Tag: Gospel of Luke

June 13: Luke 4:18

Luke 4:18

A key reference to the Spirit in Luke-Acts is the quotation of Isa 61:1-2 by Jesus in the Nazareth episode (Lk 4:16-30, vv. 17-19). This episode is part of the Synoptic tradition (Mk 6:1-6a par), but the Lukan version is quite distinctive, drawing upon an entirely separate line of tradition. I have discussed the various critical issues related to this passage in earlier notes and articles (cf. especially the study in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”).

Luke has located the Nazareth episode at the very start of Jesus’ public ministry, but there are details in the text that suggest that the location of the episode in Mark and Matthew reflects the more accurate historical chronology. For a discussion regarding the reasons why the Gospel writer would have included the episode at the beginning of the Galilean ministry, cf. the notes and articles mentioned above.

Here in this study our focus is on the way that the Lukan Spirit-theme is developed in the narrative. In this regard, it is necessary to consider carefully the context of chapters 3-4. The thematic development follows the progress of the narrative; we may summarize this as follows:

    • The Spirit comes upon Jesus at the Baptism (3:22)
    • Jesus is filled and guided by the Spirit as he is led into the desert (4:1)
    • The presence of the Spirit enables Jesus to overcome the Devil and come through the period of testing (implicit in the narrative)
    • Jesus returns “in the power of the Spirit” (4:14) to begin his ministry.

In the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus’ public ministry opens with the narration in Mk 1:14-15 (par Matt 4:17), which describes the preaching of Jesus, encapsulated by the declaration regarding the Kingdom (v. 15). This Kingdom-preaching is referred to as “the good message [eu)agge/lion, i.e. the Gospel] of God” (v. 14). Luke delays inclusion of this tradition (along with the call of the first disciples) until a slightly later point in the narrative (4:43ff). For the Lukan Gospel, the quotation of Isa 61:1-2 effectively takes the place of the Kingdom declaration (Mk 1:15), marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The author only alludes, in passing, to the Kingdom declaration in 4:43.

Interestingly, the author of Luke-Acts is very cautious in his use of the term eu)agge/lion (“good message, good news”); it occurs only twice (Acts 15:7; 20:24), and not at all in the Gospel. By contrast, he much prefers the related verb eu)aggeli/zw (“give the good message, bring good news”), emphasizing the act of proclaiming the Gospel. It occurs twice in the Infancy narratives, in relation to the Angelic announcement of the ‘good news’ (1:19; 2:10), and also is used to characterize the preaching of John the Baptist (3:18). It is used again here, embedded in the (LXX) quotation of Isa 61:1 (4:18), to characterize the ministry of Jesus.

In terms of the development of the Spirit-theme, this citation of Isa 61:1-2 relates to three key aspects:

    1. The Messianic Identity of Jesus
    2. The New Age of Prophecy
    3. A Prefiguring of the Gospel

1. The Messianic Identity of Jesus. During the time of his public ministry, the Messianic identity of Jesus was defined (and expressed) in terms of the Messianic Prophet figure-types. This is rooted in the early Gospel Tradition, and dominates the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptic narrative. It differs markedly from the Lukan Infancy narratives, where the figure-type of the royal/Davidic Messiah is in view.

Here in the Nazareth episode, Jesus specifically identifies himself with the anointed herald of Isa 61:1-2ff (v. 21); cf. also 7:22 par. The inspired character of this herald certainly involves the prophetic spirit—that is, the Spirit of God which comes upon the chosen individual and enables him/her to function as a ayb!n` (spokesperson for YHWH), communicating His word. In the context of the Trito-Isaian poems, the key reference in this regard is the statement (and promise) in 59:21. It also draws upon the ‘Servant Songs’ of chapters 40-55; the Deutero-Isaian “Servant” is both an individual and collective figure—representing both a prophetic leader and the people of God as a whole, during the New Age of Israel’s restoration.

This ‘Servant’ follows the pattern of Moses as a prophetic figure-type. The Messianic and eschatological dimension of this figure is rooted in the promise of a “Prophet like Moses” who is to come (Deut 18:15-19).  Jesus is identified with this Moses-figure in a number of ways in early Christian tradition (including a direct identification in Acts 3:22; 7:37). However, here in the Lukan narrative, as well as in the Qumran text 4Q521, the herald of Isa 61:1ff is associated with the prophetic figure of Elijah. Jesus clearly connects the text with his own identity as a prophet (the saying in v. 24), and the Scriptural illustrations he gives in vv. 25-27 all come from the Elijah/Elisha narratives. The wording of the LXX in Isa 61:2, referencing the blind recovering their sight, gives to the passage a healing-miracle aspect that is lacking in the original Hebrew, but which is quite appropriate for the ministry of Jesus, where such miracles feature prominently. Elijah (along with his disciple Elisha) was the pre-eminent miracle-working Prophet in Old Testament tradition. Cf. again the association of this aspect with the herald of Isa 61:1ff in Lk 7:18-23 par, and also the Qumran text 4Q521.

For more on Jesus as a Messianic Prophet, cf. Parts 2 & 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

2. The New Age of Prophecy. Isa 61:1-2ff is one of a number of passages in Isa 40-66 (the so-called Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah) which express the presence and work of the Spirit in the ‘New Age’ of Israel’s restoration. For more on the original context of 61:1-2ff, cf. the earlier article in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”. The Deutero-Isaian ‘Servant’ is both an individual and collective figure, as noted above. The references to the Spirit, in this regard, indicate that, in the New Age, the Spirit of God will come in new way upon both the prophetic leaders and the people as a whole (cf. 42:1; 44:3; 48:16).

This prophetic ideal reflects the New Age (and the New Covenant) for God’s people (cp. Ezek 11:19; 36:26-27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28-29), but one which clearly was not realized for Israel in the post-exilic period. Here in the Lukan Gospel, Jesus declares that now is the time when the prophecy will be fulfilled, and that he is the Anointed One who will bring the ‘good news’ : that the time has come for the prophetic ideal to be realized. The New Age of justice and righteousness, of blessing and deliverance for God’s people—i.e., the Kingdom of God—is now at hand.

3. Prefiguring the Gospel. In the Lukan Infancy narratives, the last prophets of the Old Covenant (Zechariah, Elizabeth, [Mary], Simeon, and John the Baptist), under the direct influence of the Spirit, all prophesy. The inspired message they communicate involves the Messianic identity of Jesus (cf. above), and the end-time work God is doing (and is about to do) through him. In this regard, their prophetic oracles prefigure the Gospel (on the use of the verb eu)aggeli/zw in the Infancy narratives, cf. above). Also noteworthy, from the Lukan standpoint, is how the aforementioned prophetic figures also function as transitional figures, representing a point of contact (and continuity) with the New Covenant. They stand at the threshold of the New Age—the new revelation by God in the person of Jesus.

Jesus himself uses the verb eu)aggeli/zw in 4:18, at least as the quotation of Isa 61:1 is preserved in the Greek (LXX) translation; in the original Hebrew, the verb is rc^B* (in the Piel stem), which has a comparable meaning (“give the [good] news”). At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus thus proclaims the Gospel (cf. Mk 1:14-15 par); he does this under the unique inspiration of the Spirit. This relates to his Messianic identity (cf. above). The anointing of the herald with the Spirit was clearly understood as having been fulfilled at the Baptism; the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus follows the image of oil (of anointing) being poured out (like the water of the Baptism) upon him.

It should be remembered that the Deutero-Isaian ‘Servant’ is both an individual and a collective figure. He represents both the inspired prophetic leader, as well as the people as a whole. Here, the Spirit has come upon Jesus (the Messianic leader) and he prophesies, proclaiming the Gospel; in the book of Acts (2:1-4ff), it is all the people (believers) who do so.

 

 

June 9: Luke 4:1

Luke 4:1

The Lukan Gospel proper begins with chapters 3-4, corresponding to the beginning of the Synoptic narrative (Mk 1:2-28). The opening episode in the Synoptic tradition is the Baptism of Jesus—a sequence of episodes spanning the description of John the Baptist’s ministry to the summary description of Jesus’ temptation in the desert. There are three references to the Spirit within this tradition (Mk 1:8, 10, 12) which Luke has inherited. The first two—the saying by the Baptist (3:16) and the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism (3:22)—are simply reproduced from the tradition by the Gospel writer.

