Archives: Book Chapters

In the winter of A.D. 64-65 a great fire broke out in Rome, and the emperor Nero looked around for someone to blame. He decided to accuse the Christians who were generally unpopular and were thought to harbor revolutionary ideas. A reign of terror followed; Peter and Paul were probably among the victims.

Shortly after this a little book appeared in Rome bearing the title "The Gospel of Jesus Christ." It was what we know as Mark's gospel, and we can guess at the motives which led to its appearance. Christians under persecution needed to be reminded of their Master and of the sufferings he had undergone. Especially now that the older generation who had known him was dying off, the remembered facts about Jesus needed to be set down.

Let us look at the historical situation at the time. Palestine is under Roman military and civil occupation. A priestly aristocracy (the Sadducees) is chiefly concerned to maintain its own privileged position under the Romans. The religious leaders (the Pharisees) have largely ceased to give an effective lead, and have become more and more absorbed in pious practices at the cost of the "weightier matters of the Law." The common people are neglected and depressed. Political agitators and religious fanatics are preaching violence. There are wild hopes in the air of revolution or of an approaching miraculous deliverance associated with the name of the coming Messiah or Christ. Forty years later, indeed, these pressures were to erupt into a disastrous war which would finish the Jewish state. At the time of which we are speaking, they are brewing.

 Into this scene Jesus entered. His answers to the question about the tax to Caesar (12:17) probably bothered the nationalists. His act of clearing the temple of money-changers upset the priests. His attitude to the Sabbath laws disturbed the pious Very few understood his association with the people outside the Jewish law-the publicans and sinners. Since he offended nearly everyone, it is not surprising that the Jewish authorities were able to agree to have him put out of the way.

As you read through The Gospel according to Mark, you will note that it is in the form of a series of episodes, loosely strung together. An episode may be told with a good deal of picturesque detail, but then the author is likely to pass on to something else quite abruptly with only a bare summary to show the interconnection. There is little in Mark that can be called continuous biographical narrative.

There is one exception. In Chapters 14 and 15-the so-called Passion story -- we find a continuous narrative, telling in detail how Jesus was seized by his enemies, tried and put to death. At first reading this Passion narrative seems simply to be the story of a good man, denied and deserted by his followers, trapped by religious leaders, condemned by a timid judge, and put to an ignominious death.

A second glance, however, at these critical chapters reveals that there is something more here than a tale of martyrdom. There is a mysterious undercurrent. For example, after the homely details of the preparation of the last supper with the disciples, we read the strange words, "this is my body," "this is my blood ... poured out for many." The death to come is said to be like a sacrifice, re-establishing a new set of relations between God and man. Again, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says that God wants this execution to take place. Before the high priest, Jesus apparently declares that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and adds something about the Son of man returning to the right hand of God. Finally, at the end, the "curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom." This curtain was what hid the presence of God from the people in the Jewish worship and Mark is apparently suggesting that in the death of Jesus there was something that removed the curtain and made God more accessible. Something deeper and more mysterious is going on, something to do with God's access to men and the deepest issues of human destiny.

Over and over again we hear of a "secret" that must be kept until the right time comes, a secret that seems to have something to do with God's rule over the world. The mystery of the kingdom of God, Mark calls it. It is also the secret of who Jesus really is. Teacher, prophet, reformer, leader? Yes, but what else? The question is put by Jesus himself to his disciples (8:27) in a scene which is evidently intended to be one of the highlights of the picture. The disciples partly understand and partly do not.

Jesus moves throughout this story almost incognito. He is always something more than appears. But although the actors in the story are barely half aware whom they are dealing with, Mark has already taken his readers into his confidence in the opening verses of the gospel. Here Jesus is contrasted with John the Baptist, here his "secret" is spoken by a divine voice which he alone hears. He is the supernatural Son of God. And soon we stumble upon his works of healing, done with a strange authority. Later we read words, scarcely understood at all by the disciples at the time, about the Son of man having to suffer and die, and be raised again. Who was this man, and what was happening through him? This is the question of the gospel, and to it we must now turn.

1. The genealogy of Jesus, 1:1-17 (compare Luke's version in 3:23-38)

Matthew's purpose here is clearly to establish the authentic messiahship of Jesus. He is descended from Abraham, who in faith originally responded to the call of God; and also from David, marking him as the fulfillment of the hope that the Messiah would spring from David's line. Yet see Matthew 22:41-46, where Jesus seems to reject a messiahship descended from David. Notice also the curious presence of women in Matthew's list: Ruth, a non-Jewess, and Rahab and Bathsheba, whose moral characters were not exactly of the best. Luke's list, often differing in detail, differs mainly in going back not merely to the start of Israel's history but to the very beginning of time itself, to Adam. Jesus, Luke seems to say, is not only the fulfillment of the messianic hope, he is part of God's plan from the beginning of creation. The problem of reconciling these genealogies has often exercised scholars: some say that Luke gives Mary's lineage, while Matthew gives Joseph's; some distinguish between Jesus' legal descent (Matthew) and his physical descent (Luke). But we should not linger too long over the task of reconciling the lists; the main function of both is to relate Jesus' appearance to the historic events of Old Testament history. It is difficult, furthermore, to see how a genealogy could have any meaning if the virgin birth tradition is accepted. Verse 16, which has many variant readings in the manuscripts, probably read like this in the original, before Matthew adapted it: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary; Joseph was the father of Jesus who is called Christ."

 2. The birth, 1:18-25

"Betrothal" is not technically marriage, but it is very close to it in Jewish law, so Joseph is called "husband" in verse 19. According to law, Joseph could have taken the issue to the courts, but instead he decided to settle the matter privately by a divorce. The appearance of the angel changes his mind. Matthew here quotes the decisive passage in Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the so-called Septuagint). The Greek word parthenos usually, but not always, means "virgin" in the Greek Old Testament; the Hebrew original, almah cannot mean "virgin," so we must conclude that Isaiah does not have a supernatural birth in mind. But Matthew here is interested in showing that Jesus is not only the Son of David, and thus the Messiah (through his legal descent from Joseph), but also the supernatural Son of God -- not just from his baptism, as Mark 1:11 suggests, but from his birth. This is the reason the church used the Old Testament passage in this way. It should be noted that Luke and Matthew alone use the virgin birth to portray the divinity of Christ. Mark, John, and Paul, all equally concerned to call Jesus the Son of God, do not make use of this tradition. The evidence for it in Matthew and Luke is sufficient neither for its denial nor for its affirmation as an actual happening. Notice that verse 25 makes difficult the Roman idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and fits in with the mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters in Matthew 13:55-56 and the parallel in Mark 6:3.

3. The visit of the wise men, 2:1-12

Luke, like Matthew, mentions Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, but otherwise the two accounts differ somewhat In Matthew, Jesus is apparently born in Joseph’s house (verse 11); in Luke he is born in a stable. Here, we read nothing about the visit of the shepherds or about the census that brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Here, we read of the flight to Egypt; in Luke, the family returned to Nazareth (2:39).

This conflicting evidence has led some to question the historical basis of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and to point out that it would be natural for primitive Jewish Christians to use the enigmatic saying of Micah 5:2 as a prediction. Throughout his life, Jesus is always referred to as a Nazarene.

But the symbolism of the story stands, quite apart from the historical questions. The Magi were probably Babylonian astrologers, and the church has been right in reading this story as one concerning the relevance of Jesus to the Gentile world as well as to the Jewish world. Sometimes ancient records have been examined for a natural explanation of the moving star (in 7 B.C. there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and in 12 B.C. a record of a comet). but it is not necessary to find this kind of evidence for the event. Matthew here is saying that all of nature is transformed by this unique birth. Later Christian thought found symbolic meanings in the three gifts: gold for Christ's royalty; incense for his priesthood; and myrrh for his burial; but here the gifts are simply appropriate to his status as the new king.

 4. The conclusion of the story, 2:13-23

Egypt is close to Bethlehem, and there were many Jewish communities there. So there is nothing improbable about the journey here described. But the trip is probably suggested by Hosea 11:1, and further by the tendency in Matthew to see Jesus as a new Moses and lawgiver.

We need to be very careful in our observations of the way the New Testament writers see the story of Jesus in Old Testament patterns and terms. They may add details, but they are deeply convinced that what was going on in Jesus Christ was in fact a fulfillment of Old Testament hopes. Jesus, they are saying, comes into a world prepared by the Old Testament longings and hopes, and his story is the answer to those longings. However we may decide on the historical probability of particular details of the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New, the fact of that fulfillment and the intimate relation of the Old and New Testaments cannot be surrendered.

In these stories, then, we see two motives at work. First, the desire to show that in the early life of the Messiah there are exact fulfillments of Old Testament predictions; second, the defense of the messiah ship of Jesus against Jewish slanders that he was illegitimate and the son of an immoral woman. The miraculous birth seems designed to meet the second point; the birth at Bethlehem, the visit of the wise men, and the flight to Egypt, refer to the first.

Matthew 19-28:20 and Luke 18:15-24:53 (Compare Mark 10-16:8)

 In this final section, Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order of Vents with considerable care, and the reader may wish to make of the references to Mark's gospel as he proceeds.

 1. The trip to Jerusalem, Matthew 19-20 and Luke 18:15-19:27 (compare Mark 10)

When Matthew deals with Jesus' teaching on divorce, he modifies the unconditional prohibition of divorce as found in Mark. Notice Matthew 19:9, the phrase "except for unchastity," which Matthew's adds to Jesus' words from Mark. In the story of the rich young man, both Matthew and Luke leave out the touching comment Mark that Jesus looked on the young man and loved him, he had claimed obedience to the basic commandments. His discipleship needed one further thing, that he sell all his goods and give the proceeds to the poor. Full obedience for this man meant giving up his wealth, and in face of this demand he turned away sad. With a touch of humorous exaggeration, Jesus draws a conclusion from this incident. The disciples, though not themselves rich, wonder if any man can be saved. Jesus answers directly: no, not themselves or on their own merits. God alone can save man, He alone grants his kingdom. Jesus goes on to describe this kingdom as a future blessedness. Even though a man has given up every thing to be a disciple, his reward will be beyond his imagining, human standards of value and worth will be radically overturned.

 

a. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Matthew 20:1-16

This is of course a very poor lesson in labor-management relation. and is not meant to be such. "Vineyard" is a familiar symbol the Old Testament for Israel (see Isaiah 5:7); and therefore can be seen as a study in God's justice and freedom in offering the kingdom to whomever he wishes. Verse 15 is the actual point: the kingdom is a gift of grace, not given according to merit virtue, as the Pharisees and the elder brother in Luke 15 supposed.

