The Death of the Messiah, Part 4: Luke's Gospel
http://open.salon.com/blog/monte_canfield/2009/02/25/lenten_series_the_death_of_the_messiah_introduction
Part Two of The Death of the Messiah can be found here:
Part Three of The Death of the Messiah can be found here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/monte_canfield/2009/03/11/death_of_the_messiah_part_3_markjesus_deniedOverview:
In Part One I introduced this series on The Death of the Messiah. I pointed out that, while we may think there is only one story of the death of the Messiah, repeated four times, in fact there are four different renditions of the story of Jesus' death, both in the details and in the portrait of Jesus presented. I also said that there is also a fifth rendition: the one that we create from the other four.
These Gospel stories were divinely inspired and God was therefore both mindful of the inconsistencies in the stories, and intentional in his/her inspiration, in that God wants us to be able to see Jesus' death from four unique vantage points.
Therefore, we do not improve on the Gospel accounts by trying to harmonize them, regardless how tempting it is to try to do so. Ultimately, all attempts at harmonizing the Gospels fail and never give a true picture of what God is saying to us in those sacred texts.
This fact, however, gives ulcers to many who believe that the stories of Jesus must all be clear, concise, neat and without factual disagreement.
Part of the problem for such people is that they insist on viewing the Gospels as history, which they are not. They are theology told in narratives, stories, and are kerygma, proclamation of the Good News of Jesus the Christ.
In Part Two, using two major examples of the differences in three of the Gospel accounts of the Death of the Messiah, we explored my contention that it is good to have four differing Gospel accounts.
Having four different depictions of both the narratives of the stories and then seeing how Jesus reacts to essentially the same events allows us to see that Jesus is a far more complex character than the portrait we often hold of him.
In Part Three we looked in some detail at Mark's Gospel portrayal of Jesus and of the events leading up to his Crucifixion. Mark, the earliest Gospel written, portrays a scene of stark human abandonment of Jesus. Mark portrays a very human, very vulnerable Jesus.
His portrayal of Jesus, the disciples, and all of the actors in this drama of death, shows people in all of their human frailty, in their evil plotting and their despicable actions. In the end, Mark shows that we all, even Jesus, have no choice but to depend on God.
Today, with Part Four, we finish this series of Lenten Reflections looking at the very different portrayal of Jesus and the events leading to his crucifixion in the Gospel according to Luke.
Luke wants us to see a Jesus who is at once aware of his approaching death, but also who clearly worries about others far more than he worries about his own fate. Luke's Jesus is "Caring, Compassionate and Concerned" about others.
Just as we have not looked at Matthew because it is so much like Mark in its portrayal of Jesus, so too we will not look at John because it is so very different than the three "synoptic" Gospel accounts: Mark, Luke and Matthew, that it would take a whole new series to explain it. Perhaps I can do that next year.
In the meantime, hopefully, you now will, using the same methods used here, be able to do your own reading and enhance your appreciation of Matthew and John.
Thus, as we now come to the end of this series, we have learned that each of the four Gospel accounts paint a part of Jesus that appeals to different people, and even to the same person at different stages in his or her life.
The genius of the Gospel accounts of the Death of the Messiah is not that they agree in the details but rather in that they give four different, yet surprisingly clear, portraits of the Messiah that help to broaden our understanding of him.
The Passion as told in the Gospel according to Luke
Sandwiched between the very stark picture of abandonment which is the hallmark of Mark's portrayal of the Death of the Messiah and the triumphal portrayal of Jesus in John's Gospel - is the portrayal of St. Luke. Luke clearly relies heavily on Mark, but many of the details are different.
While Luke shares another common written source with Matthew, called simply "Q," Luke also clearly has his own sources of information which have been handed down by eyewitnesses and others over the decades since the crucifixion. These sources are unknown to either Mark or Matthew.
Molding at least three sources into a coherent Gospel is clearly a task of great importance to Luke. He tells us in the opening of his Gospel that he desires to "write an orderly account" of the events of Jesus' life, that we might know the truth concerning the good news of Jesus Christ. Luke makes it clear right at the beginning that he is writing theology, not history.
And it is clear when reading Luke and comparing his account of the Death of the Messiah with the other gospels that Luke has a different theological agenda than any of the other three.
Luke wants us to see a Christ who is at once aware of his approaching death, but also a Christ who clearly worries about others far more than he worries about his own fate. Luke's Jesus is "Caring, Compassionate and Concerned" about others.
In order to really understand Luke's portrait of Jesus' death it is necessary for us to remember that Luke is a consistent writer. He wrote not only his Gospel account of Jesus but also the only account of the very early church known as the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. The Book of Acts flows seamlessly from the final scenes of the Resurrection at the end of his Gospel.
Nothing about Luke's reporting of the Death of the Messiah is inconsistent with what he has told us about Jesus, his disciples, and the Christian community as reported in both his Gospel and in his Acts of the Apostles.
Thus, the Jesus who is accused by the Jewish leaders of "perverting our nation" is the same Jesus whose infancy and upbringing, Luke tells us, was in total fidelity to the Law of Moses. The Jesus who is accused of "forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar" is the Jesus who has declared the opposite, to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's".
