peter was emphasized. What was their worship? We assume that passion was central. How do the gospels attempt to settle the
fights within the groups? What counted
as being Christian? It affected later
tradition. Each era has a unique sense
of what counts as being Christian. We
can’t check our knowledge, so when we read the gospels, we look not only at
Jesus. But on what we can say about the early Christians? What of the proto
gospels that were between oral and written forms? We infer from an examination of the texts
that the gospels were organized by snippets, without any order or plot.
According to Keck, this is too simple.
It raises the question of what is known of the oral tradition. A recent study on the oral tradition by Lord
has found that the 60’s had a general mythic oral structure, yet there were
variations typical of oral literature.
The pattern is important as it is cross-cultural. According to Keck, while Jesus oral
traditions are fragmented, some framework was assumed or included depending on
the audience. So knowing the context is
necessary. The shift from an oral to a
written form alters the pace and rhythm, as well as the wording, making it more
deliberate. Oral literature is a genre
in its own right; it is precarious. The
mythic pattern in oral tradition is geared to taking it seriously. Lord’s study tells more of how the gospels
were not written than how they were.
There is evidence that the oldest gospels absorbed other collections of
Jesus’ teachings. Thomas, for instance, is
such a collection without an order.
Also, there might have been a sermon behind the Sermon on the
Mount. And the miracle stories in John
and Mark contain intervening material lost or absorbed.
The Gospel of Luke
Be alert to the major turning-points
in the story-line, and to what is of particular interest to the narrator and to
what is ignored.[7] Also, consider Luke with its companion, Acts.
In general, the beginning and end of a gospel give important clues as to the
meaning of the gospel.[8]
Luke 24 is the end of that gospel.
24:5: ‘not here…he is risen’ is from Mark; assimilation. The focus is the words of the angels. The context is the tomb (this is not the
point of the story). 24:6: a reminder.
Some texts add 24:12. There are some
shifts (the unrecognized stranger) in 24:13. To what things does 24:18
refer? In 24:27, Jesus’ teachings are
expanded (the point of the story), even as he had been portrayed as a
prophet. 24:24 provides a link to
another story. For Luke, the necessity
of Jesus’ sacrifice is grounded in scripture.
Exegesis begins with Jesus himself.
For instance, in 24:30, he is bread. Consider the language of
22:19. The Lord’s Supper tradition
points ahead to Acts. According to Keck,
a resurrected person has flesh and bones in a way that is the same as ours yet
different. It is hard to describe in a
narrative form. For instance, in
24:39-41, it seems more like resuscitation than resurrection. 24:44 shows divisions of Hebrew
scripture. In 24:48, there is a witness,
but not of the resurrection. This is
important in Acts.[9]
To witness and testify are on the same ground.
24:51 tells of an ascension on Easter?
In Acts, it was after forty days.
Inconsistent? Luke ends in the Temple where it began.
1/18/93
In the beginning of Luke, the
importance of the birth stories shows the place of the Jews. Luke uses literary techniques such as
foreshadowing and the weaving of illusions throughout his work. The end purposes are implied in Luke
1-2. Luke 1:1-4. Who was Theophilus? An individual? Was he the financier of Luke? Was he a Christian? The beginning of Luke follows the form of
historical prologues at the time.[10] They refer to predecessors and have a concern
for accuracy. Luke gives an orderly
account. Historicity is not his aim;
rather, he wants to assure Theophilus.
Luke 1:4 to 1:5 contain a change of worlds, as well as simpler
connections between phrases, and a movement in the language toward Greek
Hellenism. The alternating pattern, with
additions made incrementally to deepen the development, between John the
Baptist and Jesus is part of one divine purpose. We can see differences between Jesus and
John.
The Birth Stories in Luke
Martin Dibelius advanced the
following structure:
1:5-25 John’s birth foretold
1:26-38
Jesus’ birth foretold
1:39-56
Pre-natal meeting of John and Jesus
1:57-80
John’s birth and role foretold
2:1-40
Jesus’ birth and role foretold
2:41-52
Jesus in the temple
Luke 1:5-25: John’s birth is
foretold (the annunciation to Zechariah) 1:6 contains links to pious Judaism
(follow Jewish law). In 1:7, god’s
faithfulness shows itself in fertility.
The birth stories are speeches more so than actions. They give clues to how to interpret the
upcoming chapters. They also show the
link to Judaism. Examples of speeches
include 1:13-18 (Angel to Zechariah).
In 1:14, joy is due to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies. In 1:15, the Spirit is present from the
beginning of these events. For instance,
John leapt for joy in the womb. This is
a prophetic sign. 1:16 contains a ‘turn’
from prophetic to conversion. In 1:15,
there is no drink. This is linked to Samuel who showed his faith in God. In 3:1-2, ‘prophet’ is applied to John the
Baptist, linked to the forgiveness mission.
In 7:24, Jesus says John is a prophet; a messenger. The birth story of John is a preview of his
future role. Jesus’ birth story is to
show that he will be great, the Son of the Most High (1:23). So, a distinction is made between Jesus and
John. David’s successor is called ‘Son’
and had a predecessor. In 1:71-75, a
political way of salvation is given. The
predecessor idea is there too. The hopes
of the people in the birth story would not be fulfilled in political
terms.
Jesus’ birth story is described in
Luke 1:34-56. Mary accepts the prophesy,
thus providing a model for faith.
Zechariah didn’t totally accept it.
When Elizabeth and Mary met, Elizabeth
cited a prophesy. Both are models of
faith. Whereas Mary is emphasized in
Luke, Joseph is emphasized in Matthew.
Why?
The Magificat (Mary’s Song) is in
Luke 1:46-55. ‘God as savior’
anticipates ‘horn of salvation’ in 1:69, and is patterned after a son in 1
Samuel. Luke connects places: Mary is in
a line of faith. In 1:48, Luke
emphasizes Mary’s low state and her humility.
God turns the low to high and vice versa. This can be seen in 1:51-3 where Luke refers
to Jesus’ ministry to the poor and miserable, which originates in God’s mercy
to Abraham (1:54-5).
The birth, circumcision and
manifestation of John is described in Luke 1:57-80. People marvel at John’s name, and are
terrified at Zechariah being able to speak(the Benedictus 1:68-79). Why was he able to speak? God’s activities. God is with John (1:66). With regard to the birth, circumcision and
manifestation of Jesus (2:1-40), the focus is on the presentation. In 2:21-4,
it is clear that Mary and Joseph observe Jewish law and that it is important to
them. The point is that prophets are
devout. For instance, Anna’s piety and
Simeon’s annointed by the spirit. In
2:32, Simeon makes the prophesy that salvation is not just for Israel
but has a universal character. In
2:34-5, the point that Jesus will be a stumbling block to some—that there will
be a tension, is made. Even Mary will be
affected. Jesus in the temple
foreshadows the future, as the teachers are amazed by their discourses with him
(2:49). It is hard for his parents to
understand it, again foreshadowing the lack of understanding that others would
have later. Mary and others keep these
things in the heart, not knowing what to make of it.
In these opening chapters of Luke,
what is designed to give Theophilus assurance?
If God is not faithful to his prophesies to Jews, how could he be so to
the gentiles?
1/20/93
The aim of historical reconstruction
is to reconstruct the past using available evidence to find out what really
happened. The aim of exegesis is to
understand a text. These two are
related, though in narrative exegesis comes first. The overriding aim is to know what the story
is saying. Grasp the Lukean story in its
whole as well as in parts so to get its own version. Luke begins and ends in the Temple .
Also in Acts. Paul ends his
career in the Temple . The Temple
links Jesus’ story to Judaism. The
spirit motif in the birth stories (Luke 1-4) attest to the history of the
accounts of the holy spirit. This is
escatological history for Luke.
How is Luke put together? The story begins at the beginning of Luke 3,
even though Luke 1-2 have connections to later text. The geneology signifies the end of the first
unit of the story. The geneology of
Jesus shows a structure similar to that of Moses. John got the word of God in the wilderness
(3:3), like the Jewish prophets. In 3:5,
the hills are to be made low—is this to dissolve the security of Israel ? In 3:6, what starts here has an infinite
horizon.[11] The work of John is to baptize with the holy
spirit (3:16). Herod puts John in prison
(3:20), showing John to be a forerunner of Jesus. Jesus is off-stage at that point. In 3:21, it is assumed that John baptized
Jesus, but John was in prison when Jesus was baptized. So it is not chronological. For Luke, prayer is the context for important
events. When Jesus is baptized, why did
the holy spirit descend in bodily form like a dove (3:22)? It makes it real and tangible. Luke emphasizes the reality of the spirit as
well as the resurrection. That God is
‘well pleased’ when Jesus is baptized is added in some versions of Luke, and is
like Mark and Matthew. Did Luke copy
Mark and Matthew here? But according to
Paul, Jesus was enthroned Son of God at his resurrection.
The Lukean Account of Jesus
The structure in chapter 4: Jesus
with spirit, temptations, and then returned with spirit. In the sequence of the devil’s offers, the
temple is important so it is where the devil takes Jesus for the third
temptation.[12] Why does Luke use ‘Son of God’ rather than
messiah? Sonship is correlative to
obedience to the word of God. In 4:13,
the devil leaves. He returns into Judas
(22:13). What is 4:14-5 about?[13] Luke doesn’t say. The story of Jesus announcing the fulfillment
of the scriptures in a synagogue in Nazareth
beginning in 4:16 is similar to ones in Mark 6 and Matthew 13. Luke moved it up
a bit, thus treating it as more important. The story emphasizes the word of
Jesus. And whereas Luke emphasizes Jesus’ words, Mark emphasizes the lack of
understanding of the people as limiting Jesus’ deeds. In Luke, the story serves as a programmatic
event, used as a lens to view the rest of Jesus’ ministry—as the fulfillment of
the prophesies in scripture.
The story has three parts. 4:16-22a is on a positive note and is
detailed. 4:21 gets at the heart of the
matter. “Today the scriptures have been
fulfilled in your hearing.” Why does
Luke leave out the ‘relief to the oppressed’ part of Isaiah? Jeremias, in the 1900’s, thought the people
were wondering because Jesus hinted at including the gentiles. From this, the
people likely doubted Jesus’ credibility.
This is a psychological interpretation of the text; a fifth Gospel. In
4:22, the people are not worried about being left out; rather, they say there
is an incongruence between the spirit and Joseph’s son.[14] 4:22b-24 is the transition. In 4:23, why did Luke leave out an
explanation of what Jesus had done at Capernaum ? In 4:24, Jesus claimed to be a prophet.[15]
4:25-30 ends the story on the negative note of rejection by the townspeople of
his hometown. They drove him out of
town, nearly pushing him off a cliff.
But Nazereth was not on a hill, so how could there have been a
cliff? “But he passed through the midst
of them and went on his way.”[16] ‘Passing through’ was how Luke portrays the
whole event of Jesus—passing through on earth.
Luke 3:1-4:30 thus provides an
introduction to Jesus’ ministry. It is
well constructed, and gives a chronology with the Spirit as the unifying
theme. From a comparison to the other
gospels, it can be seen what Luke got from Q, Mark, and Matthew. Luke followed and rewrote Mark.
1/22/93:
Discussion
There were families of manuscripts
of the gospels. The manuscripts in Alexandria are accurate,
sometimes correcting the Greek grammar.
Most of the manuscripts are Byzantine.
Texus Receptus is the common text, which the King James version
followed. The Westcott and Hort study
claims that there were 5000 manuscripts of the gospels. So there is good evidence of the text of the
gospels. But, similarity does not
necessarily mean good evidence, as it could have come from an error. The Alexandria
manuscripts are the most reliable.
‘Q’ is material in Matthew and Luke
but not in Mark. It is a sayings source
which has never been found. It is
possible that Q was the written source which Matthew and Luke used to put it in
context. Perhaps they had an oral
tradition in common. On the synoptic
question, there are several hypotheses.
The Two Gospel/Griesback hypothesis maintains that Matthew was the
earliest gospel, with Luke and Mark coming from it—both Matthew and Luke
influencing Mark. The ‘Q’ hypothesis is
that Matthew and Luke came from ‘Q’. The
‘Two Source’ hypothesis is that Matthew and Luke were influenced by ‘Q’ and Mark, and independent material. Why is material left out of Matthew that is
in Mark. Also, why is Mark more detailed
than is Luke? Matthew and Luke must have
picked selectively out of Mark, if the two source or the two gospel hypothesis
is correct.
Perhaps
they had different audiences. Mark, for
instance, refers to the roof of a house where Jesus visits as mud, implying
that Jesus is befriending the poor.
Luke, however, has the roof as tile, implying that Jesus is visiting a
wealthy family. Perhaps Mark is writing
to the poor, whereas Luke is writing to wealthy Romans.
1/25/93
The Jesus of Q
Solutions
to the synoptic problem: Mt=Mk+Q+M[17];
Lk=Mk+Q+L[18]. Mark is said to be the earliest, and is
assumed to be the most historically reliable.
Pathious claims the Mark is based on Peter’s memory. If so, Mark would be particularly valuable in
the quest for the historical Jesus. If
Mark is primarily theological, then its use in reaching the goal of study of
the historical Jesus is hurt. Redactive
criticism has its focus on the theology of a text. It is necessary to get the sequence right, so
to see changes between the gospels.[19] The portrayal of early Christianity is
important.
The Griesbach Hypothesis: Matthew
was used by Luke and Mark; Luke was used by Mark. So both Matthew and Luke were
used by Mark.[20]
But why is the Sermon on the Mount omitted from Mark, except for the last
statement? What is the purpose of Mark,
given Matthew and Luke?
‘Q’ is the consequence from this
hypothesis.[21] It is dated at 50 CE, 15 years before
Mark. ‘Q’ has in it what was important
in liberal Protestant theology of the nineteenth century. Teachings and the baptism of Jesus. ‘Q’ does not have the passion story, the
apocoliple story, and Jesus’ interpretation of his death as an atonement. In short, ‘Q’ has a Jesus free of the tradition
of the church. A Jesus on the moral life
of the Kingdom of
God
Harnack studied Q. Jesus’ message and revelation of God as
Father is a moral call to repent and believe so as to gain heaven. Q is a backup document for this view,
emphasizing the Father over the Son. Q
is thus more attractive to moderns; it does not show a savior who dies for our
sins; rather, he is shown as a wise teacher.
If Mark and Q agree, it is strong
support for the existence of Q. But does
it mean that Q accurately depicts Jesus?
What is Q? It is a theory used to
explain the fact that there are nearly identical sayings in Matthew and Luke
that are absent from Mark. Sometimes the
identical sayings are word for word and sometimes similar phrases. But part of Q is not in either one. Why would Matthew and Luke both pass over
some sayings? Also, some sayings in Q
are in Matthew but not in Luke, and vice versa.
Q’s existence has been denied; also, the Griesback hypothesis does not
need it; Luke used Matthew. So Q is a
hypothesis to account for a phenomenon.
There is no agreement that Q was written; some claim it was oral. Kloppenborg insists that it was written due
to the verbal agreement (identical wording), the unusual words used by Mark and
Luke, and the agreement of order in places by Mark and Luke. The consensus is that Luke preserves the
order in Q. Groupings within Q are
possible. Kloppenborg claims there are
three stages in Q. Wisdom sayings
(Jesus’ radical call to discipleship) emphasizing poverty, Judgment coming
against Israel ,
and the Temptation Story.
If Q was in fact compiled in the
50’s, roughly at the time of Paul’s letters, why are they so different? How would Paul regard Q? The Jesus of Q is not the Jesus of a
compilation of sayings but is the compilation of a group of people who valued
those sayings. So, a bias. Why is there no resurrection story in Q? Perhaps the function of Q was for a
particular purpose or group, rather than that the resurrection was not
important. Rather, it might have been
that its importance was different from Paul’s.
But, it is difficult to know what importance the resurrection had in
Q. The authors of Q are unknown. Marysen claims that the Jesus burden that the
Jesus thing continues. Q illumines a
segment of early Christianity, and was used by Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke used both Mark and Q. Mark survived but Q did not. Why?
The implication is that Matthew and Luke used both Q and Mark. Was Q
surpassed?
The Jesus of Q is the final emissary
of wisdom. Kloppenborg classifies Q into
two types of material. The first is of a
wisdom quality. For instance, “blessed
are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God Kingdom of God Israel ’s story is of continued
disobedience despite the prophets. Jesus
is the last emissary because the dues of man were paid off in that
generation. Q’s Jesus is demanding of
the world. The Kingdom of God
1/27/93
The Gospel of Mark
If Luke is a gem, then Mark is a
diamond in the rough. Terse language,
with its own point of view and emphasis.
We can appreciate Mark itself and see how Luke used it. Redactive and literary criticism can help us
to see what is distinctive in Mark.
Redaction criticism concerns how the text came to be—how Mark put the
pieces together. Notice his comments.
For instance, 1:21-22 as a Markian summary.[24]
So is 1:39.[25]
Keck is particularly interested in this type of criticism. Literary criticism involves seeing the text
as a whole so as to see its plot.
The inaugural event of Jesus’
ministry in Luke is the Nazareth
sermon where there is no miracle, whereas in Mark the first event of his
ministry is an exorcism. What does that indicate about the Markan view of
Jesus?
Why is Mark so detailed on tradition
in places? He is not writing for the locals. In Mark 4 and 15, public and private
teachings are distinguished. In Luke 5,
a story within a story emerges.
The storyline. Mark gives information on Jesus’ ministry.
Does this serve a theological purpose?
In 1:1, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Why is this at the beginning? In what sense is this line the beginning of
Mark? The medium is the message; how is
this story the proclamation of salvation?
Also in Mark 1, Isaiah didn’t say
‘behold’; scribes correct Mark’s quote of Isaiah. John, then Jesus, are introduced without
background information. When Jesus is
baptized, the heavens split, rather than merely opened.[26]
In Mark, the voice said out loud, “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”,
whereas in Matthew the voice is to Jesus.
Is ‘tempted’ translated as ‘tested’?