In Matthew 20:17-19 (and in Luke 18:31-34) Jesus and disciples set out for the capital city, and he tells them for the third time what his fate is to be. A prediction of the resurrection is found in both accounts, but the dispersal of the disciples at the of the arrest, and the element of surprise when the account of the resurrection is received later on, both suggest that these are words which the evangelists place on Jesus' lips at this point. In Matthew 20:20-28, the mother of James and John requests a special place in the kingdom for her sons. Jesus refuses this silly request rather gently, and then deals with the apparently self-righteous anger of the disciples at the request itself. True power is a kingly power, but lowliness, suffering, and death. The career the Son of man is to be a model for the career of those who him. (Compare Luke 22:24-27.) The blindness of the disciples who do not see this yet, is then contrasted with the story of blind man (two in Matthew) who is made to see by (Matthew 20:29-34 and Luke 18:35-43; compare Mark '46-52).

b. Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10

This may be another version of the call of Levi (Mark 2:13-17 Luke 5:27-32). Zacchaeus is described as a sort of supervisor tax collection in the area, a position that ostracized him from

his fellow Jews. He is drawn to Jesus because of Jesus' reputation as a friend of such as he. Jesus calls his name (Luke does not bother to explain how Jesus knew it) and indicates that he wishes

to stay at his house. This act of acceptance was the decisive turning-point for Zacchaeus. The bystanders murmur their disapproval verse 7; Zacchacus makes a response to Jesus' act of acceptance and Jesus' words in verse 9 are apparently his answer to the crowd's criticism. Zacchaeus has shown himself to be a true Jew by his response, in spite of his ostracism by his fellow Jews. The story ends, as so often in Luke, with an emphasis on the special value in the kingdom of God of the lost, outcast and rejected.

 c. The parable of the talents, Luke 19:11-27 and Matthew 25:14-30

A "talent" was equivalent to about $1000, and our modern use of the word to mean a special aptitude or gift is probably derived from this story. Matthew preserves a fairly simple version of

story. It is not primarily a defense of capitalism or banking, but a warning to the Jews not to be content with their tradition and past, but to develop and use it creatively. It could also be to a Christian disciple to make use of what he has, lest even little (faith) he has to be taken away.

Luke adds a number of details. The man has become a noble man, who leaves to receive some sort of royal power over subjects. Some local citizens oppose this, and send a delegation away to complain. On his return, invested with the royal power in spite of the objections, the nobleman rewards the faithful grants of political power, rebukes the timid ones, and gives order that the citizens who objected to his appointment be put death. Thus Luke adds an allegorical meaning beyond what the Matthew intended. The nobleman going away to become a king points to the death of Christ, and his return is the second coming. In the interim, the disciples are exhorted to be faithful, for there be rewards and punishments at the time of the last judgment. Those who hate him and oppose the "appointment" are presumably the Jews. Both versions make the same point: warning to the Jews, and advice to the disciples to be faithful and obedient so that eternal life may be granted (this is the meaning of phrase "joy of your master" in Matthew 25:21, 23).

2. Events and teaching in Jerusalem, Matthew 21:1-25:46. Luke 19:28-21:38 (compare Mark 11-13)

A very brief outline of these decisive events will be given, before we proceed to deal with the death and resurrection in more detail.

a. The entry into the city, Matthew 21:1-9 and Luke 19:28-38

This entry takes place amidst considerable tension; the crowd not understanding what is going on, the disciples themselves half bewildered, the authorities preparing to strike, and Jesus alone clearly aware of what the future is to be. Matthew makes explicit the messianic character of the entry, by quoting the passage from Zechariah 9:9. Jesus intends this as a symbolic gesture, clear to those who have eyes to see, meaningless to the rest. Here, as elsewhere, he acts out, rather than explicitly describes, his lowly messiahship. Note that Matthew, in his zeal to work out a literal fulfillment of the prophecy, misreads the Old Testament prophecy, and has Jesus in the awkward situation of riding on two animals at once.

 b. The cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree, Matthew 21:10-22 and Luke 19:45-48

Matthew records both these events, and weaves them together; Luke, perhaps embarrassed by the rather unattractive picture of Jesus cursing a tree for not bearing fruit at a time when the fruit

was not supposed to grow, drops it. The cleansing is not merely the act of a reformer of piety, but a fulfillment of some Old Testament passages about the messianic age (Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah7:11). Luke radically shortens this story. It is probable that originally the story of the tree was a parable in which Jesus compared Israel to a barren fig tree, and in the process of transmission it became transformed from a parable to a narrative of an actual event.

c. Teaching and parables in Jerusalem, Matthew 21:23-24:51 (and 25:31-46) and Luke 20:1-21:36 (compare Marl 11:27-13:37)

1. A question on authority, Matthew 21:23-27 and Luke 20:1.

Jesus replies to a baited question with a counter-question. If the priests and elders denied John's authority, they would offend people; if they affirmed it, they would be obliged to affirm authority as well.

 2. The parable of the two sons, Matthew 21:28-32

The point is in Matthew 21:31; verse 32 seems a rather irrelevant addition, designed to relate this passage to the previous one. Jesus' reply to his questioners could hardly have been more offensive.

 3. The wicked tenants, Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19

Two accusations are concealed in this parable or, more allegory; the Pharisees and priests are accused in advance of murder; and God will reject the Jews because of this criminal act. Israel is in the vineyard, God is the owner, the Jews are the tenants, the servants are the prophets, and the son is Jesus himself.

 4. The question of paying the poll tax, Matthew 22:15-22 Luke 20:20-26

Again the question is designed to compromise Jesus; a clear "yes" would have a bad popular effect, and a "no" would portray him as seditious. Just what is Jesus' answer here, and what are the impl- cations of it for a political ethic? What about Acts 5:29 alongside this?

5. On the resurrection, Matthew 22:23-33 and Luke 20:27-40

Jesus doesn't really answer the question put to him, except to suggest that life in the world to come will be of a different order than life here. The real intent of the passage is to base the Christian hope for resurrection on God, and not on anything inherently immortal in man.

6. The great commandment, Matthew 22:34-40 and Luke 10:25-28

A serious question from a Jew this time, not an attempt to trap Jesus. And Jesus answers it directly.

Following this is a question about the Messiah's descent from David (which Jesus seems to deny, Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44); and a long criticism of the Pharisees, Matthew 23:1-36 and, more briefly, in Luke 20:45-47.

7. The apocalyptic discourse, Matthew 24:1-51 and Luke 21:5-36

For a number of reasons, most observers agree that this material is a variety of sources; there may be some authentic teaching of Jesus here, but there is also some material that the church used to warn the Christians to flee from Jerusalem at the time of the Roman attack in A.D. 70. Instead of answering the question about the fall of the temple, Jesus speaks of events leading up to the final catastrophic end of all things. There is a great deal of Old Testament quotation and paraphrase here, and as a whole it is too un-original to be taken in any full sense as authentic words of Jesus.

Matthew (verses 37-51) concludes this discourse with advice on need for watchfulness, though the reference in the conclusion may be to the coming crisis in Jesus' own ministry and not to the of the world. If the reader keeps in mind these two references: to the coming crisis in Jesus' own ministry and to the persecution of the church in Matthew and Luke's time; and if he further understands that apocalyptic thinking about the future of the world is a perennial temptation in time of political or cultural despair (science fiction today is a sort of secular apocalyptic), these passages will speak movingly of the power of God even in the darkest days.

 8. The last judgment, Matthew 25:31-46

The "Son of man" coming at the end of time as judge is a messianic figure (he is also called a king), but Jesus does not here identify himself with that figure. The motif is one we have already become familiar with in Matthew and Luke: humble and self-effacing service is a mark of obedience to the Messiah and his kingdom, even if one is unaware that one's service is in fact obedience to Christ. The touch of surprise in verse 38 is interesting. It may be that it is not general benevolence to all men that is described here, but rather service to the disciples of Jesus. "My brethren" in verse 40 may mean this, and Matthew 12:48-49 seems to stand as evidence for such an interpretation.

In any case, the decision against the Messiah has already been made by the Jews. The humble and lowly and sinful have obeyed; the religious leaders have rejected him. What follows is in a way both epilogue and climax. The Passion story itself works out the implications both of Jesus' rejection and the meaning of accepting and following him.

 3. The Passion and resurrection narratives, Matthew 26 -- 28 and Luke 22 -- 24 (compare Mark 14 -- 16:8)

Matthew and Luke follow Mark fairly closely in their accounts of the events leading up to the last supper: the plot, Judas' betrayal, the preparation of the last supper, and the prediction of the betrayal (Matthew 26:1-19 and Luke 22:1-13, compare Mark 14:17-25. But Matthew alone includes here the story of the anointing at Bethany (26:6-13). This needs some comment. In verse 11 Jesus is saying that of course service to the poor is always required, but in this particular case the woman has performed an act that makes practical criticism irrelevant. But what had she done ? She had "anointed" Jesus. What makes the act worthy of such praise ? Two meanings are contained in the woman’s act: it is first a confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the "anointed" one. She is also pointing to his death and burial, for the dead are anointed as well. And so the woman has seen something that the disciples themselves had not seen up until now: that Jesus’ messiahship is a suffering one, and that it will lead to death.

 a. The last supper, Matthew 26:17-29 and Luke 22:14-38 (compare Mark 14:17-25)

Matthew and Luke, like Mark, describe this day as the one before Passover, interpreting the trial and the death as falling on Passover itself. Thus Jesus is seen as bearing a new covenant, related to the old covenant given through Moses. John puts the crucifixion on the day before Passover, the day when the lambs are slaughtered for the feast. Matthew is quite close to Mark in this story, but Luke has some significant variations: the cup comes before the bread and is not related to the new covenant. He also stresses, in verses 16 and 18, the clement of anticipation in a way that reminds us of I Corinthians 11:26. Luke may have an independent source for this event. The bread is broken, and the wine is released, given, poured out. These arc the central gestures in this story and are the clues to what was being enacted by Jesus before his perhaps uncomprehending disciples. The broken bread points forward to the actual taking of the body on the cross the following day. What of the pouring of the wine? The blood, remember, is the source of life in psychology, and so it is not death that is involved in the shedding of blood, but the new gift of new life. Thus both death and resurrection seem to be anticipated in Jesus' words and gestures.

When the Christian church celebrates the central act of its worship -- whether it calls it Mass, Eucharist, Holy Communion, or Lord's Supper -- it points back not only to these events in the upper room, but to the whole drama of God's redemptive action that Jesus is symbolizing in his words and gestures.

 b. Gethsemane, Matthew 26:36-46 and Luke 22:40-46 (cornpare Mark 14:32-42)

Matthew follows Mark almost word for word, but Luke has made the scene if anything more vivid and powerful. The threefold falling asleep of the disciples is cut; the vision of an angel is added, and the anguish is deepened. The reader should note just what is being said here: a few hours before his death, Jesus prayed that it not come to pass. He in effect rebelled against God. Only after his rebellion did he give himself into God's hands.

In the story of the arrest that immediately follows, Matthew has added a saying about Jesus' power to call into his service an army of angels, and Luke has added a rather perfunctory miracle of healing the ear of the slave that ojie of the disciples cut off in anger. Note that Luke has not included the humiliating fact of the disciples' flight after the arrest (Matthew 26:56).

C The trials, ecclesiastical and civil, Matthew 26:57-27:31, Luke 22:54-23:25 (compare Mark 14:53-15:15)

The trial before Caiaphas (Matthew names him) was probably not an official trial so much as a preliminary hearing to get evidence to present to Pilate. There were strict rules of evidence, and witnesses were unable to agree (each witness had to he examined individually, and there had to be clear agreement). So they began instead to question Jesus himself, to see if he would claim to be Messiah in order that they might present him to Pilate as a royal pretender to the Jewish throne (of Herod). Note that Matthew (26:64) and Luke (22:67-70) slightly modify Mark's version of Jesus' response to the high priest's question about his status as Messiah. In Matthew, Jesus replies "You have said so"; and in Luke, "You say that I am." Note also that Matthew and Luke clarify what is happening in Mark 14:65, by adding the taunting question, "Who is it that struck you?" This is a little game; if you are a prophet, they say, put on this blindfold and guess which one of us is hitting you.

Matthew 27:3-10 gives an account of Judas' repentance and suicide. Compare with this the brief account in Acts 1:18-19. The actual repentance and remorse is plausible, but it looks as if the rest of the passage (verses 5-10) is built up around the quotation from the Old Testament.