These, and other incidents in his life prior to his arrest, highlight a major theme in Luke's description of the Passion: that Jesus is totally misunderstood by all authorities, is innocent and is unjustly accused and killed.
Likewise, the Jesus who shows such great concern and compassion for others during his Passion is the same Jesus who is already compassionate; showing concern for the widow of Nain and praising in parables the mercy shown by the father to the prodigal son and to the man beset by thieves on the way to Jericho.
Thus, we should not be surprised by the Jesus who shows forgiveness toward those who crucified him.
When we are told by Luke that, after the Temptation, Satan leaves Jesus, "until an opportune time," we should not be surprised that Satan returns to inhabit Judas, his betrayer at the end of Jesus' life.
In Luke it is much more than personal greed and sin that motivates Judas, it is the work of the Devil himself. Luke is so clear about this that one could argue that Judas was innocent of any sin, because, literally, "the devil made him do it."
Unlike Mark, who emphasizes the dullness and failures of the disciples, Luke finds them attentive and trying to learn, if stumbling from time to time. Luke, for example, never mentions that the disciples fled at the time of trial. In fact, while not at the cross itself, Luke places them, with the women, waiting and watching in the distance.
Nor will they flee after his death and head for home in Galilee as in the other Gospels, but they will await his return in Jerusalem, where Jesus will appear. And later, apostles derided in Mark and Matthew will appear as major Christian leaders in the Book of Acts.
Even the way Jesus behaves during his passion will set the example for how others will behave in the future, as first Stephen, and later Paul, endure the same cast of adversaries and will respond in the same way when their time comes to bear their crosses. Luke clearly shows this in the Book of Acts.
Therefore, there is a smooth consistency in doing the will of God from the Law of Moses through Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and, ultimately, to the early Church. This consistency in showing the achieving of God's purposes, first through Jesus and then through the Church, is a major theme in Luke's work.
Looking at the Passion itself we see that the scene of prayer and arrest at Gesthemene as described in Luke is far less dramatic and suspenseful when it comes to the actions of the disciples. No words of rebuke are spoken to them.
In fact, just the opposite, for at the Last Supper Jesus has already told them, "You are those who continued with me in my trials." And Jesus has already assured them of a leadership place in Heaven, including responsibilities for judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Therefore, we can not imagine that the disciples will fall away at this late date; and they do not. Even at Gesthemene he does not separate Himself far from them, going only "a stone's throw away" to pray.
Luke describes them as sleeping while Jesus prays, but not falling asleep three times after being admonished to stay awake. Rather they sleep but once, and then only "out of sorrow."
And, when Jesus finds them sleeping he does not harshly rebuke them but shows his concern for them, telling them to get up and pray that they may not come into their own time of trial. Thus, the drama of the scene focuses not on disloyal or cowardly disciples but on the actions of Jesus, which are quite different than those described in Mark.
Unlike in Mark, this Jesus is not one whose soul is sorrowful unto death. Rather, on his knees he prays in subordination to the will of the Father. And, in Luke, that prayer does not go unanswered, for the Father sends an angel to give him strength.
This brings what has been translated into English as "agony" or "anguish" and great drops of sweat like blood fall from him. But for centuries Christians have greatly misinterpreted this dramatic scene because of poorly translating the Greek word, "agonia."
It means the great preparatory tension of an athlete warming up for a great contest. It does not mean fear or pain, as it is often misinterpreted. The angel has given him strength, not weakness.
And, at the arrest, Jesus is very calm; a calmness that bespeaks a foreknowledge on the part of Jesus of what is going to happen. He addresses Judas by name and is in no way surprised to find him here betraying him.
When the slave's ear is cut off by one of the disciples, Jesus, again showing compassion, heals him, and tells the disciples, "No more of this!" As he has shown compassion to his enemies throughout his ministry, so he shows compassion here.
Jesus knows exactly what is happening and, having been strengthened by the angel, is intent on carrying out what he knows to be the will of the Father.
The struggle is great but Jesus is up to the task. The Devil himself occupies Judas, and no underlings come alone to arrest him as in Mark, but rather the chief priests and elders themselves lead the Temple police.
Jesus knows the evil in this, telling them that this is "their" hour, a time of the power of darkness. Yet he also knows that he will overcome it.
As in Mark they arrest Jesus at night. But they take him not to the Chambers of the Sanhedrin but to the High Priest's house, or perhaps the courtyard of that house; the Greek is ambiguous.
In any case, Luke does not identify to which High Priest the house belonged. Nor is there any Sanhedrin trial that night as in Mark, but rather they hold him there, beating him and mocking him, but not asking him any significant questions.
For Luke the highlight of the evening focuses on Peter who has followed him and, as in Mark, denies him three times. Unlike Mark, however, Luke adds a poignant note: "The Lord turned and looked at Peter." And it was then that Peter remembered Jesus' prediction.
This dramatic look is found only in Luke, and is symbolic of Jesus' continuing care for Peter, as he promised the disciples at the Last Supper. They may deny him but he will always be there for them.
When it is day they lead him to the Sanhedrin Council Chambers and question him. Unlike in Mark, Jesus answers ambiguously, but they read enough into his replies to decide to bring him before Pilate.