In 1:15, repentance and belief, the Kingdom of God
In Mark 8, the blind man is
important. He is healed in two
stages. This suggests that a miracle of
vision is necessary before Peter can say what he does about Jesus being the Son
of God. 8:31 is the first prediction of
the passion.[28] It is repeated, but the disciples don’t get
it. The blindness of the disciples and
the passion predictor. At 10:45 is
another prediction[29],
then a blind man. This is Mark’s way of
telling a story; it is not necessarily historically accurate. Mark 10-15
emphasizes the passion work. Mark 14 is
the beginning of the passion story. It
begins with a day of teaching on the judgment (ending).
In Mark 16-20, there is a call
story. There is no explanation of why
the disciples left to follow Jesus. This
shows how we should respond to the gospel.
In the regard, ‘immediately’ is used a lot by Mark. The exorcism is important, as it shows that
John was right—that Jesus is the stronger one.
Mark was interested in the demons.
On the secret motif, why does Jesus
command his Peter, James and John to silence on who he is until after his
resurrection?[30] Jesus himself keeps quiet on who he is until
the high priest asks him whether he is the Son of God. Jesus says “I am”. Jesus knew that knowledge of himself as the
Son of God would lead to misunderstandings.
He wanted to teach first. In the
passion predictions, he is concerned with death, but he won’t confess who he
is.[31] According to Wrede (1901), nowhere in Mark is
there a hint that Jesus’ thinking developed on the matter of his death. We assume it develops. In Mark, it was the resurrection that
installed Jesus as the Son of God. But,
people said he was the Son of God during his life. But Jesus didn’t say he was the Son of
God. According to Wrede, Jesus knew
his was the Son of God, yet he didn’t claim it so to keep it quiet. If Wrede is right, the interpretation in the
nineteenth century is wrong. In 1901,
Albert Switzer wrote that both Wrede and the interpretation of the 1800’s are
wrong.
Mark can be outlined as followed,
each segment beginning with the relation of Jesus to his disciples:
1:1-:15
1:16-3:12
3:13-6:6
6:7-8:31
Avoid
a chronological or psychological outline.
1/29/93
Mark 2:1 to 3:6 is a cycle of
stories not linked to the passion story.
There is no narrative connection between the five stories. They have a strange sequence. They are not chronological. Blasphany is not linked to passion. In the
stories, scribes and pharasees are the stereotypical types of opposition. In 2:1, Jesus is in a house in Capernaum . Who are the people who brought him a
paralyzed man? The detail reflects a
Galalean scene. Luke rewrote the
setting. Matthew and Luke changed the
details, but kept the dialogue. The
operative assumption in that story is that there is a connection between sin
and paralysis. There is more to this story than a miracle. Material on the authority of Jesus to forgive
sins is included. Jesus catches the
questioning scribes off guard by asking them which is easier—for him to forgive
the man’s sins, or to tell him to get up and walk. Which is easier, being a hero or God’s
mouth-piece?
Jesus refers to himself as the ‘Son
of Man’ in Mark. This is odd. Of what man?
In the Old Testament, it means to be a human being. But Jesus uses it to imply that he has the
authority on earth to forgive sin. In
Matthew, the authority to forgive sins is given to men, not just to Jesus.
How does Jesus typically respond to
his critics? Typically, he uses a
proverb with an ‘I am’ statement concerning the point of his mission.[32]
In Luke 15:1, his critics object to his eating with sinners. In response, Jesus uses parables which
include repentance. In Matthew, Jesus’
response includes three sayings from Isaiah.
Mark 2:13-22 contains two stories,
both having to do with eating. In the
first story, the scribes of the Pharisees complain about Jesus eating with
sinners and tax collectors. In
responding, Jesus legitimates his mission: he “came not to call the righteous
but sinners”.[33] In the second story, the people asked why
Jesus’ disciples were not fasting, as were John’s and the Pharisees. In responding, Jesus legitimates the response
of his disciples. At the end of that story, Luke and Matthew use similar
language with regard to pouring new wine into new sacks. Is that Q material? It would seem that there are two streams of
material, parallel lines of tradition.
One is behind Q and the other is behind Mark. Mark 2:19 is probably the original reply, as
it is relatively complete (Mt and Lk leave out a line) and is a riddle. Mark 2:20 begins with another foretelling of
the passion. Jesus declares that the
time of his disciples’ fasting will then begin.
Jesus allegorizes the metaphor ‘Can the wedding guests fast while the
bridegroom is with them?’ to legitimate future fasting.[34] The implication is that the time of Jesus was
a special time during which Jesus suspended fasting. Something unusual was going on. All of the synoptic gospels added the wine
story to this fasting story. Why was it added?
Christian fasting is not a return to old fasting. “…new wine is for
fresh skins.”[35]
In Mark, Jesus is implying that the old will be swept away, but in Luke is
added “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘the old is
good’.”[36] The old Jewish piety is good and will not be
swept away, even as the new emerges.
Those practicing old Jewish piety (then currently fasting) would not
join the new movement. In Matthew 9:17,
both are preserved (so don’t ruin the old).
This is a glimpse of early Christianity.
For instance, circumcision was to be debated by Peter and Paul.
Two stories of the Sabbath are in
Mark 2:23-3:6. The first story involves
the Pharisees’ criticism of the fact that Jesus’ disciples were picking grain
on the Sabbath. Jesus responds,
legitimating his disciples’ action.[37] In the second story, Jesus healed a man with
a withered hand in a synagogue on the Sabbath. Jesus legitimated himself,
responding “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life
or to kill?”.[38]
These stories had the same theme as did the two earlier ones. All five stories were of healing. Jesus was teaching that rules could be broken
if there is a human need. This was to be
debated between Jewish and gentile Christians.
Between Mark’s stories of fasting
and healing the arm, Matthew added other healing stories.[39] Matthew is keeping the focus on the
Christological point that the Sabbath can be violated because something greater
than the temple was there—namely, Jesus and the kingdom of God
2/1/93
The Kingdom of God
No aspect of Jesus’ teaching and
mission has been more influencial in the 19th and 20th
century Christianity in the West than the kingdom of God. It is intertwined with issues ranging from
Jewish apocalyptic, Jesus’ alleged miscalculation, the social gospel, Christian
existentialism, hermeneutics, and the nature of language, and liberation
theology to antipathy toward hierarchy detected in the phrase. The aim here, however, is to understand how
the Gospels, and Jesus, understood the phrase.
‘Kingdom of heaven’ in Matthew means
the same thing as ‘kingdom of God’.
Also, the Greek behind ‘kingdom’ is basileia, which means both
kingdom and kingship, royal rule and realm.
The same is true of the Hebrew malkuth behind the Greek. Both meanings are reflected in verbs
associated with basileia: one ‘enters’ a kingdom and the kingship
‘comes’.
The phrase is not common in Paul’s
letters and its use there could be distinguished form its use in the
Synoptics. According to Acts, however,
the kingdom was the theme of Paul’s preaching.[40] It appears only twice in John. According to Acts, the kingdom of God was the
theme also of the resurrected Jesus’ teaching (1:3); note, however, the
disciple’s question in 1:6.
That the kingdom was the theme of
Jesus’ preaching is asserted by all the synoptic gospels, though it is
expressed differently in each. In Luke,
Jesus’ Nazareth sermon (4:16-30) does not mention the kingdom. Jesus mentions
it first at 4:43. Note how this is
revised from Mark. To what extent is
God’s kingdom the actual them of the Magnificat?[41] Mark summarizes the theme of Jesus’ preaching
at the climax of the introduction.[42] Luke refuses to follow Mark there. More intriguing is Matthew 4:17, which not
only reformulates Mark 1:15, but has Jesus repeat John the Baptist (3:2). Has Matthew assimilated Jesus to John, or John
to Jesus? What is at stake historically
and theologically in the answer?
The Kingdom of God is not in the Old Testament, but there is
the idea of God’s reign being the sovereignty of God over creation. But as the Jews were under domination, there
was a tension between the sovereignty of God and their own experience. The result was an increasingly escatological
hope. Psalms of Soloman, for instance. The kingship of God is affirmed, ‘he is our
king’, who will purge Israel of its oppressors and sinners. All shall be holy, the king shall be
God. This sounds like Luke. The
Levitians believed that God as king would be manifest. Any Jew who obeys the Torah takes on the yoke
of the kingdom of God.
In Jewish apocalyptic, God’s
kingship is rare. Maybe it is taken from granted. The apocalyptic is a revelation, often
associated with an ancient person. It is
of the future—of God’s rule in the age to come.
All history is in this prior age.
There is no standard teaching on the future of the age to come of God’s
rule. Is a messiah necessary? This is not clear from Jewish writings. But it is clear there will be no work, pain,
or sorrow in that age. There is a
conviction that God alone will bring it about, with some human help
perhaps. So, there is optimism about
that age.
Jesus did not introduce the slogan,
Kingdom of God; the novelty was how he understood it. There had been no
standard Jewish doctrine of the future; the kingdom of God had been an elastic
symbol, the content determined by the speaker. Reimarus wrote that we should
not confuse views of Jesus with those of his disciples and apostles. For instance, Jesus did not seek to abolish
or separate his movement from the Jewish religion. And yet his apostles did the opposite of what
Jesus had demanded. It is important to
see Jesus within the context of his time, which was Judaism. At the time, the meaning of the kingdom of
God was commonly known. The good news was that it was almost there.
Liberal Protestants in Germany
emphasized Mark, and the kingdom of God as a theme. But this kingdom of God was different from
that of Reimarus. It was of a moral task
of building a kingdom here of a spiritual presence. Weiss in 1892 and Albert Switzer in 1901
challenged this liberal Protestant view.
Switzer opposed Reimarus’ view as well.
Switzer warns that we should understand Jesus only in the context of the
Jewish apocolypse, rather than seeing the kingdom of God as a moral spiritual
condition today. Jesus had an interim
ethics, as the kingdom of God would come soon.
So Jesus’ ethics would not be applicable to the long term. For instance, giving up all of one’s goods is
not meant for the long term, but was based on the assumption that it would be
temporary as the kingdom of God would soon arrive. Switzer believed that Mark’s story of Jesus
is the most historically reliable. According to Switzer, Jesus did think he was
the messiah, and he kept that identity secret.
He expected the Kingdom of God to arrive during that generation. That is
why he went to Jerusalem—to force the kingdom to come then, by his offering so
to keep his disciples from having to go through the woos of the judgment. This is Mark, reversed. The historical Jesus
was the apocalyptic Jesus; the kingdom of God was seen by Jesus as in the near
future. But Dodd argues that the
parables show that Jesus taught that the kingdom of God was already there. A ‘realized eschatology’, so no interim
period. Jeremias, in 1954, studied the
parables and found a ‘self-realizing eschatology’, preserving some of the
future. The kingdom of God was both
there and was coming.
According to Keck, discover the real
meaning of apocalyptic eschatology, without being concerned with the mythical
elements.[43] That eschatology is not of ideas the end of
the world; rather, its real meaning is in what it says about man’s real
condition. The key to understanding this
is to look at Kierkegaard[44]
and the collapse of liberal Protestant theology. For instance, look at Barth on Romans using
Kierkegaard.
Boatman, who wrote Jesus and the
Word, used form analysis to argue that much of the gospel is not what Jesus
actually said, but are of disconnected stories.
Jesus was shaped by the Jewish apocalyptic. The Kingdom of God is that eschatological
deliverance ending everything earthly.
So man has an either/or decision.
The Kingdom of God is supernatural, rather than being an ideal in human
history. The key is the ultimate
either/or decision. The Kingdom of God
is of the future, determining the present. It does not have a calendar date, as
time is irrelevant to the Kingdom. It is
the call to decision before God which is important. Every moment is this call, to the end of my
world. What is important is the call to
decision now.
Norman Perrin, who studied under
Jeremias, dissents. The Kingdom of God
is an apocalyptic teaching by Jesus.
God’s intervention in history is what is important. The Kingdom of God
is the final state. But unlike the
apocalyptic, Jesus asked when it would come.
In answering that the Kingdom of God is among you, Jesus rejected the
apocalyptic idea.
According to Bernard Scott, the
Kingdom of God is a concept and an event, raising the question of its
timing. But, are concepts events? Perrin later rejected concept, replacing it
with symbol. It is not a steno symbol,
having only one reference; rather, it is a tensive symbol as it has more than
one meaning, referring to something that is itself not reduceable. This implies that the Kingdom of God is not a
concept that can come; rather, it is a way of talking about something that
can’t be defined. In this sense, there
is a close connection between the Kingdom of God and the parables.[45]
2/3/93
The Parables in Mark
The
nature of a parable is elusive. It can
take many forms and perform various functions.
Jesus’ parables were unusual in his setting. According to Bernard Scott, a parable is a mashal
that employs a short narrative fiction to reference a symbol. So a parable is about something. It is distinguished from allegory. A parable’s story makes sense in itself, but
is about something. Like a metaphor, it
involves talking of one thing while meaning another. It is not a simile, as similes involve a
comparison. According to Scott, Jesus’
parables reference the kingdom of God—a symbol that points beyond itself. His
parables are treated today as oral works of art. This assumes that form and redaction work has
been done so the parables go back to what Jesus really said. Then we can go on to do the theological work.
In the past, the parables were treated as allegories. But they aren’t
allegories. For instance, Augustine made
Jesus’ good Samaritan an allegory. The
thieves are devils, the clothes are mortality, and the inn keeper is Paul. But in 1899, there was a break-through in the
study of parables. Julicher found that
parables are not allegorical, as they have only one point—a single truth or
observation. For instance, the good Samaritan parable teaches ‘neighborness’. But the parable was used for locals who
couldn’t think abstractly. Jerimias claims there are three functions of Jesus’
parables, among which they announce the kingdom of God and defend Jesus against
his critics.
In contemporary scholarship, there
is not much interest in the historical context of the parables as being salient
in interpreting them; rather, the key is in the parable itself
(ahistoric). A parable has as many
meanings as there are contexts in which it is used. It is used to teach something. It is not didactic or illustrative. It makes it possible for something to happen
in the hearer who gets the point. Don
Prosnen argues that a parable is a story-event; one can tell stories but not
parables because it takes two for a parable.
A parable’s content is inseparable from its form. According to Keck, as masal, parables
have a riddle quality. Jesus’ parables
are necessary to describe the kingdom of God due to it having a certain
quality. There must be a congruence
between the parable and the symbol.
There are cultural assumptions in its first setting; also, those in
later settings bring assumptions to it.
Explaining a parable is like explaining a joke; a disciplined
imagination must be used.
Consider Mark 4. Donahue outlines this chapter. The introduction, 4:1-2, sets the stage with
generalizations. Jesus began to teach in
parables from a boat, as the crowd was very large. Then he gave the seed parable,
4:3-9, following which he gives the purpose of using parables in 4:10-12: “To
you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside,
everything comes in parables in order that they may indeed look, but not
perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand, so that they may not turn
again and be forgiven”.[46]
The ‘so that’ is used ambigiously. Perhaps Mark has a mistranslation of
‘unless’. Jeramias blames Mark’s use of
Greek. As an alternative explanation, the hardening theory maintains that
people are saved as a result of a hardening of their hearts. Donahue rejects
this view. The christological implication is that the mission of Jesus is
paradolic, thus being ordained to failure.
Mark shows the necessity of Jesus’ mission.
Q and Mark overlap at “To you has
been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything
is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed
hear but not understand”[47],
though Q leaves out “lest they should turn again, and be forgiven”, perhaps
because Mark has mistranslated ‘unless’ as ‘lest’. Matthew maintains that they don’t understand
as a consequence of blindness, then he quotes Isaiah—people won’t understand.
For Luke, the issue is what the specific parable meant.
In 4:13-20, Jesus interprets the seed parable
allegorically. The word is sown. People are the seed. Three kinds. Some are taken up by Satan, having no root.
For others, their desire for the world chokes the word. And still others are good, and thus bear
fruit. The parable emphasizes failure, but in spite of this there is a crop
which is effective in spite of the failures.
Following this interpretation, Jesus again explains the purpose of
parables, in 4:21-25, “For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor
is anything secret, except to come to light”.[48] Then he gives two seed parables to describe
the kingdom of God, in 4:26-32, followed by the conclusion. Only Mark gives the parable of the seed grown
secretly. In that parable, the kingdom of God is not like the seed, but is like
the situation depicted by the parable.
Thus it is important to understand the whole parable. Dodd thinks the
point of the parable is that the kingdom of God is here. Others argue that it means that the kingdom
of God has its own way of coming, and will keep growing. Matthew gives the
parable of the weeds growing amid the seeds.
All of the synoptic gospels give the parable of the mustard seed. This parable emphasizes the growing of the
kingdom of God. But does mustard grow in
a garden? Does it really grow into a
tree?
According to Dodd, a parable teases
a mind into active thought, thus having a meaning which is still ambigious.[49]
2/5/93
Exegesis
First, look at different
translations. Use a good English/Greek
translation, looking word for word. Then
look at words in a passage. Use the
concordance to see where that word is used elsewhere. Also, use the Anchor Bible Dictionary to see
where the word comes from. Then, look at
commentaries to see what others have written about the passage.
For instance, consider Mark 7. Why did
Matthew insert Mark 7:9[50]
in front of the Isaiah prophesy? Literary style?
Mark 7:1-4 is on Jewish custom. Matthew omits this. Mark had non-Jews in his audience. Consider also that in 7:19b, Mark has Jesus
declare all foods clean. And 7:26
emphasizes that the woman is a Greek.
And in 7:31, Mark, unlike Matthew, does not mention the mountain, which
is a Jewish motif, and in 7:37 he omits ‘God of Israel’.
The secrecy of Jesus is a motif in Mark. For instance, in 7:24, Jesus would not have
anyone know that he had entered a house.
And in 7:33, Jesus met privately with a sick man.
With regard to doing exegesis, use lexiconic analysis to see
how the particular passage fits into Mark’s whole. Look at Mark in relation to the other
gospels. Do concordance work on words
such as defiled, purity, tradition, unwashed, Pharisee, scribe, corban,
father/mother, and inside/outside. Look in particular for words used by Mark
that are not used in the other gospels.