Matthew is closer to Mark in his record of the trial before Pilate than Luke, but even in Matthew we have a little more emphasis on Pilate's conviction of Jesus' innocence than in Mark (Matthew 27:23-25). Luke adds to Mark the Jewish complaints at the beginning of the hearing (Luke 23:2-5), several protests by Pilate of his conviction of Jesus' innocence, and Pilate's attempt to avoid responsibility of referring Jesus to Herod, the tetrarch, who is apparently in Jerusalem at the time (Luke 23:6-16). But Herod finds no crime in him, and sends him back to Pilate who again declares for his innocence

Pilate's role in all this is difficult to assess. It may well be that the church at the end of the first century, living under Roman rule and permission, is anxious to underline the Jewish responsibility and to minimize the Roman part. But Jesus is, after all, crucified, and this is a Roman method, and the charge posted on the cross was a political not a religious one. Pilate's superior, the emperor Tiberius,

was known to be merciless to suspected traitors, but he was also careful that prisoners not be mistreated. Apparently Pilate, even though he saw the motives of the high priests clearly, feared an uprising even more, and gave orders that the prisoner be condemned and crucified.

Luke adds a moving scene on the way to Calvary, 23:26-31. Pity, Jesus says, is not what is required now. The women of Jerusalem have more reason for tears than they realize, he says. The Jewish rejection of the Messiah may be the greater reason for grief, and Luke's readers will certainly have thought of the actual fall of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.

 d. Crucifixion, death, and burial, Matthew 27:32-66 and 28:11-15; Luke 23:32-56 (compare Mark 15:22-47)

Matthew and Luke preserve the same form and simplicity in their accounts that is found in Mark. But some of the differences should be noted. Luke has translated the Aramaic Golgotha into "the Skull." In verses 34-35 Luke adds a saying of Jesus on the cross that is unique to him. Whom is Jesus forgiving here? The Jews or the Romans or both? Matthew adds, in verse 36, a saying about the soldiers keeping watch over the body, perhaps to prepare reader for verses 62-66. He also adds the phrase "Son of God" in verse 40, recalling that the high priest had used this phrase in his question at the trial (26:63).

Luke, in verses 39-43, adds some sayings of the two criminals crucified with Jesus. The one who asks Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingly power receives an even greater promise. "Today you will be with me in Paradise." "Paradise" is a Persian word, and it reminds us that in Jewish thought was emerging -- along with the older idea that the spirits of the dead would dwell in Sheol until the final resurrection and judgment -- this newer idea that the righteous went immediately to their reward after death.

Luke does not record the terrible cry of dereliction from the cross (Matthew 27:46), including in its place a quotation from: Psalm 31:5. We cannot hope to penetrate its meaning adequately though it is surely right to see in it something of the cost to Christ, and even to God, of the bearing of human sin. In this cry, we catch something of the depth to which God stoops in Christ; He comes fully into our humanity, our sin, and, perhaps, even into our despair. The drink of vinegar (Matthew 27:48) may be an act of mercy, or it may be another form of abuse (see Psalm 69:21).

In Mark, the centurion expresses admiration at Jesus' courage in the face of death. In Luke, he declares Jesus' innocence, verse 47, and in Matthew, verse 54, both the centurion and some bystanders are filled with awe. Note that Luke, verse 49, suggests (in the phrase "all his acquaintances") that the disciples had not all fled at the time of the arrest.

Matthew 27:62-66 and 28:11-15 are pieces of legendary material added by Matthew. They seem highly improbable. They were possibly added by early Christians to repudiate the charge that Jesus' body was merely stolen from the tomb by the disciples. lt is unlikely that the high priests would have taken Jesus' prediction of His resurrection seriously, even if they had known about it: after all, the disciples themselves were surprised by it. And it is further unlikely that Pilate would have consented to give a guard to the Jews; he has not been portrayed as exactly friendly to them. However suspicious we may be of the sources of this material, it does at least show that there was an empty tomb that needed explaining.

e. The resurrection, Matthew 28:1-20 and Luke 24:1-53

1. The empty tomb, Matthew 28:1-10 and Luke 24:1-11

Matthew and Luke both take over Mark 16:1-8, and make some significant additions. In Matthew, the women do not come to anoint body, as in Mark, presumably because of the presence of the guard. Matthew adds the touches of supernatural wonder in verses 4 and the note about the helplessness of the guards. After the angel’s words in Matthew, the women depart in fear and joy to tell the disciples, and Jesus meets them. Note their response: they both worship and touch him, an indication that Matthew intends us to understand that this is no hallucination or vision. Jesus tells the women that be will appear again in Galilee to the disciples.

In Luke, Jesus does not appear to the women, and the message they rush off to report is merely the words of the two angels. The curious fact, in verse 11, that the disciples did not believe may be contradicted by verse 24. Remember that in Mark and Matthew, the disciples had all gone home to Galilee by the time of the arrest; only in Luke 23:49 are they said still to be in Jerusalem. The contrast between the silence of the women in Mark 16:8 and the eagerness to report in Matthew and Luke is interesting.

 2. The command to baptize Matth w 28:16-20

Here the promise of verse 10 is fulfilled. These verses probably reflect the early church's interpretation more than Jesus' actual words, but they make a striking climax to the gospel. The miraculous is set aside, for it is not the final word. The final word is obedience and service on behalf of the risen Lord. No part of the Bible has given Christians such a sense of the world-wide church. Note that this saying, like the ten commandments, and like the Sermon on the Mount, is given from a mountain. Some of the disciples believed, and some did not (Jesus himself had said that a resurrection would not convince everyone, Luke 16:31). He speaks of his authority and of thcir obedience. He promises them his presence, until the very end of human history itself, when all people will inherit the kingdom of God and see him face to face.

 3. Resurrection appearances in Luke 24:13-53

a. The Emmaus road, 24:13-35

These two were not apparently among the original disciples, but of that other group who heard the women's story of the tomb and disbelieved it (in verses 9, 10, 11). They are on their way home from Jerusalem, and the risen Lord draws near. They do not recognize him, and Luke suggests it is because their understanding has been dulled by God. Compare Mary's confusion of the risen Christ with the gardener in John 20:14-16. The disciples describe what they had hoped for in Jesus in terms that are very similar to the early sermons of Peter in Acts 2. The cross has left them desolate, and the story of the empty tomb has not lifted their gloom. Verse 26 suggests that Christ has already entered into his glory, yet it is clearly a glory that is not over-poweringly self-evident. It has to be discerned. Their hearts burn, they later say, when Jesus expounds the biblical story, but they do not really see who he is until they break bread together. This meal seems similar to the last supper, and may have been thought of by Luke as a sort of early Lord's Supper. When they recognized him, he disappeared. They returned to Jerusalem to tell the original disciples; in the meantime, Jesus had appeared to Peter.

This story is in many ways the most vivid insight into the early church's understanding of the resurrection of Christ that we have. It was clearly understood as an historical event, but it was obviously something more. Three different stages in the disciples' understanding can be noticed: they see and listen to him; they discern who he is; and they make an appropriate response — returning to the city with the message, "The Lord has risen in deed." The resurrection cannot here be less than event (physical, it is sometimes called); but it must be something more. Discernment of its meaning in the context of the whole biblical story must come; this is the significance of the exposition of the Bible along the way. And finally, before it can be truly an experience of the risen Lord, the disciple must make a response of obedience. Thomas, remember, had first to see and to touch; only then did he find it possible to say, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).

b. Christ's appearance in Jerusalem, Luke 24:36-49

The story of the Emmaus road is not explicit as to the form of the risen Christ. This story of the appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem in the midst of the report of the two from Emmaus, contains an insistence that Jesus' risen form was physical. He invites them to touch him; he eats fish in their presence. There is a slight difference of emphasis between this and the earlier story. There Jesus is seen, but he is not discerned or fully understood all at once. Here the appearance is interpreted as more self-evident, in spite of the wonderful phrase in verse 41: "they still disbelieved for joy."

The final words are quiet and moving. The supernatural and miraculous atmosphere has lifted, and the final emphasis is on the work to be done. Christ interprets his meaning; he gives his disciples their commission, and bids them wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised in the prophecy of Joel 2:28-29 and given at Pentecost in Acts 2 (but see John 20:22).

c. The ascension, Luke 24:50-53

By comparing the Revised Standard Version and the King James here, you will notice that the statement that Jesus "was ... carried up into heaven" (verse 51, KJV) is not found in the best manuscripts, and is therefore not included in the translation. Nevertheless, this is the story of the ascension that Luke interprets more fully in Acts 1:6-11. Apparently, by the time he began on the second volume of his work he had come into possession of new material indicating that Jesus' appearances lasted for forty days. Here in the gospel, the ascension takes place on the day of the resurrection. We need not worry overmuch about the actual meaning of the ascension. The incident seems played down here in any case; Jesus' work is done, and the disciples know who he is. His presence is no longer needed as before, and it is withdrawn. The response of the disciples is the only appropriate one: they praise God with joy and gratitude, and prepare to serve him in the world.

The true '"problem" at the end here is not the problem of ascension, it is the problem of service and obedience. Since all these things have happened, what is to be done? The second volume of Luke's book (The Acts of the Apostles) begins the answer to that, and the history of the church up to today continues it.

Luke's special source contains some of the most beautiful and familiar material in the New Testament. His personal interests shine through, his parables are skillfully and forcefully told, and his trustworthiness as an historian is in evidence.

1. The woman with the ointment, Luke 7.36-50

Luke uses this story to elaborate the saying in 7:34 that Jesus is a glutton, and consorts with sinners. Jesus is invited to supper by a Pharisee. A woman, probably a prostitute, breaks in and, weeping over him in remorse, bathes his feet with ointment. Simon had apparently first assumed that Jesus was a prophet with special powers of insight, and then concludes that he could not be so, since he did not discern the true character of the woman. Luke apparently suggests, however, that Jesus read Simon's thoughts (verse 40).

The little parable in Luke 7:41-42 does not really make the same point as the story makes. The story says that the woman, who loves much (her act of anointing is an act of love) is therefore forgiven, but that Simon is loveless and correct and therefore is not forgiven because he does not think he needs to be. But the parable says that one who is forgiven much, loves much. The first part of verse 47 summarizes the story; the second part summarizes the point of the parable. This story may be Luke's reworking of the anointing at Bethany in Mark 14:3-9. The main point of the story is, in spite of the parable, still clear. Jesus contrasts the ecstatic and spontaneous act of love of the broken woman with the formal and loveless correctness of the Pharisee; she will be forgiven, he will not.

2. The Good Samaritan, Luke 10:29-37

This is a special kind of parable, found only in Luke, in which we are given an example to imitate. Unlike Mark, where the parables mainly pointed to the meaning of the kingdom of God, here the story is told in answer to the question: "Who is the neighbor that I am supposed to love?" Notice how neatly Jesus turns the question around. The neighbor is not someone "out there," "any one in need," as we might say. You are the neighbor, and to act as a neighbor is to act as the Samaritan did. The Samaritan was a layman, of mixed racial origin, outside the Jewish law, and hated and suspected by the pious Jew.

3. Mary and Martha, Luke 10:38-42

Martha complains that Mary neglects the duties of a hostess. Jesus defends Mary, setting her response before the merely technical and formal busyness of Martha. The true hostess of the Lord, we might say, is to attend carefully to his words. This need not be pressed to mean that going to church is more important than housework. The real contrast is between formal, proper (and in this case slightly petulant) correctness and reverent attention to the meaning of Jesus.

