He's Got the Power

Hello everyone,

Today, I am going to continue my exegesis of Luke 6, this time covering Luke 6:12-19. Jesus calls twelve men and designated as apostles, then goes down to a level place and begins a sermon that parallels the Sermon on the Mount in many ways.  I will save the 'sermon' portion of the text for next time. 

In verse 12, Jesus goes up alone on a mountain to pray. The Greek word διανυκτερεύων (dianuktereuon) means 'through the night.' So we see Jesus then spends the night in prayer before making the important decision of who The Twelve would be. Jesus has a circle of disciples.  He will select from among them, who his closest associates will be, so that he can train them. The number of disciples from which he is selecting the Twelve is not shown.  Undoubtedly Jesus had great relationships with many of those who remained outside of The Twelve, but in order to effectively train these men, he had select from among them who he could give the most attention to. 

Luke uses the word ἐκλεξάμενος (eklexamenos)  describe the selection process.  The word sounds like our English word ‘elect,’ and can mean that.  Jesus went through a rigorous prayer-filled process before choosing his apprentices.  One can assume that each one was chosen for a reason, and that none of this was random or haphazard. Jesus gave the Twelve the name ‘Apostles.’  According to Alan Thompson, Luke uses the word ‘apostle’ 6 times in Luke and 28 times in Acts.  He firmly established what an apostle is.  An apostle is “an authorized representative, was chosen by Jesus and was with Jesus from the beginning of his earthly ministry.” (Thompson, 100) The Greek verb αποστελλω (apostelloe) means ‘to send.’ It makes sense then that the noun form of the word would be one who is sent.  These twelve were God’s hand selected messengers. This is one of four lists of the apostles in the New Testament.  Matthew 10, Mark 3, and Acts 1, also have lists. Jesus has hand-selected a group of men that he eventually will send out into all the world to proclaim his good news. 

Verse 17 tells us then that Jesus went down with them to a level place  A vast multitude has come to hear Jesus and to be healed.  According to Luke 6:18 these people have come from Jerusalem and from Tyre and Sidon.  Jerusalem and Tyre are about 100 miles apart.  That is only a couple of hours by car, but on foot or on horseback, that is a long way to go to hear someone.  These people really wanted to see Jesus. Jesus continued healing and helping people.  It must have been quite a sight, as people were crowding around Jesus, just trying to touch him.  Verse 19 tells us that power was coming out from Jesus to heal people.  It must have seemed like magic, but instead it was the power of God.  

IN the verses that follow, Jesus delivers this sermon to three distinct groups: His apostles, a group of disciples and a large group of people who were not disciples. The disciples present that did not have the distinction of being among his apostles, was apparently still a sizable group.  Luke 6:17 says that it is a large crowd of his his disciples there. 

The sermon that Jesus preaches in Luke 6 sounds a lot like the Sermon on the Mount, but is it?  In Matthew 5, it says that Jesus went up on a mountainside, but here in Luke 6 it says that he went to a level place.  It is possible that Jesus is giving much of the same lesson, in a different place.  I have no doubt that Jesus taught a consistent message throughout his ministry.  He undoubtedly repeated himself to different crowds.  Luke 6 is often referred to as the Sermon on the Plain.  It is possible that Jesus was simply on a level place on the mountain.  So it could be a retelling of the Sermon on the Mount, or a very similar lesson delivered on a different time and place. To me, it makes very little difference whether this is an abridged version of the Sermon on Mount or not.  It is message and the new way of thinking that Jesus was presenting that matters.  We will look at this new Jesus lifestyle that he shares over my next few blog posts.  It is a differenet way of thinking then what his audience was used to. People were coming to Jesus to receive from him.  His message, however, called upon them to give, rather than receive. 

        Alan J. Thompson. Exegetical Guide to the Greek:Luke, Nashville, Tennessee. B&H Academic, 2016. 

Lord of the Sabbath, Part 2

In my previous post, we saw how Jesus, the Son of Man, declared himself to Lord of the Sabbath.  The story that follows in Luke, also occurs on a Sabbath, and on that Sabbath, Jesus shows himself to be Lord of the Sabbath.  This story is in Luke 6:6-11, the healing of the man with the withered hand. 

Jesus has come to the synagogue to teach and there is a man there with a withered hand.  The Pharisees apparently are waiting and watching to see if Jesus will heal this man on the Sabbath.  The word used is παρετηροῦντο (paretayrounto), which means to ‘watch closely.’ It sounds like they were looking for any opportunity to accuse Jesus of something.  

It was considered a violation of the Sabbath to do any medical work except in cases where a life was in danger, a baby was being born or a circumcision was being done. (Bock, 528)  Since this man's life was not endangered, to the Pharisees, he could wait a day to be healed. Their reasoning makes very little sense, and Jesus is about to expose their thinking for what it is. 