In addition to a word study, outline the passage. See is Mark mis-attributes or mis-quotes a
passage from the Old Testament. See if he uses the passage elsewhere, and how
others use it. Also, interpret how he
uses the quote. Establish the text of the passage, reading different
translations to consider stylistic and substantial differences. Also, consider the Greek grammar. Use the Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary or the
Anchor Bible Dictionary for historical questions on matters such as rituals,
groupings, and traditions.[51]
Then move to the literary context. How is the passage connected in the
text. What comes before and after
it? Consider the structure of the
passage and of the chapter. For
instance, Mark 7:31-37 has a secret motif.
Raise the historical question of what was magic. Also, what was Ephiphathia? Consider the text
context.[52] Is it in the other synoptics? For instance, Mark 8:22 -26 is not in Matthew
or Luke. The blind man sees after Jesus
spits and puts mud on his eyes. Try to
find a thematic whole. For instance,
Luke has blocks of Jesus’ doings and sayings.
With regard to form criticism, consider the social
context. For instance, Mark 7 is a
story, a controversy story, a healing story and another healing story. With regard to redaction, what has the author
changed of the form to fit his purposes.
Where does Mark add his comments?
For instance, in 7:3, Mark explains the local Jewish tradition. Part of his purpose is to speak to
gentiles. Another example is Matthew’s
habit of having Jesus ask a counter-question, then appeal to scripture, whereas
Mark reverses this order. Matthew
changed the order in order to depict Jesus as a good rabbi, unlike the
Pharisees. Matthew is writing to a
Jewish audience. Consider the structure
of the passage, breaking it into parts.
For lexical analysis, consider the theology of the
passage. Look at the commentaries and
other secondary literature. Use a
concordance to find verbal connections throughout the work. But there are problems. For instance, four
Greek words can be translated as ‘love’.
Also, some Greek words can be translated into more than one English
word. An analytical concordance
separates Greek words.[53]
The basic work of exegesis is going through, verse by verse,
to find connections with each verse. Ask
yourself which of the connections are most important in interpreting a
passage. What is the main point of the
passage as a whole?
For instance, Jesus’ death in the gospel of John. Space is
given to debate over the wording of Jesus’ title, where there are references to
kingship. This connects to a major theme in John: Jesus as king of the Jews. A
second major point is the pascal lamb.
The theology of this is linked to Exodus 12. What data support the main themes?
In historical criticism, one relates the context of today in
a certain place to a context which is similar in one of the gospels. Such
criticism takes scripture apart, finding the weak parts. Putting it back
together is the task of theology. Biblical scholars take it apart. Theologians
put it back together. Keck does both.
There is not just one theology, as there are different Christologies in
the New Testament. Consider the difference between history and story. Myth expresses religious ideas; the spirit of
Jesus and his ideas.
2/15/93
Peter’s Confession, Passion Predictions, and Discipleship in Mark(8:27-9:1)
It is generally held that the
Caesarea-Philippi story (8:27-9:1) marks a turning point in the Markan
story. The confession at
Caesarea-Philippi and the first prediction of the passion is in Mark 8:27-33.
In each of the synoptic gospels, Jesus asks his disciples who they think he
is. Peter replies, the Christ, the Son
of the living God (Mt 16:15), the Christ (Mk8:29), and the Christ of God (Lk
9:20).[54] Matthew goes on to account for how Peter
became the rock.[55] Matthew had Peter call Jesus the Son of God
earlier, just after Peter had tried to walk on water.[56] Why does Luke omit Jesus’ subsequent rebuke
of Peter after Peter rebuked Jesus’ passion prediction? Was it too harsh? For Luke, this is a sacred scene without sin
or misunderstanding. There is no evidence that Luke used any source other than
Mark for this story.
In Luke the story comes earlier, preparing for the
passion. Only Luke tells of Herod’s
goal. Luke does not mention where the
story takes place, but maintains that Jesus was alone with his disciples. But this is awkward. He also says Jesus was alone before his
arrest; Jesus’ praying is used by Luke to show that something significant is
going to happen. For instance, Matthew
and Mark say that Jesus was transfigured in the transfiguration, whereas Luke
says he prayed.[57]
For Luke, the setting of prayer replaces the setting of philosophical
categories.
Jesus’ disciples did not understand his passion prediction.[58] It is significant that the blind man had been
given sight before this story. Peter
confessed Jesus’ identity but then is rebuked by Jesus for having rebuking
Jesus in his passion prediction. To Mark
and Matthew, did Peter get it right or wrong?
‘Rebuke’ is also used in the exorcism stories, implying that it is a
powerful word. It is not clear in Mark
why Peter reacted to the prediction as he did.
In Mark, Jesus begins teaching of the necessity of the suffering of the
son of man. Peter says ‘Christ’; Jesus
then says ‘Son of Man’. This is Mark’s
own putting together of the traditions. Jesus
is the suffering Son of Man. In Mark,
this is the gospel within the gospel.
The passion prediction (8:31) is a turn in the narrative in
Mark. Note the use of ‘must’—Jesus must
suffer, be rejected and killed, followed by resurrection. Note he must rise, rather than passively be
raised. Is Jesus resurrected by his own
effort? Why after three days? Three days was an idium at the time for ‘a
short time later’. Note that he said
this plainly—no ambiguity.
The second prediction of the passion is at Mark 9:30-32:
“…saying to them, ’The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and
they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise’. But
they did not understand the saying. And they were afraid to ask him.” This is portrayed by Mark as a secret
teaching to the disciples. It involves a
deliberate paradox: the Son of man, a cosmic figure, to be delivered into the
hands of men. Matthew did not include
this lack of understanding.[59] Luke claims that God hid the understanding of
the paradox from them.[60]
The third prediction is at 10:32-34 in Mark. Yet again, it is private instruction, a
summary of the passion story. Mark does
not say that the disciples did not understand it. But later, when they request to sit on the
right and left sides of him, it is clear that they did not understand it. Luke,
however, claims that they understood none of the prediction, as understanding
it was hid from them.[61]
At the end of that prediction, he gives his purpose: “For the Son of Man also
came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”.[62] Why not for all? Does this imply an elect? Although Matthew has Jesus claim the same
purposes, Luke leaves out the part about atonement, going on instead about
serving rather than being served. According
to Luke, Jesus’ death is not a ransom or atonement but an injustice because men
didn’t understand.[63]
The conditions of discipleship given
by Jesus is not given solely to his disciples. The reference to taking up their
crosses is odd.[64] A series of
four statements on discipleship each begin with ‘for’.[65] These statements build on each other. Mark is using a literary device. Luke leaves out the reference to ‘this
generation’ in Jesus’ talk.[66] Luke is writing in another generation. Mark claims the Son of man will come in the
future. All three of the synoptic
gospels have Jesus end that talk on a
word of assurance: some in that generation will live to see the
kingdom of God, or the Son of man coming in his kingdom.[67] To Mark, they will see that the kingdom of
God has come—implying that it was already there but unseen. To Luke, they won’t see the kingdom until the
future, but it is not clear if the kingdom has already arrived. To Matthew, the Son of man coming in his
kingdom seems to take place in the future.
2/17/93
Jesus’
Testament (Mark 13 and Luke 21)
In Acts 2:36, it is said that the
Jesus who died is in heaven, and will return. This didn’t happen in his
generation. If it was postponed, where is hope. A relaxation of Christian
seriousness. Keck says the problem of the delay is not a big deal. In Judaism, resurrection is at the end of
time. This differs from an evolutionary
eschatology wherein we grow into the kingdom of God.
Jesus talked of the son of man.[68] Paul alluded to its motif; elsewhere it is
said by Jesus himself who used it in three ways. First, as a human being.[69] Second, as the present suffering of Jesus
(i.e. ‘I’).[70] Third, as the coming son of man. Luke 17:24-25 combines these three uses.[71]
But no passage explicitly links these three usages. The Church has assumed that they are all
self-references. This is a problem for
historians: historical reconstruction vs. historical exegesis. There is no consensus on whether they go back
to Jesus. Perhaps exegesis will help to
answer this question.
The coming Son of Man is
apocalyptic; he is to break into history in the future even as he already
affects things now. Thus he is proleptic,
throwing his influence ahead. Jesus
has no interest in describing the age-to-come. In Mark, there was to be no sign to Jesus’
generation, whereas Matthew and Luke say there would be the sign of Jonah for
it.[72] Elsewhere in Matthew, the sign of Jonah is to
be at the resurrection. Luke claims
there are no external signs: “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.”[73] This is perhaps anti-apocolyptic.
Mark 13 is the little, or ‘Markian’
apocolypse.[74] But there are a lot of imperatives in
it. Mark 13 can be seen as a testament,
wherein the hero looks backward and forward.
But Mark 13 lacks a backward view.
In Mark and Luke, all of Jesus’ teachings occur on one day.[75] According to the synoptics, Jesus teaches
daily in the temple.[76]
Mark 13 is on the future. Matthew adds chapter 25 on the future. Jesus
predicts the destruction of the temple in 13:1-4. His disciples ask for a sign;
presumably they don’t want to be caught off guard. In Mark, this is private instruction. All of the synoptics are interested in the
same problem, triggered by the question of the temple. War is not a sign of the
end of time. Matthew and Luke, and perhaps
Mark, were written after the temple was destroyed. Thus they would associate destruction of the
temple with war. However, the desolating sacrilage (Jerusalem surrounded by
armies, according to Luke) will lead to cosmic chaos. Then the son of man comes as a public event
to gather the elect. In that generation,
the temple will be destroyed. With regard to this parousia of the Son of Man,
there is to be cosmic signs. Mark implies
that it would be in a future generation, as he has Jesus say “they will see”,
whereas Luke has Jesus say “your heads”, implying that it would take place in
that generation.[77] But then all three synoptics have Jesus say
“Truly,I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things
take place”.[78] In Matthew and Mark, Jesus says that he does
not know the precise day or hour.[79]
Luke omits this line on Jesus not knowing. Jesus then tells them to watch. So it is between excited expectation and
moral laxity or indifference, the problem for the followers is how to deal with
this.
2/19/93
The Gospel of Matthew
Matthew was written around the time
at which Luke was written. Luke was
probably written at around 85 CE; Matthew at between 95 and 100 CE. Matthew and Luke portray Jesus to serve
the needs of the church after the second generation. Luke wrote a second volume, Acts, on how
Christianity developed. Matthew did not
do so, thus he relied exclusively on Jesus’ experiences. He has Jesus use the word ‘church’
twice. Luke know Greek and Roman
history, so he was able to give the sense of a continual story. Matthew, however, had some continuity, but
action stopped five times so Jesus could teach themes. There are forty groups of material in
Matthew. Matthew appears to be designed
to facilitate memory. His Jesus is
harsher than is Luke’s Jesus, but this may be a reflection of us. Matthew ends where he began—in the
Temple. John has no pentacost, and he
has a double-ending. The ending of Mark
is open-ended, with the silence of the woman at the tomb. In each gospel, the risen Jesus meets the
disciples, and tells them to preach—thus anchoring the commission of the
church. Luke and John emphasize the
continuing work of the holy spirit. The
ending of Matthew is a remarkable paragraph.[80] It is made up of two parts, the appearance
and the commissioning. Matthew claims
that some of the disciples doubted his appearance, but ‘some’ is not in the
Greek (i.e. they all doubted). Jesus
declares with authority that he had been made kosmokratar, or Lord of
the cosmos, with unqualified authority in heaven and on earth.[81] To Matthew, it was not the resurrection that
conferred this authority onto Jesus, even though Acts claims it was given after
the resurrection.[82] This authority is the basis of the Church’s
mission—to reflect Jesus’ status.
In Matthew 10:5-7, Jesus instructs
the twelve to “go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the
Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go,
proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near’…” But in 28:19,
Jesus tells his disciples to “make disciples of all nations”. It is not likely that ‘all nations’ here
means ‘the gentiles’, as that would have excluded his fellow Jews. Nevertheless, to go to the nations rather
than just within Israel is a new turn.
Keck emphasizes that Jesus told his disciples to make disciples
of them. Making disciples has two aspects: baptizing and teaching. But this is
not the actual sequence, which is to teach, baptize and teach more as to how to
follow Jesus’ teachings. To be a disciple is more than learning ideas; in
addition, it is to follow the teacher’s ways.
This is important for Matthew because Jesus will be the final judge.
Only in Matthew does the resurrected Jesus commission baptism, using a liturgical
saying. But in Acts 2:38 and 8:16,
baptism is to be in the name of Jesus only.
But in Matthew 28:19, baptism is to be in the name of the trinity. Finally, Jesus promises his presence to the
‘close of the age’. This is
apocalyptic. In Matthew 18:20, Jesus
said that “when two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among
them”. This comes from shekinah,
the Jewish group gathering to study Torah, wherein at least eleven men are
necessary. But here, the Church has a mission too. ‘Emmanuel’, or ‘God is with us’, is the
meaning of Jesus[83],
as the Church goes on as well as while Jesus was alive. Yet, the Holy Spirit is
missing—except in Matthew’s baptism formula.
Why? To Matthew, the Holy Spirit
is associated with prophesy. Matthew
worred about false charismatic prophets who were hypocrites.[84] Moreover, Matthew was critical of those who
think their spirit gives them salvation.
In Luke’s Acts, in contrast, the spirit is emphasized in Christian
churches. Paul, too, emphasized it.[85] John emphasized the coming of the
spirit. Albert Switzer believes that
Matthew valued real prophets, and in that way valued the Holy Spirit. Keck
disagrees with this interpretation. Matthew’s
Jesus was a no-nonsense teacher to whom we will be accountable.
The Structure and Composition of Matthew
Matthew
is composed carefully in terms of style and theology. Don’t take any change for
granted. Kingsbury’s analysis is doubted by Keck. By having a section begin at 16:21, Kingsbury
splits Peter’s confession of Jesus’ identity in two parts. Kingsbury emphasizes
temporal phases. Secondly, Kingsbury does not treat the discourses. According to Keck, 4:18-22 is the hinge; 4:23
is a new section.[86] Bacon regarded Matthew’s passion story as an
epilogue. He saw chapters 3 thru 25 as
five books, each having narrative followed by a discourse. Keck, however, maintains that the discourses
are followed by the narratives:
Chapters 5-9; chapter 5 is a
discourse on the sermon on the mount. Chapters 5-7
Give the programmatic message; chapters 8-9 give the
programmatic mission. Words, then deeds
containing ten miracles. Counting stories, there are nine. So, an unintelligible structure. By the end of chapter 9, the crowds are
saying that this is new. The miracles
are to marginal people, such as a leaper—excluded from society. Then, two sayings on discipleship, followed
by three miracles, on the boat, of the swine (demons), and the paralectic,
respectively. The issue here is Jesus’
identity. Jesus’ identity is shown from his actions.[87]
Then, three healing stories, showing conflict over Jesus as the Pharisees
criticize him.
Chapters 10-12; chapter 10 is a
discourse on the mission of the church
Chapters 13-17; chapter 13 is a discourse on the parables of
the church in the
world
Chapters 18-22; chapter 18 is a
discourse on Church discipline
Chapters 23-25; a double discourse
on judgment (of the Pharisees and the world).
Chapter 28: epilogue.
According
to Keck, it is important to see the themes in each. Each discourse ends on the theme of
judgement. Matthew uses Q and Mark as
sources for the discourses. The
storyline in Matthew does not depend on the discourses. There is a thematic implicit coherence. The discourses reflect what Jesus taught and
let Jesus talk to Matthew’s church.
2/22/93
The Matthean Jesus[88]
The first two chapters of Matthew
are unique to that gospel. Compare it
with the first two chapters of Luke.
Note Matthew’s schematic structure of the geneology (1:1-17). What is its value as history? Notice the various ways in which Jesus is
identified in Matthew—not similarities with the story of Moses in Exodus 2.
Consider the beginnings of the other
gospels. In the beginning of Mark, Jesus
suddenly appears at his baptism, presented as the spirit-sent Son of God. Then Jesus calls his disciples and conducts
an exorcism. In Luke, the birth of Jesus
and of John the baptism, rooted in the Jewish traditions, is described. Jesus is then as a kid in the temple. Then he is tempted, but is obedient to God.
He announces the fulfillment that he would be rejected, and that he is open to
the gentiles. In John, there is a cosmic
beginning. As the gospels end opening
out to the Church, their beginnings link Jesus to Judaism.
Matthew begins with a geneology,
which can’t be seen like the one in Luke.
To Matthew, a geneology means ‘origin’, and it can refer to a list. The structure of it is not by accident. For instance, 1:17 refers to 14
generations. Actually, there were 13
after the exile, but it should not be taken literally. So why fourteen? The ancients counted by letters (Gematria). Fourteen is the sum of the Hebrew letters of
‘DAVID’.
Whereas Luke began his geneology
with Adam, Matthew began his with Abraham.
In Matthew’s geneology, there are four women before Mary: Tamar
(righteous), Rahab (a prostitute), Ruth and Uriah. David is featured. Matthew is anticipating later passages which
warn not to count on the link to the Jewish clan. Matthew stresses Joseph and
Mary; he did not want Jesus to be seen as illegitimate. According to Keck, Matthew was aware of
counter-interpretations. Matthew emphasizes Joseph’s line because Joseph
accepted Jesus. In 1:20, an angel said
to Joseph in a dream that he is a ‘son of David’. This line is important to Matthew, even
though he and Luke Jesus is always the ‘Son of God’ in their accounts. In both Matthew and Luke, Joseph is not the
biological father; rather, the spirit is.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Mary
was Jesus’ biological mother. But
whereas Luke uses the perspective of Mary, Matthew uses that of Joseph. Whereas Luke’s question was why was the
Nazarine born in Bethlehem, Matthew was interested in why Jesus grew up in
Nazereth. Whereas for Luke, the
announcement of his birth was made to shepards a mark of God’s grace, Matthew
has the announcement being made to wealthy maji as a mark of God’s grace. There
was tragedy in both accounts. For Luke,
Simeon’s statement to Mary was that “this child is destined for the falling and
the rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the
inner thoughts of many will be revealed—and a sword will pierce your own soul
too.”[89] In Matthew, there is the slaughter of the
innocent children. Like Moses, Jesus was
the only one spared, by having gone to Egypt.
In Luke, Jesus went to the temple rather than to Egypt. The killing of the innocents forshadows the
killing as Jerusalem fell.