Unlike in Mark and Matthew, there is no formal Sanhedrin trial; it is simply an interrogation. There are no witnesses called, false or otherwise, and there are no condemnations issued by the Sanhedrin. All they say is that they have heard enough to take him to Pilate.
Here the Sanhedrin acts as prosecutor and inquisitor, not as judge. In Luke there is but one trial and that is before Pilate.
Through it all Jesus is calm and self-composed. He is not like the majestically supreme Jesus portrayed in John's gospel, but rather he exhibits the serenity of one secure in the knowledge that God is in charge, and he is content in the knowledge that he is wholly innocent.
He is prepared to go to his death, if necessary, secure in the knowledge of his unbreakable union with the Father.
Luke gives us many more details of the trial before Pilate than do Mark and Matthew. The chief priests and scribes make more numerous accusations against Jesus than in the other synoptic Gospels, including both religious and political claims.
And, as Luke describes in Acts, Paul will later encounter an almost identical sequence of actors, issues and events in his trials. Thus, an important point is made in Luke: the tone for the bearing of later Christian crosses by faithful disciples is set by Jesus here.
Pilate comes off well in Luke, even if he is ultimately weak, finally giving in to the demands of the crowd, led here by the chief priests and other Jewish leaders. Initially, having heard their complaints, Pilate tells them that he has examined the charges against Jesus and that he finds Jesus guilty of none of them.
Then, hearing that Jesus is a Galilean, he sends Jesus off to Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, who is in town for the Passover. This sidebar is only present in Luke.
Herod, oddly, is glad to see Jesus because he has heard of him and wants to see some "sign" from him. Jesus does not oblige; and while the chief priests continue to accuse him before Herod, just as they had before Pilate, Herod finds, as did Pilate, nothing against Jesus.
But Herod is miffed at Jesus' silence, so he mocks Jesus by placing an elegant robe on him, and then returns him to Pilate.
Luke tells us that, ironically, from that day forward Pilate and Herod, heretofore enemies, became friends. Thus, even while under such great duress Jesus is seen to be able to influence the healing of relationships, simply by his presence, even between those who mistreat him.
It is in this final series of scenes of the Death of the Messiah where Luke's account is even more radically different than any of the other three Gospel accounts.
Once again Pilate examines the charges against Jesus, and, once again, tells the Jewish leaders that neither he nor Herod find Jesus guilty of any of the charges. And Pilate boldly tells them that "Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death." Pilate then proposes to have Jesus flogged and released.
All of the accusers, not just the crowd as in Mark, but the chief priests, other Jewish leaders and the people, shout to do away with Jesus and to release Barabbas.
Luke tells us that Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addresses them a second and third time, telling them Jesus is not guilty. However, Luke then tells us that Pilate caves in to the accusers, and "their voices prevailed."
Because Luke contains no scene in Pilate's courtyard of Roman soldiers beating and mocking Jesus, the implication in Luke is that Pilate handed over Jesus to the Jewish leaders who take him to Calvary and crucify him.
Later, however, we hear of soldiers, presumably Roman, along with the leaders also mocked him while he was on the Cross. So, regardless who led Jesus to Golgatha, soldiers were present at his death.
What is far more clear, and clearly different than Mark and Matthew, is that the people who followed Jesus to his crucifixion included a great many who were not hostile to him, particularly women, who were lamenting what was happening to him by beating their breasts and wailing over his fate.
To these Jesus shows great compassion, warning these "daughters of Jerusalem" of the coming trials, telling them not to weep for him, but for themselves.
[Note: This scene is likely influenced by Luke's anachronistic knowledge that Jerusalem was destroyed in the period 68-70 AD when the Romans quelled a Jewish rebellion. At that time many innocents, women and children, were killed, and many, including Christians, fled the persecution in the city. Luke already knew of that event when wrote his Gospel.]
Regardless, Jesus remains calm and concerned for others. Unlike in Mark, the first words uttered by Jesus from the cross are not of his feared abandonment, but rather, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
There is a strong implication here that the Jewish leaders acted out of ignorance, not with deliberate evil and viciousness, as in the other New Testament traditions. Clearly they were ignorant of who Jesus was but this does show how far Jesus is willing to go to find forgiveness of his enemies.
This is a far more humane treatment of the Jewish leaders than in the other Gospels, and is a clear directive to later Christians like us to be gracious toward, and forgiving of, our worst enemies; something that most find nearly impossible to imagine let alone to do.
But Luke, writing much later than Mark, already knows of one who understands Jesus message from the cross, as later, as recorded by Luke in Acts, Stephen will find strength and hope in repeating Jesus' thoughts, praying as he died under their stones, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them."
And still later, thousands of Christian martyrs will go to their death finding courage in these words from the Cross.
In another major departure from Mark and Matthew, both criminals do not mock him from their crosses. Rather, one of the two thieves acknowledges his own guilt and confesses the innocence of Jesus.
This "good thief" as we often call him, asks to be remembered by Jesus when he comes into his kingdom. And, still filled with compassion, Jesus does him far better than that, promising him that he will be with Jesus in Paradise yet that day.
Many have said that, because of the compassion of Luke's Christ, the "good thief," who offered no confession of his sin nor made any profession of faith, literally stole the keys to the Kingdom. That old saw is not far from the truth.