The situation is different with regard to the third reference. In the core Synoptic tradition, following the Baptism, there is a brief narration of Jesus’ time in the desert, where he is tempted (lit. “tested”)  by the Satan (Mk 1:12-13). The initial statement in Mark reads as follows:

“And straightaway the Spirit casts him out into the desolate (land)” (v. 12)

The use of the verb e)kba/llw (“throw out, cast out”) sounds extremely harsh, but is appropriate to the harshness of Jesus’ experience in the desert (v. 13). Matthew softens the language, but otherwise follows the Synoptic/Markan narration:

“Then Yeshua was led up into the desolate (land) under [i.e. by] the Spirit…” (Matt 4:1)

In Luke’s version, while the author clearly is drawing upon the same tradition, the wording has been modified considerably, in a way that reflects the Lukan Spirit-theme:

“And Yeshua, full of (the) holy Spirit, turned back from from the Yarden (river), and was led in the Spirit in(to) the desolate (land)” (4:1)

The two expressions in bold are thoroughly Lukan expressions, which, as we saw in the previous notes, were established in the Infancy narratives. They represent two of the primary modes of Spirit-experience featured in Luke-Acts:

    • filled with the Spirit—cf. the notes on 1:15 and 1:41, 67, where the verb plh/qw is used; here it is the related adjective plh/rh$ (“filled, full”)
    • being/going in the Spirit—cf. 1:17 and 2:27 (note); the idea of being led by the Spirit is very much implied in the latter reference (Simeon is guided into the Temple precincts where he encounters Jesus)

In the Markan narrative, the Spirit comes unto Jesus at the Baptism, but then he is “thrown out” by the Spirit into the desert. This could imply that the Spirit was no longer with Jesus during his time in the desert, but that Jesus had to fend for himself, enduring temptation (much like a normal human being). During that time, he had to rely on Angel-messengers for strength and comfort. The Matthean and Lukan versions word the narration to make clear that the Spirit was still with Jesus during his time of testing. In all likelihood, the Markan version intends this as well; the Spirit ‘thrusts’ Jesus into the desert, but does not leave him. Matthew and Luke simply make this point clear.

Indeed, the Lukan version gives special emphasis to the presence of the Spirit, by way of the double reference. Jesus remains filled by the Spirit, and guided by the Spirit, all through the forty days of testing. This is confirmed by the fact that the Gospel writer restates the Spirit-theme immediately after the temptation scene, in verse 14:

“And Yeshua turned back, in the power of the Spirit, into the Galîl.”

The restatement was necessary, on the literary level, because of the insertion of the temptation scene (vv. 2b-13). Both Luke and Matthew expand the brief Synoptic description of the testing (by Satan) with the famous temptation-dialogue (par Matt 4:3-11). This is part of the so-called “Q” material, and the temptation-dialogue is unquestionably one of the most vivid and memorable of “Q” traditions. The Lukan framing of this episode suggests that it is the presence of the Spirit that empowers Jesus to overcome the Devil during the forty days of testing.

Indeed, it may be said that Jesus comes through the desert-experience even stronger, and this in relation to the presence of the Spirit. In verse 1, Jesus is “led in the Spirit”, but in verse 14, following the testing, he returns “in the power of the Spirit”. On the important association of the Spirit with “power” (du/nami$), i.e., the power of God, cf. 1:17, 35; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 8:19; 10:38. It is clearly an important aspect of the Lukan Spirit-theme. On a similar association in Paul’s letters, cf. Rom 1:4; 15:13, 19; 1 Cor 2:4; 1 Thess 1:5, etc. This ‘power of the Spirit’ is often connected with the ability to work miracles; however, the primary Lukan point of emphasis is on prophecy—that is, the Spirit-empowered ability to communicate the word of God (i.e., proclaim the Gospel). In the book of Acts, the prophetic aspect includes supernatural signs and phenomena (speaking with tongues, etc).

We will explore this aspect of the Spirit-theme, in relation to the Lukan portrait of Jesus, further in the next daily note.

 

June 8: Luke 2:25-27

Luke 2:25-27

The next reference to the Spirit in Luke-Acts relates to the figure of Simeon in the Lukan Infancy narrative (2:25-35). Simeon, along with Anna (vv. 36-38), forms one of three male-female pairs (the others being Zechariah/Elizabeth and Joseph/Mary) who, in the Lukan narrative context, embody the faithful and devout ones of Israel under the Old Covenant. This is expressed both by the actual language used, and by the religious associations that are implied; in the case of Simeon and Anna we may note:

    • Simeon (vv. 25-35) who:
      (a) was righteous/just [di/kaio$] and took good care [to observe the Law, etc]
      (b) was [looking] toward receiving the paraklhsi$ of Israel
    • Anna (vv. 36-38) who:
      (a) was in the Temple ‘day and night’, serving with fasting and prayer
      (b) was [with those looking] toward receiving the lutrwsi$ of Jerusalem

Point (a) speaks to their faithfulness and obedience regarding religious duty and service to God; point (b) to the ‘Messianic’ hope and expectation shared by many devout Jews at the time. These points will be discussed further below.

1. Transition between the Old and New Covenant. The three figure-pairs (as well as the child John) all represent the people of God (the faithful ones) under the Old Covenant. But they are also transitional figures who stand at the threshold of the New Covenant, and thus also embody the continuity between Old and New Covenants. This has been emphasized several times in the prior notes; it is a key Lukan theme that the author has taken care to develop. When Simeon encounters the child Jesus in the Temple precincts, this serves as a powerful dramatic depiction of a point of contact with the new revelation of God (in the person of Jesus). Moreover, the experience Simeon has with the Spirit prefigures the relationship of the Spirit to believers, thus forming another key point of contact with the New Covenant. The importance of the Spirit-theme, as it is developed here, is indicated by the three-fold reference in vv. 25-27 (cf. the discussion below).

2. Messianic Expectation. The faithfulness and devotion of Simeon (and Anna) is expressed primarily through their trust in the deliverance God was about to bring for His people. This trust is informed by the Jewish eschatology and Messianic expectation of the time, as it came to be developed, over a number of centuries, from Old Testament tradition. This end-time (Messianic) deliverance is here encapsulated through two parallel (and largely synonymous) phrases (cf. above). Simeon and Anna were among those looking toward receiving [prosde/xomai, i.e. waiting for]:

    • the paraklhsi$ of Israel (v. 25)
    • the lutrwsi$ of Jerusalem (v. 38)

These phrases form an inclusio to the section. In the first, the noun para/klhsi$ is derived from the verb parakalew (lit. “call alongside”) and indicates calling someone to come near for help/instruction/encouragement, etc., just as the noun para/klhto$ (‘paraclete’) refers to someone called alongside to give help/instruction/encouragement, etc. The word in this context is usually translated “comfort” or “consolation”. In the second phrase, the parallel noun lutrw/si$ refers to the payment of ransom (and the corresponding release) for someone in bondage, etc., and is normally translated “redemption”. The phrase “comfort of Israel” probably finds its origin in the Isaian passages 40:1-2 (which also mentions Jerusalem) and 61:2, cf. also 57:18; 63:4; 66:13. “Redemption of Jerusalem” would seem to be derived from Isa 52:9, which also mentions ‘comfort’ for God’s people. This message of hope and restoration is described in terms of “good news” for Jerusalem (cf. 40:9; 41:27; 52:7). Interestingly, the phrase “redemption (hL*a%G+) of Israel” and “freedom of Jerusalem” are found in documents from the Wadi Muraba±at in the context of the second Jewish Revolt (132-135 A.D.).

There are similar allusions in the Song of Simeon (vv. 29-32), the prophetic poem that Simeon utters under the influence of the Spirit. These are largely drawn from the Deutero-Isaian poems, understood in an eschatological and Messianic sense. The principal references are Isa 40:5; 46:13b; 49:6b; 52:10 (and cf. also 42:6; 60:1); other related references of note are also Psalm 98:3; Gen 49:18; Baruch 4:24; Ps Sol 17:50.

By the time the Gospels came to be written, early Christian tradition had identified key Messianic figure-types as being fulfilled by John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively. Here in the Lukan Infancy narrative, the hymn of Zechariah focuses on John the Baptist, while the Song of Simeon is centered on the child Jesus. The two poetic oracles function in a similar way, and each prefigures the inspired proclamation of the Gospel by early believers.

In Luke 1:76 John the Baptist is clearly identified as the Messenger (Elijah, cf. verse 17) who prepares the way before the Lord, as we see well-established in the Gospel tradition (Mk 1:2-3ff par; Lk 7:27; Jn 1:19-23ff). Through his preaching and ministry of baptism, John turns the hearts and minds of people back to God, preparing them for the coming of the Lord, the Anointed One (Christ). This emphasis on repentance introduces the motif of salvation from sin— “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the release [i.e. forgiveness] of their sins” (v. 77). The religious (and eschatological) background of this idea of salvation is very much related to the coming Judgment—only those who repent and return to God will escape (i.e. be saved from) the anger and judgment of God upon humankind. In verse 78, however, the emphasis shifts to salvation as an expression of God’s mercy; for similar wording, cf. the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Zebulun 8; Levi 4). The judgment imagery and vocabulary is transformed, centered here on the verb e)piske/ptomai (“look [carefully] upon”), which came to be a technical term for the end-time appearance (visitation) of God, both to help/save his people and to bring the Judgment. Only now, a different sort of visitation is described—of a revelatory light from heaven, shining upon human beings (God’s people) trapped in darkness. The “rising up” (a)natolh/) is best understood by the image of a sun or star which gives the light (of God) from out of heaven (Num 24:17; Isa 60:1ff; Mal 4:2, etc). The image of people—God’s people—sitting in darkness and shadow comes primarily from Isaiah 9:2; 42:6-7 (cf. also Psalm 107:9-10).