Matthew’s birth story of Jesus is
coherent, yet there are roughs spots, so tradition can be distinguished from
redaction.[90]
Matthew emphasizes that the prophesies have been fulfilled as a means of divine
guidance. The style of the angelic
message to the maji not to return to Herod, and to Joseph in Egypt that he
could return is different from that of the other angelic sayings. Why?
Because they were to fulfill prophesies.
When Mary had been with child and Joseph worried, the dream he had was
important. From the dream, Joseph was
able to accept Jesus, which placed Jesus in the house of David, thus fulfilling
a prophesy. The reference to a star at
Jesus’ birth is odd. Why was Herod asked?
Stars don’t identify houses.
The relation of Jesus to Jewish
scripture was important to Matthew. Jesus is portrayed as like Moses. Jesus quotes scripture. Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. From 1:18 to 4:16, every incident is related
to scripture via comment, an aspect of the story, or a formula quote. The purpose and result are difficult to
distinguish. What does ‘fulfilled’
mean? It is emphasized in the
apocolypse; truth content is implied.
There is also the element of text predicting the future as
revealed. Historical criticism is
against this; the text speaks to its own time.
But, what then of Apocolyptics?
According to Moltman, fulfillment makes faith easier. But for fulfillment, where the event and word
cohere, as a witness to the reliability of God, is important. Or, it can imply the text as a promise made
in historical reality. According to
Keck, there is a need to re-think the fulfillment motif, deeper than prediction.
2/24/93
The Sermon on the Mount
It is a compilation of sayings traceable only
in its later stages, attributed to Jesus.
In nineteenth century liberal Protestantism, it was thought that it was
the heart of Jesus’ teaching, as it emphasizes internal morality rather than
external observances. It is important to
understand the Sermon in its context. If
the gospel authors wrote it from scratch, then there was no historical setting
in Jesus. The sources used by Matthew
for the Sermon were Q and Matthew.
Matthew rephrased it from the tradition.
In Luke, the setting for the Sermon is as follows: Jesus was in the
hills, he picked twelve disciples, then they went to the plain and he
preached. The Sermon is not very
prominent. In Matthew, it is prominent.[91]
Matthew has Jesus go up a mountain for it.
This is not physical; rather, mountains were associated with revelation
for the Jews. The mountain is like repentance, like turning back.
The Sermon is of the appropriate
tasks of the kingdom’s nearness. It is a
response to the good news that the kingdom of God is near. What is the Beatitude?[92]
It is a blessing. In Hebrew, there are two words for ‘blessed’: Ashre
(to bless people and things) and Baruk (to bless God). There are two contexts for Baruk. First, wisdom. Celebrate the wisdom of the wise to promote
it. Second, apocalyptic. To express hope
and assurance, despite the present.
Most of the Beatitudes are in the
third person. This was so in Q. Did Q have the four woes? They are in Luke. Perhaps they are not in Q; Luke added them. Matthew has 9 (3 x 3) beatitudes. The ninth is
different. It is longer and the second
is plural. The first and eighth both end
with ‘kingdom of heaven’.[93] It forms an inclusio. Is the eighth necessary for those who follow
the first seven? Perhaps it was added to
get nine.
Luke 6:21 promises an eschatological
reversal.[94] Matthew expands—for instance, 5:5 comes from
Psalm 37. In Matthew, there is
fulfillment at that time, and reversal in the future.
The Beatitudes are not requirements
and conditions to be met, but are pronouncements of God’s truth.[95] Matthew 5:7 contains the future past: ‘shall
be satisfied by God’, ‘will be mercied’.
In 5:10, the eschatological verdict of judgment day is given now.
As part of the Sermon, Jesus spoke
on the law. He claims to have come not
to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.[96] This was important to Matthew. Who is the one who relaxes the law?[97] Paul?
Mark? In 5:20, the kingdom of God
is made conditional—one’s righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. The kingdom of God in thus in the
future. How is it related to the present
kingdom of God? No verse answers this
question. There is a tension between the already and the not yet. In 5:20, the response is not yet entering
into the kingdom of God.
Righteousness is an important word for Matthew. He uses it in Jesus’ baptism and in the
Sermon on the Mount. Righteousness means
rectitude, rightness in accord with God’s will.
How can the scribes’ righteousness be surpassed? The Beatitudes. To be perfect, according to Jesus, is to sell
everything and follow him.[98] ‘Perfect’ is from Tam, which means
‘whole, complete, having integrity’ in Hebrew.
Matthew 5:20-48 form an inclusio, beginning with
righteousness necessary to enter the kingdom of God, and ending with ‘so be
perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect’.
In between are his teachings on murder, adultery, divorce, swearing,
retaliation, and enemies. Is strict law observance required? Does the
coming of the kingdom of God imply observance of Torah? Is Jesus’ teaching the antithesis of the
Torah? Jesus never criticizes the law’s sayings; rather, he adds to them. To Jesus, the law provides order, but doesn’t
change one.
In Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus quotes a scriptural saying ‘thou
shalt not kill’. Anger leads to
judgment. The correlation between a crime and its punishment is destroyed. The
legal approach doesn’t work, according to Jesus, because it does not retard
anger. Only reconciliation can do that. In 5:27, Jesus says that the law on
adultery does not deal with what is in the heart. With regard to swearing,
Jesus points to integrity.[99] With regard to the law of retaliation, Jesus
portrays it as a cycle of evil.[100] With regard to loving one’s enemies, legality
can be with this, but without moral integrity.
The key is on the internal condition.[101]
2/26/93
Discussion
Consider Matthew 26. Where did the author get his material. Matthew collects things from different
contexts. Matthew used Q, Mark and
Matthew to construct a summary of Jesus’ teaching. Matthew was not interested in what Jesus
really said; rather, he was interested in what Jesus would have said. Hellenistic Jews and Greeks wrote in this
way. The agenda of the author is important. What was his theology, political and economic
interests, and audience? Redactional
criticism examines the sources used. For
instance, Matthew 6:1-4 comes from Matthew himself. Look for repetitions, using
a concordance. For instance, Matthew
repeats the motif of ‘secracy’ and Jewish traditions such as prayer, alms, and
fasting.[102] Also, hypocricy[103]
as well as reward[104]
recur in Matthew.
3/1/93
Jesus’ Mission in Matthew 10-11
In Matthew 5-9:34, the mission of
Jesus is in word and deed, ending with an association between Jesus and the
devil. Matthew 9:35-8 is an introductory
paragraph. Matthew 10-12 contains a
discourse followed by narrative, with thematic linkages. Chapter 10 deals with the expectations of the
disciples as well as of those they are to meet.
In Matthew 10:37, for instance, Jesus tells his disciples that “he who
loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son
or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”.
Matthew adds M to Mark and Q. Up to Matthew 14, Matthew rearranges Mark.
From then on, Matthew follows Mark, adding Q and M to it. Matthew 9:35 is Matthew’s own summary of Jesus
preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing.[105] Matthew 9:36 is from Mark.[106] The sheep without a Shepard is in the Old
Testament. The image is one of
helplessness. The king is a Shepard as
well (in the Old Testament). Matthew
9:37-38 is from Q. “Then he said[107]
to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray
therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into the harvest’.” The harvesters are angels. By using Q here, Matthew implies that the
mission is an eschatological event, rather than merely good words and
deeds. The key is judgment.
There is no mission of the disciples before Easter in
John. But in Mark 6:6-8, Jesus “called
the twelve and began to send them out two by two”. But the focus here is the
relation between Jesus and his disciples. As the disciples were out, John the
Baptist was beheaded. Jesus did not comment on the disciples’ journeys. In Luke, the sequence is reversed. Jesus designated the twelve disciples, then
make the sermon on the plain. Later,
Jesus sent out the twelve. There is no story in Luke of John the Baptist being
beheaded. When the disciples returned,
Jesus didn’t comment. In Luke 10, there is a second mission. It is Q material.
In Matthew, there was only one mission. Matthew does not say
that the disciples came back. This was probably deliberate, because for Matthew
the mission in Israel was not completed by the time the Son of man comes. Matthew 10:5-23 forms an inclusio around
‘Israel’. Jesus tells his disciples to “go nowhere among the Gentiles…, but go
rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[108]
The mission to the Gentiles, “go therefore and make disciples of all nations”
is only after the resurrection.[109]
He tells the disciples they will be as sheep among wolves. The emphasis is on
Israel, with associations made between Jesus and Jewish history, underlying the
sense of tragedy and judgment. He tells the disciples to proclaim the good news
that the kingdom of heaven has come near. Why doesn’t he have them tell the
people to repent? The disciples were to do four activities: cure the sick,
raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons.[110]
The disciples were to combine word and deed. They were to be totally vulnerable
and helpless. He tells them not to take money, but to stay with those who
accept them. Others will be dealt with harshly in the future eschatological
judgment. The disciples would by flogged in the synagogues. Why would they be
punished? He ends the inclusio with “for
truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel,
before the Son of man comes.” This is unique to Matthew. No where else in
Matthew is the Son of man to come so soon. He was urging them to go from town
to town, as they would not have much time. Keck downplays this connection. The
Son of man will come before Israel is converted even though such effort and the
related persecution will occur to the end. Albert Switzer believed that Matthew
10:23 was said by Jesus—that Jesus believed the end would come soon. The Church would not have said that, so Jesus
probably did. Keck, in contrast,
believes that Jesus told the disciples to go town to town, and that Matthew
added the second part about the coming of the Son of man before they are done.
Then Jesus changes
the subject from the disciples’ mission to the nature of discipleship. Then, in Matthew 10:40-42, he switches back
to the disciples’ mission.
3/3/93
Matthew 23
Matthew
23 is not in Matthew’s literary style. There are five clusters of discourses,
each separated by an action by Jesus, in Matthew. Matthew 23 is a cluster. Matthew 24 is a new speech to a new audience,
thus there is a break between Matthew 23 and 24. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees test Jesus on
divorce. In Matthew 21, they question him on his authority. In Matthew 22, they
question Jesus on taxes, the Sadducees question him on the after-life, and a
lawyer questions him on the Commandments.
Matthew 23 is a culmination of Matthew 19-22.
The first twelve verses of Matthew
23 are based on Mark.[111]
Matthew 23:13 is from Q[112]. So Matthew collects material from his
sources, adapting the material to his agenda.
In Matthew 23, Matthew emphasizes the conflict with the Pharisees in
particular. Matthew makes the confrontation with the Pharisees more direct.[113] Luke contains criticism of the Pharisees, but
in a more relaxed context, such as when Jesus is at a Pharisee’s house for
dinner.[114] In contrast, Matthew sets the conflict in
public, in the temple. Luke 11:41-45
contains three woes at the Pharisees and three at the scribes, whereas Matthew
23:15-31 contains seven woes to the Pharisees and scribes. The first woe,
23:13, is added by Matthew; it disrupts Mark’s arrangement. Matthew is really
interested in the woe at the end, because he gives it an expanded explanation.[115]
Who were the Pharisees? Neusner wrote that they were an informal
group of laity which emphasized ritual purity.[116] Neusner emphasizes Matthew 23:25, the
Pharisees being clean on the outside but not the inside. That is, they were concerned about
ritual. Zetlin and Rivkin argued that
the Pharisees were laity of a scholarly tradition wherein the interpretation of
the Torah—how to live by it in the current day (codified applications; the oral
Torah) was important.[117] The Pharisees were the majority party at the
time. According to both Neusner and
Zetlin, the Pharisees were a popular group made up of laity. They had the authority of Moses.[118]
The context of Jerusalem after 70AD
may have influenced Matthew. After the temple
went down, there was no need for Saducees, as they had performed the
sacrifices. The Essenes and Zealots had
been killed by the Romans. And the Herodians had lost political clout. After 70AD, the most viable group to pick up
the pieces of Judaism was the Pharisees because they were mobile scholars. Matthew wrote his gospel after 70AD. Matthew 23 may have to do with competition
for the leading position in Judaism.
Matthew is the only gospel mentioning the church.[119] Matthew orients Jesus to his group: a church,
distinct from the synagogue. Perhaps
there had been recruiting by Pharisees. By Matthew 23:34, the seventh woe, it
is evident that the rivalry is turning bitter.
Matthew and John were both engaged in the church vs. synagogue
rivalry. Jesus was probably critical of
the Pharisees and other groups. Matthew singles out the Pharisees more so than
do Mark and Luke, perhaps because Matthew’s church had a particularly strong
rivalry with the Pharisees. This is not anti-Semitism. Rather, Matthew is against certain religious
leaders who are hypocrites. Matthew
teaches his church how to regard their leaders—no religious titles, and how the
leaders should act—as servants.[120] He has faith that there will be vindication
for those being persecuted; his church is on the right side.[121]
3/5/93
Matthew’s Jesus and the Church
Matthew uses the language of Isaiah
5-6, that in Jesus’ word and deed the Old Testament prophesy has been fulfilled
by Jesus.[122] The implication is that John the Baptist had
known the deeds of Jesus, he would not have asked the question of whether Jesus
was the Messiah.
Matthew 11:16 views the generation
of Jesus’ time as children who can’t be satisfied. John’s disciples mourn whereas those of Jesus
dance. Neither is satisfactory for that generation, who change the meaning of
Jesus’ deeds. For Matthew, the deeds of
wisdom are the deeds of Jesus. Whereas in Luke, Jesus quotes the wisdom of God,
whereas in Matthew Jesus speaks directly of wisdom.
Matthew connects things. For instance, Matthew 11:20 begins with
‘then’. At 11:25, he begins it with ‘At
that time’. There is no messianic secret
in Matthew. For instance, in 11:27, Jesus says “all things have been handed
over to me by my Father”. Then he gives an invitation from wisdom, “come to me,
all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you
rest.” In Matthew, the wisdom traits of
Jesus are in the context of the consequences of rejecting him. The Church began with the deeds of
Jesus. By the end, his mission (deeds)
were seen as wisdom. Wisdom, in this interpretation, is God’s self-disclosure,
spoken as if God were a person. For instance, Jesus reveals himself as the only
one from whom one can get to God. So,
Matthew emphasizes the figure of Jesus.
There are three factors in the
relation between Matthew’s Jesus and formative Judaism. First, demographics. In antiquity, Jews lived
in a part of town; their housing was dense. There was less intermarriage with
gentiles. Communal life was broader than in their homes. So there were few
secrets. Secondly, Judaism. In that religion, practices are emphasized
more so than belief. Thirdly, the use of
polemic in religion. Buzzwords.
Matthew’s Jesus is always law
observant. He becomes the model of how
to interpret the Torah for Jewish Christians.
The struggle was on who was interpreting the Torah—Jesus or the
Pharisees. In Matthew 10 and 24, Jesus
faces external pressure, as well as pressure from his family. To Matthew, the church is a group sustained
by Jesus, even beyond death. In Matthew
16:17-19, Jesus calls Peter the rock, because he made the right confession of
who Jesus is. Peter is given the power
to bind and forgive, in regard to the kingdom of God, not for the purpose of
church discipline. Being in the church,
or being its rock, does not necessarily mean that one is in the kingdom of God,
as Peter doesn’t want Jesus to suffer even as he is the rock. The church is the light of the world, but it
flickers. It does have a role to play in binding and loosening people to their
sins. Jesus says to tell your brother your sin, to him alone, and to go to
witnesses or the church if the other guy who sinned against you doesn’t listen.
In Matthew 18:18, the ‘you’ is plural, referring to the members of the church,
as having authority to bind and loose on earth, with power in heaven. Matthew has a realistic view of the church.
Exclusion is an extreme measure. From
the parable of the ungrateful servant, Matthew’s church is seen as impure. Perhaps there were false prophets in it.[123]
3/22/93
The Gospel of John
The gospel of John is problematic
because it is deceptive. Its words and
sentences look simplistic. For instance,
“I am the light of the world”.[124] But what is the meaning? This is not so straightforward. Also, what is John’s theology? Bomont claims that John is the clearest and
deepest understanding of the Christian faith, as it portrays Jesus, the church
and Jews. John portrays Christian faith
as the truth. This gospel is called ‘the
fourth gospel’, due to its position in the canon. But, Codex D has it between Mark and Luke. It
may not have been that John was written last, as Matthew and John were
contemporaries. The title may also over emphasize the difference between the
theology of John and the synoptics. It true, however, that John contains a
distinct theology. It tends to be assumed that theology is salient in John. It
may be that the history of the synoptics is important. According to Keck, the
difference is the kind of theology and the degree of explicitness. Also, the
history in John could be accurate. The author of John is unknown. Perhaps it is
not John, son of Zeb. But the authors of the synoptic gospels are also unknown.
In the New Testament, three documents are associated with John: the Apocolypse,
the letters, and the gospel of John.
Martin Hegel believes they have the same author.
How does one study John? There is no gospel parallel; most of John is
unique. The temptations, parables, baptism, exorcisms, transfiguration,
Gethsemane agony, Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord’s Supper are salient in the
synoptics but are absent from John. Johannine material such as the prologue
(1:1-18), Nicodemus (3:1-21), Woman at Samaria (4:4-42), Cana story (2:1-11),
Raising of Lazarus (11:1-44) and Mary in the Garden (20:11-18) are absent from
the synoptics. There are tensions between the synoptics and John on the passion
chronology and on the overlap of the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus.
Was John an attempt to supplement or to replace the synoptics? Was it an attempt to interpret and correct
the synoptics? Or perhaps it was a tradition parallel to and generally
independent of the other gospels? So, there is a lack of external controls. But
form and redaction criticism is used to locate layers. For instance, John
20:30-31 appears to have been an earlier ending, with 21 added later.
Concerning the historical problem of John, its place in early
Christianity is not clear. By 150 CE, it was widely known. At 180 to 200,
Irenaeus points to the clear use of it by a church leader. The Gnostics were
the earliest church leaders. For
instance, Valentinus. They were
dualists, who denied the reality of the incarnation in John. Yet, they found
that gospel useful in their own interpretation of it.[125] Irenaeus took John away from the
Gnostics. But, was John really a Gnostic
gospel?
Was John written in a Johannine school? Was it a persecuted sect, as Meeks
maintains? Or perhaps it was of Jewish
Christians who had been expelled from the synagogue—a church with a history of
internal conflict. The key is the
religious/conceptual thought-world of John.