In the last, dark, hours of Jesus life he does not lose confidence. He does not, as in Mark and Matthew, feel abandoned by the Father. Rather he is calm and at peace, secure in his knowledge of the goodness and justice of the Father.
There is no agony recorded, only the confident giving of his life over to the Father, even as he has given his life to others throughout his ministry. Jesus dies saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
Just as the words of forgiveness have given many a martyr courage in their own deaths, so to have these words of confident trust in God given hope not only to martyrs but also to many ordinary Christians at the time of their death.
Luke, unlike the other writers, places the tearing of the curtain of the Temple in two before the death of Jesus. After his death Luke will record only acts of heavenly grace, not justice or retribution.
And, if the innocence of Jesus has not been clear enough for all who read Luke, at the foot of the cross the Roman Centurion says not that Jesus was the Son of God, but that he was "innocent."
Even the crowds who watched share the feeling of Jesus' innocence , returning to their homes in great distress, beating their breasts.
It is not necessary for the Centurian to say the Jesus is the Son of God. By this point in Luke's Gospel we are well aware that Jesus is the Son of God.
Standing at a distance are not only the women, but all of Jesus friends who had followed him from Galilee, including, of course, the disciples, who have not had the courage to go to the foot of the cross, but who clearly have not totally abandoned him as they do in Mark's rendition.
Likewise, Luke clarifies the role of Joseph of Aramathea, saying that he had not agreed to the Sanhedrin's plans. Joseph takes the body and lays it in a fresh tomb. And Luke tells us that the women went home to prepare spices and ointments for his body.
After the Sabbath Luke tells us that they came to the tomb with their preparations, only to find the tomb empty. Later, Peter, who has not gone to ground in Galilee, but who has stayed in Jerusalem, will run to the empty tomb and be amazed by what he sees.
Still later, Luke tells us that the Risen Lord appeared to Peter, thus confirming the truth of Luke's message: Jesus will be with and watch over all of his disciples and followers, even those, who, like Peter, deny him in periods of weakness.
There should be much consolation in that fact for us, because most of us falter in periods of weakness and doubt. But Christ is there for us and will watch over us. He will never abandon us regardless of the strength of our faith at any given moment.
Summary of this Series of Lenten Reflections
And so ends this exploration of The Death of the Messiah. Throughout the world Christians now are in the midst of the Lenten Season.
It continues to be my hope that this brief series will be a help to those who want to understand the Christ and his Passion at a depth that they may not have known before.
I particularly hope that this series has put to rest some of the nonsense about harmonizing and homogenizing the Passion which is so appealing to many but which totally misses the point of having four different Gospels in the first place.
Just as "God don't make no junk," so too God did not send his Spirit to guide the writers of the four very different Gospel accounts of Jesus by accident.
And finally, please remember that the Gospels do not pretend to be history books. Writing history as we know it today was not even a known practice at the time the Gospels were written. To apply today's historical research methods to the Gospels is at best a silly exercise.
Those who search for the "Historical Jesus" will forever get their doctorates, their accolades, and sell their books to those who insist that one and only one portrait of Jesus must be "the right one."
But this is the same mind set that stunts understanding of the four Gospel accounts by insisting on harmonizing the Gospels as if they were simply data sources for the "one" "real" story of Jesus.
But the Gospels cannot yield anything approaching an "true" history of Jesus simply because they were never writen to be what we think of as history. They were always theology, theology told in story, in narrative, form. They are now, and always have been, kerygma, proclamation, of the Gospel, the Good News, of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Christ. This theology forms the foundation of the Christian faith.
To my Christian readers I offer this hope: that the rest of your Lenten journey may be one of both discovery and peace, secure in the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and our Redeemer and Lord.
Monte
1234 page views as of 2009 11 05
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Rutilus Extraho
Molly Lilly
Mary Wollstonecraft
JLee Davis
AzureSky
Deargdruchtach
Salon.com
Comments
I love the telling of the four "books" separately and explained differentially. Thanks for all of your hard work and your passion...
Rated
Monte
Are you saying that the events that take place within the Gospels are not historically accurate? The Sermon on the Mount, walking on water, the temptation, the Crucifixion, etc?
You ask: "Are you saying that the events that take place within the Gospels are not historically accurate? The Sermon on the Mount, walking on water, the temptation, the Crucifixion, etc?"
This issue has been covered in the prior posts and responses to comments, but it is an important question and I will try to answer it here again.
No. I am not saying that the events in the Gospels are not historically accurate. I am confident myself that many things in the Gospels actually did take place. But many things are reported, as this series has pointed out, that cannot all be right. Luke's description of the Passion is so radically different than Marks that both cannot both be right, except in the most general of terms. We could go through various "facts" and decide, point by point, like, was there a crucifixion, (an easy one for me) or was Jesus taken to Herod for judgment (harder, since only Luke reports that). There are many points that all of the Gospels do agree on. More, actually, than on the points they that they report differently. BUT - even on the details they do agree on, there are no sources outside the Bible to cross reference. So none of the Gospels would meet the test of being modern historical research. One could, and many do, write histories of these events, but they would be based mostly on the author's guesses rather than on cross referenced 'facts.'