Similarly, in the Simeon episode, the child Jesus is identified as the Anointed One (2:26)—that is, the Messianic figure-type of the end-time ruler from the line of David (cf. 1:32-33, 69; 2:11). An interesting shift has taken place, however; instead of the idea of salvation from the wicked nations (the enemies of Israel, cf. 1:70-71) etc, this figure is now identified with salvation itself. Note the similarity of language between 2:26 and 30:

“…until he should see the Anointed of the Lord”
“…my eyes have seen your Salvation“

In other words, the salvation which the Lord (Yahweh) brings for his people is embodied in the person of the Anointed One (Jesus). The imagery of the Anointed One bringing light to/for the nations (cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; 52:10), an extension of the basic image in 1:78-79 (Isa 9:2ff, cf. Matt 4:15-16), is tied to an important prophetic idea—best seen in the Deutero- (and Trito-) Isaian poems—that the covenant relationship (between YHWH and Israel) will reach outward to the surrounding nations, and that other peoples will come to join Israel as part of God’s people (cf. Isa 49:6, 22; 56:3-8; 60:3-7; 66:18ff, etc). This shift in focus was an important element of early Christian thought, associated with the mission to the Gentiles—and, as such, is developed throughout the book of Acts, being tied to the central Spirit-theme of the author.

3. The Temple setting. As previously noted, the Temple serves as an important point of contact between the Old and New Covenant in the Lukan narrative. This continuity is reflected by the fact that the early believers of Jerusalem continue to frequent the Temple (24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1ff; 5:12ff, 25, etc), just like the faithful ones of old. However, for believers in Christ, the Temple has a very different purpose and significance. As Simeon holds the child Jesus in his arms, he is encountering the new revelation of God to His people.

Let us now consider the three-fold description of Simeon’s experience with the Spirit in 2:25-27. Three aspects are mentioned, one in each verse:

    • “…and the holy Spirit was upon him” (v. 25)
    • “and (the matter) was declared to him under [i.e. by] the Spirit…” (v. 26)
    • “and he came in the Spirit…” (v. 27)

The wording suggests that this was not a one-time event, but rather that Simeon may have had regular experiences of this sort. Two distinct modes of Spirit-experience are mentioned, both of which were introduced earlier in the Infancy narrative, and continue to be developed throughout Luke-Acts. The first is the Spirit being upon (e)pi/) a person, just as it was said that the Holy Spirit would “come upon” (e)pe/rxomai) Mary (1:35, cf. the prior note). The second mode involves a person going about in (e)n) the Spirit, being led/guided by the Spirit. It was said of John the Baptist that he would go about in the prophetic spirit (1:17, meaning that the Spirit of God would be in/on him). The language for this mode is expressed more directly in the case of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry (4:1, 14, to be discussed in the next note).

In the middle reference, Simeon is given special information from the Spirit; the verb xrhmati/zw is used, which here indicates a declaration of how certain business (i.e., a particular matter) will come out; it may also imply a decision (by God) regarding the matter. In this particular instance, the content of the message relates precisely to the Messianic expectation of Simeon (cf. above). Through the Spirit, God promises him that he will not die (lit. “is not to see death”) before he sees “the Lord’s Anointed (One)”. This (private) prophetic message is fulfilled by Simeon’s encounter with Jesus, which explains why the Spirit leads him into the Temple precincts at that moment. He comes into the Temple “in the Spirit”; the expression is also important because it indicates the inspired character of the oracle that he utters in vv. 29-32. It is not said of Simeon specifically that he was filled with the Spirit, but given the parallel with the oracle of Zechariah, this may fairly be assumed. It is possible, however, that the idea of being in the Spirit is indicative of a longer-term experience, rather than a sudden and momentary burst of inspiration. Certainly, the oracle that he utters represents the culmination of a lifetime of faithfulness and devotion to God.

 

 

 

June 7: Luke 1:41, 67

Luke 1:41, 67

“….and Elisheba was filled with (the) holy Spirit…and she gave up a great cry (with her) voice and said…” (v. 41f)
“And Zekharyah was filled with (the) holy Spirit and he foretold [i.e. prophesied], saying…” (v. 67)

Like John the Baptist, who was filled (vb plh/qw) with the Holy Spirit even while in the womb (cf. the prior note on v. 15ff), so also his parents (Elizabeth and Zechariah) were filled by the Spirit. This Spirit-motif, introduced in the earlier episode, continues here. It will be further developed in the figure of Simeon (2:25-27), who serves as a pattern for the relationship of the Spirit to believers, and also in the person of Jesus himself (4:1ff, cf. also 10:21).

As previously noted, the idea of a person being filled by the Spirit of God is an important aspect of the Lukan Spirit-theme. It is one of three primary modes of Spirit-experience featured in Luke-Acts. It is also, however, part of an ancient line of tradition regarding the manifestation of the Spirit of God (YHWH) upon chosen individuals in the Old Testament. Indeed, there was a strong tradition of charismatic (and prophetic) leadership in ancient Israel, whereby chosen individuals were gifted with the Divine Spirit, enabling them to function as inspired leaders over God’s people. This was true in the case of Moses and his successor Joshua, as well as the Judges and the early kings of Israel (Saul, David). The specific idiom of being filled, however, is only mentioned in the case of Joshua (Deut 34:9).

Mention should also be made of the references in Exodus (28:3; 31:3; 35:31), of the artisans and craftspeople who made the priestly apparel and the tent-shrine (tabernacle) furnishings. They were uniquely filled with the divine Spirit, giving them the skill and artistry to perform this work. This relates to the situation here with Elizabeth and Zechariah, where the filling by Spirit enables them to exercise a poetic art. Within the narrative context, Zechariah utters a great hymn (the Benedictus, vv. 68-79), and Elizabeth, in her own way, also gives out a short poetic exclamation (vv. 42ff). It should also be noted that the inspired hymn attributed to Mary (the Magnificat, vv. 46-55) is, in a handful of manuscripts and other witnesses, attributed to Elizabeth instead.

There are three aspects of this mode of being filled by the Spirit that I would emphasize here.

1. Ecstatic inspiration. In the ancient prophetic tradition, the divine Spirit comes upon the individual and overwhelms him/her, producing a state of ecstasy, in which the prophet begins to speak with the voice of the deity. Sometimes this is characterized by unusual (or supernatural) signs, as well as strange behavior. In the Pentecost scene in Acts, this aspect of the prophetic experience is realized primarily through the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.

More commonly, however, in both the Gospel and Acts, this ecstatic experience is manifest by a sudden exclamation, made at the spur of the moment, under the influence of the Spirit. We see this, for example, in Luke 10:21f, where the saying of Jesus is presented as an inspired exclamation. In the Lukan Infancy narrative, the ecstasy results in a poetic oracle. This is certainly true in the case of the canticles by Zechariah and Simeon (and also the Magnifcat [by Mary]), which are genuine poems, composed much in the pattern of the Scriptural Psalms. In this regard, it is worth noting the statement in Acts 4:25, how David, as the chosen servant of God, composed the Psalms (specifically Psalm 2) under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

2. The Prophetic communication of the will and purpose of God. This is the fundamental meaning of prophecy, especially as expressed by the Hebrew root abn. A ayb!n` properly denotes, in a religious context, someone who is a spokesperson for God, communicating His word and will to the people. The Greek term profh/th$ has a corresponding meaning, depending on how one understands the prepositional prefix pro/ (“before”). The prefix can mean “beforehand” (that is, predictive prophecy, announcing future events), but it can also be understood in the sense of speaking the message before (i.e., in front of) a gathered audience (such as the Christian community/congregation).

There is certainly a predictive component of the prophetic oracles by Elizabeth and Zechariah (and also Simeon). Far more important, however, and central to the place of the oracles in the Lukan narrative, is what the oracles communicate regarding what God is doing (and is about to do) through the chosen (Messianic) figures of John and Jesus. This will be discussed further in the next note (on 2:25-27ff).

3. Prefigurement of the Gospel. The prophetic oracles uttered by Elizabeth and Zechariah, etc, foreshadow the proclamation of the Gospel by the early believers. In particular, the hymns in the Lukan Infancy narratives find their parallel in the sermon-speeches of Acts. Both are Spirit-inspired utterances made publicly, presented as occurring on the spur of the moment, before an audience. In particular, the utterances by Elizabeth and Zechariah declare the Messianic identity of Jesus, which is also the fundamental message of the early Gospel preaching.