Jesus knows what they are thinking, so not does heal the man quietly, he brings man right out into the middle of everyone and heals him. Jesus is not being subtle here.  They are looking for a reason to accuse, and Jesus with his healing and use of plain common sense, shuts them down completely. 

Jesus asks them what is lawful, ἔξεστιν (exestin)on the Sabbath.  He asks which one is unlawful on the Sabbath, doing good or evil, saving a life, or destroying one.  Common sense says that doing good and saving life are acceptable on the Sabbath.  To heal this man may not have saved his life, but certainly it was doing good and not evil to this man.  Bock says that Jesus is saying “Why delay the healing, when I can do it right now?”  The answer is so clear that the Pharisees face a dilemma.  (Bock, 530)  

The Pharisees would rather that this man continue in this condition, rather than be healed on the Sabbath.  Does that make any sense to you?  Would it really please God to make this man wait? Jesus heals him.  

The Pharisees want to accuse Jesus of working on the Sabbath. How much work does Jesus actually do to heal this man?  He speaks one sentence, “Stretch out your hand,” and the man is healed. How could this possibly be classified as work?  Which of the 39 classifications of work (according to the Mishnah) has Jesus actually violated here?  Jesus has effectiviely dealt with their objection before they actually make it. 

Darrell Bock suggests that Jesus’ successful healing in the synagogue, on the Sabbath, represents an endorsement from God the Father. (Bock, 531) Jesus publicly displays his power and authority on the Sabbath and leaves it to his opponents to respond. And they do respond. Ἀνοίας - This is the word use to describe the anger that fills the Pharisees after Jesus heals the man with the withered hand.  In EGG for Luke, Thompson explains the word like this: 'mindless rage’, and  “without understanding.” “such an extreme anger as to suggest an incapacity to use one’s mind.” (Thompson, 99) In my own translation, have translated this as “the Pharisees completely lost their minds with rage.”  They can’t charge Jesus with work on the Sabbath, since he merely spoke to the man.  He has defeated them both logically, in words, and physically, in actions. They are completely confounded by Jesus, again.  So, in their anger, the Pharisees begin discussion of what they can do about Jesus. 

The Pharisees are completely overmatched by Jesus, who is in complete control of the whole situation. Unfortunately for the Pharisees, they have become so wedded to the old wineskins, that they are unable to see that Jesus and his new wineskin is a much better, much more compassionate way. Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, is The Way. 

Tom 

Lord of the Sabbath

Hello everyone, today, I will begin exegesis of Luke 6, by looking at the first 5 verses. In it, the disciples are walking through the fields, picking heads of grain, rubbing the grain in their hands and eating it. The Pharisees, seeing this, say that what the disciples are doing is οὐκ ἔξεστιν (ouk exestin) which means "not lawful, not permissible" to do on the Sabbath.

Note, that Jesus is not mentioned to be doing this, but when they are are confronted, Jesus defends the actions of the disciples. What they are doing, violates the Sabbath regulations.  At the time these regulations were oral traditional, but were written down in the Mishnah in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries. In this tradition there were 39 categories of work that were not permitted by law.  The work being committed by the disciples: First, reaping, they were plucking heads of grain. Then, threshing, rubbing in their hands. It is only by the strictest definition of 'work' that one could call what the disciples were doing work.  This thinking actually strains the definition of work. Even the writers of the Mishnah seemed to understand the tediousness of all of these rules.  Darrell Bock shares a quote from Mishnah Chagigah 1:8 “The rules about the Sabbath…are as mountains hanging by a hair, for the Scripture is scanty and the rules many.” (Bock, 523.) 

Over time these unwritten rules had become far from what God had intended the Sabbath to be. Sabbath-keeping was important, but it should be guided by common sense.  These rules had become so nonsensical that they were not  really providing for people what God had intended the Sabbath to provide. The Sabbath was created to be a holy day and a day of rest.  The idea was that the Sabbath was to be beneficial to people, but it had become a big burden. And it must have been exhausting to be a Pharisee on the Sabbath.  Not only did they have to keep all the rules, but they felt an obligation to watch everybody else and make sure that they were keeping the rules as well. 