But far more important than that, we need to understand that, from the viewpoint of faith, that does not matter. It doesn't matter because the writers did not try to write history and there is no way to prove which rendition or which specific statement is historically accurate. There are almost no extra-Biblical sources about Jesus at all. He is mentioned in a few sentences by a couple of writers. That's all.
So, let's say that you try to prove that Jesus walked on water? Do you treat that as history and conclude that there is not proof of that, and that it is physically impossible anyway?, or do you treat it as a faith statement, and say that many Christians believe that is true? But, actually, many Christians do not believe that is literally true.
So you can argue about which faith statements are 'true' from a belief point of view, and you can argue about whether certain acts were 'true' in a literal sense, such as Jesus' time in of testing in the desert. Many Christians argue that it is literally true, while others argue that it is a metaphor about how Jesus had to learn that he would be tempted to yield to earthly possessions and power and that he wrestled with that problem before he began his ministry.
But those arguments take place WITHIN and among the faith community. Neither of the two hypothetical possibilities I pose here would meet anything like a modern test as to being historical 'fact.'
The main point regarding the historicity of the Gospels is that while there are "historical" facts in the Gospels the only proof of them is by four Gospels "proving" each other. And these Gospels were written 30 to 100 years after the events.
But NONE of those Gospel writers ever made ANY pretext that he was writing 'history.' The writing of history as we know it today simply was not known. So the Gospels are primarily theology told in stories. They are proclamation, statements of faith, of belief, if you will. They were never intended to be history.
Finally, yes, you could take all of the 'facts' in the Gospels about Jesus and try to construct a "Historical Jesus." That has been going on for decades and will go on long after you and I are dead. But all those books, to my way of thinking, end up reflecting anachronistic feelings of the writer, and do not necessarily actually ever capture the 'real' Jesus.
The Gospels are statements of faith. To the extent that there are facts in those statements that is all to the good. But we will never be able to say except in the most broad of categories which are 'fact' and which are not.
Sometimes this gets pushed to the limit of silliness from my point of view, by well meaning groups like the Jesus Seminar where scholars get together and vote, using colored cards, on which statements attributed to Jesus are 'true', which are 'unlikely' and which could not possibly have ever been said by Jesus. In the end they are trying to 'prove' what Jesus did or did not say.
To my mind they are substituting their judgment for the judgment of the Gospel writers. Why they think they are better at it than the original writers eludes me.
If this isn't clear enough, send me a PM and some more questions and we can tackle them together and see where we get.
God bless,
Monte
God bless,
Monte
Monte, it turns out I will be teaching Quaker Sunday School the week before Easter. I plan to go over the Easter story with them. (These are Quaker kids, not very Bible-oriented.) Any brilliant insights I can share with my small group of Middle Schoolers?
============================
S'mama: Thank you. I appreciate your kind comments and I love OS. I feel blessed to be here. So it is nice to know that is mutual. You have been very faithful to this series and it is much appreciated.
=======================================
Faith, thank you again. I really appreciate how you have stuck with this series and have been so positive about how the posts have spoken to you and helped you see new dimensions in your understanding of the Gospels and the Passion.
My advice with the kids is to go over in your own prep by just reading the four descriptions of the resurrection in each Gospel, and jotting down a few notes on just the most key parts of the story. That is mostly for you, not them, because it will reacquaint you with the varied stories, all of which, like the Passion are quite different in what they tell. And it will prepare you for the inevitable questions that they already have about something, often wrong, that they have already heard about the Resurrection.
Then I would stick to ONE aspect of the Resurrection and one story to illustrate it. Avoid the "Empty Tomb" argument. It says nothing about the Res, just that the tomb was empty.
The key to the Res is the APPEARANCES of the Risen Lord. It is that testimony that is the basis of our belief. So then pick one or two stories about the appearances and concentrate on that. The beautiful story about the Emmaus walk, Luke 24: 13 ff, is a good one that I love. They can read it to one another and see how the death of Jesus affected real people and how stunned they were to know that he appeared to them and was alive. There are some beautiful passages there.
Kids are always fascinated by Doubting Thomas because they have doubts too that they are afraid to tell anyone. The story is at John 20:24ff. It is short but there is always confusion about what actually happened in that scene. Most people think that Thomas did touch the Risen Lord, which totally misses the point. Thomas was himself touched by the OFFER of Jesus to allow Thomas to touch him. But Thomas did NOT touch, yet he believed. It ends on how it was good that Thomas did believe, because he had seen, but even more blessed are those (US) who believe without seeing. A good place this is to talk about faith being not something that you can see, but what your heart can feel.
A third area would be any of the Gospel accounts that describe the Risen Lord appearing to the women. Many do not realize that it was the women who cared most, who prepared to take care of the body. But most important of all, it was to one or more of the women that he first appeared. Many assume that it was to the male disciples. No. It was to the women, the unsung disciples, that Jesus first appeared and spoke. It is important at a young age for the kids to understand that women were not left out. Rather they were privileged to be the ones to whom the Lord appeared.
=====================================
Thanks, Dusty, a faithful reader in every way. That you have gotten so much out of this series is music to my heart. Theology as narrative has been for way too long a neglected subject in sermons and church teachings. We spend too much time trying to make lists of what the narratives are telling us, turning them into propositions, when if we just read and reread the narratives themselves they can speak so much more deeply to our hearts. The propositions are in the narratives, for sure, but we can much more easily absorb and remember the narratives and get an idea of how those narratives can become, should become, our narratives as well. We are the heirs to those stories. They are the stories of our Christian family. And we need to keep them alive for the next generation.