4. Teaching on prayer, Luke 11:1-13

As we have already seen, Matthew (6:9-13) puts the Lord's Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, as a contrast to the Pharisees ostentatious praying. Here it is a response to a request for instruction. Luke's version of the text is shorter, and probably the original one. Matthew writes "as we also have forgiven our debtors"; Luke makes this more clear by "for we ourselves forgive everyone is indebted to us."

The little parable in verses 5-8 is found only in Luke. Compare Luke 18:1-8. Only one point is intended in both parables; God is not to be compared to the lazy friend or the unjust judge. The lesson is this: if persistence works on the human level, how much more will it work in your prayer.

5. The parable of the rich fool, Luke 12:13-21

Rabbis often heard legal disputes, and the brother bringing the case to Jesus expected a favorable decision. But Jesus refuses take the burden of decision from the men, and tells them in effect to make their own decision, avoiding covetousness. The parable points the true lesson. The man is a fool not because of his love of pleasure, but because he thinks that his accumulation of wealth

will enable him to control the future. The true foolishness is the illusion of absolute security through property which death destroys. True security, true treasure, is one's present relation to God, and this is absolute because death cannot destroy it.

6. Interpreting the times, Luke 12:49-56

What is this "fire"? Is it judgment, the fire of God's love, the fire of the emerging kingdom of God that calls men to repent and perhaps even divides up old loyalties? All these are suggested. "Baptism" here, as in Mark 10:38-39, suggests that the "fire" cannot fully do its work until the suffering and death of the Messiah. There is little reason to be sure that this prediction of the death is a later addition. Jesus by this time has enough evidence to see what the outcome of his message is likely to be.

7. Sin, disaster, and repentance, Luke 13:1-5

The problem behind this story is whether or not calamities are caused by sin. Generally, the Jew believed that they were. Some people refer to an incident in which Pilate killed some Jews while they were making their sacrifices. In verse 4 Jesus offers another example of a disaster, and cuts across the traditional explanation. Calamity, he seems to say, cannot be traced directly to sin; but is tragically serious, and men must repent, for disaster of perhaps deeper kind will be their lot if they do not.

8. On discipleship 14:25-35

Luke 14:25-26 suggests that following Jesus must have actually caused the breaking up of family ties. Verse 27 makes the main point of this section, that the life of discipleship is a costly and demanding effort. The two little parables that follow do not quite make the same point. Count the cost, is the meaning of the first; estimate your foe realistically, is the meaning of the second. Verse 33 explains verse 27 well enough, but the parables stand: vivid, clear, but a little irrelevant to the point. The disciples in verses 34-35 are compared to salt, the means of preserving food. Compare this with the comment on Matthew 5:1 3, page 29 above.

9. Lazarus and the rich man, Luke 16:19-31

There are a number of themes in this story. It points, in Luke 16:19-26 to the future life as a reversal of the values of this (see comment on Luke 13:30, above, and also 16:15). It is expansion of the idea in 16:9 of using money unselfishly (to make friends for yourself). The rich man is condemned not because is evil or because he is wealthy, but because he ignored Lazarus need. Verses 27-31 suggest a contrast between Jesus and the (as in 13:20-30); some have thought that this reflects an early church struggle with orthodox Judaism, but it can be more easily understood as Jesus' own criticism of the wealth and worldliness of the Sadducees of his own day.

The word Hades in Luke 16:23 refers to the Hebrew idea Sheol. In early Jewish thought, this was a place of abode for the dead where only a bare and shadowy existence went on. When the idea of the final resurrection and judgment came into Jewish thought, Sheol was the waiting place for the disembodied spirits before the last day. In Sheol, some distinctions were worked out so that even before the final judgment, part of Sheol was Paradise, and part was like Gehenna, the place of ultimate judgment. Such is the background of this story, and it is an interesting insight into the state of Jewish thought at this time concerning eternal life and final judgment.

10. The coming of the Son of man, Luke 17:22-37

There are two points of interest in the early part of this chapter, prior to the discourse on the Son of man. In 17:7-10, Jesus strikes out against a religious life that is based on rewards given for services performed. God does not reward our virtue; he is gracious to sinners, for we are unworthy even when we have done our best (verse 10). Verses 20-21 are a kind of preface to the discourse to follow: popular guesses about the coming of the kingdom are futile, Jesus argues, for the kingdom is now in the midst of men (verse 21). The saying suggests the present reality of the kingdom, here and now. The astonishing thing is that Jesus seems to say that it is even in the midst of the Pharisees.

In the discourse itself (Luke 17:22-37), Jesus anticipates the early church's perplexity over the nonappearance of the supernatural Son of man, the divine being who will come and usher in the final days at the end of history. This coming, Jesus says, will be sudden and unexpected. In verse 25, Jesus points to his own death, and comes close to identifying himself with the Son of man to whom he refers. The point of the references to Noah and to Lot is not only that the "coming" will be in the midst of normal human activities, but also that there will be a disaster connected with it, like the flood and the fire in the Old Testament stories. This disaster is doubtless intended by Luke to be the death of Christ itself. From verses 31 on, advice is given on how to respond to this catastrophic event: one must be prepared to respond immediately and look back (for the story of Lot's wife, see Genesis 19:26). Verses 34-37 portray the judgment of the Son of man, a judgment involving destruction. The little proverb in verse 37 should doubtless refer to vultures (this is the reading in the RSV footnote), to make clearer the image of a bird preparing to devour a dead body.

This discourse as a whole reflects the belief of the early church, surely of Jesus as well, that the end of the world, with the judgment of the Son of man, would speedily come. This did not in fact happen, and this chronological error must be noted. Yet the terrible reality of God's judgment is not thereby made irrelevant. Perhaps the church should have interpreted the resurrection or the gift of the Holy Spirit as the "coming" here referred to; in any case, Christ today "comes" to both the church and the world, as a judge as well as a comforter. The fact that the church expected a coming that did not visibly take place should not blind us to the true meaning of the Gospel as containing the picture of God, always "coming" to us in Christ.

11. some of Luke's characteristic parables

a. The great slipper, Luke 14:15-24

Matthew 22:1-10 has a version of this, but it is much more allegorical than Luke's version. Verse 15 gives the excuse for the parable: perhaps Jesus is suggesting that an emotional love for the kingdom of God, as suggested in the exclamation, may not be adequate. A man plans a banquet and invites his friends. They excuse themselves, more or less plausibly. Verses 21-22 may be an allegory, suggesting that if the Jews refuse the kingdom of God, then the others will be invited. There is still room, and so another invitation is offered, this time to those outside the city, that is, to the non-Jew. In verse 24, the banquet is identified with the messianic banquet in the completed kingdom of God. The point of the parable is the contrast between the pious Jew who excused himself, the lowly Jew outside the law, and the Gentile.

b. The three parables of chapter 15: the lost sheep and the lost coin (verses 1-10), and the lost son (11-32)

This magnificent chapter must be seen as a whole. First, the question to which the three parables are an answer: Why, the Pharisees murmur, does Jesus consort with sinners? (See Jesus answer to the same question in Luke 5:29-32.) It is a question of procedure, of ethics. The "answer," however, in the parable is not a piece of self-defense, but a pointer to the character of God. And

the meaning of all three parables can be simply put: God takes the initiative and seeks the lost and the sinful, and rejoices when the sinner returns to him. So Jesus' "answer" to the Pharisees is this: Why do I seek the sinner? Because my Father's nature is to seek out those who are lost, and to rejoice in their return. As my Father acts, so do I.

In Luke 15:1-10, then, the two points are made: the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep to seek out the lost one, and rejoices when it is found; the woman drops everything else to seek out the one lost coin (the coin mentioned is probably a Greek drachma, literally worth sixteen cents, but in actual purchasing power many times more than that), and rejoices with her friends when it is found.

The more elaborate details of verses 11-24 should not obscure the fact that the same double point is being made. Note verse 17: "when he came to himself." This does not mean that man has a prior or central role in salvation; but that God's gift of forgiveness tan be received only by one who is in need, who knows how to ask the question for which it is the answer. In verses 18-19 the son rehearses the confession he will make to his father. But the father did not simply wait at home for the son, he came down road to meet him. Before the son can complete his confession, asking for justice and a chance for a fresh beginning, the father greets him with compassion and love. And they rejoice together.

The parallel between the three stories is over, but there is still the curious story of the elder brother (Luke 15:25-32). Now on human level, we should probably want to feel a good deal of sympathy with him. He'd had extra work to do since his younger brother left, and there is a suggestion that his father had not been hateful. But this parable is not a study in proper family discipline, as such, it is rather poor advice. We must take the story of the elder brother as a kind of epilogue, tying the central message the chapter to the setting of verses 1-2. This is a parable spoken in response to a taunt from the Pharisees, and the elder brother (particularly in the rather unlovely protest: "I never disobeyed your command") is probably intended to stand for the Pharisee. The father's response to the brother is in part a rebuke for his unforgiving self-righteousness, just as Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisee tended to be. The father expects even the elder son to rejoice at the prodigal's return; God expects all men (even the Pharisees) to rejoice at Jesus' mission to the lost.

There is a good deal of the central message of the Gospel here; God's gracious and forgiving love is powerfully described. But the whole Gospel is not here, and we must not expect any one parable to contain that; what is not here is what no parable can portray what only the cross can show -- the cost of this love as shown the death of the Son.

c. The unjust steward, Luke 16:1-13

This is a fascinating example of a parable which is not to be taken as an example by the Christian. The manager of an estate had been careless and was called to account by his master. He became afraid and persuaded some of those who owed produce to his master falsify (to their own benefit) their records, so that if the steward should be fired, he would have some who were obligated to him. "The master" in Luke 16:8 has been taken by the RSV translator to mean the master in the parable. He is commending not the dishonesty but the prudence of the man; and verse 9 follows as Jesus interpretation: in your use of money, he says, be prudent and selfish ("make friends for yourselves," that is, by giving generously to others, verse 9); for you cannot take it with you, and God is your final treasure in any case. But "master" in verse 8 mean Jesus; in this case we have the possibility of an added interpretation, for he is then saying something like this: take a lesson from the calculating shrewdness of the men of the world. Be as clever in dealing with the things of God as they are in dealing with the things of this world. He might then be pointing to the very modern contrast which exists in the clever businessman who is very naive or foolish in religious matters.

In verses 10-12 Luke contributes a series of sayings about money so that the parable cannot be misunderstood. Be careful and honest m money matters; and remember, only God -- not possessions -- can be served.

d. The Pharisee and the publican, Luke 18:9-14

Here is another parable as an example. Not all Pharisees were like this one, but there is evidence that his attitude was not uncommon. The setting is in the temple in Jerusalem. The Pharisee first describes what he does not do; he then mentions what he does do beyond what is required. Fasts were not required by the law; nor were tithes of personal income (which is what is referred to here). The tax collector isolates himself from the rest of the worshipers and confesses his unworthiness. This is a story both about true and false prayer, and about true and false character. Two elements in Phariseeism are underlined here: proud criticism of others and proud congratulation of self. Jesus' teaching as a whole strikes out heavily against these traits in religious man.

In this section we shall be dealing with some of the material in Matthew, Chapters 3 through 18; and in Luke, 3:1-9:50. This is parallel to the first nine chapters of Mark. By noting the biblical references following the paragraph titles, the reader will be able to distinguish between what Luke alone has, what Matthew alone has, what Luke and Matthew have in common, and what they take from Mark.