Elizabeth and Zechariah represent the faithful and devout ones under the Old Covenant; but they also, like their child John (also their relative Mary), are transitional figures who stand at the threshold of the New Covenant. Thus, it should be no surprise that, in the context of the Lukan narrative, their Spirit-inspired prophecy anticipates the Gospel preaching of the first believers.

The content of this message is also shaped according to the literary theme and structure of the Infancy narratives. This means, primarily, that it is predicated upon the relationship between John and Jesus. John was a Spirit-filled (and guided) messianic figure, but one who is surpassed by, and subservient to, the greater Messianic identity of Jesus. John himself, in the womb of Elizabeth responds to the presence of Jesus (in the womb of Mary). His ‘jumping’ (vb skirta/w) in the womb (v. 41) is a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit (v. 15). Elizabeth’s prophecy confirms, and develops this theme: Mary is declared blessed because of the “fruit of her belly” (i.e., the infant Jesus), and she is specifically declared to be “the mother of my Lord”.

In the Benedictus of Zechariah we find a much more extensive poetic development, replete with many allusions to Scripture and Old Testament/Jewish tradition. For a detailed study of these allusions, specifically with regard to their Messianic significance, cf. my earlier article in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”. It is in vv. 76-79 that the traditional language (and Messianic imagery) is applied directly to the narrative context of the relationship between John and Jesus. These are examined in a separate article (in the aforementioned series).

June 6: Luke 1:35

Luke 1:35

The next reference to the Spirit in Luke-Acts is in the Angelic announcement to Mary of Jesus’ conception and birth (vv. 26-38). This episode follows, and is parallel to, the announcement to Zechariah regarding John the Baptist (cf. the previous note on vv. 15-17).

In this case, however, the reference to the Spirit is clearly part of an historical tradition inherited by the Gospel writer. We know this because of the similar reference in Matt 1:18, 20 (also involving an Angelic announcement). The supernatural (virginal) conception of Jesus is explained by the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. Luke follows this same basic line of tradition, as the reference to the Spirit (v. 35) comes in Gabriel’s answer to Mary’s question in verse 34—viz., how a pregnancy is possible, since she is a virgin (“I do not know a man”). The answer is that the miraculous character of this pregnancy is due to the Holy Spirit.

Even though the association of the Spirit with Jesus’ conception (and birth) is part of an inherited tradition, the statement in v. 35, within the Lukan context, also reflects the author’s thematic development regarding the Spirit. Before exploring this development further, let us briefly examine v. 35:

“And, giving forth (an answer), the Messenger said to her:
‘(The) holy Spirit will come upon you,
and (the) Power of (the) Highest will cast shade upon you;
therefore, even the (one) coming to be (born) will be called Holy, (the) Son of God.'”

There is a poetic (or at least prosodic) quality to the Angel’s response, the first two lines (above) reflecting the synonymous parallelism typical of Hebrew poetry:

    • The Holy Spirit | will come upon you
    • The Power of the Highest | will cast shade upon you

The “holy Spirit” (pneu=ma a%gion) is thus synonymous with “power of the Highest” (du/nami$ u(yi/stou). That is to say, the reference is to the Spirit of God (YHWH), His active, creative power—the same life-giving power that was present and at work in the Creation (Gen 1:2). The verb e)piskia/zw (“cast shade upon, overshadow”) is rare, in both the New Testament and the LXX, but there is a notable occurrence at Exod 40:35, where it refers to the presence of YHWH, in the form of the theophanous cloud, filling the Israelite tent-shrine (tabernacle); cf. also Psalm 90:4; 139:8. The main NT occurrence is similar: the cloud-presence of God manifest in the Transfiguration scene (Lk 9:34 par); Luke also uses it in Acts 5:15.

In fact, the wording here in v. 35, while traditional, also reflects Lukan style and vocabulary. The verb e)pe/rxomai (“come upon”), in particular, is distinctly Lukan; 7 of the 9 NT occurrences are found in Luke-Acts. Most notably, it is used in the context of the coming of the Spirit on believers in Acts 1:8. There the Spirit is also referred to as the “power” (du/nami$) of God, coming down from heaven (cp. Lk 24:49, “…power out of [the] height[s]”, du/nami$ e)c u(pi/stou).

With this in mind, let us explore further the Lukan development of the Spirit-theme, as it occurs here in Lk 1:35. I would make four points, each of which will be expounded briefly below.

1. The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. The two annunciation scenes are reflective of a broader parallel treatment of the births of John and Jesus, respectively, in the Lukan Infancy narrative. The two narrative strands run parallel, alternating back and forth, intersecting only in the Visitation episode (1:39-45ff). While there are clear similarities in thematic detail and form, between the John and Jesus strands, there can be no doubt regarding the superiority of Jesus. If John is destined to be a great prophet and Messianic figure (cf. verses 15-17 and the previous note), Jesus will be that much greater. John will be “great” before God, and will also be pure and holy as His chosen one (i.e., consecrated Nazirite status), but Jesus will be so in a more transcendent and absolute sense. The substantive adjectives me/ga$ (“great”, v. 32) and a%gio$ (“holy”, v. 35) are comparable to the Divine attributes predicated of YHWH (i.e., the Great and Holy One).

John is to be a Prophet, the last great Prophet of the Old Covenant; he will also fulfill a Messianic role as the “Elijah” of the end-time. Jesus, too, will be a uniquely inspired and Spirit-empowered Prophet—an identification that particularly applies to the period of his Galilean ministry, where he is also associated with the (Messianic) figure of Elijah (cf. the discussion in Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). However, here, in the Annunciation scene—and throughout the Infancy narratives—Jesus is identified specifically with the royal/Davidic figure-type. The title “Son of God” here must be understood, primarily, in this Messianic sense (cf. Parts 6, 7, 8 of “Yeshua the Anointed”).

2. Prophetic Inspiration. The motif of the Spirit coming upon (e)pi/) a person goes back to ancient Near Eastern (and Israelite) tradition regarding the nature of prophecy. The Spirit comes upon the chosen individual, enabling him (or her) to function as a prophet (Heb. ayb!n`)—an inspired spokesperson for YHWH, who communicates His word and will to the people. If John is filled with this prophetic Spirit of God, even while he is still in the womb, it can be implied that the same is true of Jesus, even to a greater degree. This aspect is expressed more directly in the traditional Baptism scene (Lk 3:21-22 par), but the Gospel writer would almost certainly extend this relationship to the Spirit to the very conception and birth of Jesus.

More than this, it is possible that here the idea of Mary as a prophet may also be in view. The Magnificat in vv. 46-55 is attributed to Mary (though in a few manuscripts Elizabeth is the speaker), and must be regarded, in the context of the narrative, as an inspired (prophetic) utterance. In the case of the inspired utterances by Elizabeth and Zechariah, it is specifically said that they were “filled by the Spirit” (vv. 41, 67). While this is not stated directly of Mary, it seems probable that prophetic inspiration is foreshadowed by the coming of the Spirit “upon” her in v. 35.

3. Prefiguring the Coming of the Spirit on Believers. As noted above, the verb e)pe/rxomai (“come upon”) is also used in Acts 1:8, where Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit upon his disciples (fulfilled in 2:1-4ff). Indeed, this is one of three primary modes whereby the relationship between believers and the Spirit is expressed in Luke-Acts. The other two—being filled with the Spirit and walking in (or being led by) the Spirit—were introduced in Lk 1:15-17 (cf. the discussion in the previous note). This coming of the Spirit upon believers represents a uniquely Christian form of the traditional association between the Spirit and prophecy (cf. above).

4. The continuity of the Old and New Covenants. Like John the Baptist, Mary represents a transitional figure between the Old and New Covenant. Mary, along with her husband Joseph, is depicted as being faithful to the Old Covenant, dutifully observing the regulations and requirements of the Torah (2:21-24, 39, 41ff). At the same time, she is the first person who grapples with the meaning and significance of the new revelation of God in the person of Jesus. A measure of trust and belief is attributed to Mary (cf. 1:38, 45; 2:19, 33-35, 51), making her, in a sense, the first believer and a type-pattern looking forward to the Christians of the New Covenant. She stands together with the first believers in Acts 1:14 (cp. Lk 8:19-21 par).

 

 

June 5: Luke 1:15-17

This is the first in a series of daily notes in celebration of Pentecost. I will be examining the references to the Spirit in Luke-Acts. These passages have been studied in prior series, but here the focus will specifically be on the place of the Spirit in the message and theology of Luke-Acts. Particular attention will be paid to the thematic structure of the 2-volume work (Luke-Acts), centered as it is upon the Pentecost narrative of the coming of the Spirit (in Acts 2).