God bless you all.
Monte
That said, there are parts of the other gospels that make me think they are more "accurate" (for lack of a better word) for the times. That being the cruelty that was known for that period. The shear barbary bestowed upon Christians by Romans for years after the death of Christ come to mind.
I seem to remember stories of the Romans lining their roads for miles with crosses with Christians hanging on them as a deterrent for going against Roman rule.
I also understand how the Bible is not a historical document. I consider it more of a philosophy and guide book to live ones life by. I know I can't say that it hasn't left an influence on me and not be lying.
I'm curious as if you have any plans for posting anything about Acts in the future. There were several mentions of it in your post and you have peaked (peeked?) my curiosity. I would read it myself, but it's like Greek to me. (pun intended) You explain things so much better than I can understand by reading it myself. The Bible has always been hard for me to understand when I read it. It's like the messages just don't sink in, you know?
In your reserved and elegant prophetic outrage against those with their "accolades and doctorates" who reduce the Christ to a mere event in history, or those who teach "nonsense about harmonizing and homogenizing the Passion", you bring to mind Blake's complaint in his "Everlasting Gospel":
"The vision of Christ that thou dost see
is my vision's greatest enemy...
(we) read the Bible day and night,
But thou readest black where I readest white"
I have understood what you sought to teach us. This is theology---
theo, God; logos, Word: the Word of God--- in narrative form, stories to illustrate different aspects of the divine Man. For different people, or the same person in different stages or situations of his life. I had never thought to so consider the Gospels. Frankly, I hadn't thought much in along time about the Gospels, but now they are freshly accessible to me, when I need them. Thank you for that gift.
James Emmerling
(rated to Heaven)
I don't have anything in mind for Acts right away. My main point was to show that Luke actually wrote one big book but we chopped it into two parts: first the story of Jesus and second the story of the early church. Many people call Luke's Gospel the "Book of the Son" and call Acts "The book of the Spirit" because all that the apostles do in Acts is attributed, correctly, not to their brilliance but to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I want to be sure that the Bible you are reading isn't the King James. While it was one of the first Bible translations in English, that KJV is very hard to understand.
I did my doctoral work using it, because I was required to do that, but I had my favorite modern translation, the NRSV, right beside me to help me through some really opaque passages. Sometimes it was literally easier for me to use the Greek Bible than the KJV.
People have not talked that way for centuries and many meanings of words are quite different today than they were then. Plus it does not have, of course, the benefit of many of the manuscripts that have been discovered since it was written.
I would suggest that you buy a copy of the New Revised Standard Version or the New International Version (NRSV and NIV). Both are easy to read and much clearer than the KJV.
And there are other good modern translations, including one that is very easy to read, maybe too easy, called the CEV, Contemporary English Version. I enjoy reading it. It is set up in just normal paragraphs without verse markings and uses a lot of ordinary slang. But it does remove much of the subtlety from the text so I never use it for Bible study.
Thanks again.
Monte
I am always pleased how you are able to distill the essence of what I am writing into very crisp and cogent summaries. That used to amaze me about you but now I take it as a given. Your mind clocks very closely with my own and there are times when I think you could finish my sentences for me.
I was once a great fan of Blake. I don't think I have a single thing at home any more in my sizable personal library that is written by him. I will have to rectify that soon. Thanks for bringing him back to me, or rather bringing him back to the fore part of my brain.
Take good care.
Monte
I taught confirmation classes to them for many years. And I inevitably found that while they do a good job of masking their interest they still manage to ask very insightful and honest questions when they let their guard down.
I always thought that over half of teaching that age group was in getting that to happen. And then, once they trust you, they can really blossom.
Monte
Glad you enjoyed the series.
I intentionally set up a very odd theological education for myself. I got my M.Div from one of the most liberal seminaries in the country. And I got my ThD from one of the most conservative.
That was what I wanted most of all: to see for myself the breadth of theological expression in the country. And I surely did that. I was gagging a bit on some of the stuff taught in the classes and seminars at the conservative one but I really got an education as to what very different Christians honestly think and feel, especially about the Bible.
The conservatives consider the Bible the "Word of God." I don't. The Bible is a book. The "Word of God" as I understand it is what St. John says it is: Jesus Christ. And the New Testament is the witness to that Word. Big difference. With lots of implications too long to go into here.
Monte
Monte
Part 4, my favorite, because I connect deeply to the ultimate message of forgiveness that Jesus displayed for those who would condemn and put him to death. His words, "Forgive them, they know not what they are doing," are words we can all embrace and apply to our own lives. The message of forgiveness is one of complete surrender from self importance, ego and blame. It is one of the most empowering choices we can make and one which strengthens our spirits and emboldens our faith. You have shown us most of all, that Jesus was the most valuable teacher and humanitarian in history. Thank you, dear Monte. God bless you!
I was fascinated to read your description of your theological education. It brings to mind another intellectual hero of mine, whom I'm interested to know if you are acquainted with: GWF Hegel, probably the worst word-stylist but deepest mind ever produced by the Western philosphical tradition.