Judaism at the time was heterodox.
It was a time of early Gnostitism, of Hellenized Judaism and Samaritan
theology.[126]
The greater the time of John from that of Jesus, the harder
it is for us to trace John back to Jesus.
F. Scott argues that John is a work in which primitive Christianity was
carried into a different period, recasting the tradition for a new
context. This is consistent with liberal
Protestant theology. However, parts of
John are not consistent with this thesis.
Just because old traditional ideas are not salient in John does not mean
that it was written for a new context; it might have been that the author
assumed that his audience knew of them already.
How can the uniqueness of John be accounted for? Isolation in a back area? But if so, how did Valentinians get it? If it was not written in isolation, then
early Christianity was very diverse, unless it was written after the synoptics.
The synoptics and John are on different topics. In the synoptics, the
kingdom of God is emphasized, whereas in John a religious dualism of light and
dark, or spirit and flesh, is emphasized as well as is the logos (the word). Where did the ideas unique to John come
from? According to Keck, parallels and
antecedents are important. Consider the use of Hellonism, Judaism, and
Hellonized Judaism, but our labels may get in the way. But the text must be
accounted for in a particular culture, making John unique.
In the perspective of John, Christology is central; a
particular understanding of Jesus is the central theme. In the synoptics, Jesus bears a message(e.g.
the kingdom of God is coming near); a Christology is implied. In John, the Christology is the message; in
it, Jesus talks about himself. Jesus’ identity is the content. The divinity of
Jesus comes through strongly. ‘Naive
Docetism’—that Jesus only seemed to be a real human. Yet Mary Thompson argues that the humanity of
Jesus is emphasized too in John.
The dates of Jesus’ passion changed so Jesus died when the
Passover lambs were sacrificed. However, the Passover lamb in Judaism is not
associated with atonement. The death of Jesus in John emphasizes his glory, in
going to the Father, there is no atonement.
Jesus in the temple claims in John to raise it in three days.
It was not until after the resurrection that the disciples remembered, or
‘understood’. The Holy Spirit works to
help the church remember, making the gospel of John suggestive and dangerous.
3/24/93
The Prologue of John
John 1:1-18 may well be the most
influential New Testament passage in the history of Christian thought. Its
surface simplicity easily conceals complex issues; how one deals with them
determines to a large extent how one understands the rest of the gospel—surely
what the author intended.
Many investigators are convinced
that the present Prologue is the result of both editing and expanding the hymn
to the Word (Logos). Much effort has
been committed to recovering the allegedly original Logos hymn; inevitably,
this entailed attempts to exhibit also its original poetic structure. Apart from intellectual curiosity as a
motive, why would a historical critic undertake such a thing?
In considering the phrases, consider
the various meanings of Logos in the first century, and the relation of John’s
Logos to them, of being ‘born of God’, of the relation of the two parts of 1:14
to each other, of the role of the Logos in creation, of the various ways of
expressing the ‘incarnation’, and of the relation of revelation (1:18) to
redemption (1:12-13).[127]
The Logos defies translation, as it
has a range of meanings in the Greek. It can mean ‘word’, ‘reason’,
‘rationality’, ‘statement’, ‘paragraph’, and ‘message’. It is an important term
in Stoic philosophy which teaches that there are different forms of reality. The Logos is rational and law-abiding. The
logos is endiathetos, remaining itself, being active and providing
reason and structure. It is also prophorikos. Logos is in everyone; we can live by it by
reason, doing one’s duty. Logos guides
the process of emmination (chain of being) in going from the phenomenal realm
to the numinal, is a dualistic system of thought. In Gnostic thought, the logos is the role of
the redeemer from the wisdom theologies of Hellonized Judaism. For instance, wisdom is logos in Soloman 70.
Note the uneven style in the
Prologue. Some parts are prose(1:6-8,
15-18), the rest is poetic which has a limited vocabulary and short phrases. Do
the poetic parts come from a poem? There have been attempts to recover the
original poetry. Most of the prologue is in the third person, but some of it
(1:14, 16) are in the first person plural. In 1:14, the subject changes to ‘the
word’, and ‘we’ is used. Notice the role of John (never called ‘the Baptist’ in
this gospel). Observe that 1:6 reads like the beginning of a narrative, J.
Johnson says it was originally the beginning of the gospel, which seems to be
continued in 1:19. Interesting variant readings are found at 1:18 and
1:13. Modern translations usually ignore
the latter (third person singular—‘who was’, instead of third person
plural—‘who were’. What is the
significance of the variant? In 1:18,
most manuscripts read ‘only Son’, but recently found papyri (and some excellent
manuscripts) have ‘only God’.
How is the prologue related to the
rest of the gospel? ‘Logos’ does not
appear after the prologue. The prologue
is the lens with which to read the rest of the gospel. It is the voice of the
narrator. It is of the Logos poem, which
was not foreign to John’s context. Consider the structure of the prologue.
1:1-5 is a unit. It doesn’t explain the logos. 1:1 is like
Genesis.[128] God creates by speaking. Note that the Old Testament language such as
‘Lord’ is not used. In 1:2, Logos is with God in the beginning, thus being
independent.[129] The Gnostics explain how Logos was
created. John does not say the Logos is
divine. Philo claimed that the Logos is like a second god, but he was a
monotheist. In 1:3, it is not said how
the Logos was involved in creation.[130] All things came into being through the logos,
but how? We have an ontological link to
God. There is no demiurge—a divine shaper of matter into creation; rather, it
is creation ex nihlio. There is a transition problem from 1:3 to 1:4. In
1:5, the light is shining in the darkness, in the present tense, the darkness
not having overcome it. These five
verses which open the gospel celebrate the relation of Logos to God and
man. Darkness is not metaphysical, but
is a spiritual condition. It is existential, rather than ontological. The
struggle between light and darkness, creator versus creatures, is the theme of
the gospel.
In 1:9-10, the true light, which
came into the world, is the logos. It came into the world for the Jews.[131] To all who received him he gave power to
become children of God, born of God.[132] What then, is the need of Jesus? Some manuscripts have ‘is born of God’, a
copier’s attempt to put the virgin birth in the gospel. The incarnation is described as ‘the Word
became flesh’ in 1:14. Boltman views the
incarnation here as a paradox: the logos hidden in the flesh. Boltman is emphasizing the revealer in the
first part of 1:14. Kaselman looks at
the second part of the verse to show that the humanness of Jesus recedes.[133] Keck asks if these are extremes. In 1:18, God is sui generis, not
belonging to a class. “No one has ever seen God.” ‘Withness’ is as intimacy. The Son is the only one close enough to
exegete the real meaning of God.[134]
3/25/93:
Discussion
John 9
In doing an exegesis, connect the
passages using a condordance. Look for the structure of a passage. And look for the relation of a passage to the
gospel. Use as evidence the passages
rather than the secondary sources. The
discussion of secondary sources should be in the footnotes. The key is the text
itself.
John 9 is a story. What words are
emphasized? What are the
theologically-important words? In John
9, these might include: blind, light, darkness, judgment, sinner, sin, synagogue,
Pharisees, Moses, Jews, washing, Sabbath, magic, anoint, signs, rabbi, son of
man, Lord, prophet, sight, see, division, confess, fear, and open. Look for a
theme which seems important in the passage.
What is the point of the story?
On the structure of John 9, there is
an inclosio around the word ‘blindness’.
In between, there is a healing, followed by several interrogations. It is significant how ‘Pharisee’ differs from
‘Jew’. The structure of the passage
might be as follows:
1-5: Jesus and Disciples
6-7: Jesus and the man
8-12: Neighbors and the
man
13-17:
Pharisees and the man
18-23: Jews
and the parents
24-34: Jews
and the man
35-38: Jesus and the man
39-41: Jesus and the Pharisees
How
are the first and last units related?
What is the connection between them?
Both have to do with blindness. There is a shift from the literal to the
figurative sense. Jesus makes statements
about himself. Is John addressing issues
relevant to his context? The Jews and
the parents seems to be the center of the structure of John 9. What is that center unit about? Is it about the confession or about being
cast out of the synagogue? John 12:42
has confession, being casted out of the synagogue, and the Pharisees connected.[135] John’s context was after the fall of the
temple in 70CE, when the Pharisees were the Jewish leaders. They threatened people who confessed Jesus
with excommunication.
Fact (no empirical evidence) and
faith. How does John shape a story to make a theological point related to the
needs of his audience? In John 9,
blindness is a metaphor used to tell Christians in his context that they should
confess their faith; that they should not be afraid of the Pharisees because
they are blind so their threats don’t really matter. As a theological teaching,
Jesus turned upside-down the Pharisees’ teaching that sickness is due to
sin. Like Mark, John interweaves deeds
and teachings of Jesus.
3/29/93
Jesus and Life in John
If the Logos became flesh, we can’t
assume how that occurred from the gospel. According to Raymond Brown, the Logos
did not appear in the flesh; rather, it became flesh. The incarnation implies
pre-existence in the gospel of John. It is not implied that Jesus is the purest
form of Logos. Rather, the eternal became the temporal. There is a difficult metaphysical problem:
how the Logos became flesh while remaining Logos. Because even flesh is hospitable to the
Logos, flesh is redeemable. No where in
John does it say that Jesus pre-existed; rather, it maintains that the Logos
did. John characterizes Jesus as the
Logos become flesh, in the world but not of it, as well as having been sent by
the Father (i.e., having His Father’s presence). It is necessary to see John as a whole. The incarnation is a special description
(i.e., ‘came down’).
After the prologue, there is a story
about the incarnation—of a human who looks like other persons, but is not
really like them. What is said and done by him has a real meaning that can be
seen by faith amid a closed world. A
miracle is a sign of the real meaning.
But, it is not just a symbolic allegory, but is an interplay. The Logos is flesh, so there are divided
opinion and misunderstandings. The
reader, as did the people in the narrative, must decide, as a
participant-observer.
In the last line of the prologue,
Jesus exegetes God, making God clear.
The Logos is God not biologically (bios), but of eternal life (zoe). For example, John 3:6 states “what is born of
the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit”.
John 3 begins with the story of
Nicodemus, followed by a discourse. It
is not clear where this change takes place, but that is not important because
the theology is the important aspect in John.
John the Baptist is as a witness.
Jesus is misunderstood.[136]
The story of Nicodemus, a Pharisee,
is in John 3:1-15. Nicodemus views Jesus as a God-sent teacher due to his
signs. The story exposes what is in
everyone, birth anothen—over again, from above. How does Nichodemus
understand the term? The kingdom of God is a spiritual state. One in that state has been born of water and
spirit.[137] Paul, in contrast, believed that flesh and
blood can’t enter the kingdom of God; rather, those at the parasida will be
transformed. In John, in contrast, it is not a metaphysical change and is not
at parasida; rather, it is a new birth from the Spirit. John is Christological. In 3:13, the ‘Christ event’ is described: the
Son of man descended from heaven and will ascend . So heavenly things are known only if Jesus
descends from heaven. The whole Christ
event is as the church would speak of Christ later.[138]
Moses is a foreshadowing of Christ on the cross. “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up…”[139] To John, the cross is a paradox. According to the world’s view, it is the
deepest humiliation, whereas to John it is the glorification of Jesus.[140] Eternity is not endless time, but is an
alternative to time which is available now by being born of the Spirit.[141]
What makes life ‘eternal’? What is the
relation between entering the kingdom of God and eternal life? To John,
everything depends on the ‘of’ of one’s existence. The “one who comes from
above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks
about earthly things”.[142] The work of Jesus is not separate from what
Jesus is. This doctrine as seen as being
important to salvation. The kingdom of
God is available now. The last judgment
is now, not necessarily at the end of the world; any further judgment can only
confirm what has been judged now. So John has a ‘now’ eschatology. Why does 3:14-15 allude to Num 21:4-9? John
3:14 introduces an essential Johannine qualification of ‘life’.
What is the ‘living water’ that
Jesus is prepared to give?[143] Note the final exchange between Jesus and the
woman in John 4:25-26. In view of 3:36,
do the Samaritans now have eternal life?[144]
What happened to Jesus’ self-identification in 4:26?
In John 5, Jesus healed on the
Sabbath and called God his Father, making Jesus the same as God (this is not
necessarily the case). It is at this point that Jesus’ controversies with ‘the
Jews’ begin. Jesus speaks of having eternal life in the present tense: “anyone
who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not
come under judgment, but has passed from death to life”.[145] Judgment is no longer the issue; death is not
believing in Jesus. But then in 5:25-29,
judgment and physical death are the topics: “…the hour is coming when all who are
in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good,
to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection
of condemnation”.[146] Note the relation of 5:24 to 3:36, then read
carefully 5:25-29.
Which one is really John’s
Christology? In places, he relates
them. “Those who eat my flesh and drink
my blood hae eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.”[147] Spiritual life and physical death, both
related to being raised after physical death at the last judgment.
In
John 6, the reference to Israel’s eating manna in the wilderness (Ex 16)
prompts Jesus to speak of God’s life-giving bread that comes down from heaven.[148]
Jesus goes on to talk about himself.
John 6:40 repeats 5:24-29. 6:46 paraphrases 1:18. The allusion to Jesus’ death in 6:51 prompts
another debate, followed by the eucharistic them in 6:53-58. John does not report the instituting of the
Lord’s Supper. To what extent does
chapter 6 serve the same purpose? Does
John understand ‘living forever’ in 6:58 to be the same as ‘eternal life’? What is ‘the light of life’ in 8:12? Does Jesus say that his flock will not
die—that he gives everlasting life as well as eternal life?[149]
The raising (not resurrection) of
Lazarus in 11:1-44 plays a pivotal role in John’s gospel.[150]
It shows that Jesus gives life. Jesus uses Lazarus’ sickness to show his glory.
The role of Jesus as life-giver is particularly salient in 11:21-27 in the
exchange between Martha and Jesus. Martha complains to Jesus that if he had
been there, Lazarus would not have died. Jesus wept. What is her view of
resurrection? What is the relation
between 11:25b and 11:26?[151] Compare Martha’s confession that Jesus “is
the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world”[152]
with the confession of the Samaritan woman.
Only two other people call Jesus the Son of God. What is the difference between what happens
to Martha and what happens to Lazarus?
Martha is resurrected into eternal life whereas Lazarus is raised from
physical death.
In the Johannine view, the
life-giver is the incarnate Logos.
Believing in Jesus is the condition for receiving eternal life.[153]
3/31/93
Jesus and Judaism in John
John has
high and low Christologies, a reflection of his context. There were tensions
with other Jews beginning in chapter 5.
In 5:18, Jesus breaks the Sabbath and calls God his Father. The rest of the chapter is on the relation
between the Father and the Son, reflecting an issue in John’s context. In 6:35, Jesus says “I am the bread of
life”. The ‘I am’ sayings are unique to
John. The eschatological revealer is “I
Am”. Jesus uses ‘I am’ for exclusive
claims to be made, rather than as a simile (i.e. I am like…). Jesus says, ‘I am bread, the good Shepard,
and life. He uses the language of
metaphor, relating things that don’t otherwise relate to each other. The key is the incongruity. For instance, ‘I am the Way’ forces a yes or
no. It is exclusive and offensive. Self-proclamations such as this one were
rejected or repudiated by most people.
The disciples didn’t reject them, however, but they didn’t understand
them until after the resurrection. The repudiation by Jews wasn’t necessary,
yet was inevitable because the Logos became flesh.
In John, the wedding, where Jesus
turned water (purification uses) into wine (the drink of the gods)—the first
sign in John[154],
and the cleansing of the temple are the opening events. Whereas the Synoptics
have Jesus ‘cleanse’ the temple at the end of his ministry, John puts it near
the beginning at 2:13-22. John adds to that story an exchange between Jesus and
the Jews at 2:18-20, followed by the narrator’s comments at 2:21-22, thereby
expanding the incident’s significance. The Jews ask for a sign; Jesus tells
them to destroy the temple, and that he would raise it up in three days. The Jews don’t believe he could do it. Then,
at Passover, Jesus overturned tables, opening up his ministry rather than his
passion. It shows that Jesus valued the
temple; Jesus himself is the temple that matters. According to the synoptics,
Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples, whereas in John the last meal
was before the Passover.[155] Indeed, John points out that Jesus was
executed on the ‘day of Preparation for the Passover’.[156] What is the theological significance of this?
Jesus distinguished himself from the Jews. In 7:19, he referred to ‘your torah’. In 4:19-22, Jesus’ perspective is quite
Jewish, and yet it transcends Judaism. In John 8, Jesus went on the
offensive. The meaning is that unless we
believe, we are the Jews. The prologue alerts the reader not only to Jesus’
salvific work but also his rejection.[157] One of the distinctive traits of John is the
way it portrays Jesus’ relation to ‘the Jews’.
It is widely acknowledged that in John ‘the Jews’ represent humanity.[158] But not every use of ‘the Jews’ bears this
meaning.[159]
Jesus’ healing in the Sabbath has a christological reason.[160] He was working on the Sabbath because his Father
was working. Jesus then expounds on his
relation to God.[161] In chapter 6, Jesus and ‘the Jews’ have a
series of exhanges, Jesus uses language differently than they do.[162] In chapter 7, Jesus precipitates a crisis
among the Jewish people. He goes on the
offensive. The exchanges reach a crescendo in chapters 8 and 10. The assertions of Jesus precipitate
accusations from ‘the Jews’ and vice versa.
The unusually long story in chapter 9 weaves together many themes. In chapters 5 thru 11, what do ‘the Jews’ and
the people know about Jesus?[163] Is their knowledge erroneous? Does the reader know anything
additional?
4/2/93
The
Farewell Discourses
Compare John 13-17 with Luke
22:1-38, Matthew 26:17-35, and Mark 14:12-31, noting not only the differences
in content but also the differences in atmosphere and tone.
The transition from chapter 12 to 13
is the hinge of the gospel. Basic to John is the understanding of Jesus’ death
in 13:31-32.