Of the Synoptic Gospels, the Spirit features most prominently in the Gospel of Luke. It is significant that most of the references occur in distinctively Lukan portions. More than half of the references, for example, occur in the Infancy narratives (chaps. 1-2), which are thoroughly Lukan compositions in language and style. Also we may note the Lukan version of the Gospel tradition surrounding the Baptism and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (in chaps. 3-4), as well as key references in chaps. 10-12 (passages near the beginning of the travel account [journey to Jerusalem], cf. Fitzmyer, p. 227). There is a surprising lack of any mention of the Spirit in the main narrative, though this generally reflects the relatively few references in the Synoptic Tradition as a whole (just six in the Gospel of Mark, and only three [Mk 3:29; 12:36; 13:11] outside of the Baptism scene). The Lukan references in chaps. 3-4 generally correspond to the Synoptic tradition in Mk 1:8-12 par. Curiously, in the Lukan parallel to the three Markan verses cited above (Lk 11:23; 20:42; 21:14), the Spirit is not mentioned.

Our study begins with the Infancy narratives, which contain 7 (or 8) references to the Spirit (Pneu=ma). It is generally recognized that the Infancy narratives represent a later stage of the overall Gospel narrative. There is a strong likelihood that Luke’s Gospel originally began with 3:1, and that it was then expanded to include chaps. 1-2. Both the internal evidence and the evidence from the Gospel of Mark and John tend to confirm that the core Gospel narrative began with the Baptism. However, there is no indication that Luke’s Gospel ever circulated without the Infancy narratives.

In any case, the Infancy narratives are integral to both the Gospel and the work of Luke-Acts as a whole. Many of the principal themes are established in these narratives, with an eye on how they will be developed throughout the remainder of the work. This can complicate an historical-critical analysis of the material; one must always keep in mind that the author is intentionally shaping the traditional material to bring out themes that find their full development in the missionary narratives of Acts.

Luke 1:15-17

“For he will be great in the sight of [the] Lord, and wine and liquor he shall (surely) not drink,
and he will be filled (with the) holy Spirit, even (coming) out of (the) belly of his mother.” (v. 15)

This contains the first two declarations made by the heavenly Messenger (Gabriel) to Zechariah, announcing the conception (and coming birth) of John. The statements are made with verbs in the future tense: (i) “he will be…” (e&stai), (ii) “he will be filled…” (plhsqh/setai). They announce both John’s birth and his future destiny. He will be a chosen servant of God, a role that has genuine Messianic significance, within the context of the Gospel Tradition. This is the primary meaning of the statement “he will be great in the sight of the Lord”. It is also said of Jesus that he will be “great” (me/ga$, v. 32), but in a way that surpasses the greatness of John the Baptist, an absolute attribution that would normally be predicated of God (YHWH).

The second declaration involves the Holy Spirit:

“and he will be filled (with the) holy Spirit, even (coming) out of (the) belly of his mother”

Before examining the significance of John being “filled” by the Spirit, let us consider the final two declarations (in vv. 16-17):

“and he will turn many of the sons of Yisrael (back) upon the Lord their God,
and he will go before in the sight of Him, in (the) spirit and power of ‘Eliyyahu, to turn (the) hearts of fathers (back) upon (their) offspring, and (the) unpersuaded (one)s in the mind-set of (the) righteous, to make ready for (the) Lord a people having been fully prepared.”

These statements describe (and define) the Messianic role of John the Baptist—certainly as it was understood in the early Gospel Tradition. It can be summarized by the expression “in the spirit and power of Elijah”. In order to gain a proper understanding of the place of the Spirit in this passage, we must join together these two aspects of the annunciation, where the noun pneu=ma is used:

    • “(filled) by the holy Spirit”
    • “in the spirit…of Elijah”

The principal association is between the Spirit and prophecy. John will be among the greatest of prophets (7:26-28 par), fulfilling the role of the end-time (Messianic) Prophet, according to the figure-type of Elijah (for more on this, cf. Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). More than this, he may be regarded as the last of the prophets of the old covenant (16:16 par), standing on the threshold of the new covenant. This sense of continuity between the old and new covenants is especially important in terms of how this passage fits in with the Lukan view of the Spirit.

This is the first occurrence of two distinct modes, in the Lukan narratives, whereby the Spirit is present and active. The first mode involves the idea of filling—i.e., being filled by the Spirit. Here the verb plh/qw is used. The idiom occurs numerous times in the book of Acts, but in the Gospel only within the Infancy narratives (1:41, 67) and the Lukan description of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (4:1).

The second mode involves being (and walking) in the Spirit. Here it is said that John will go about in the spirit of Elijah, which is a very specific way of referring to the spirit of prophecy—which, in turn, is brought about by the presence of God’s own Spirit. The expression “the spirit of Elijah” can be understood two ways, as it relates to the person of John the Baptist: (1) the same Spirit (of God) that inspired Elijah also is present in John; or (2) that John is essentially a new manifestation of Elijah himself, inspired by the distinctive prophetic spirit that Elijah possessed (and which he gave to Elisha, 2 Kings 2:9-12).

Either way, the “spirit of Elijah” involves the presence of the Spirit, so we may fairly claim that the wording here in v. 17 is an example of the Lukan motif of persons going about “in (or by) the Spirit” (2:27; 4:1, 14; 10:21).

If we are to isolate the main Lukan themes that are introduced here, they would be as follows:

    • The association of the Spirit with prophecy—John is the last of the prophets of the Old Covenant; with Jesus and his disciples (believers), the time of the New Covenant begins, and, with it, a new understanding of the nature of prophecy.
    • The Messianic role of John as “Elijah”, who will appear prior to the end-time Judgment (Mal 3:1ff; 4:5-6)—this reflects the fundamental eschatological understanding of early Christians, which Luke develops powerfully in his 2-volume work, emphasizing the eschatological dimension of the early Christian mission.
    • The person of John as a transitional figure, emphasizing the continuity between the Old and New Covenant—he embodies the prophetic Spirit of the Old and, at the same time, points toward the manifestation of the Spirit in the New.

Another minor theme could also be mentioned, which is as much traditional as anything distinctly Lukan. In v. 15 the Spirit is associated with John the Baptist’s ascetic behavior (cf. Mk 1:6 par; Lk 7:33 par), but reflecting specifically the religious vow of the Nazirite (cf. Num 6:3). This detail may have been influenced by the Samuel and Samson narratives (Judg 13:4; 1 Sam 1:11, 22 [v.l.]), but there is no reason that it could not also be an authentic historical detail in the case of John. The principal idea here is twofold: (a) purity/holiness, and (b) consecration to God. Both of these motifs are central to the idea of the presence and activity of God’s Spirit (the holy Spirit, Spirit of holiness), are emphasized, to varying degrees, in the Lukan narratives.

In the next note, we will turn to the announcement of Jesus‘ birth, and examine the reference to the Spirit in 1:35.

Notes on Prayer: Acts 2:42-46; 3:1

Acts 2:42-46; 3:1

Following the coming of the Spirit upon the disciples (Acts 2:1-4ff) and Peter’s sermon expounding this event (2:14-40), we find another notice regarding the unity of the first Christians (vv. 42-46). This is very much parallel to the initial narrative summary in 1:12-14 (cf. the prior study on v. 14). Many of the same points and themes are re-stated, but other important details are introduced as well. Here is the main statement in v. 42:

“And they were remaining strong toward the teaching of the (one)s sent forth, and (to) the common (bond), in the breaking of bread and the speaking out toward (God).”

The same verb (proskartere/w) and participle form was used in 1:14, and is a key term for expressing the unity of the early believers. They were “strong toward” each other, being at the same time “strong toward” those very things which are signs and marks of that unity. Foremost of these, in 1:14, was prayer (proseuxh/), literally the “speaking out toward (God)”. Prayer is again mentioned here in 2:42, but in the plural (proseuxai/), implying repeated instances of the Community praying together.

However, the first mark of unity mentioned in v. 42 is attention to the teaching (didaxh/) of the apostles (lit. the ones “sent forth” [by Jesus as his representatives]). The plural a)po/stoloi refers primarily to the circle of the Twelve. As noted in the previous study, the symbolism of the twelve is essential to the early narratives of Acts, as expressed by the key episode of the restoration of the Twelve (1:15-26), which symbolizes the eschatological concept of the restoration of Israel (i.e., the Twelve tribes). This restoration was realized for the author of Acts by the early Christian Community (in Jerusalem) and its missionary outreach into the Nations. The presence and work of the Spirit, along with the proclamation of the Gospel, represent the true fulfillment of the promise of the Kingdom for Israel (1:6-8).

The teaching by the apostles is centered on the proclamation of the Gospel, but also extends beyond it to include instruction for different areas of Christian life and belief. Apostolic teaching also touched upon issues of leadership and management of the Community. Paul’s letters represent an expanded form of this mode of teaching, whereas we have only small pieces of it contained within the narratives of Acts.