Jesus, in defense of his disciples, uses the example of David in 1 Samuel 21:1-6.  Who better to use than one of Judaism’s greatest heroes.  David and his men were hungry and in need, and ate the sacred bread of the temple.  Jesus makes the point that the Sabbath was like the bread, it was supposed to be for people’s benefit, rather than a giant burden that people were unable to carry. While doesn't record the statement, in the parallel passage in Mark 2, Jesus says, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."  Jesus makes the point that the Sabbath had been created for people, not the other way around.  (Mark 2:27)  

This situation leads Jesus, the Son of Man, to declare himself to be Lord of the Sabbath.  It was not the place of the Pharisees to tell God what was permissible on the Sabbath. God had made the Sabbath. (Williams, 57-58)  Bock makes this point: Was Jesus arguing that the law was never meant to be interpreted so literally that compassion was excluded in a situation of basic need? (Bock, 525.) Do the ceremonial restrictions of the law give way to basic human need? 

The Scripture does not seem to condemn David for his action, nor does the priest who was there. Would the Pharisees condemn David to justify their position? Jesus, as he always did, outsmarted them, using the Scriptures to show them truth. 

Joel Williams sums up this story in  his Exegetical Guide to the Greek: Mark from the parallel passage in Mark 2.  From this story, we learn:

• Jesus has the power to declare the purpose and standards of God’s commands. 
• God’s commands have a good purpose. 
• God’s commands are best understood by listening to Jesus. 

In their attempts to be righteous, the Pharisees had created stumbling blocks for people.  Their intentions were good, but the result was far from what God had intended. Jesus was trying to correct this, and bring a better way to God.  We still need to be righteous, but without all of the trappings of legalism. Jesus was bringing freedom, not a new legalism, and following should bring joy and not burden. 

Tom 

Wineskins

Hello everyone.  I haven't written in about two weeks.  I've been out of town for part and very busy as the school year wraps up. So today, I am ready to write some more.  I will wrap up my exegesis of Luke 5 today, with Luke 5:33-39. 

In verse 32 Jesus has told  the Pharisees that he has come to those in need of repentance. because the healthy do not need, the sick do. Now their approach is changed.  Now, they are not questioning Jesus on who he is eating and drinking with, like they did in the previous passage. Now they are asking whether he and his disciples should be eating and drinking at all.  In verse 33 they make this statement: “John’s disciples prayed and fasted often. So do the disciples of the Pharisees, but your disciples eat and drink.” In other words, "Why aren't you guys fasting?"

They point out that John’s disciples fasted and prayed often, as do the disciples of the Pharisees. It appears that Jesus and his disciples do not fast. (Of course, they are likely unaware of Jesus' 40 day fast, and he doesn’t bring it up. You have to admire his self-restraint.)

Jesus instead responds by talking about a wedding feast.  The wedding guests do not fast while the groom is with them.  Jesus makes it clear that his disciples had no need of fasting while He was there with them.  Later, after he had left, they would fast. 

In the Old Testament, particularly in Hosea, the relationship between God and His people is often seen as a marriage. That analogy is shown here, with Jesus as the groom.  The bride is not specifically mentioned, but the wedding is.  The wedding party doesn’t fast while the groom is among them. It would make no sense. 

Jesus is not rejecting fasting here.  He has fasted.  There is clearly a time and a place for it, and right now is not the time or the place. In his commentary on Luke, Darrell Bock makes a great point about this.  Jesus does not downplay fasting, nor does he regulate or make it a test of spirituality. (Bock, 518) Fasting is a great thing to do, but the key here is the groom, Jesus, not the fasting.   Jesus says they will fast when the groom is ‘taken away.’ (This implies that the groom doesn’t leave on his own accord, but is taken.  An early foreshadowing of what is coming perhaps.)  

Then Jesus told them a parable, about new cloth on an old garment and new wine in an old wineskin.  Neither work very well.  The new garment doesn’t match and will tear the old garment.  The new wine will burst the old wineskin. Jesus was bringing a new way of worship to God that was very different from the old.  These two paradigms would not work together.  

Matthew and Mark highlight that adding the new cloth to the old ultimately makes the tear worse.  Luke’s emphasis is different.  He points out the tear, but also that the cloth is mismatched. One cannot put something new on top of something old.  It doesn’t look right and the old and the new both end up damaged.  In Jesus' example of the wineskins, we see the same thing happen.  Both old and new are destroyed. The message is clear. The old traditions of the current religion and Jesus’s new ways are incompatible.

Here is an example: Fasting every Monday and Thursday.  Too much law.  Not enough grace.  Under Jesus’ new covenant, people will fast, but the time and place will be by their own choosing. 

Jesus declares that new wine must have new wineskins.  His new wine could not carry over remnants of the old.  He was creating something entirely different and separate from the legalistic Judaism of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. A new spirit, new form, a new approach are needed. (Bock, 521) The old (Pharisees, teachers of the law) will reject the new, as well, because these two ways of thinking are incompatible.  Let us make sure that we are filling our wineskins with the new wine. 

Tom