Chapters 14-16 are the Farewell
discourses in which Jesus looks ahead to when his mission will have been
completed. Salient themes include Jesus’ relation to the Father, his relation
to the disciples, and their relation to the world. A distinctive feature of
these discourses are the passages concerning the Paraclete, and its relation to
Jesus, to the disciples, and to the world.[164]
Both Luke and John have Jesus promise the Spirit, but at different times.[165] Note when the promise is kept in John.[166]
John portrays Jesus’ agonizing
prayer at Gesemite.[167] There is also a last supper, but John does
not provide for the origin of the Last Supper. In chapter 6, Jesus refers to the eating of
his flesh and blood. But it is in the
synoptics and in Paul’s letters that it is said that the Eucharist was
instituted by Jesus. To John, in contrast,
the Eucharist is not something Jesus did, but is and does Jesus
himself. John includes the footwashing.[168] Whereas the synoptics locate the Last Supper
after Passover, John places it before Passover—Jesus being killed when the
lambs were being slaughtered. Satan
enters Judus in John’s gospel.[169] The ascent and decent are both important in
John.
The supper story in John is the
portal to the passion story. John uses
water-cleansing, as the counterpart to the story of the minister. The cleansing of the temple (the hour has not
yet come): water into wine. The foot-washing contains the moral meaning of
Jesus’ teaching.
John 13-17 is uniquely Johannine. It
begins with an incident and ends with a prayer.
It is a baffling literary style, repeating chapters 13-14. Were chapters
15 and 16 added? John 17 is a recopitulation of the gospel put as a
prayer. In it, Jesus says the ‘hour has
come’, and he sends his disciples out into the world.[170] How did the disciples know of Jesus’ prayer
while they were asleep?
In John, the paragee is the
spirit (‘counselor’ or ‘advocate’, literally) which follows Jesus. It holds the
meaning of the Christ-event, from when Jesus returned to God. In the first part
of John, the enfleshed Logos made the meaning of God effective in the
world. The creator Logos became the
redeemer Logos. Now, what is Jesus’
significance? In John, it is assumed
that the group of believers continues.
There is no mention of a second coming or last judgment; the fate of
Jerusalem marks the end of time. It is also assumed that the church will be in
a hostile environment; the church repeats the experience of Jesus.[171] The disciples are not of the world, because
they have been given Jesus’ word. So they are not of this world, as Jesus was
not of this world. There is no command to love one’s enemy or the outsider.
There is no hint that this will change—no apocalyptic resolution or
eschatological judgment. The second-coming of Jesus came in the paragee. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give
you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom
the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and
he will be in you. ‘I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. In a
little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I
live, you also will live’.”[172] There will be mutual interpenetration on that
day: “…you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you”.[173] John sees the coming of the ‘Spirit of truth’
as the Spirit teaches of the incarnate Logos, making it perpetually reverent.[174]
Jesus says that only if he goes will the Advocate come.[175] The paragee is as a legal advocate,
convicting the world in its sinfulness in the midst of the righteousness of
Jesus; that the world is wrong about its judgment of Jesus.[176] Pilote judges Jesus, but it is actually
Pilote who is judged. The Spirit is not
so much power as it is the presence of the divine; it is the same as to abide
in the Son.
4/5/93
The Execution of Jesus
Why study the execution? It is
historical. The act of crucifixion was juridical, done publically. It was an
act of the state done to people seen as a threat to the society. The state
assumed that such a killing is an exception (name of the wrath of God). So
execution was the ultimate negative judgment.
The passion story is saturated with
theological underpinnings. It is hard to know what really happened. As a
narrative, it is a tightly knit unfolding story with a climax. Jesus becomes
passive. John has no signs of meaning,
such as darkness or an earthquake. So he
has a stark theology. There is little
interest in the gospels in showing Jesus’ pain. For instance, Luke omits the crown
and thorns. The Old Testament refers to the execution of a righteous man.[177] In John, Pilote is the judge who is not aware
that he is the one who is being judged.
The death, in Mark, is a paradox: Jesus feels abandoned at the point at
which God is most active in him. In
Luke, Jesus is devout to the end. In John, Jesus says ‘it is finished’.[178]
Keck warns not to combine the last few words of Jesus from the gospels.
Resurrection and Appearances in John
It is
commonly, though not universally, noted that although the historian cannot deal
with the resurrection of Jesus itself, one can deal historically with the
belief that Jesus was risen, just as one might grant that this belief was the
catalyst in the emergence of a distinct group of people. Interestingly, the New Testament contains no
account of Jesus’ resurrection. The earliest
report of his resurrection is in the non-canonical Gospel of Peter. What the
New Testament does provide are three kinds of materials pertaining to Jesus’
resurrection: assertions that he has been raised from the dead, stories of his
appearances, and reports of the empty tomb.
The New Testament has no narrative
about most of the appearances listed in 1 Cor 15:3-7, the oldest Christian
writing on these events. When would Paul have received the list? Did Paul join two traditions? Note that Paul includes himself in this list.
Consider the final chapter of each
Gospel.[179]
Note that Peter is singled out in Mark 16:7 (but not in Matthew despite
16:17-19), Luke 24:34, the shorter ending of Mark, and John 20-1. Why is there this interest in Peter, as in 1
Cor. 15:5? Is Luke 22:31-34 a clue?
On Luke, note that only Luke has
Jesus command the disciples to stay in Jerusalem.[180]
In Luke, Jesus ascends on Easter night. On what, according to Luke, does the
belief that Jesus has been resurrected depend?
The emptiness of the tomb? Luke
emphasizes the empty tomb. The word of
the two angels? The presence of
Jesus? Note how Luke 24:36-43 defends
the reality of the resurrection (see also Acts 1:3). He has Jesus eat a fish.
He was not a ghost or apparition. In Matthew, the guards claim that Jews stoled
the body. In asserting its reality, Luke makes it seem like resusitation. But
on the other hand Jesus appears and disappears; the same person but not the
same body—the resurrection as transformation. Does Luke portray Jesus as
reanimated rather than resurrected? Note
that everything reported in Luke 24 occurred on the same day. In Acts 1:3, Jesus showed many proofs.
Note the role of Matthew 27:62-66 in
the whole account. In Matthew 28, there are two appearance stories. In the
first, there is a paradox between the
ordinary greeting and the women’s response to the ephany. In the second, they
worshipped and doubted him. In Matthew
28:2, there is a second earthquake. In
Matthew, it is the angel who promises a rendezvous in Galilee. In 28:9-10,
Jesus confirms the angel’s promise. In
contrast with Mark, the women obey the angel.
Note that the author of Matthew knows of an alternative explanation for
the emptiness of the tomb.[181] What aspect of this story might be historically
true?
In Mark’s account of the discovery
of the empty tomb, Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, fled from the
tomb, for they were afraid.[182] Why were they afraid?
In John, notice the interest in the
burial clothing.[183] What is being conveyed? In view of 20:9, what did the beloved
disciple ‘believe’? In light of 20:2,
what is John saying about the significance of the empty tomb for believing that
Jesus has been raised? There is a famous
appearance story in 20:11-18. Why does John say that Mary did not recognize
Jesus? It is not clear why why Jesus
told Mary that she shouldn’t touch him, as he was not yet ascended.[184] Compare and contrast John 20:19-23 and Luke
24:36-39. Jesus appearing to the
disciples does not depend on the preceding events with Mary. Jesus overcomes
doubts about his resurrection.[185] It is clear that the original disciples have
no advantage over those who would come later and believe without having seen
Jesus.[186] In John, at one point he does not use
‘appeared’, but uses ‘was revealed’ instead.[187]
Finally, compare John 21 with Luke
5:1-11. What themes do they share?
In the Hellenistic world, there had
been stories of rising from the dead. There were myths and rituals of the dying
and rising gods, related to seasons and fertility. There were stories of individuals
raised. In antiquity, this would be
silly. The Epicurians believed that a
person is a configuration of Adam, dissolving at death, so there is nothing to
fear of death. The Gnostics believed
that the soul is immortal, but they were not interested in resurrection. To the
apostles, resurrection was not a myth nor a rescussitation, nor a release of
Jesus’ soul. Rather, it was believed by
them to be an eschatological event that really happened in light of the Jewish
apocalypse. The oldest statement on resurrection is in Daniel 12:2. “Many of
those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” In the Jewish view, the dead go to
Sheol, the underworld, where they linger and then fade out. The good and the bad thus wind up in the same
place. This is contrary to Deuteronomy.
And in Daniel, during the Maccadean wars, there was the martyrdom of the
obedient. Resurrection was a way of affirming the ultimate judgment of God
after one’s death. So, resurrection was
part of the apocalyptic as well as the doctrine of the Pharisees and Rabbis;
they believed in resurrection at the end of the age. So, there was a diversity of Jewish views on
resurrection. It is not clear who would be raised. The righteous, as reward? Everyone, so all would be judged? Or both, in two judgments? It is not clear where they would go after the
judgment. The Jewish idea of
resurrection is as an eschatological event; immortality was to be conferred
rather than released.
In the New Testament, Jesus’
resurrection was the signal of the new age breaking in. His resurrection was not an isolated
event. It was not a miracle—an exception
to a rule; rather, it was a signal of new rules—an eschatological event. The first fruits; the break through. Like Judaism, early Christianity had a
variety of interpretations.
Today, the problem is how
resurrection is possible if one is not buried.
In Jesus’ time, the problem was convincing people that it happened to
Jesus—to one man only. Jesus was killed
as a failure, so God must have vindicated him if he was indeed raised. God must have worked through Jesus. Jesus must have been God’s man from before;
Jesus was sent as God’s sign. God is the
resurrector.
In the New Testament, there are
different meanings of resurrection. In 1 Cor. 15-20, Jesus’ resurrection is
said to be the basis of our own. The
earliest resurrection accounts were assertions that it happened, but there was
no story of it. It was put in terms of
an exultation, implying an ascension. But in Luke, there were forty days
between the resurrection and the ascension. The Gnostics believed that Jesus
ascended eleven years after he was resurrected. All the gospels mention burial.
There is no hint of the time or place, yet Paul included himself as the last
eyewitness. How did he know this? His was the only account by an eyewitness.
Paul does not mention the empty tomb. He claims that Jesus appeared to five
hundred, then to the twelve. But Judas
had killed himself. Matthew claimed that Jesus appeared to the eleven. There
are no stories of appearances by Peter or James. Both Paul and James owe their
conversions to an appearance (ophthe: made visible by God).
The appearance stories in the New
Testament can’t be put together. The stories anchor, but do no generate the
faith. Historians can’t answer what happened to Jesus, but they can answer what
was done on the basis of the belief. The empty tomb story may rest on a
historical event. But the story has
meaning only to those who believe that Jesus was raised.
4/7/93
The Historical Jesus
What is the problem? The historical critical method has existed
for 200 years. The assumption underlying it is that we need to peel away the
various Christian interpretations to get at the original colors with which to
reconstruct the historical story of Jesus. But, what is history? It is not an aggegation of the data; rather,
it entails a story, including why things happened. The ‘historical’ has its own
lenses. So ‘the historical Jesus’ is problematic. How can the bias of the
historian be separated from the Jesus who really was? If it can’t be separated out, then the result
would be ‘the historians’ Jesus’. This
doesn’t get to what really happened. Historical, rather than factual, study is
the best means to tell what really happened and to get at the truth of it.
For both orthodox and liberal
Christianity, a lot is at stake. For the orthodox, the issue is the historical
factuality of the gospels. It is assumed
that the gospels are true, including of the facts—which historical study will
show. For liberal Christians, Jesus is
the pivotal figure—not mythological or one who performed miracles. History can
be used to recoup the religion of Jesus himself and give up the religion about
Jesus (e.g. Paul’s religion). So, the
historical Jesus is necessary for liberal Christianity to get back to the
religion of Jesus where he is not a divine being but a man who loved God.
So orthodox and liberals come to
opposite conclusions by historical study.
Each of the found their Jesus.[188]
At Westminister Seminary, there is the view that the liberal and orthodox
Christians are of two different religions.
To form critics, the gospels were
shaped by the life of the church. Bultman, after WWII, claimed that the
collapse of liberal Christianity was welcomed.
To him, it is important that there was a Jesus who was crucified. He
believed that we can’t get at the real Jesus using form criticism; he argued
that we shouldn’t get back to him anyway.
Like Barth, Bultman believed that it was not about a value-judgment on
Jesus, but of a decision, a leap of faith.
True faith, to Bultman, is a response to kyrgma. Facts and historical data do not matter in
this. They are not relevant for faith;
it couldn’t be proved that God acted anyway.
So, Bultman rejected the liberal value-judgment that the historical
Jesus is behind the gospels. He also rejected Aristotelian metaphysics. Rather,
for him, the understanding of truth in the myth is affirmed existentially. To go behind the myth is illegitimate; one
can’t ask God for his ID card. Faith is not built on historical fact. So, there
is a lack of continuity between Jesus and the gospel to Bultman, unlike both
the liberals and orthodox. For faith, it is the proclaimed that matters.
Borncomb was interpreted by James
Robinson as a new quest for the historical Jesus. Ebeling and Fuchs, influenced
by Bultman (who used earlier Heideger) and Heidiger, want to solve the
disconnect between the proclaimer and the proclaimed. They found continuity of existence before the
resurrection and understanding afterward, using language: the same
self-understanding. If not continuous, gnosticism is possible.
In modern study, Schillebeek saw in
the liberal quest Jesus as a counter-cultural hero quelched by the Church.
4/12/93:
Guest Lecturer
Historical Jesus research was begun
by Protestants as they emphasize the written text. Their methods show what they
don’t want to find. Inquirers have sought the historical Jesus out of love of
Jesus (e.g. Keck), to reform the church (e.g. Ramoris), and out of an
anti-Jewish bias. One should distinguish
the historian’s reconstructed Jesus (Switzer says such a Jesus is of the
interpreters) from the historic Jesus—Jesus as he actually was; the impact of
Jesus on history. The earliest witnesses were the disciples. The biblical Jesus
is of particular groups of Christians. The earthly Jesus is Jesus as he was on
earth (the human Jesus). There is a
large gap between Jesus the man and his historicity. Keck argues that the historical critical
method is to liberate truth from tradition (Switzer says, from the tyranny of
dogma). The Bible can be read as any book. The historical method seeks
relationships and the sequence of events. The historical account is based on
reason and the law of nature; it extrapolates from what we know to what is not
known. Hegel includes miracles.
According to Keck, the resurrection is not a historical event; it is not
open to historical scrutiny. So the
historical Jesus via the historical method excludes miracles, healings, and the
resurrection. But we still have Jesus’
teachings.
What criteria can be used by the
historical method to get at the historic Jesus’ teachings? Discontinuity: the earliest version of a
saying. If dissimilar to Judaism and the
early Church, then it is reasonably certain that it came from Jesus. It is
assumed here that Jesus is the self-determining subject. But, this ignores the influence of his
environment on him, and that his teachings were distinct from the teachings and
the early church, and finally—how could Jesus’ teaching be so different from
Judaism even as Judaism was his tradition. Also, that a teaching had an early
date does not necessarily mean that Jesus said it. Secondly, coherence. But
this is a dubious criterion. Third, liguistic.
A saying makes sense when
translated back into Aramaic. But, his followers spoke it too. Seemingly objective criteria lead to gray
results. The criteria can not tell us for certain. It is not necessarily so
that the earliest is that of the historical Jesus. For instance, Q has no
passion account, yet the earliest canonical gospels include the passion
story.
Problems with the quest for the
historical Jesus as a whole include the problem of the sources. They are
inadequate. The gospels were written with a theological goal: to show Jesus as
the resurrected savior. According to Kaler, they are not reliable historical
sources. And there is little outside evidence. So, Kaler maintains that we
can’t know what Jesus thought of himself. Switzer thought this could be known.
But the gospels are not historically trustworthy, yet theya re relevant for
theological truth. Kaler argues that the historical search matters because Jesus
matters to us. According to Bultman,
historical Jesus research can’t pin down Jesus, and would replace faith with
works. But Keck counters that historical Jesus research does not change faith
into works; the question of faith remains open.
Historical Jesus research can be helpful, according to Keck, in knowing
Jesus. The historical method will not get us to Jesus; faith is necessary for
this. ‘Who Jesus is’ is more than ‘Who
Jesus was’.
4/14/93
Where is the burden of proof in the
quest for the historical Jesus? It is in
the investigator and in the text (gospels).
Concerning the investigator, when in doubt, go with the tradition.[189] Concerning the text, the historical method is
used, wherein everything is questioned, including the existence of Jesus. It
has been established that there was a Jesus who was executed by
crucifixion. Everything else is
uncertain, ranging from the probable, such as that Jesus had disciples (but
whom?), to the possible. The text tells as much about the writers and their
context as well as ourselves, including our methodologies and agendas, as about
Jesus. There have been Jewish scholars
on this question, such as D. Hagner.
The Jesus of history, a Jew, is
different than the Christ of faith—so different that historians have had to
rescue the Jesus of history. Almost all
knowledge of the historical Jesus is from the early Church. Using form criticism, it may be seen how the
early Church distorted Jesus. How can we get to the historical Jesus from the
gospels? An assumption underlying
historical criticism is that the early Church was inept concerning passing on
information on the historical Jesus. For instance, we know by clues in the
biblical text that the historical Jesus was a revolutionary, yet this feature
was ignored by the early Church. How and why the early Church was different is
itself a reconstruction, showing our attitude toward that Church as well as
Jesus.
The negative criterion is used for
the signs of Jesus, but it can be used for other passages as well.[190]
For instance, followers of John the Baptist comprised a rival group to the
early Church. John baptized Jesus. The
early Church wouldn’t have invented this. This is an example of the negative
criterion: passages that the early Church would not have added are assumed to
be from Jesus.
The stories of the baptism and
crucifixion of Jesus were told to show signs in order to instill faith. They were told for the purpose of faith
rather than to simply describe what happened.
As a result of the negative criterion,
Jesus has been lionized at the expense of both Judaism and Christianity, as
Jesus has been separated from his past and the future of his movement. But, the
greatness of alternatives has not diminished Jesus. Isssues of faith and
history are ignored today. Faith does not depend on the results of historical
investigation. According to Bultman,
faith in Jesus only needs the knowledge that Jesus existed. Keck adds that no
disciple joined due to facts. So, the
role of the historical Jesus in coming to faith is different from his
significance in faith. Jesus acted with
authority not derived or from history.
Jesus was not in a self-conscious form.