Dialectic. We all know what it is, and we sort of worship it intellectually today. Hegel didn't invent it, but he made it prominent. Said ---and i'm oversimplifying &being intentionally general here----that we think in opposites, or should. Clinging to one aspect (e.g. a liberal theological viewpoint) of a complex whole (which also contains the conservative view) is lazy and intellectually stultifying. He called that kind of thinking "mere understanding". He diagnosed, over 200 years ago, the devastating consequence of being thusly self-limited: endless, fruitless, argumentation. Sounds like 2009.
The way to go, he said, is to examine the limitatations & contradictions of the thesis, the standpoint, the understanding. Then "negativize" it. Accept the opposite view. The fabled "antithesis". (You can do this with EVERYTHING, and Hegel did...and then some!). The antithesis and thesis fight it out, BUT YOU, AS WHAT HE CALLED THE "PHENOMENOLOGICAL OBSERVER" , are the Mindspace in which the fighting happens, the watcher. Finally, if you pursue it, you get the Synthesis.
The synthesis: a much used term, but used very poorly. The synthesis, the product of Reason (Hegel's God, alas), is not a mere putting-together in a ramshackle agglomeration. It is a living, breathing, whole-body-and -mind , practical and theoretical Space of the Mind wherein the truth is not only known, but lived.
After all that blah-blah, my point is this: the phony "synthesizers", those who use a pale version of Hegel's intellectual legacy & are well- endowed & -financed to do so, say: yes , the Gospels form a whole in their different parts.
You, on the other hand, are truer to Hegel's Living Reason: you say, the parts are not "merely" parts---the different gospels----but living wholes -in-themselves , each complete in itself, but existing in an overall Whole. A whole that far from degrading its parts to parts-status exclusively, recognizes the inherent completeness of each Gospel , but provides an intellectual Space in which these whole/parts (Koestler called them "holons") live and interact and yes, "contradict" each other (from the pt of view of the understanding), but....from the clear open Space of Reason, are held together coherently: in this case, as the Word of God. You can probably predict Hegel's definition of Reason: logos, Word of God.
Living Word. A very, very, slippery subject indeed...
Oh...if Blake is making a return visit, I'd recommend the most Blake-like literary critic, Northrop Frye...his masterpiece "Fearful Symmetry"....especaillly the first few chapters...well worth an afternoon....
Best, God bless, Jim
Re. "finishing yr sentences". Yes, that's a talent of mine. I attribute it to Blake's simple idea (shared by Emerson) that, simply, "we on Earth are all united in thought." For real, not talking generally. ("To generalize is to be an idiot"...blake).
I say it's because my head has always been in outer space, as mom pointed out. But then i realized: outer space is inner space, per. the Kantian Revolution. Which Hegel took to its extreme.
The pt is: poetically, I can "feel the luminiferous ether (much maligned! by einstein!)"...thoughts arrive from there if you're plugged into it. Simple Emersonian Oversoul. Genius, he said: is recognizing your own thoughts returned to you. Reading is reading yourself.
They call it bipolar disorder....
Just browse the Synoptic Gospels, Follow the writers intent.
Read with heart. Yes. Emerson, Blake ... Life is a poem-Blake.
Plat chess? Read blogs? Comment deleted? Claim mentally ill?
Good reads.
Gospel ~ good news. Play the i-pod during a sermon. Remember. No ever do, never ever, pick toes in the assembly house of the gentle Believers.
It will be blogged about?
I think that Part 4, describing the Gospel of Luke appeals to many because as you said so beautifully, "The message of forgiveness is one of complete surrender from self importance, ego and blame. " You right there capture the essence of Luke's understanding of what Jesus was saying to us from the Cross. And what you said also indicates how radically difficult it is to do often times. To truly forgive is to know a kind a peace that we seldom know, but the difficulty of forgiveness is something that haunts almost all of our dialogues. It is especially obvious in our political dialogues where both sides are seemingly incapable of forgiving each other's faults and actions. Thank you for being such a loyal follower of this series.
God bless,
Monte
I always found Hegel both brilliant and turgid. These days for someone my age the length of days here on this lovely blue-green planet is palpable, and so I do not spend much time on such deep reading. I read reams of it decades ago. But not now. The truth is that it is hard to be anything like an expert on more a couple of subjects, and then, if you are honest about them, you are "expert" in about 1% of what there is to know.
But, yes, I do kind of unconsciously use the dialectical process in my own thinking. And it does seem to me that much of the world does not. We prefer the formats of high school debate and inductive argumentation to the more time consuming and intellectually honest attempts to actually understand both sides.
But in things political I feel passionate enough about some issues that I am essentially purely partisan on them. I would like to think that I have sought to understand them through a somewhat dialectical process, but the truth is that some things are so repugnant to me on a gut level that I really don't "think" about them at all. Many of the actions of the Bush administration fall into that category for me.
If one is to find any intellectual satisfaction in religious study, and here I am talking about Christianity, it is essential that we analyze from the situation of the writer, the sitz im leben, of the writer. Otherwise we are reading back our ideas and thinking they are his. This anachronistic way of thinking about the Bible, and more specifically about the Christ, is perhaps impossible to avoid, but at the very least we ought to admit that is what we are doing when we do it.