1. John the Baptist, Matthew 3:7-21 and Luke 3:7-20 (compare Mark 1:1-8)

a. His preaching of repentance, Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9

Mark merely refers to John’s preaching of repentance, but Matthew and Luke give us an example of it. The message is prophetic, and John compares the hearers to snakes fleeing from a forest fire. There will be no privileged position for the Jews as children of Abraham, for God does not need them. The time of judgment and decision is now.

b. His messianic preaching, Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:10-18

Matthew and Luke both have John point beyond himself to a greater one who will follow him, one who will baptize not with water but with the Spirit. In 3:10-14, Luke adds some of John's ethical teaching, but it seems perfunctory and not particularly demanding, especially when compared to Jesus' teaching on wealth and on love of enemies.

2. Jesus' baptism, Matthew 3:13-17 and Luke 3:21-22 (compare Mark 1:9-11)

Notice that while Mark clearly states that John baptized Jesus, Luke does not specifically say so, and Matthew feels some need (3:14-15) to explain why a sinless Christ should submit to a baptism requiring repentance. Three decisive points are made in the three images here: the heavens are opened; the Spirit descends, giving Jesus power to perform his work; and the voice of God speaks, defining Jesus as a unique Son of God.

 3. Jesus' temptation, Matthew 4:1-li and Luke 4:1-13 (compare Mark 1:12-13)

This is probably a description that Jesus gave to his disciples of his inner struggles about the meaning of his messiahship. Apart from the fact that the order of the second and third temptation differs in Matthew and Luke, their accounts are similar. No doubt about the messiahship is expressed, but only the temptation to have it take an easy and successful form: to become a mere provider of bread and physical need; to be a mere wonderworker and so to coerce people into belief; or to become a political messiah claiming sovereignty over the nations of the earth. We have already noted that as early as Luke 2:41-52 the tension between suffering and Sonship is present; here the problem is the acceptance of a messiahship without suffering. This struggle must be seen as a real one, and one that was costly and difficult to overcome. Matthew follows his temptation story with a brief description of Jesus' first teaching (4:17, compare Mark 1:15), having first pointed to Jesus' fulfillment of a saying from Isaiah 9:1-2. Luke simply indicates that Jesus returned from the wilderness and began to teach (4:14-15).

 4. The rejection at Nazareth, Luke 4:16-30

Instead of including at this point a summary of Jesus' message, Matthew did, Luke illustrates Jesus at work.

Synagogue worship included a regular reading from the law (which was required to be read through every three years) reading and exposition of the prophets. Jesus is invited to read and expound from the prophets. "The acceptable year of the Lord" in the prophet's words referred to the future; Jesus here proclaim that this messianic age is now at hand, fulfilled in his own person. The popular response in Luke 4:20 begins with admiration, ends in perplexity and hostility. Verses 23-27 are confusing, bu apparently the Old Testament references are designed to meet the objection that Jesus should have performed his acts of healing his own native village. Verse 30 implies a miraculous escape. Many of the motifs of Luke's whole two-volume work are contained in this narrative: the Old Testament background of Jesus' message; the Gospel preached to the poor; the arrival of the messianic age, the hostility of the Jews to his message, and their final rejection of him, climaxed by a miraculous act of deliverance.

5. The call of the disciples, Matthew 4:18-22 (compare Mark 1:16-20)

The theme of the Gospel is announced in Matthew 4:17, and to carry out its purpose, Jesus calls together a group. Note the startling immediacy of their response.

6. A group of healings, Luke 4:31-43 (compare Mark 1:21-38)

At this point Luke, though not Matthew, introduces a group of healing stories as a description of the power of the new Gospel that Jesus is proclaiming. The man in the synagogue (4:31-37) who has an unclean spirit seems to recognize Jesus as the Son of God.

Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), and later in the evening when the Sabbath was officially over and the Jews could approach Jesus without fear, he heals others (verses 40-41). The next morning he withdraws for prayer, as is his custom, but he is interrupted. There is a striking note of urgency and even impatience here, but there is the deeper hint that the work of preaching is more important than that of healing. Notice in verse 43 that Jesus declares himself to have been sent by God only for the purpose of preaching the Gospel of the kingdom.

 7. The miraculous catch of fish, Luke 5:1-11

This is somewhat confusing, for we have a very similar story in John 21:4-14, which concerns the risen Christ and serves as a highly symbolic prediction of the ultimate success of the Christian mission. Here Luke sets aside any symbolic meaning, and uses the story as his version of the call of the disciples. it is hard to know if the story was originally a postresurrection one; here, in any case, it is the description of the response of Peter, James, and John, to Jesus' invitation.

8. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29; and the Sermon on the Plain, Luke 6:20-49

Matthew and Luke have both collected a number of instances of Jesus' teaching, and placed them at this strategic point in their gospels. We need not suppose that this material was delivered at a single time or place. A word might be said about the kind of ethical teaching we have here. What is the relation of this teaching to the ordinary moral practices of society? Today people are always saying that their business practices, their foreign policies, their personal lives, are based on the Sermon on the Mount. Are we supposed to act in the ways indicated here? Are lawbreakers never to be punished, wars never to be fought, beggars to be given money indiscriminately? Jesus demands conduct without any thought of reciprocity; he demands perfection (Matthew 5:48). This demand is not based on what others might do, on practicability, or on consequences, but on what God has done and on what He is like. This body of teaching does not precisely answer the question: What am I to do in society? The question it answers is, What is God's absolute and radical will?

So even if this is impracticable in a law-court sense, it is binding. That is to say, nothing short of it is God's will. It is more like a compass than a map.

a. Who is the citizen of the kingdom, and what is he like? (Matthew 5:1-16 and Luke, scattered)

I. The beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-22, Luke 6:20-23) and the woes (Luke 6:24-26)

In both Matthew and Luke, the teaching is addressed to the disciples. The beatitudes, and all the descriptions of the new man contained here, are meant to describe what God's will is for one who has chosen the kingdom of God, now breaking in upon men. We must read this today both as a judgment and a description of the Christian.

Luke has four beatitudes, Matthew nine; and Luke adds four woes, direct opposites actual of his blessings. Note that Luke refers to actual poverty and hunger, while Matthew has spiritualized the words. "Blessed" means "happy," or even, more exactly "congratulations to the poor.." It has been suggested that Matthew’s list can be divided into three parts: Matthew 3-5 indicating three contrasts with the world's standards; verses 6-9 as positive traits of the Christian life; and verses 10-12 showing the world’s inevitable reaction to this new quality introduced into it.

 2. The relation of the disciple or the citizen of the kingdom to the world (Matthew 5:13-16, and Luke 14:34-35 and 11:33)

The disciple is not irrelevant to the world, he is like salt. This does not mean that he adds a little spice to the world, though there is nothing wrong with this idea in itself. In the ancient world salt was mainly a preservative, something to keep meat, for example, from spoiling. The disciple is the clue to the world, the supreme value the world possesses. Compare Matthew 5:14 with John 8:12 — can both these be true?

Matthew 5:16 is sometimes, alas, used in Protestant churches as a prelude to the collection, but it contains the whole secret of Christian ethics. Your light must shine, of course; the Christian life is a visible one. But it must shine in a certain way, so that when men see your goodness they do not remark how good a person you are, but how great God is. And this is the problem: How do we do a good work so that our goodness is not noted by others, only God's goodness? To call attention to our goodness is exactly what is forbidden here.

h. The new law and the old, Matthew 5:17-48

1. The key to this section, Matthew 5:17-20

Jesus is not destroying the Old Testament law as the contemporary scribes are interpreting it. He means to fulfill it, to fill it full of its true and absolute meaning, to show what it really involves. To illustrate, he takes six scribal interpretations of the Old Testament and interprets each in such a way as to show what it really means for the disciple, the citizen of the kingdom, the Christian.

2. On murder, Matthew 5:21-26 (compare Luke 12:57-59)

Jesus' meaning and method can be expressed in a paraphrase. "You have been hearing the scribes say that the Old Testament commandment against murder can be fulfilled if you avoid the act of violence that society calls murder. But I tell you that the inner disposition of the heart that leads to murder is really what is prohibited here: anger, irritation, the temptation to say to someone else, 'you fool.' Do not think that your conscience is clear if you have avoided murder. The inner meaning of this commandment is that all anger that elevates you and lowers another is forbidden by God." In other words, God regards anger against one's fellow man as serious an offense as man regards murder. Here the law in Jesus' hands is a surgical instrument, probing the human heart for any trace of egotism or pride.

3. On adultery, Matthew 5:27-30 (compare 18:8-9)

Jesus continues in effect: "The scribes tell you that the commandment against adultery is kept if you avoid the overt act of adultery. But I say that the inner lust of the heart after another is at the root of the adulterous act, and that this is forbidden by God." Adultery is a form of pride, and again this basic flaw is exposed here. This, someone has said, makes adulterers of us all. Jesus probes beneath the outer act to the inner meaning. "Don't commit adultery" means "Don't lust."

4. On divorce, Matthew 5:31-32

In the Old Testament it was possible for a man to put his wife away simply by writing out a document and giving it to her. Jesus says here that God's absolute will is that marriage should be in-dissoluble. It is probable that the phrase "except on the grounds of unchastity" is a later addition to soften Jesus' original words. See Mark 10:10-12, where Jesus' actual teaching on divorce is doubtless preserved. Compare with these also Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18.

5. On perjury, Matthew 5:33-37

This does not refer to profanity, but to lying under oath. The scribes have said that you must tell the truth when you are under oath. But oaths are required by law because society knows that all men are liars when their own interests are concerned. So, Jesus says, the scribal law is based on the assumption that all men are liars, and therefore it is not radical enough. Truth is demanded of the disciple whether he is under oath or not. He doesn't need special oaths to guarantee his word.

6. On retaliation, Matthew 5:38-42 (see Luke 6:29-30)

The scribes say that limited retaliation is possible. If you lose an eye in a fight, you may take one eye from the one who injured you. But Jesus says, do not resist evil at all. The old law says linited retaliation is permissible; Jesus says retaliation is itself evil. Perhaps something like this is behind the analysis. The old law of retaliation, called the lex talionis, was made to limit the taking of revenge: only one eye taken for one eye lost, one tooth for one tooth. This law is made to curb human sin, for it assumes that man will, if left alone, take greater vengeance than was taken on him. But since retaliation has to be curbed by the law, it is proved to be evil. Therefore the true spirit of the law is: don't retaliate, don't be vindictive.

An interesting question to raise is this: Does this analysis apply only to a man-to-man relation? What happens when more than two are involved? If someone hits you, do you lead him to a friend of yours so that he can hit him as well? Does the introduction of a third party alter the character of the law? Is pacifism a necessary consequence of this?

7. On love of enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; see Luke 6:27-36)

The scribes were teaching that a sort of fence can be put around the word "neighbor" in such a way that those outside the fence could he called enemies. Those inside are to be loved, those outside hated, or at best, ignored. But this, Jesus says, is not the meaning of the word neighbor. Your neighbor is anyone who has a claim on you; he is everyone, and there are no enemies for the disciple (except, perhaps, in the unimportant sense of those who are hostile to you-but even this is no excuse for the disciple to refuse to serve them, for who needs love more than the loveless and hostile?).