Rarely did he appeal to scripture.
Rather, he had a confidence in himself, claiming knowledge of God’s
will. Too much attention has been on Jesus calling God Abba. Keck claims that
it is important how Jesus related to the socio-economic situation. There was a boldness in Jesus; he assumed
that he was right and he didn’t explain the source. In the Gospel of John, the relation of Jesus
to God is central. Jesus of history is ambigious because history is ambigious.
Jesus of history is not unique in challenging the status quo, acting with
authority. The question is whether Jesus
did in fact speak from God. Miracles show us that Jesus was ambigious rather
than that he was unique. Bultman claims
that every attempt to get to the historical Jesus is a proposition. Jesus is
ambigious yet assertive; Jesus himself is a parable of God. Jesus does not need
the protection of a historian or a theologian. Today, Jesus is judged nieve,
unoriginal, and without a full ethics. But he is not called a bumbler. So Jesus does not need our defense. Whoever
quests for the historical Jesus will be disappointed if he or she is relying on
facts to support faith. So much of the content of a fact depends on what it is
called. For instance, was Jesus an autodidact (self-taught)? This could mean that he was unschooled,
independent, arrogant, self-confident, and charismatic. What is the fact, and
how does the choice of the label impact it?
A fact is ambigious, subject to being labeled as well as to probability
and correction. To seek the Jesus of
history is to seek a Jesus not free of degrees of probability. His facticity heightens rather than lessens
his ambiguity. Consider the difference
between faith, which entails an act of trust in the other, and inference, which
entails trusting one’s own reasoning.
History is of the latter. That Jesus can be trusted can not be reduced
to an inference. Faith exists only if
there is the possibility of saying no. So Keck opposes a biographical process.
Faith may come first, before historical study, but not necessary. The ambigious probable Jesus of history
attracts people, as they suspect that Jesus is right. This can lead to faith.
4/19/93
The Problem of Jesus’ Self-Interpretation
What did Jesus think of his own
identity?[191]
This is at the core of the historical Jesus question. In recent years, there
have been different answers. It is a valid historical question, and the use of
historical evidence is necessary. Also, look at the New Testament for what
Jesus is said to have said of himself, explicitly and implicitly. The negative criterion has a large impact
here. For instance, what title did Jesus use, and what difference does it make?
Titles include Messiah, Son of Man,
Son of God, Son of David, and Prophet. From Christian history, we are
accustomed to using them to refer to Jesus.
Liberal Christians call him a prophet, emphasizing the social justice
feature of the Jewish prophets in the Old Testament. Orthodox Christians
maintain that ‘prophet’ is not a sufficient title for Jesus.
What did the categories or titles
mean in Jesus’ time? Jesus could have
used them in a new way, however. ‘Was
Jesus the Son of God?’ is not the question; rather, the question here is
whether he thought he was? This is a
historical question. Before 70CE, the meaning of each of the titles was
ambigious as each had more than one meaning. The ‘Messiah’ was the deliverer of
Israel, a human, not one who sacrifices himself for the sins of others, and the
one to be victorious. But, the Dead Sea Scrolls tell of two messiahs, one of
the Davidic (national) and the other being priestly (cultic). So, ‘Messiah’ was an elastic term. ‘Son of
Man’ was only used in the gospels; it is controversial whether it was used in
the Old Testament. ‘Son of God’ was
used in the Old Testament, referring to any person obedient to God. So David was call as such. In Christianity,
Son of God has meant ‘born of a divine being’. This is the hellonization of
Christianity. ‘Servant’ referred to
prophets in the Old Testament.[192] Liberal Christians tend to like ‘servant’ for
Jesus. In Acts, PAIS. Jesus combines
‘servant’ with suffering Son of Man. Was
this an original mixture made by Jesus?
The ‘suffering servant’ is more important now than in Jesus’ time.
‘Prophet’ is used in the New Testament to mean endowed with spirit; there have
been Christian prophets. There were also Jewish prophets, such as Honi in 63
BC, who drew a circle around himself until it rained. ‘Prophet’ is more of a
category than a title.
It is not clear that Jesus regarded
himself as the messiah. Jesus did not use ‘messiah’ explicitly. Christos does not necessarily mean
‘messiah’. Mark emphasizes the secret
messiahship wherein Jesus says he is the messiah. But in Matthew and Luke, Jesus gives a
different answer. Although in Matthew Jesus says he is the messiah to Simon of
Philipi, in neither Luke nor Matthew does Jesus acknowledge himself as the
messiah in the passion story. So,
that Jesus saw himself as the messiah is an inference. But, Jesus
did see himself as an eschatological figure.
The ‘Son of Man’ is not used widely
in Christianity. In the synoptics, it is
said only by Jesus. But in what sense
did he mean it? Using the negative
criterion, the suffering Son of Man is found.
It is a distinctly Christian formulation. Jesus speaks of a coming Son
of Man, but does not explicitly relate it to himself. In Mark, Jesus says
that the Son of Man will come to that adulterous generation. This implies that
one’s attitude toward Jesus will impact one at the last judgment—not that Jesus
said he would be the Son of Man at the Last Judgment.
In Luke 13, Jesus puts forward
himself as a prophet, but not directly. Also in Luke, Jesus says that there is
a kingdom divided against itself, implying that Jesus is not the only
exorcist. Jesus says his own is the best
because it is done by God as he relies upon God. The point here is
authorization and authority. But not much survives the negative criterion.
Fuller claims that Jesus saw an
eschatological prophesy in which he
initiated the kingdom of God in word and deed—giving a unity to his words and
deeds. This prophesy implied a self-understanding by Jesus.
Had Jesus used all the titles, he
would have diverted attention from the kingdom of God—God’s reign. For Jesus,
God was the center of attention; this preoccupation made him bold, like a
prophet.
Do we really need to know Jesus’
self-understanding? Only on the surface.
But this conceals problems. For
instance, who is ‘we’? If we are a people facing the question of conversion to
Christianity, does such a decision depend upon this question? If one is a Christian, the Christian
interpretation of Jesus makes him a victim to Christian theology. What rides on
our knowledge of Jesus’ self-interpretation?
What is lost if we don’t know it?
Is it essential for faith or theology?
Suppose there were solid historical evidence, how would it be used? To interpret Jesus in categories prior to
70CE would be too restrictive. Suppose Jesus’ self-interpretation developed
gradually, as liberal Christians believe. Which self-interpretation is more
important, that which was made early on or that which came later? According to Schlermacher, Jesus’
self-interpretation was influenced by external conditions. These questions make things less certain. As
one emphasizes Jesus’ self-understanding, the value of the historical method
increases. What Jesus identified himself
as is less important than is the resurrection for faith. Keck claims that who Jesus was does not
depend on who he thought he was but on what God thought he was. Bultman argues
that Jesus was not necessarily a messiah even if he said he was, because false
prophets say they are prophets. If the real authority of Jesus is from his
relationship to God, it is the resurrection which is important.
4/21/93
Christology in the New Testament
We are studying the history of ideas in Christology, rather
than studying how Christology functions.
‘Christ’ is a statement of identification and significance of
Jesus. It is a title of an office—one of
Jesus’ offices. It has been used broadly, and has a central place in Christian
Theology. Jesus’ significance is not the
same thing as his influence. Whereas his
influence is historical, his significance relates to the importance of Jesus to
the human condition. It is his
significance that is of Christology, and is unique to Christianity. It identifies the messenger as the
message. In contrast, Jesus is in
Hinduism one of many avitars.
Jesus himself, due to his identity, is central to the teaching of
Christianity. This is not so of founders
of other religions in their respective religions. It is possible to have Jesus without
Christology: believing with Jesus instead of about Jesus. In this alternative, the historical Jesus is
affirmed while the Jesus of faith is denied. An alternative is Christology
without Jesus: the truth of Christ being independent of Jesus, even though
truth is with Jesus.
Of Christ, humanity is well-pleasing to God, rather than it
depending on its having been actualized in Jesus. Strauss claims that Christian myth actualizes
itself in humanity as a whole rather than in an individual. This is for him the truth of a Christ figure.
Why the necessity of Christ?
What is necessary about it? What
is its rationale in theological discourse?
In Jesus without Christ, serous questions are not asked. Loyalty to Jesus is not simply preference;
rather, it is grounded in a comprehensive idea of reality.
The impact of historical criticism on ‘Christ’ has been to
take it from a systematic understanding to one of diverse Christs, each with
its own history. Before historical criticism, it was assumed that ‘Christ’ was
Christian doctrine in scripture. With historical criticism came different way
of reading the Bible—one without a single system of doctrine; rather, clusters
of theological assertions not part of a comprehensive system. Jesus is not the messiah in Matthew and Luke,
so don’t force the gospels together.
Each Christ has a history, in light of which each is to be understood.
None of the Christs in the New Testament is complete. So, there is not one
Christology of the New Testament. Each
is incomplete. For instance, there are two and three stage Christologies, the
three stage version includes pre-existence.
With the historical critical method, the continuity between Jesus’
self-interpretation and the Christs of the New Testament was lost, using the
(negative) criterion of dissimilarity between what Jesus said and what the
Church taught. Jesus did not identify
himself with the returning son of man or the national messiah. He did not see himself as the suffering
servant. The Son of God was not a title
of a divine being. Rather, he saw
himself as an eschatological prophet. The
Christs of the New Testament are thus not extensions of Jesus’
self-consciousness. But efforts to link
the titles with Jesus turns Christ into a history of ideas.
With regard to the logos of Christ, soteriology[193]
is not of the identity of Jesus but is part of the message. Christianity became a religion of salvation.
The significance of Jesus is his role as savior. Titles don’t tell us how Jesus
is related to salvation. But, there
would not be a soteriology were there no Christ. The soteriological works of Jesus prompts the
nature of Jesus Christ. But in John, Jesus is not only a savior. Soteriology
makes Christ necessary; Christ makes soteriology possible. Each points to the
other. According to the law of parsimony, the works and person of Jesus are
correlated in a clear Christ figure. A
simple salvation, such as knowing God’s will or forgiveness, does not require a
strong Christ, such as a Logos made flesh (a teacher would suffice). The correlation between Christ and
soteriology is important. In the synoptics, Jesus says to pick up your crosses;
this is not in John where Jesus is in the disciples—salvation being in benefiting
from who Jesus is. The correlation between Christ and soteriology is linked to
the theology of the relation of Jesus to God.
For instance, in John, John the Baptist and Jesus were sent by God, but
in different ways. John the Baptist is like a prophet. Deeper into the work of Jesus, there is a
deeper impact on the human condition and sin.
If mortality makes us sin, then a prophet is of little use. One would be needed whose identity and
experience allos us to overcome sin. If guilt is the problem, then we don’t
have to be ransomed. So, Christ and the anthropological rise and fall are
together.
The logos in the New Testament is difficult to understand.
The New Testament is the beginning of Christ.
It is necessary to know Christ in matter and form. What is written on
the logos does not express the apostles’ understanding completely. The
historical work is necessary but not sufficient. Seeking the logos in the New Testament gets
us to think theologically in a focused and deepened way.
4/26/93
Meaning and Historicity
Historicity is facticity, as in a
trial. It includes probability and the varification of facts. What it means to be historical is affected by
circumstances, contingencies and context—the modifying by time and space. The
above interrelate, making the past what it was to the historian who tries to
bracket out his bias and values so he can determine the meaning of the
historical events in their own contexts. But, the historian’s understanding
reflects the mindset of his era. So,
both the knower and the knowing process have an impact on what is studied. For instance, the past can be reconstructed
in accord with a prevailing ideology. ‘Meaning’ is not ‘out there’ waiting to
be found; rather, it happens out of the interaction of the knower, knowing and
that which is known.
The history of New Testament
scholarship would be discouraging to those folks looking for verification and
an answer. There continue to be, and will be, ambiguities. Jesus of history is
a matter of faith, interpreted through participant observers. We interpret, in
our own historical context, the interpretations of Jesus’ world (his historical
context). The method we use and our own
identities affect our interpretations of the New Testament. If we view the New
Testament as a source, it is to be informative.
If it was a weapon of the early church, then it contains ideologies. If
it is a witness of a religious experience, then it is up to us to try to
experience that experience. How the New Testament is regarded has an impact on
how we define it. The New Testament can
be used to interpret us; it can describe us, as alternatives given and a claim
made.
The text of the New Testament does
not merely bear ideas that we must apply; in addition, it is the bearer of the
discloser of self-discovery. So go beyond thinking about the text to think with
the text about its subject matter.
Attend to it, not necessarily agreeing with it. We are invited to converse with it, taking it
as seriously as we do ourselves. It is a grace of work and a work of grace. It
is a work of self-discipline of the interpreter; our historicity is not the
end. Exegesis does not necessarily give insight or better people. Insight and understanding may make us better people,
but this is not guaranteed. Exegesis is not religious or a part of a religious
vocation. ‘Meaning’ is not found, but is
an event by grace as it is the Word of God—an event, using descriptive
confessional language. The Word is the source of meaning; it is of confession,
involving ‘yes or no’.
Kingsbury,
J. Proclamation Commentaries: Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Philadelphia (1981):
Fortress Press.
At Mark 14:58, Jesus declares that
he will destroy the temple. And at his
death, God caused the curtain of the temple to be torn in two.[194] The high priest would go behind that curtain
to atone for the sins of Israel . Theologically, the tearing of the curtain
means that Jesus has made final atonement for sin. So it signals the end of Israel ’s
cult.
“Unlike the Matthaean Jesus, the
Marcan Jesus utters no antitheses in his teaching on the law (cf. Matt
5:21-48). Instead, Jesus equates the
word of Moses with the word of God (cf 7:10 to 7:13, 12:26). In principle, therefore, the Marcan Jesus
does not pit himself against Moses, but authoritatively interprets him (cf.
10:3-9, 12:19, 26-27).”[195] Jesus sets aside the tradition of the elders.[196]
Jesus supercedes Moses.[197]
Is Mark centered on the cross or on
the resurrected Jesus appearance in Galilee
when the disciples first really saw?
Kingsbury claims that “the center from which the whole derives its
meaning is the cross”.[198] Salvation is via the cross.
The history of salvation has been a
history of judgment against Israel . The emphasis in Q is the end-phase of
history. It was thought that Jesus would
come soon to judge. Israel
would incur condemnation. Jesus is as
the Son of God in the eschatological judgment and the imminent end of
history. The Jesus of Q does not pit
himself against Moses; unlike in Matthew, the Jesus of Q doesn’t use the
antithetic formula. For example, “until
heaven and earth pass away, not one serif shall pass away from the law!”[199] Jesus reinterprets Moses and revises some of
his teachings—not to go against Moses, but to bring out his true
intention. Jesus believed that the
parisees’ lives and views on the law went against the will of God which is
love. The main question in Q on Jesus is
whether he is “the eschatological agent of God in whom one encounters even now
the kingdom of God
The people addressed by the author
of Q is the Jewish Christian and his mission in Israel . The cross is not the locus of salvation;
Jesus was martyred. Rather, the final
judgment is.
Matthew is a kerygmatic story,
emphasizing Mark over Q. Jesus as the
Son of God has drawn us to the end of time; the eschatological age of
salvation. Jesus is “of decisive
significance for the salvation of Israel ”.[205] There is less emphasis on the cross in
Matthew than in Mark. Matthew adopts
Mark’s Christology of Jesus as the messiah and Son of God. Jesus is about the salvation from sin. The emphasis is on the Davidic sonship of
Jesus, “focusing on the guilt that is Israel ’s for not receiving its
Messiah”.[206] For Mark, Jesus is the royal Messiah who dies
on the cross. For Matthew, Jesus is the
royal Messiah who does his father’s will and in whom God draws near.[207] Compared with Mark, Matthew intensifies the
‘aura of the divine’ that surrounds Jesus.
Matthew, more than Mark, emphasizes that Israel is the primary object of
Jesus’ attention.[208] Jesus stays within Israel . Yet, he is repudiated as the Messiah by all
segments of Israel .[209] Jesus “declares that Israel has
become hard of heart”.[210] For Matthew and Mark, Jesus is the Son of
God—the agent of God’s end-time rule.[211] The kingdom of God Matthew ,
Israel Israel
has been set aside and replaced by his Son, who has made final atonement for
sin. Jesus and his disciples form a
family that stands apart from the rest of Israel .[217] His disciples are not as ignorant as Mark
indicates.[218] Yet, they come up short in the end.[219]
Matthew was written at about 90 CE,
to Christians of Jewish and gentile origin in Antioch
in Syria . There was an atmosphere of religious and
social tension due to the emphasis on missionary work. To Matthew, the locus of salvation is the
presence of the risen Son of God with his people. To Mark, it is the cross.
To Luke, Jesus enters Jerusalem to go to the
temple to reclaim his father’s house.
Luke emphasizes the accordance of the passion with God’s pre-determined
plan of salvation.[220] It is of divine necessity.[221] Jesus must die because his suffering is as a
struggle with Satan. When his captures
come, Jesus says ‘but this is your hour, and the power of darkness’.[222] It is a cosmic struggle. Satan has the leaders of the Jews as well as
Judas.[223] With regard to Jesus’ preaching, Luke
emphasizes the present and future kingdom
of God Israel in Jesus; the history of salvation is the
time of Israel
and the time of fulfillment. Jesus as
savior is Luke’s emphasis; Jesus as the Son of God, king and Messiah. But Matthew has divinized Jesus the most.[224] Whereas Matthew blames the Jewish leaders,
Luke deemphasizes the role of Pilote and the Jewish people.[225] The centurion declares Jesus to the
righteous. For Luke, Jesus is king,
granting access to the kingdom
of God
Karl Hengel: The Historical Jesus
The problem is faith seeking
understanding. The basic problem of
Christology is how an executed criminal could become a god. Rosen argues that there were thirteen sources
from 30-90 CE, with others following these.
The best of these are the synoptics, but are they reliable? Mark was obliged to Peter; Luke and Matthew
adopted Mark’s outline. Luke was educated and did independent research. He wrote a gospel and Acts. He was affected
by the destruction of Jerusalem . He was writing when there were Roman
authorities. Matthew was later than
Luke, probably written between 90 and 100 CE.
With regard to Q, the form is disputed.