Parallel with the teaching (= preaching/proclamation of the Gospel) are the other aspects of unity summarized by the keyword koinwni/a, which is sometimes translated blandly as “fellowship”, but which in the New Testament more properly refers to the “common bond” between believers. The noun is only used here in the book of Acts, even though what it signifies pervades the entire book (especially the early chapters), and may rightly be highlighted as a central theme. The term is used relatively frequently by Paul in his letters (13 times, out of 19 NT occurrences), and 4 times in 1 John (1:3, 6-7). The common-bond between believers is further manifest, in daily life and practice, by two primary activities:

    • “the breaking of bread” —the expression refers to a common meal shared by the Community, but also alludes, most likely, to celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The eucharistic symbolism of the “breaking of bread” is well-rooted in the early tradition (Mk 14:22 par; Lk 24:30, 35; 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:23ff).
    • “the speaking out toward (God)” —as noted above, the use of the plural here refers to regular times of prayer by the Community, when they are gathered together.

Verses 44-45 describe still another manifestation of the “common bond” (koinwni/a) between believers. The early Jerusalem Christians lived in a communal manner, holding property and assets in common. Land and possessions were sold, with the profits from the sale placed into a common fund. In many ways, this is a continuation of the lifestyle practiced by Jesus and his followers (Jn 12:5-6; 13:29; Lk 8:2-3). The importance of commitment to this communal approach is illustrated by the episode in 5:1-11. While this communalistic ideal was not maintained for long, nor was it continued to any great degree as Christianity spread out of Jerusalem, many believers have recognized the value of the ideal as a sign of Christian unity and mutual love.

Verse 46 repeats the thematic wording from v. 42 (and 1:14), combining the key terms proskarterou=nte$ (“[remain]ing strong toward”) and o(moqumado/n (“with one impulse,” i.e., with one heart, of one accord):

“and according to (each) day, remaining strong toward (each other), with one impulse, in the sacred (place), and breaking bread according to (each) house (where they dwelt), they took nourishment together in joyfulness and without a stone in (the) heart…”

Expressions of the united spirit of the Community here frame the summary description of the places where the Community gathers; this can be outlined, thematically, as follows:

      • “remaining strong toward (each other), with one impulse”
        • “in the sacred (place)” [i.e., the Temple precincts]
        • “according to (each) house” [i.e., the individual houses of believers]
      • “in joyfulness and smoothness [lit. without a stone] of heart”

The breaking of bread (communal meal and celebration of the Lord’s Supper) takes place in believers’ homes (early form of ‘house churches’), while the Temple continued as an important location for prayer and worship (and teaching) by the Jerusalem Community (cf. the concluding words of the Gospel of Luke, 24:53).

In particular, the reference to the Temple here prepares the way for the episode that follows in chapter 3, as does the statement regarding the miracles performed by the apostles (v. 43). Here is how the episode is introduced in 3:1:

“And (the) Rock {Peter} and Yohanan stepped up into the sacred place [i.e. Temple] upon the hour of speaking out toward (God) [proseuxh/], the ninth (hour).”

Two details are most significant: (1) the location of the Temple precincts, and the fact that the early believers are coming to this location; and (2) the time of the episode, identified as “the hour of prayer”. The association with prayer (proseuxh/) is clearly important, relating to the prayer-references we have been examining (in 1:14, 24 and 2:42). From the standpoint of the Temple ritual, the ninth hour (comparable to 3:00 pm) is the time of the evening (afternoon) sacrifice (cf. Exod 29:39; Num 28:3-4, 8; Ezek 46:13-15; Dan 9:21; Josephus, Antiquities 14.65), when many Israelites and Jews would traditionally devote themselves to prayer.

This is the same time (and general locale) for the Angelic announcement to Zechariah in the Lukan Infancy narrative (Lk 1:8-10ff). Indeed, the Jerusalem Temple serves as an important symbolic location in Luke-Acts. While there was little opportunity for the author to develop this theme within the Synoptic Tradition proper, it features prominently in the Infancy narratives, which are thoroughly Lukan in composition. The Temple-setting features in three different narrative episodes: (1) the annunciation of John’s birth (1:8-23), (2) the revelation by Simeon (and Anna) regarding Jesus’ destiny and identity as the promised Messiah (2:23-38), and (3) the episode of the child Jesus in the Temple (2:41-51), with its climactic declaration (by Jesus) in v. 49.

As most commentators recognize, for the author of Luke-Acts, the Temple serves as an important point of contact (and continuity) between the Old and New Covenant. The old form is filled with new meaning—that is, by the revelation of Jesus (as the Messiah). While the Temple continues to be frequented by the Jerusalem Christians, it is given an entirely new emphasis (and role) for believers. In particular, the importance of the sacrificial ritual is replaced, almost exclusively, by the emphasis on teaching and prayer. This is established in Luke-Acts by the description of Jesus’ activity in the Temple (Lk 19:47; 20:1; 21:37-38 [cf. also the parable in 18:10ff]), and continues with the behavior of believers (Lk 24:53; Acts 2:46, etc). For more on the subject, cf. my article “The Law in Luke-Acts” (Part 1).

The Temple precincts serve as the locale for three important episodes in Acts: (i) the miracle and sermon-speech by Peter in chapter 3; (ii) the following conflict-encounter and speech in 4:1-22; and (iii) and the similar conflict episode in 5:12-42. The Temple also features prominently in the Stephen episode (narrative and speech) in chaps. 6-7. The old form of the Temple is filled by the new message of Christ, manifest through the presence/work of the Spirit (healing miracles, etc) and the proclamation of the Gospel.

The central activity of prayer thus relates not only to the unity of early believers, but also to the early Christian mission. This will be discussed further in the next study, which will focus on the prayer-speech—a variation of the sermon-speech format in Acts—in 4:23-31.

Saturday Series: Luke 24:50-53

Here in the Saturday Series, I will be beginning a set of studies on the Book of Acts, looking at various critical issues and how they relate to a thorough and accurate interpretation of the book. Acts is essentially a history—of the early Christian movement, and the missionary activity of the apostles and other early believers. As such, there are many important historical-critical questions and issues to be addressed. These involve the historical background of the narrative, the historical reliability of the episodes recorded, and how that history is presented within the religious and literary framework of the book.

Of special importance are the sermon-speeches that appear throughout the book of Acts, featuring prominently within the narrative structure. The nature of these speeches raise a number of challenging critical questions. I have addressed most of these in considerable detail in my earlier series “The Speeches of Acts,” and will only be touching on a few of them in the current studies. The sermon-speeches are part of a complex literary and artistic structure, and can only be explained fully by commentary that takes into account the literary-critical scope of the work. Such analysis examines the composition of the book—how the narratives were put together, the style and rhetoric used, the development of the principal themes, the theological points of emphasis, and so forth.

With regard to the text of Acts, there is one major text-critical issue which all scholars and students of the book must confront. The book of Acts exists in two versions, or recensions: one represented by the majority text (including the “oldest and best” manuscripts), and the other by the so-called “Western Text”. The label “Western” refers primarily to the great uncial manuscript D (the Beza Codex, or Codex Bezae), along with a large number of Latin (and various other) manuscripts. There are important differences throughout the New Testament that mark these manuscripts as “Western”; however, they are much more pronounced in the book of Acts. The differences are often so great that one can rightly speak of a separate version or recension of the text.

Scholars continue to debate the nature and origins of the two ‘versions’ of Acts, with most commentators holding that the Bezae/Western version represents a secondary development. The Western text (of D, etc) tends to be much more expansive, and so is considered to be secondary, on the basis of the general critical principle that the shorter reading is more likely to be original (lectio brevior potior). However, in a few key instances, the ‘Western’ text has a markedly shorter reading; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, in the notes to their critical edition to the New Testament, identified a number of these and referred to them by the rather confusing label “Western non-interpolations”. An interpolation is a technical-critical term for a secondary addition to the text. Westcott and Hort held that, in these selected occurrences where the Western text has the shorter reading, the Western reading is to be considered original, against the weight of evidence from the (longer) majority text.

Nearly all of these “Western non-interpolations” are in Luke-Acts, with most occurring in the Passion and Resurrection narratives of the Gospel of Luke. Previously, many critical commentators accepted the Westcott-Hort evaluation of these shorter readings; in more recent decades, however, the situation has changed, and most modern commentators now tend to accept the longer ‘majority’ text in these instances. Papyrus discoveries (such as the Bodmer Papyri) have added important manuscript support for the originality of the longer readings.

In this week’s study, as a way of introducing this area of critical analysis (of Luke-Acts), I wish to focus on the variant readings at the close of Luke’s Gospel.