Matthew 5:45 and Luke 6:35 state the ground for Christian love with unmistakable clarity. Note that it does not say that we should love our enemies because it is the best policy and because the power of our love might win them to our position. Nor does it say that every man has an inherent value, however deeply concealed, which our love might fan into flame. Jesus does not allow our love to depend on perceived value in the neighbor. It may be there, it may not. We are to love because we are sons of God, and he loves his children universally, regardless of their human merits or traits. The shape and direction of our love is to be that of God's love for us.

The reader may want to follow up this point. Turn first to another important definition of the neighbor in the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:29-37; (see page 53). Note also the key passages in the New Testament that define the quality of God~s love; if our love for one another depends on his love for us, we must get very clear the nature of that love. Romans 5:8, I Corinthians 13, Ephesians 5:1-2, and I John 4:7-12, all bear special relevance to Jesus' teaching on love here.

C. spiritual discipline in the kingdom, Matthew 6:1-18

In the previous section Jesus has analyzed six scribal interpretations of the law. Here he takes three typical virtues of the Pharisees: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, and shows how easy it is to do good for the wrong reasons.

1. Almsgiving, Matthew 6:1-4

Apparently the Pharisees assumed that it was possible to gain favor in the sight of God by giving money to the poor. Jesus takes the idea of almsgiving, with all its dangers of self-display, and removes all merit from it. If you do this, he says, to gain a reward, you will get one-the praise of men, and that is all. Do good of course, but say nothing about it. It is possible, and fatally easy, to do good acts sinfully. Compare Luke 11:37-53, which is also a controversy with the Pharisees based on the question of alms.

2. Prayer, Matthew 6:5-15 (see Luke 11:2-4 for another version of the Lord's Prayer, given in a different context. See page 54)

Here Jesus again points to the self-display of the Pharisees who liked to be seen praying in public. Their piety shall be seen by men, and that is all the reward they receive. He asks his disciples to retire into the pantry (that is really the word in Matthew 6:6) and to pray quietly there.

A few questions can be raised about the content of the Lord's Prayer. "Our Father" is one of the very rare instances in the New Testament where Jesus invited all men to consider God as their Father. For the most part, Jesus is the Son, and God is his Father. Perhaps we cannot really know that God is Father until we come to him through the Son.

"Hallowed be thy name": God's name is his very nature, and that nature is holy and majestic, beyond men. Let thy kingdom now come, Jesus prays, and adds to explain the meaning, let thy will be done here and now on earth. The kingdom's present reality is as fully stressed here as is its future completion. Notice the frank concern for the physical needs of men. Give us enough food for the day; the necessities of life are as "religious" as the more exalted spiritual gifts.

Note the close relationship between human and divine forgiveness here. Can man be forgiven by God if he is himself unforgiving? But can man ever make himself forgiving enough to deserve God's forgiveness? "Temptation" means a situation in which a Christian is tempted to recant or minimize his faith. If it be thy will, Jesus asks, do not lead us into the dangers and crises of life; but when they come, he goes on, keep us from succumbing to evil.

The conclusion to the prayer, "for thine is the kingdom . ." is not found in the best manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, and is either an independent later piece of oral tradition, or a liturgical conclusion which the church added when the prayer came to be used in worship.

3. Fasting, Matthew 6:16-18

The ostentatious fasting of the Pharisees is now under scrutiny. When you undergo any form of self-discipline, Jesus says, do it gladly and keep it to yourself.

d. Simplicity and carefreeness in the kingdom, Matthew 6:19-34

Jesus here turns to the external things that God gives to man for his enjoyment: food, drink, clothes, property. The best word to sum up the Christian attitude to these things is detachment. Unlike some religions, Christianity does not condemn these things, but points out that they can readily be misused. To put God and his kingdom first (Matthew 6:33, Luke 12:31) is to be ready to forego, at any time, any of these lesser goods. We must not be anxious about them, for to trust in them too absolutely is to betray our trust in God. These lesser goods can easily become substitute gods for us if concern for them controls the whole of our lives. (It might be noted, however, that there is a vast moral difference between the secure man's over concern with his possessions and the unemployed man's anxiety about his lack of these goods. The wealthy man preaching the virtues of poverty to the poor, on the grounds that God will provide, represents a special kind of immorality.)

1. God and mammon, Matthew 6:19-24

Often, Jesus suggests, we accumulate possessions because of our fear of the future. But these things fall apart, they can be stolen, and many new toys soon bore us. Instead of being a form of security, they can become an added worry. Matthew 6:21 suggests the interesting idea that we can be known, and can know ourselves, by observing what we would least rather do without, what we would give the most to get. "Mammon" means possessions of any kind; owning them is not opposed here, but serving them is. Often things we think we control end up by controlling us. Verse 24 means that it is impossible to give absolute loyalty to two principles, just as it is impossible for a man to be in love with two women at the same time, if love has any real meaning at all.

2. Freedom from fear, Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke 12.22-31)

Anxiety has sometimes been called the root of all sin. if we are anxious about our self-esteem, we shall often assert ourselves in a proud way over others. Here Jesus probes to the heart of this problem. He says: Do not be anxious at all. The reason is not that it is psychologically harmful or that there are not good reasons for it (there is always reason for it, and there is probably always room for the right kind of anxiety or concern about ourselves and the world). We are not to be fundamentally anxious before God because he is to be trusted, and will care for his people. Verse 34 reminds us that the worries of tomorrow won't be the ones we expected anyway. So let us face just the present day with trust in God.

e. Judging and asking in the kingdom, Matthew 7:1-12

1. On judging, Matthew 7:1-5 (Luke 6:37-42)

In this chapter, we return to a note that we have already seen in Chapter 6: opposition to hypocrisy, perhaps the most important single element in Jesus' ethical teaching. The argument in Matthew 7: i-2 is highly compressed. Don't judge, in order that you won't be judged (by God). Why shouldn't we want to be judged? Because we shall be judged by the same standards that we use to judge others. And we could not survive that ordeal and be vindicated, for we have no merits of our own with which we could meet God's judgment. And so we are not to judge, because we could never hope to survive the judgment of God. Man's natural inclination is to judge himself very leniently, and others very harshly. The disciple is one who reverses this order. For an interesting application of this, see John 7:53 — 8:11 (printed as a footnote in the RSV).

Matthew 7:6 is an apparently irrevelant interlude. This may be an indication of Matthew’s anti-Gentile bias, and "dogs" may refer to the non-Jew.

2.On asking Matthew 7:7-12 (see Luke 11:9-13)

These familiar words contain a revolutionary idea: that "everyone" who asks will receive. This runs quite counter to the prevailing Old Testament view that God listened only to the righteous (see Psalm 34:15 if.) Here Jesus notes that God listens even to the undeserving, and gives to all who ask. not perhaps what they will, but in accordance with his will. Is there such a thing as unanswered prayer? Notice al~o the interesting analogy in Matthew 7:11. Man, who is evil, can perform occasional acts of kindness; how much more can God who is good give to those who ask.

Matthew 7:12 (and Luke 6:31), often called the Golden Rule, is based on the previous verse which stressed what God does even for the undeserving. Since God acts in this way to us, there is only one basis for our actions toward others: putting ourselves in the other’s place. here is a rule of thumb for the disciple in any action: reverse the roles of self and other; you will discover by this that he too is a man in need. Then base your action on the insight gained from this identification. This is not so much a principle or an ideal to he applied (perhaps we talk too much about applying Christian ideals) but an invitation to identify yourself with the concrete concerns of another.

f. The kingdom and the two ways, Matthew 7:13-23

1. The narrow gate, Matthew 7:13-14 (Luke 13:23-24)

It is difficult to be sure just what "destruction" means here. Is this eternal judgment in hell, or merely the spiritual destruction of being without God? The disciple, in any case, will always be a minority. This passage has always been a barrier to ideas of universal salvation.

2. The danger of false prophets, Matthew 7:15-23 (see Luke 6:43-46, 13:26-27)

Do not be beguiled by a teacher's external appearance, Jesus says, or even by his words. Look at the effects of his words in his life: this is the real means of judging. In Matthew 7:21 we see again a favorite idea of Jesus: people who mouth the conventional words are not necessarily true disciples. A man must go beyond intentions and words to acts, to the demanding discipline of doing the will of God.

g. Conclusion, Matthew 7:24-29 (see Luke 6:47-49)

1. how to respond to the "sermon," Matthew 7:24-27

Here again the perils of a merely verbal religion are stressed. Hearing must he followed by doing and obedience.

2. Matthew's editorial conclusion, Matthew 7:28-29

The crowds were astonished, yet in 5:1-2 it seemed as if only the disciples were being addressed. In point of fact, Matthew intends this sermon as instruction for all Christians, though in Jesus' own time only the disciples had committed their lives to him in such a way that the teaching could be relevant to them. They were astonished, for he spoke with power and authority.

For the Christian, this is the Son of God who has spoken, and his teachings here are an act of radical judgment on the world. No wonder the hearers were astonished and upset.

9. The healing of the leper, Matthew 8:1-4 and Luke 5:12-16 (compare Mark 1:40-45)

When Mark writes up this incident he mentions Jesus’ pity for the man. For some reason, Matthew and Luke both omit this human touch.

A word might be said here about these healing these stories; this is the first one in a series, and we shall come up against many similar stories in the two gospels we are studying. Demon-possessions the way biblical man explained what we would call physical and mental illness. Sometimes the healings are to be seen as signs of the coming kingdom of heaven (see Matthew 12:28); sometimes they are marks of Jesus' very human concern for the physical as well as the spiritual part of man. But a modern reader will want to ask, "Did they happen?" as well as "What do they mean?" However devout we may feel ourselves to be, it is not easy to accept such things. Some try to explain the healings by Jesus' power of suggestion, believing that the diseases were what we would call psychosomatic. And some of the stories may yield to this approach. Some, like the story of the Gadarene demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34), may well have a good deal of legendary material attached to them. And readers will doubtless want to raise the whole question of spiritual healing in this connection. But, remember, the main clue to our interpretation of these difficult pieces of material is this: what and who do we believe Jesus Christ to he? If he was in fact what the Christian tradition has tried to claim, then we cannot be Certain that such things cannot happen.

10. The centurion's servant, Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10

Fearing that Jesus would not wish to enter a Gentile house, the centurion in Matthew's narrative says that since he is a soldier and knows the meaning of authority, Jesus can merely speak a word of power, and the healing will be accomplished. This confidence elicits Jesus' praise, and the servant is healed. In verses 11-12, Matthew has drawn out the missionary implications of the Gentile's faith by means of a figure taken from the idea of the messianic banquet in heaven. Luke uses this material, but in another context (13:28-30).

11. The widow's son, Luke 7:11-17

In his reply to John the Baptist, in Luke 7:22, Jesus declares that in his ministry the dead have been raised. This story, which Luke alone has, seems to be included to support that description. Stories of Jesus raising someone from the dead are fairly rare in the New Testament: the raising of Jairus' daughter may be such a story, but it is not entirely clear (see page 41); John 11:1-44 is another. These cannot but be stumbling blocks for us today, and perhaps they should be set aside until we deal with the chief stumbling block, the resurrection of Jesus himself. The symbolic meaning of the story is important to Luke: Jesus is both the bearer and the giver of new life.

12. On discipleship, Matthew 8:18-22 and Luke 9:57-62

Here are some descriptions of the nature of true discipleship. To the first inquirer (called a scribe by Matthew), Jesus points out the risks and insecurities of the disciple's lot. To the second, Jesus says that even the sacred duties of the law must be abandoned: those who allow their legal duties to stand in the way of full obedience are the truly dead ones, the spiritually dead. Luke adds a third point in 9:61-62: discipleship requires the same attention and care as does the plowing of a straight furrow.