It is one thing to let the text come to us and "speak to us" when we read the accounts of Christ, it is quite another to go to the text and read our own prejudices into it. In the trade that means that exegesis is the goal and eisegesis is the error.
Ultimately faith will not be found in reason but reason can be found in faith. Never forget that we cannot think our way to faith, as much as I tried to do it for 50 years or so. Always hold St. Anselm's dictum in mind: Christianity is faith seeking understanding. First the leap of faith and then the understanding. Understanding cannot give you faith, but once you have faith you will be able to then study and understand what you are studying.
Wonderful comments again, Jim.
God bless,
Monte
So thanks for reading these posts and for your comments.
God bless,
Monte
You have strengthed my heart with your educated understandings of the Passion. For that, I will be eternally grateful. I've been on renewed, spiritual journey for the last year or so and this has not only given me reaffiramtion of my beliefs but directions toward new roads to travel. Eternal blessings are yours, because you have blessed so many! (Really would love to hear you preach someday!) But for now, I'm so thankful I found OS and YOU! And I won't hesitate to PM ya with my questions as I travel these new roads.
Of course, I have a hard time seeing that other place, and a hard time not being furious with those who cause suffering and misery and death. It seems (reading this) that Luke is trying to tell us that it's going to be okay. Luke (kind of a Godspell hippie) wants us to get past our anger/vengeance obsessions and recognize that Jesus isn't about anger, but about love and forgiveness and acceptance.
I found especially moving the part where Jesus receives "strength" from the angel, as we all wish for that angel in our own times of pain or fear or loss. We want an angel to make us strong and to help us through the bad stuff. Luke's Jesus is the one I've felt during the hard times, the one who "saves" by being there, by easing the way, just as the angel eased His way through that hard night.
Anyway, enough rambling. I'd just like to thank you for these beautiful meditations on the Gospels. I've never considered the meanings behind the differences in each "book," and this was very enlightening.
P.S. My favorite "Bible" is The New English Bible, although I still have a love for my childhood King James Version.
=======================================
Thanks, FabF, for those kind and thoughtful words. I am humbled. I am so glad when you say that this helps you a bit with your spiritual journey. That is all I have ever asked of any Reflection that I do.
I want so much to share what I have found helps my faith grow with others who might find it helps them too. I also want you to know that I am very glad that you are now writing on OS and have enjoyed very much your first postings, and am looking forward to more good things coming from your pen.
======================================
Suzie: wonderful comments. I am so glad that Luke speaks to you in such intimate ways and that you find strength in his portrayal of Jesus. In many ways, as you point out, Luke's compassionate and forgiving Jesus is the one that is at one and the same time the one we desperately need in the darkest times of our lives, and also the one that we have the hardest times emulating. Forgiving the ones who crucify him is an overwhelming act of grace that many of us, myself included at times, cannot see ourselves doing.
I too often find myself thinking that an eye for an eye sounds so very tempting, even somehow "right". But hate is never overcome by more hate. We may "win" in some human sense, a battle, a war, a shouting contest. But when the dust settles the hate remains and can be passed down from generation to generation.
Ultimately Christ is right. The only thing that can consume hate is love that envelops it and soothes and calms the savage beast in all of us.
I am so glad that you got much out of this series.
BTW: I love the NEB and often read it just for the sheer pleasure of the language itself. There is a flow to it and an eloquence that is beautiful and remarkable.
================================
God bless you all.
Monte
Intelligent, compassionate and extremely informative in an easy to swallow way.
Great, great series Monte.
Two things seem to me to mitigate against any EP or cover for this series.
First after the first month I was here I have never gotten any EPs or Covers. I got them regularly at first. I didn't change but clearly the Editors moved on to other writers.
Second, I have never seen an EP given to a serious religious post. I just don't see it happening.
I am grateful for the number of hits I have gotten on the series and for the number or very kind and open comments that I have gotten.
Monte
I understand what yre saying about little time left, etc. But i'm an Aristotelian on such matters (talk about NOT reading someone anachronistically....too damn bad they lsot his Dialogues):
He said, I'm summarizing here, hopefully non-anachronistically: Know the basics of each subject, the principles, f..k the particulars....
Leave them to specialists. Not philosophers. Philosophers do not get bogged down in details...
Ha. A brilliant recipe for a dilletante. Hop[efully not a charlatan.
Re yr health: what's your situation, "quality of life" wise? on a scale of 1 to 10, in hospital talk. Alot of people around here care, buddy. You're becoming, um, a damn fixture. A solid rock. Rock....
Leave the particulars to the rock and roll generation...the music calls us to freedom, yet our shame and fury and fear keep us from engaging in Kingdom business.
Should we say the horses are now mounted? By a ragtag army of individuals, and the most magnificent horse is Monte Canfield's.
Perhaps I should have said this in private. I'm sorry.
Bless you,
Jim
Monte
I hope that you will be able to do, with perhaps just a bit more confidence, your own analysis of various parts of the Gospels when you apply what you learned here. The more we can become confident readers of the Gospels the more they open themselves up to us. You are a good and patient scholar and I am impressed that you have spent the time here.
God bless,
Monte