There is no passion story; rather, there are wisdom/apolistic sayings,
using unique words and not from Jewish wisdom prophets. No reference to exultation of Jesus.
The synoptics give us a general form of what may have been
the authentic Jesus. However, there is a lack of early historical
evidence. There is no direct indication
of Jesus’ self-understanding. So, be
careful of this.
The criteria for investigating Jesus include beginning with
the oldest sources, under the assumption that these likely originated with
Jesus. Use traditions having several
forms. Christianity spread quickly to
rural Galilee .
Look for Greek words or phrases which follow the Aramaic language
structure. Know the differences between the early Church and the towns. Consider the limits of form criticism as it
is not attuned to asking who Jesus was.
Karl
Hengel: Galilean Prophet and Healer
Jesus’ origins were in Galilee , an area which resisted the Roman
occupation. But this problem was not
salient in the Gospels. Judea was a relatively wealthy country even though there
was poverty in it. Nazareth was an insignificant town; Jesus’
ministry was in distant towns in the province.
Mark was not interested in Jesus’
biography; rather, he was interested in his ministry. For instance, Mark only briefly mentions
Jesus’ family (Jesus’ brothers and sisters), indicates that Jesus was a middle
class carpenter, and that he claimed to be a prophet but was not accepted in
his hometown. Jesus was middle class,
but by societal standards he was seen as uneducated. Luke and John, on the other hand, don’t
mention Jesus’ occupation. Mark also
mentions Jesus’ conflict with his family.
His family “went out to restrain him”, and later when his mother and his
brothers called for him, he ignored their call.[228] Religious leaders link Jesus and Satan; Jesus
seems to be against the world. However, after the resurrection, Jesus’ family
joined the movement.
The relationship between Jesus and
John the Baptist is significant in Mark and John. John the Baptist is significant because he is
the end of the law of the prophets. He
is a necessary element in Jesus’ story.
He was active in a popular movement, having more influence at the time
than Jesus had. John the Baptist was not
a healer; rather, he operated like a rabbi, teaching disciples in one
place. Jesus preached the kingdom of God
The kingdom of God kingdom
of God
God is lord to the arrogant, and as father to the
infant. Jesus has a lack of interest in
literal rules.
Jesus’ messianic work was as a healer. Isaiah 61 indicates that the messiah opens
eyes and gives life. The proclimation
and signs are connected. In Romans,
signs are used to proclaim the kingdom
of God
Karl Hengel: The Crucified Messiah
According to Hengel, the crucified
messiah involves the eschatological prophet, the son of man, the messianic
secret, and the crucificion. With regard to the eschatological prophet, it is
activity, rather than titles, that is important. Did Jesus act as a
messiah? Or just a prophet? Prophets were called ‘annointed one’. Is ‘messianic’ to be kingly? The key is in Luke 4. To the disciples, the prophet turned into a
messiah. ‘Prophet’ is used seventy-five
times in the New Testament. Jesus acts
like a messiah. For instance, his talks
on salvation have the certainty of fulfillment.
Also, he gives his disciples authority.
These claims of Jesus go beyond those of a prophet. Also, one can look at the reactions to Jesus
to see that he was not seen merely as a prophet. By announcing the kingdom of God
‘Son of God’ is used 84 times
in the gospels. Before Jesus, it was a
figure type in heaven anointed by God. For instance, it is used the way in
the book of Daniel. Few knew this title. So Jesus didn’t get it around
town. ‘Son of Man’ is used by Daniel
for ‘mortal’. Jesus referred to himself
as ‘Son of Man’. Jesus did not
call himself ‘Christ’; rather, that was attributed to him by others. Only one group within Judaism referred to the
Son of Man in terms of the future. Son
of Man shows Jesus’ self-understanding as the messiah working in secret. Jesus’ commands to demon, for instance, have
that messianic quality. The
self-fulfilling prophesies of Jesus are not totally unhistoric. The silence
commands go back to the activity of Jesus.
Mark preferred ‘Son of God’ for Jesus.
In short, Jesus does not use
‘messiah’ in the gospels, but used Son of Man to describe his messianic
mission. Jesus’ claim to mission is
messianic. The title of messiah was
given to Jesus. Messianic activity was
done by Jesus. Jesus couldn’t reveal
himself as Christ because that word was passive. In proclaiming the kingdom of God
There had been a number of prophetic
predictions in the Old Testiment. Jesus’
activity alone determines what was his messianic mission of healing and the kingdom of God
That Jesus was a senseless failure
ignores the effect he has had on history.
Jesus went to Jerusalem
for Passover, where he could invite the ‘whole people’ of God. It is not known
if Jesus decided to sacrifice his life before he got to the city. We can be more confident of what Jesus did at
the Last Supper—for instance, that he knew of the messianic character of his
death (that Jesus dies for our sins).
Isaiah 53 may have been the background.
The last supper is unique, so it is easy to attribute to Jesus; there is
no reason to doubt its historicity. In
the passion, he acknowledged his status and mission, and that led to the
cross. King of the Jews.
Mark is
not a construction remote form history.
There was no eschatological redeemer in the Jewish religion. Luke and John stress the political character
of the charge against Jesus. His disciples would not have called Jesus the
messiah unless he had given them a basis.
So,
concerning the historicity of Jesus, it is possible to get at it due to the
amount and breadth of external testimonies which were not in themselves
historical reconstructions. Jesus’
teachings and actions have a unity that has a messiah, from the historical acts
of Jesus and the testimonies.
[1]
Acts of Paul 4:13
[2]
See: H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels
[3]
See N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?
[4]
Mark 1:16-17.
[5]
See E. Borig, Continuous Voice of Jesus.
[6]
See D. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment.
[7]
See C. Talbert, Reading Luke; R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of
Luke-Acts.
[8]
Semeia is a journal for Biblical criticism which gives attention to the
beginnings of the gospels.
[9]
Acts 2:32,4:33, and 5:32-3.
[10]
See: Josephus, History of the Jewish War Against the Romans.
[11]
“and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”
[12]
“Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the
temple, saying to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from
here…’.” (Luke 4:9) See S. Garrett, The
Demise of the Devil.
[13]
“Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a
report about him spread through all the surrounding country. He began to preach in their synagogues and
was praised by everyone.”
[14]
“All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his
mouth. They said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s
son?’.” (Luke 4:22)
[15]
“Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s own hometown.”
[16]
Luke 4:30
[17]
M: material used in Matthew absent from Luke.
[18]
L: material used in Luke, but not in Matthew.
[19]
See Kingsbury, Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
[20]
See William Farmer.
[21]
See The Lost Gospel.
[22]
Luke 6:20.
[23]
Luke 9.
[24]
“They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue
and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one
having authority, and not as the scribes.”
[25]
“And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues
and casting out demons.”
[26]
Mark 1:10.
[27]
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near, repent, and
believe in the good news.” Mark 1:15.
[28]
“Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering,
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again.
He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to
rebuke him.” Mark 8:31-2.
[29]
“For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a
ransom for many.” Mark 10:45.
[30]
“Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This
is my Son, the Beloved (or, my beloved Son); listen to him’. … As they were
coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had
seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the
matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead could mean.”
Mark 9:7-10.
[31]
See C. Tuckett, The Messianic Secret.
[32]
See Mt 5:17, 10:34, Mk 10:45, Lk 12:49, Jn 8:42 and 12:27.
[33]
Mark 2:17.
[34]
Mark 2:19a.
[35]
Mark 2:22.
[36]
Luke 5:39.
[37]
“And he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath;
so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath’.” Mark 2:27.
[38]
Mark 3:4.
[39]
Matthew 10 and 11.
[40]
14:22, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23,31.
[41]
1:46-55.
[42]
1:14-15.
[43]
See R. Hiers, Jesus and the Future.
[44]
See Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith and Either Or.
[45]
On this subject, see R. Hiers, Jesus and the Future, ch.s 1, 6., and J.
Riches, Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism, ch. 5.
[46]
Mark 4:11.
[47]
Mark 4:10-12; Matthew 13:11-13; Luke 8:10.
[48]
Mark 4:22.
[49]
On the parables, see: J.D. Crossman, In Parables; J. Donahue, The
Gospel in Parables; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus; and B.
Scott, Hear Then the Parable.
[50]
“You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your
tradition!”
[51]
Also, see Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, and Schurer, History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ.
[52]
See Mary Ann Talbert, Sowing the Gospel.
A literary analysis of Mark—on how the stories fit together.
[53]
On how to do Exegesis, see Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook
for Students and Pastors, and J. Hags and C. Holladay, Biblical
Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook, and Soulen, A Handbook of Biblical
Criticism. Hays and Holladay have
chapters on the types of criticism.
[54]
See O. Cullmann, Peter.
[55]
In Matthew only does Jesus give to Peter the keys to the kingdom of God.
[56]
Matthew 14:33.
[57]
Luke 9:28.
[58]
That “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and
the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise
again”. Mark 8:31.
[59]
Matthew 17:22.
[60]
Luke 9:45.
[61]
Luke 18:34.
[62]
Mark 10:45.
[63]
See: Acts 3:13-15, 17-18; 10; 13:26-30.
[64]
Mark 8:34.
[65]
Mark 8:35-38.
[66]
Luke 9:26.
[67]
Matthew 16:28 substitutes the latter for the KOG. What does Jesus coming in his kingdom refer
to? The resurrection? The second coming? Does this imply that the kingdom of God is
not there yet? No, just that it has not
yet been seen.
[68]
See D. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition.
[69]
See: Daniel and Ezikiel.
[70]
Matthew 8:20.
[71]
“For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other,
so will the Son of Man be in his day.
But first he must endure much suffering and be rejected by his
generation.”
[72]
Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29, and Matthew 16:4.
[73]
Luke 17:20.
[74]
See J. Kinsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel.
[75]
Mark 11:20-12:13; Luke 20:1-26:36.
[76]
“Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching.” Mark 14:49, Luke 22:53,
and Matthew 26:54.
[77]
Mark 13:26; Luke 21:28.
[78]
Mark 13:30.
[79]
Mark 13:32.
[80]
Matthew 28:16-20.
[81]
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I
am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:17.
[82]
See: Matthew 11:27. “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and
no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Son except the
Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son
chooses to reveal him.”
[83]
Matthew 1:23.
[84]
See Matthew 7:23.
[85]
For instance, Romans 8 refers to the indwelling of the Spirit.
[86]
Jesus called Peter and Andrew to follow him as disciples. Then Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching
in the synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing every
disease.
[87]
For instance, in Matthew 11:2-6, when John the Baptist sent his disciples to
ask Jesus if he was the Messiah (or, Christ), Jesus answered them “Go and tell
John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor
have good news brought to them.”
[88]
See: R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah.
[89]
Luke 2:34-5.
[90]
See Davis, Jesus of Biblical Literature, vol. 9.
[91]
See J. Meier, The Vision of Matthew, ch.s 10-11.
[92]
In Latin: Beatitudo. In Greek, Makarism.
[93]
Matthew 5:3,10.
[94]
“Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall
laugh.”
[95]
For a technical analysis of the Beatitudes, see M. E. Boring, The Continuing
Voice of Jesus,pp. 191-286.
[96]
Matthew 5:17.
[97]
Matthew 5:19.
[98]
Matthew 19:21.
[99]
Matthew 5:33.
[100]
Matthew 5:38.
[101]
Matthew 5:43-47.
[102]
Matthew 6:4, 5-8, 16-18.
[103]
Matthew 15:7; 22:18; 23:13; 24:51.
[104]
Matthew 5:12, 46; 10:41-2; 20:8.
[105]
“And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues
and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every
infirmity.”
[106]
“When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed
and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
[107]
Greek: says
[108]
Jesus tells them to “preach as you go, saying ‘The kingdom of heaven is at
hand’. Mt 10:7.
[109]
Matthew 28:19.
[110]
Matthew 10:8.
[111]
For instance, on the scribes and Pharisees: “they love the place of honor at
feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market
places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for
you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on
earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters,
for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your
servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself
will be exalted.” 23:6-12.
[112]
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut the
kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow
those who would enter to go in.” 23:13
[113]
For instance, Matthew 22:34 distinguishes between the Saducees and the
Pharisees, emphasizing that the conflict is with the Pharisees in
particular. Mark 12:28 lumps them
together as ‘scribes’. See also Matthew 22:41 and Mark 12:35.
[114]
Luke 11:38.
[115]
Specifically, on how they persecute prophets in their own day and yet claim to
revere past prophets.
[116]
See: Neusner, The Rabbinic Tradition of the Pharisees before 70AD (3
vol.s) and From Politics to Piety.
[117]
See A Hidden Revolution
[118]
Matthew 23:2.
[119]
Matthew 13,18.
[120]
Matthew 23:8-11.
[121]
Matthew 23:34.
[122]
“Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the
lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the
poor have good news brought to them.” Matthew 11:4-5.
[123]
Matthew 7.
[124]
John 8:12
[125]
See Pagels.
[126]
See D. Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community.
[127]
See: R. E. Brown, John, D. M. Smith, John, and C. Talbert, Reading
John.
[128]
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.”
[129]
“He was in the beginning with God.”
[130]
“All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came
into being. What has come into being in
him was life…”
[131]
1:11.
[132]
1:12-13.
[133]
“full of grace and truth”.
[134]
“It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him
known.” 1:18
[135]
“Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of
the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of
the synagogue”.
[136]
John 3:32.
[137]
According to Keck, ‘water’ could have been added by an editor so to make John
more ‘churchy’ (e.g. baptism).
[138]
John 3:11 speaks of a ‘we’, suggestive of a church.
[139]
John 3:14.
[140]
Jesus said to the Father, “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that
you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorifiy me in your own presence with the
glory that I had in your presence before the world existed”. John 17:5.
[141]
Note that in the prologue, ‘born of God’ was used.
[142]
John 3:31.
[143]
John 4:4-15.
[144]
John 4:39-42.
[145]
John 5:24.
[146]
John 5:28-29.
[147]
John 6:54.
[148]
John 6:33.
[149]
“I give the eternal life, and they shall not perish.” John 10:28
[150]
See John 1:45-53.
[151]
“Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who
lives and believes in me will never die.”
[152]
11:27.
[153]
See John 20:31, 6:69, 8:24, 11:27, 14:8-11.
See also G. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel,ch. 3; R.
Schnackenburg, Gospel of John II, pp. 352-61; D. Smith, Johannine
Christianity, ch. 8; and M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel, ch. 3.
[154]
2:1-11.
[155]
See 13:1.
[156]
19:14, 31.
[157]
See John 1:11.
[158]
3:19-20.
[159]
See 4:22, 5:1, 15.
[160]
“…he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was also calling God his own
Father, thereby making himself equal to God.” 5:18.
[161]
5:19-47.
[162]
6:35-59.
[163]
See 6:41-42; 7:12, 15, 27, 40-42; 8:57; 9:16.
[164]
See: W. Kurz, Farewell Addresses in the New Testament, esp. ch. 1; R.
Schnackenburg, ‘The Paraclete and the Sayings about the Paraclete”, in Gospel
of John III, pp. 138-54.
[165]
See Luke 24:59 and Acts 1:1-11.
[166]
John 20:19-23.
[167]
John 12:27
[168]
John 13:5
[169]
John 13:27.
[170]
See 13:20 and 17:18.
[171]
See John 15:18-25; 16:2; and 17:14.
[172]
John 14:16-19.
[173]
John 14:20.
[174]
John 15:26.
[175]
John 16:7
[176]
John 16:8.
[177]
Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-24; Psalm 22.
[178]
John 19:30.
[179]
See R. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives; C. Moule,
ed., The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus
Christ; and N. Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark and
Luke.
[180]
Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5.
[181]
Matthew 28:11-15.
[182]
Mark 16:1-8.
[183]
John 20:1-10.
[184]
John 20:17.
[185]
See John 20:24-29.
[186]
John 20:29.
[187]
John 21:14.
[188]
On the liberal Christian view, see J. Matthews, The Gospel and Modern Man. The Christian experience of Jesus made real
to itself the value of Jesus. Important
is the experience, not the doctrine.
George Lindbeck would agree that the experience is important.
[189]
In Dubio pro traditio.
[190]
According to Strauss, the signs are myths.
[191]
See H. Boers, Who Was Jesus?
[192]
Isaiah 40-55. Servant songs on the role of the servant in bringing light by
suffering and perhaps on Israel as a servant.
[193]
Soter: savior; soteria: salvation.
[194]
Mark 15:38.
[195]
Kingsbury, p. 46.
[196]
Mark 7:1-13.
[197]
Mark 7:14-23;10:2-12.
[198]
Kingsbury, p. 58.
[199]
Luke 16:17.
[200]
Kingsbury, p. 18.
[201]
Luke 11:29.
[202]
Luke 11:47-48, 50-51; 13:34.
[203]
Luke 13:28.
[204]
Luke 10:3.
[205]
Kingsbury, p. 64.
[206]
Kingsbury, p. 66.
[207]
Kingsbury, p. 67.
[208]
Kingsbury, p. 77. cf. Matthew 4:17,
15:24; 10:5-6.
[209]
Matthew 11:2-12:50.
[210]
Kingsbury, p. 78.
[211]
Matthew 4:17; 11:25-27.
[212]
Matthew 5:17; 11:13.
[213]
Matthew 23:3, 13, 15,23,25,27,29).
[214]
Matthew 26:3-5, 14-15, 47, 59-66; 27:1-2.
[215]
Matthew 26:59-60; 27:4, 18, 19, 24.
[216]
Kingsbury, pp. 84-5. Matthew 27:51-54.
[217]
Matthew 23:8.
[218]
Matthew 13:11, 23, 51-52; 15:15-16.
[219]
Matthew 26:35, 14-16, 47-50; 26:56, 28, 69-75.
[220]
Kingsbury, p. 120.
[221]
Luke 9:22, 13:33, 17:25, 22:37, 24:7, 26, 44.
[222]
Luke 22:53.
[223]
Luke 22:52-3.
[224]
Kingsbury, p. 114.
[225]
Luke 23:16, 20, 22; 23:4, 13, 14, 22; 35.
[226]
Luke 22:37.
[227]
Kingsbury, p. 127.
[228]
Mark 3:21; 3:31-34.