13. The Gadarene madman, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:26-39 (compare Mark 5:1-20)

Matthew and Luke make their own use of this story from Mark. Matthew radically shortens it, and cuts much of the detail that Luke includes. In Luke the madman greets Jesus, and begs him to leave him alone. He wryly tells Jesus that his name is Legion, a reference to the multitude of demons possessing him. Jesus calms the man, and news of the cure is spread about; the people from the countryside fear Jesus, perhaps because of the destruction of the swine, and beg him to leave. The man himself begs to go with Jesus, but Jesus refuses and sends him back to his village to announce to all what God has done. 

14. Healing the paralytic, Matthew 9:1-8 and Luke 5:17-26 (compare Mark 2:1-12)

This is another story taken over from Mark. Again Matthew shortens and simplifies. Luke has the man brought to Jesus by being lowered through the roof of a house where Jesus was teaching, surrounded by a crowd. The faith of those who bring the man is commended; Jesus forgives the paralytic's sins. This offends the scribes (and the Pharisees, Luke adds), for only God can forgive. Jesus affirms his status as the divine Son of man, authorized to bear the divine forgiveness, and bids the man to rise from his bed and walk. Two real miracles take place here; a man receives the divine forgiveness, and he is healed. Spiritual and physical needs are all of a piece, and both can be met by Jesus' word of healing.

15. The woman with a hemorrhage and Jairus' daughter, Matthew 9:18-26 and Luke 8:40-56 (compare Mark 5:21-43)

A ruler in Matthew -- a Jewish leader, in Luke -- comes to Jesus and bids him come to his daughter. Matthew says she has died; Luke, that she is dying. Jesus follows the man, and on the way a woman with a chronic hemorrhage pushes through the crowd to touch Jesus. Luke says that Jesus felt a power go forth from him when she touched him. Matthew merely says that Jesus sees her, and declares that her faith has made her well. The party then arrives at Jairus' house. Matthew seems to play down the miracle; Jesus merely says that the girl is not dead but sleeping; he goes in, and the girl rises from her bed. In Luke, when they arrive at the house, the report comes that the girl has died, and they conclude that Jesus should therefore not be bothered. This suggests that Jesus was not expected to be able to raise the dead. Jesus takes Peter, James, John, and the girl's parents with him into the house. He calls the child, and she arises.

It is hard to know what is meant here by the saying of Jesus in both accounts that "she is not dead but sleeping." Does this mean that Jesus knew she was not truly dead? Or that death is not the true end of man? Was he making a diagnosis? Is this intended to be a raising from the dead? This is used, both by Luke and Matthew, as a sort of climax to a series of miracle stories, and it seems as if they treat it as a miracle of resurrection. But the details of the story are not entirely clear, and this perhaps is a place where some may wish to reserve judgment or even to doubt the event as it stands. In any case, beyond these details stands the deeper and more important truth about Jesus, that through him is new life, both now and in the world to come.

16. The sending of the disciples, Matthew 9:35-11:1 (compare Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12)

This might be called the second main discourse of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew, the first being the Sermon on the Mount. Between the two discourses, Matthew has placed some of the healing stories of Jesus to serve as a pattern for the Christian minister. Now the disciples are commissioned to leave their teacher and to go out into the world.

a. introduction, 9:35-38

Jesus' work of teaching (Matthew 5, 6, 7) and healing (8-9:34) is summarized, and the need for special apostles or representatives is described. Their work is compared to that of a shepherd gathering sheep or a harvester bringing in the grain.

 b. the twelve, Matthew 10: 1-4

The list of names is the same as that found in Mark.

 c. the discourse of Jesus to the disciples, 10:5 -- 11:1

In Matthew 10:5-15 Jesus describes the aim and manner of evangelism. The disciples are to go to Jews alone, and their words and work are to be the same as Jesus'. The passage 10:16-39 is a collection of sayings, all centering around the idea of opposition and persecution. In Luke 10:17 we read that this original mission of the disciples was successful, and so here Matthew must be referring not to the fate of the disciples but to the fate of the church at the time of the writing of his gospel. The councils are the local Jewish bodies, and apparently punishment was often administered in the synagogue itself. Christians are advised to trust in God and not to prepare elaborate defenses. The details of verses 21-22 suggest an actual persecution, perhaps that of Nero around A.D. 65. This saying is formulated by Christians who believed both that Jesus was the supernatural Son of man, and that he would shortly return.

In Matthew 10:26-33 the church is exhorted to fearlessness in the face of danger and to trust in God, who cares for even the smallest things of earth. Verses 34-39 recognize that the claims of the Gospel may clash with other loyalties. Perhaps such divisions of families were actually taking place in the time of persecution. The basic paradox and secret of the Christian life in verse 39 is given special power in this setting of actual persecution.

In Matthew 10:40-11:1, we move from the setting of the persecution of Christians back to the original context of Jesus' mission charge to the disciples. After some words on how to receive the disciples on their mission, and a commendation of simple acts of helpfulness, the discourse comes to a close.

17. The rejection of Jesus by the Jewish leaders, Matthew 11:2-12:50

After his presentation of the missionary function of the church, Matthew here describes the dramatic story of Jesus' rejection. There are three different sets of controversy here (11:2-19, 12:1-14, 12:22-37), with intervals of serenity intervening (11:25-30, 12:15-21 and 12:46-50).

a. Jesus and the question from John the Baptist, Matthew 11:2-19 and Luke 7:18-35

The first challenge to Jesus comes from John the Baptist. ls there a note of disappointment in his reported question? Had he expected more of the Messiah? He seems to wonder if Jesus is in Ijet the Messiah, for that is what "he who is to come" means. Jesus, in reply, points to what has been done, and Chapters 8 and 9 in Matthew have recorded these signs.

Jesus goes on (Matthew 11:7-19) to describe, to praise, and to identify John as the forerunner of the Messiah. Matthew 11:12-14 is difficult, for it is not clear if the interval between John and Jesus' teaching or between John and the early church is meant. In the first case, the violence would be that of the Jewish revolutionaries who tried to bring the kingdom to pass by force. In the second sense, the men of violence would be the earthly rulers who tried to prevent it. The little picture of verses 16-17 portrays two groups of children, one inviting the other to play-first, a dancing game, second, a weeping game. Both offers were rejected. Are John and Jesus those who offer and the rest of the people those who reject? Verses 18-19 suggest that the ascetic John may be compared to the children's offer of a weeping game, and that the non-ascetic Jesus, eating and drinking, may be compared to the dancing game. Jesus is identifying himself with John (both are being rejected) more than distinguishing himself. It is interesting that this section begins with John wondering whether Jesus should be rejected, and ends with Jesus portraying the world's rejection of both of them.

b. Jesus as revelation of God, Matthew 11:25-30 (Luke 10:21-22)

In verses 20-24, we have an instance of Jesus' rejection of those who are rejecting him, but with verse 25 we turn to quite a different mood. The section can be divided into three parts: verses 25-26, Jesus' thanksgiving to God; verse 27, Jesus declares himself to be the unique Son of God; (these three verses find an exact parallel in Luke 10:21-22); and verses 28-30, an appeal to follow, found only here in Matthew. Because verses 25-27 sound so much like the fourth gospel, considerable critical effort has been spent on a study of them. Some scholars can find no reason for questioning their authenticity as coming from Jesus; some describe them as an early inspired interpretation of Jesus, ascribed to him as defining his true meaning. Some effort must always be made to distinguish between sayings of Jesus before his death and "sayings" of the risen Lord to the church, though we should never be very certain of any distinction. If we believe that this saying is a true one about Jesus'. then there is little to keep us from affirming that he could have easily said it of himself, even though this kind of self-description is rare in the synoptic gospels. To say that the Son alone "knows" the Father is not to say that we are all forced to be agnostics. But it does suggest that we do not know God fully, directly, or adequately. Our "knowing" is by faith, not by vision or touch or sight. And we know even the little that we do because of Jesus Christ, because he does "know" fully. 11:28 refers to those who labor and are heavy laden by the burden of the law which the scribes put upon men. Jesus' own interpretation of the law (Matthew 5-7) and of himself (verses 25-27 above) involves a new yoke but an easy one, in the wearing of which rest and peace are substituted for anxiety and fear. That this great passage should come in the midst of a context of Jesus' rejection by men reminds us how closely his rejection and death are tied to his gift of rest and peace.

c. further examples of the rising opposition to Jesus, Matthew 12:1-50

1. picking grain and healing on the Sabbath, Matthew 12:1-14

These stories may be read as examples of the new and lighter "yoke" described in verse 29 above. The first is from Mark 2:23-28, and is also used by Luke 6:1-5. The second is from Mark 3:1-6 (though you will note that Matthew has removed the reference to Jesus' anger), and Luke's version in 6:6-11 is very close to Matthew. Refer also to Luke 13:10-17 for further material on Jesus and the Sabbath. The issue in all these Sabbath controversies is that of the relation of human need to the law. When the law interferes with human well-being, it is to be broken, and Jesus' uncompromising position prompts the Pharisees to make plans to put him out of the way (Matthew 12:14 and Luke 6:11).

 2. Jesus' withdrawal, Matthew 12:15-21

In spite of the growing hostility, Jesus continues his acts of healing. Matthew briefly summarizes Mark 3:7-12 and adds the interpretative quotation from one of the great servant songs (Isaiah 42:1-4) suggesting both that Jesus' greatness is his humiliation, and the fact that even though rejected by the Pharisees he would be known as the justice and the hope of the Gentiles.

 3. Another healing and another controversy, Matthew 12:22-37 (compare Mark 3:19-30)

Luke's version of this can be found in 11:14-23, 12:10, and 6:43-45. Notice that Matthew and Luke both omit the accusation by Jesus' family and friends that he is mad (Mark 3:21). The inclusion of Jesus' discourse in 12:33-37 is intended by Matthew as a bitter criticism of the Pharisees, who in condemning Jesus have really condemned themselves.

 4. The demand for a sign, Matthew 12:38-42 (Luke 11:29-32)

Since Jesus has claimed to be inspired by the Spirit, some of the Jews ask for a decisive proof of his claim, perhaps a nice unambiguous miracle. But Jesus had already rejected that way in the temptation, so he refuses, saying that the only sign they will have is the sign of Jonah -- the preaching of repentance. This is clearly the meaning of the sign of Jonah in Jesus' mind, but Matthew, like many other Christians since, can think only of the ~whale" when he thinks of Jonah, and so he adds his own interpretation of the sign of Jonah, using the prophet's sojourn in the belly of the great fish as a symbol of the death and resurrection. Luke, note, does not add this flourish. Of course the true sign that is given all Christians is Christ's death and resurrection, and so we must say that Matthew has in a sense rightly interpreted the full meaning of Jesus' words, but in such a way as to make it harder to get at the original sense of the passage.

The citizens of Nineveh, who responded to Jonah's message, and the Queen of Sheba (who sought out Solomon, I Kings 10:1-13) are wiser than the Pharisees, and will be present at the last judgment to condemn them for asking for more evidence than they need.

 5. On exorcism, Matthew 12:43-45 (Luke 11:24-26)

These general remarks on exorcism are located here because the controversy originally began with an act of healing. Some traditional beliefs about demons are included, such as the fact that they do not like waiter. The Jewish nation is compared to the healed man who is in danger of sliding back into something worse than his original state.