Luke 24:50-53

Luke’s Gospel concludes with a scene (apparently still on Easter day) which, in the “oldest and best” manuscripts (Ë75 a B C* L 1 33 579 etc), reads as follows:

50  Ex¢¡gagen dé autoús [éxœ] héœs prós B¢thanían kaí epáras tás cheíras autoú eulóg¢sen autoús. 51 kaí egéneto en tœ¡ eulogeín autón autoús diést¢ ap’ autœ¡n kaí anephéreto eis tón ouranón.
“And he brought/led them out[side] until toward Bethany, and lifting over (them) his hands he spoke well to them [i.e. blessed them]; and it came to be, in his speaking well to them [i.e. blessing them], he stood (apart) from them and was carried up into the heaven.”
52 Kaí autoí proskyn¢¡santes autón hypéstrepsan eis Ierousal¢¡m metá charás megál¢s 53 kaí ¢¡san diá pantós en tœ¡ hierœ¡ eulogoúntes tón Theón.
“And they, kissing toward him [i.e. worshiping him], turned back unto Jerusalem with great joy, and they were through all [i.e. continually] in the sacred place [i.e. temple] speaking well to [i.e. blessing] God.”

(The Majority text differs slightly, primarily in reading eis B¢thanían [“unto Bethany”] instead of prós B¢thanían [“toward Bethany”] in v. 50, and adding kaí ainoúntes or ainoúntes kaí [“blessing and praising God”] in v. 53.)

There are, however, two major variants (omissions) in the key Western MSS (D, Old Latin a b d e ff2 l, and the Sinaitic Syriac):

    1. Verse 51 reads: kaí egéneto en tœ¡ eulogeín autón autoús diést¢ ap’ autœ¡n “and it came to be, in his blessing them, he stood (apart) from them” (without kaí anephéreto eis tón ouranón “and he was carried up into the heaven”). In other words, it relates that Jesus simply “parted” from them, without any reference to an ascension into heaven.
    2. Verse 52 continues: kaí autoí hypéstrepsan eis Ierousal¢¡m metá charás megál¢s “and they turned back unto Jerusalem with great joy…” (without proskyn¢¡santes auton “worshiping him”).
      See how this shorter version of vv. 50-53 reads, in context, in conventional translation:
      “And he led them out toward Bethany, and raising his hands over (them) he blessed them; and it came to be, in his blessing them, (that) he parted from them; and they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were continually in the Temple, blessing God.”

These are both so-called Western “Non-Interpolations” (see above). The first of the two (in v. 51) is far more significant, especially since, in addition to the Western MSS, the shorter reading is also found in the Georgian version (group 1) and the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (a*).

How is one to explain this variant? As indicated above, the vast majority of MSS, including all the early/best Greek MSS (Ë75, a [corrected], A, B, C, K, L, W, X, D, etc.) contain the words “and he was carried up into the heaven” (kai anephéreto eis ton ouranón). The manuscript evidence would seem to be decidedly in favor of the longer reading, but internal considerations make it a bit less certain. In which direction did the change occur? There are a number of possibilities:

Reasons for Omission (in support of the longer text):

    1. To avoid contradiction with the chronology in Acts. It is certainly possible that scribes, noticing the apparent discrepancy between v. 51 and Luke’s own account of the Ascension in Acts 1:1-11, deleted the words. In the Gospel, it would seem that the Ascension takes place on the same night as the Resurrection, whereas in Acts (v. 3) it occurs 40 days later. This is probably the most popular explanation.
    2. A scribal mistake. A scribe may have skipped from a)p’ au)twn kai in v. 51 to ou)ranon kai au)toi at the end of v.51 & start of v. 52 (homoioarcton: each has the segment nkai). However, this would require that (the precursors of) a and D both made the same mistake, which is rather unlikely.
    3. Theological reasons. Some scholars have thought that the so-called “Non-Interpolations” (involving the Resurrection appearances and “Ascension”) exhibit a purposeful tendency in the Western text (in Luke-Acts) to eliminate concrete references to the resurrection body of Jesus, and physical nature of the Ascension, etc. With regard to the Ascension in particular, see especially Eldon J. Epp’s article “The Ascension in the Textual Tradition of Luke-Acts”, in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981, pp. 131-145.
    4. The support of Acts. Acts 1:2 would seem to indicate that the Gospel referenced the Ascension (áchri h¢¡s h¢méras … anel¢¡mphth¢, “until which day…he was taken up”). Assuming this is the case, it could be (rightly) argued that the author would not say he described an event which he in fact did not record. It should be noted that several Western witnesses also omit reference to the ascension (anel¢¡mphth¢) in this verse.

Reasons for Addition (in support of the shorter text):

    1. Literary or Theological reasons. Although Luke-Acts may have been published together as a ‘two-volume’ work, by the mid-second century (at the latest), the Gospel of Luke was being copied and distributed bound together (in codex form) with the other Gospels; meaning that, as in nearly all printed New Testament editions today, it was separated from the book of Acts. The shorter reading, if original, would close the Gospel with the suggestion that Jesus simply “parted” from the disciples—a rather unexciting and possibly misleading conclusion. The scribal tendency was always to add Christological details, rather than remove them; it would have been natural to add the few extra words (both in v. 51 and 52), in order to exalt the portrait of Christ.
    2. The shorter text removes the chronological difficulty with Acts. This argument cuts both ways (see above), for the longer text could be said to be the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior potior). However, since Luke explicitly records the Ascension taking place at least 40 days after the Resurrection (Acts 1:3ff), would he (the same author of Luke-Acts, by general consensus) have created the confusion by recording the Ascension (apparently) taking place on the day of the Resurrection (Luke 24:50-53)?
    3. Additional support from Acts. It is possible that the phrase áchri h¢¡s h¢méras … anel¢¡mphth¢ (“until which day…he was taken up”) in Acts 1:2 should not be taken to imply that the Ascension was narrated in the Gospel, but only events which took place prior to that day. In this regard, to note the reference (v. 22) in Peter’s subsequent address (Acts 1:15-22), where nearly similar language is used. Could the author of Acts simply be reproducing the phrasing from v. 22, as part of his “prologue”, without specific reference to details in the Gospel?
    4. Evidence from the Church Fathers. The Ascension is referred to numerous times in writings of the 1st-3rd centuries, for example:
      Epistle of Barnabas 15; JUSTIN: 1 Apology 26, Dialogue with Trypho 82, 87, On the Resurrection ch. 9; IRENAEUS: Against Heresies I.10, III.17, IV.33.13, 34.3, V.31, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 41, 84; CLEMENT: Stromateis VI. ch. 15; ORIGEN: On First Principles Pref §1, II.6.1, 7.2, On Prayer §23, Against Celsus VII.8; TERTULLIAN: Against Marcion V.8, Against Praxeas 25, 30, Prescription Against Heretics 13, On the Resurrection 51; The Muratorian Canon; Epistle of the Apostles 18; Cyprian On the Lord’s Prayer §8, etc. (by no means an exhaustive list). Most of these references are to the narrative in Acts 1:9ff; Ephesians 4:9-10, or to the belief generally; however, I have not been able to find a single clear reference to the long text of Luke 24:51-52 cited in any writing up through the third century (outside of the Diatessaron [§55], a work with a singularly difficult textual history). Moreover, in Tertullian’s fourth book Against Marcion, in which he goes over many details of Luke’s Gospel, up through the Resurrection appearances (chapter 43), he does not cite the long text of v. 51 or 52, and makes no reference to the Ascension (cf. Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp. 257-8).
    5. The Western Non-Interpolations. Despite protests from scholars on both sides of the argument, it is hard to avoid the notion that the 9 key “non-interpolations”, eight of which are all found together in the same set of MSS (D a b d e ff2 l), stand or fall together—most likely, they are all original, or they are not. If one accepts the shorter text in the previous 7 Lukan instances, then one really ought to do so here as well.

Clearly, intrinsic/transcriptional arguments can be made for both sides. Ultimately, it is difficult to ignore the overwhelming textual evidence. If the longer reading is, in fact, original, I suspect that the apparent discrepancy (with Acts) may be the result of Luke compressing/conflating the narrative, thereby giving the impression that it all happened on one night. This sort of handling of historical narrative was quite common with ancient writers, as unsatisfying as it might be to our modern sensibilities. On the other hand, the clear scribal tendency was to add significant Christological details to the Gospel narrative, rather than omit them (even when there are apparent discrepancies involved); it seems to have been much more acceptable to modify (instead of deleting) difficult words in the text. The presence of the longer reading(s) in the Bodmer Papyrus (Ë75, c. 200) have turned the tide decisively; however, I am by no means so certain the shorter reading(s) can be dismissed as easily as many commentators do today.

Textual Note on Luke 19:38

This note is supplemental to the Saturday Series study on the Triumphal Entry scene, as well as to the articles (on Psalm 118:26 and Zech 9:9) in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”.

There is a text-critical question surrounding Luke 19:38, which is part of the Lukan version of the Triumphal Entry (19:28-39). The greatest textual variation, between the Synoptic versions, is found in the record of the exclamation by the crowds (Mk 11:9-10; Matt 21:9; Lk 19:38; cp. Jn 12:13b). The exclamation is each case is identical in substance, but differing in detail. It is based on Psalm 118:26, but adapted to reflect a Messianic interpretation and expectation by the crowd.

In all four versions, the crowd recites Ps 118:26a: “Blessed is the (one) coming in the name of the Lord”. The original context and background of the Psalm had to do with the return of the (victorious) king to Jerusalem following battle (vv. 10ff), but early on it was used in a ritual/festal setting (vv. 26-27), and was recited as one of the ‘Hallel’ Psalms on the great feasts such as Passover and Sukkoth (Tabernacles). Jesus identified himself as the “one coming” in Luke 13:35 (par Matt 23:39), and there is very likely also a reference to this in Lk 19:41-44 (immediately following the Entry), blending, it would seem, the ancient traditions underlying Mal 3:1 and Psalm 118:26.

We might also note the detail, unique to John’s account, of the use of palm branches by the crowds (Jn 12:13a), which could have a royal connotation (cf. 1 Maccabees 13:51; Testament of Naphtali 5:4). For a similar example of the crowds greeting an approaching sovereign, see Josephus, Wars of the Jews 7.100-103.

In addition to the use of Psalm 118:26, in all four Gospels, the crowds, in greeting Jesus, variously include references to David, King, or Kingdom, which serve to emphasize the figure-type of the royal/Davidic Messiah:

    • Mark 11:10: “…blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
    • Matt 21:9: “Hosanna to the to the son of David…!”
    • Luke 19:38: “Blessed is the (One) coming, the King…[or, the coming King]”
    • John 12:13 “…[and] the King of Israel!”

In Mark and Luke, this royal/Davidic element is patterned after the wording of Psalm 118:26, making clear that the Davidic Messiah (identified with Jesus), specifically, is the one who is coming “in the name of the Lord”. In this regard, the variant readings in Lk 19:38 are of particular interest. The majority of textual witnesses (ac A K L D Y f1 f13 al) read o( e)rxo/meno$ basileu/$ (“…the [one] coming [as] king”). Several others (W 1216 al) read o( e)rxo/meno$ (“the [one] coming”), which simply reproduces Psalm 118:26 [LXX] and omits the royal/Davidic element. The ‘Western’ text (of D a c d ff2 i, etc) has an expanded reading which establishes two distinct, parallel phrases: “Blessed (is) the (one) coming in (the) name of (the) Lord, blessed (is) the king!”. The reading of Vaticanus (B), with slight marginal support in the versions (Armenian version), is regarded by many textual critics as the most difficult reading, and the one which best explains the rise of all the others: o( e)rxo/meno$ o( basileu/$ (“… the [one] coming, the king”). Cf. UBS/Metzger, pp. 144-5.

If we except the latter reading (of B) as the most likely original form of the text, then the Lukan form of the acclamation reads:

“Blessed (is) the (one) coming, the king, in (the) name of (the) Lord!”

In this instance “the king” (o( basileu/$) functions as a gloss on the expression “the (one) coming”, making clear that the one who is coming (in the name of the Lord) is “the king” (i.e., the Davidic Messiah). As I note above, this Messianic interpretation restores much of the original background and setting of the Psalm—viz., that of the return of the king to Jerusalem following his victory in battle. For first-century Jews, this very much would have reflected their expectation for the Davidic Messiah—that he would subdue and judge the nations, and establish a glorious new Kingdom on earth, centered at Jerusalem.

For the second part of the crowd’s acclamation in Lk 19:38, cf. my earlier article in the series “Birth of the Son of God”. The Lukan version of the Synoptic tradition, at this point, seems to have been consciously shaped in relation to the wording of the Angelic song (Gloria in Excelsis) in the Infancy narrative (2:14)—as if intended to draw a connection between Jesus’ birth and his impending death.

References above marked “UBS/Metzger” are to A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Second Edition), by Bruce M. Metzger (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: 1994).

Saturday Series: Luke 7:36-50

Luke 7:36-50

In the previous study, I examined the Anointing of Jesus in Mark and Matthew, in which it is set as the first episode in the (Synoptic) Passion Narrative. We also looked at the parallel account in John, where the episode, though placed at an earlier location in the narrative, still is closely tied to Jesus’ Passion. Luke likewise includes an Anointing scene, but one with a very different setting—earlier in the Galilean ministry period (7:36-50)—and with considerable differences in detail as well. These points of difference would normally be sufficient to mark the episode as deriving from an entirely separate (historical) tradition. However, at least two facts would argue against this:

    1. This is the only such Anointing scene in Luke; he does not include anything similar at a point corresponding to Mk 14:3-9 par. This might suggest that Luke felt that the episode properly belonged at a different point in the narrative. John’s version provides confirmation for an earlier setting of the episode, prior to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.
    2. Luke’s account includes specific details common to the Synoptic (Markan) version:
      (a) The name of the host (Simon)—Mk 14:3 par; Lk 7:40.
      (b) The unnamed woman with an alabaster jar of perfume—Mk 14:3 par; Lk 7:37
      (c) As we shall see, the description of the woman’s action (v. 38) is nearly identical with that in John’s version (12:3), which otherwise is quite close overall to the Markan episode.

How are we to explain the relationship between the Lukan and Synoptic (Mark/Matthew) version? This is a significant critical question, which cannot be ignored; there are several possibilities:

    • They simply record entirely separate (historical) events, and the similarities between them are coincidental. This would probably be the normal traditional-conservative view, yet the points noted above seem to speak against it.
    • Luke has combined two distinct historical traditions:
      (1) that involving a “sinful” woman who wets Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair; the episode is set earlier in Jesus’ ministry, at the house of a Pharisee.
      (2) that of the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany; i.e. the Synoptic tradition, set close to the time of Jesus’ Passion in Jerusalem.
      This would tend to be the more common critical view—that Luke has added details from the Synoptic version (which he has otherwise omitted) to the other scene.
    • They record the same underlying historical tradition (and event), but that Luke has brought out very different details and points of emphasis, through the specific tradition he has inherited.

Unfortunately, each of these three views has its own problems, and none is entirely satisfactory as an explanation of both the differences and similarities between the versions. The situation is complicated still further when one compares these two (Synoptic) versions of the Anointing scene with the third (in John). Insofar as Luke has developed the core Synoptic tradition, we must consider this from several different perspectives.

1. If Luke has otherwise made use of Mark (or a similar Synoptic narrative), why did he omit the Bethany Anointing scene of Mk 14:3-9? Different possibilities have been suggested, but, in my view, the most convincing is that his purpose was to emphasize more clearly two primary thematic elements of the narrative—(1) the Passover setting, and (2) the Betrayal by Judas. Eliminating the Anointing episode at this point serves to join immediately the narrative introduction (22:1-6) with the Last Supper scene (vv. 7ff), in which both of these elements are prominent. Luke has further enhanced the narrative introduction by weaving into it the tradition of Judas’ betrayal (compare vv. 3-6 with Mk 14:1b-2).

2. The author (trad. Luke) may also have wished to give greater prominence to the earlier Anointing scene, set in Galilee. Whether or not he has included details, otherwise found in the Bethany scene, within this episode (see above), there is tremendous power and beauty to the narrative in 7:36-50. The Anointing episode outline (on this, see last week’s study) is essentially represented by vv. 36-40, the first part of the narrative. The second part (vv. 41-50) involves a parable (vv. 41-47) similar to others found in Luke’s Gospel (see especially 10:25-37, of the “Good Samaritan”). The three-fold emphasis on repentance, forgiveness, and love, reflects important Lukan themes, such as we see, for example, in the parable of the Prodigal (15:11-24ff). All of these elements, of course, are unique to Luke’s tradition, and are not found in the Synoptic Anointing episode. Yet, as noted above, there is some indication that the author may have seen the two traditions as reflecting the same episode. In particular, the reference to the host Pharisee as “Simon” (v. 40) could suggest a conscious harmonization with Mk 14:3ff.

3. The similarity between Lk 7:38 and Jn 12:3 raises the possibility that Luke inherited a form of the (Bethany) Anointing tradition closer to Jn 12:1-8 than Mk 14:3-9. This should be seriously considered, especially since there is some evidence that, in the Passion and Resurrection narratives, Luke and John are drawing from a common tradition separate from the Synoptic (i.e. not found in Mark/Matthew).

Next Saturday is Palm Sunday, and it is natural that we should turn our attention to the Triumphal Entry scene in the Gospels, as preliminary to the Passion narrative that follows. There are a number of key critical questions related to the famous Entry scene, and we will consider these in turn: (a) Textual, (b) Source, (c) Historical, and (d) Literary. I have touched on some of these areas in earlier notes and articles, but in our study they will be surveyed in a more comprehensive way. I hope you will join me for this exciting study, in preparation for Holy Week.