6. Jesus' true family, Matthew 12:46-50 (Mark 3:13-15, Luke 8:19-2 1)

The point is seen in Matthew 12:50: Jesus' true family is not necessarily those who are in blood relationship to him (that is, the Jews), but those who obey him. Here in Matthew, it is the disciples who are the true family; in Mark, it is the whole crowd who was listening to him.

* * * * *

The two concluding sections (IV and V) in this guide deal first with some of Luke's characteristic material and, finally, with the close of the ministry as interpreted by both Matthew and Luke. But before we turn to these sections, some very brief notes on the intervening material follow.

1. Matthew 13:1-52 is a long collection of parables, including the parable of the sower (verses 1-9; see Luke 8:4-8) and an interpretation of it (Matthew 13:18-23 and Luke 8:11-15). Between the parable and its interpretation, Jesus tells his disciples why he uses the form of the parable for his teaching (Matthew 13:10-15 and Luke 8:9-10). Is Jesus saying that the purpose of the parables is to confuse and to withhold the truth from the outsider? It may be that the outsiders do not in fact comprehend his message, but are the parables designed to obscure it? The verses from Isaiah 6:9-10 are a key here, and the reader may wish to turn to them in the context of the prophet's message. Luke 8:16-1 8 seems to suggest quite a different interpretation of the parables, from verses 9-10 just before. Mark 4:1-25 is the basis of this section. Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 contains another parable and interpretation, that of the weeds and the wheat. Note the realistic conception of judgment and evil here and how 13:39-40 suggests that good and evil will grow together in history until the end of time. No inevitable historical progress in Jesus' teaching!

2. Matthew 14:1-12 (and more briefly Luke 9:7-9) records the death of John the Baptist and the return of the disciples from their mission. Matthew and Luke both include the feeding of the 5,000 (14:13-21 and 9:10-17; compare Mark 6:30-44), but Matthew alone follows Mark in including the second feeding of the 4,000 (15:32-39; compare Mark 8:1-10). The second story is sometimes referred to as a "doublet"; not a second incident, but a variant account of the earlier feeding. Matthew may have discerned a symbolic meaning to the two events: the first is on Jewish soil, and twelve baskets of food are left over (symbolic number?). The second is on Gentile soil, and the adequacy of Jesus' message to both Jew and Gentile may be the point here. It is hard to see why the disciples would have asked the question in Matthew 15:33 if a similar miracle had taken place shortly before. Matthew and Luke treat these stories as miracles, to be sure; but there is a meaning in them beyond their form. Notice Matthew 14:19, Luke 9:16, and Matthew 15:36. The action of blessing, breaking, and giving thanks reminds us of the last supper, and Matthew and Luke clearly invite us to look beyond the miracle to its meaning; that Jesus Christ is fully adequate to all human need. Not even the disciples fully grasp this meaning in Matthew 16:5-12.

Matthew inserts an important bloc of material on defilement between the two feeding stories, 15:1-20, 15:11 is the key to the passage, and it is both a decisive blow against the external legalism of the Pharisees and an important passage for the field of Christian personal ethics.

3. Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is a moment of decisive importance (Matthew 16:13-23 and Luke 9:18-22; compare Mark 8:27-33). Peter brings out what many of the disciple must have been thinking, but what had not been openly stated. In Matthew, Jesus reminds Peter that his insight is not human achievement, but a gift of God. Matthew 16:18-19 ha been the source of much controversy, of course, for it is on of the bases of the claim of the Roman Catholic tradition the their ministry goes directly back to Peter. At times, some Protestant critics have denied that these are actual words of Jesus, though the tendency today is to see them as genuine. But who is the "rock" on which Jesus will build? Is it Peter himself, or it Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah? There is no reason why Protestants should not say that Peter himself is the "rock." The church is in existence whenever sinful men declare Jesus' true meaning. The keys are apparently the power of forgiveness, and surely forgiveness is one of the chief functions of the Christian church as a whole, Protestant or Roman Catholic. But Jesus goes on to describe his coming suffering, and in Matthew (though not in Luke) Peter refuses to believe the Messiah must suffer, and he is crushingly rebuked as "Satan" by Jesus. And so, in one way, Peter hasn't really seen Jesus' meaning at all. The real center of this passage is perhaps not so much Peter, but the new and as yet misunderstood truth that the Messiah must suffer and die. The disciples will not really see this until after the resurrection.

4. Like the Messiah, the disciples too must expect suffering. Three conditions for discipleship are set forth (Matthew 16:24-28 and Luke 9:23-27; compare Mark 8:34-9:1). The first is self-denial, the second is taking up the cross, and the third is following Jesus. These three conditions are really one, and together they mean radical obedience to Jesus Christ, the Messiah who is about to suffer and die.

Notice Matthew 1 6:28 and Luke 9:27 (compare Mark 9:1). What event is being referred to? The resurrection of Christ; Pentecost; or perhaps, in Matthew, some kind of "coming" of the Son of man that Jesus expected but that did not occur? Does Jesus refer to himself or to another in Matthew 16:28? See page 57 for Luke's treatment of the Son of man.

5. The transfiguration will repay careful study, and again we must carefully distinguish two questions:

What actually happened? What is the meaning? (Matthew 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36; compare Mark 9:2-8). Some have called this an historical event in which the true glory of Christ is revealed to the disciples. Some have called it a subjective vision, some a mere legend, some a resurrection-appearance, here out of place. We cannot escape the kind of question that we as modern men and women put to material like this; and "did it happen?" is an appropriate thing to ask, even if this question would not have been wholly intelligible to Matthew or Luke. But beyond this, what event is being portrayed in the experience of the disciples? There are some touches that remind us of the baptism of Jesus, the voice from heaven for example; and it may be that this event is designed as a counterpart to the baptism in the minds of the disciples. Jesus knew who he was at baptism; his meaning was hriefly glimpsed when Peter made his confession; now, the meaning is even more openly declared. As with Peter's confession, there is an emphasis on Peter's misunderstanding. He wants Moses (the law), Elijah (the prophets), and Jesus on the same level; Luke apologizes for Peter's foolishness (verse 33), and the voice from heaven corrects Peter's implied view of the relation of Christ to the Old Testament. Here, as at the baptism, and at Peter's confession, something is seen, and something is withheld, about the meaning of Christ. It is by no means clear that the disciples discerned the meaning of this event.

Following this in Matthew and Luke is the healing of the epileptic boy (Matthew 17:14-21 and Luke 9:37-43); and a second prediction of his death by Jesus (17:22-23 and 9:43-45). There follows a strange saying about the temple tax in Matthew (17:24-27); an argument about true greatness (Matthew 18:1-5 and Luke 9:46-48); and some teaching material in Matthew, 18:6-35, concluding, in verses 23-35, with the superb parable of the unforgiving servant, a vivid and impressive study of the relation of human and divine forgiveness.

This brings us to the place in Luke where he introduces his special selection of material, and to this we now turn. Immediately after the incidents above, Matthew turns to the Passion narrative of Jesus' final days, and this we shall pick up in our final section V.

1. Prologue, 1:1-4

Introductions like this one are very common in writings of this tune, and this ought to be taken as introducing both this gospel and the book of the Acts. If Theophilus was a Gentile intellectual who had heard of Christianity, but who was not yet convinced, some of Luke's special emphases have a special relevance. The questions that such a man might ask are just the questions that concern Luke: Why did the Jews reject Jesus? If Judaism is discredited, why not Christianity as well?

2. The birth stories, 1:5-2:40, with a brief story about Jesus at the age of twelve, 2:41-52

If Theophilus was struggling between faith and doubt, the tension between faith and doubt in this section becomes especially interesting. Note the doubt of Zechariah in 1:18 and of Mary in 1:34. Already Luke creates an atmosphere of mystery: just who is this child?

a. the annunciation to Mary, 1:26-38

Notice that the miraculous character of the birth is directly stressed only in verse 34; apart from this the angel could be referring to a child born in the normal way. Belief in the miraculous conception (virgin birth as it is usually called) is derived from this story, and from Matthew 1:18-25 (see page 18). We have already noted the relevant factors in a decision on this matter. Luke clearly affirms it here, though he has not shaped all of his material consistently with that belief. (See Luke 2:48, and the genealogy which traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph.) It is important to point out that the belief was used in the early church as a way of affirming Jesus' full humanity; "born of a virgin" in the Apostles' Creed has the force of "really born of a woman," in opposition to heretics who denied that Jesus was truly human. The belief is defended on other theological grounds today: that it points to the fact that God's gift of himself to man is wholly grace, without human initiative. This of course is deeply true, whether one uses the story to emphasize it or not.

 b. Mary visits Elizabeth, 1:39-56

Hearing of Elizabeth's similar good fortune, Mary journeys to visit her. In Luke 1:41-42, Elizabeth's unborn son is said to be aware of the reality of the unborn Messiah, and this awareness is transferred to Elizabeth herself. Mary's "Magnificat," beginning with verse 46, is a hymn, probably used in the early church, praising the mighty acts of God. It has been called the most revolutionary document in the world. It certainly must be cited to those who are sure that all religion is an opiate for the people.

 c. the birth of John the Baptist, 1:57-SO

Any birth, but especially the birth of a son, was an occasion for great rejoicing. The name is given, and Zechariah is released from his punishment (1:20). His song, known as the "Benedictus," is a hymn of praise to God for the birth of his son, the forerunner of the Messiah and the new age of forgiveness and peace. This hymn seems partly Luke's own composition, partly the reflection of many Old Testament passages.

 d. Jesus' birth, 2:1-20

Matthew had assumed that Joseph and Mary had their regular residence in Bethlehem. Luke locates their home in Nazareth, but brings them to Bethlehem, a journey of eighty miles, for the census. The question, however, of the actual birthplace of Jesus is historically interesting, but has no religious significance.

Luke tries to date the event with precision. Caesar Augustus ruled from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. We know that beginning in A.D. 20, censuses (for the purposes of levying taxes and registration for military service, in general; but the Jews were exempt from military service, and so we can assume that the former purpose alone applies here) were held every fourteen years until about A.D. 270. Therefore, if the fourteen-year cycle was in operation at this time, we can estimate the date of Jesus' birth to be about 8 B.C. There is one problem to this date; Quirinius did not become the actual governor of Syria until A.D. 6, but we do know that he held an official post in the area between 10 and 7 b.c., and so the date of 8 b.c. can perhaps stand.

"Betrothed" in Luke 2:5 may originally have read "wife," and have been later altered to fit in with 1:27. A manger is a place where animals feed, and it can mean either the barn itself or the actual feeding trough.

The narrative of the shepherds is full of interest. That sheep were grazing gives us the only clue we have for the actual season of the birth. In the third century, some parts of the church celebrated Christmas on January 6, but during the following century the date was settled on December 25, the traditional date of a pagan festival of rebirth. But sheep were kept in the field between the months of April and November, and apart from this we re~ly have very little evidence on which to base an accurate dating. Shepherds were ordinarily outside the Jewish law, and considered quite an unrespectable class.

The heavenly hosts arc the angels surrounding the throne of God. This entire section should indeed be treasured, but as the poetry, not the prose, of faith. If the birth was actually accompanied by such supernatural signs, it would be difficult to explain the later skepticism toward Jesus on the part of his family (see Mark 3:21, 31-32. and Luke 2:50).

 e. Circumcision and presentation in the temple, 2:21-40

Two separate Jewish rites are described, though not carefully distinguished: the circumcision of the infant and the purification of the mother. This whole passage stresses the intimate connection between Judaism and Christianity. "The consolation of Israel" in Luke 2:25 refers to fullfilment of the messianic hopes. Note the surprise of the parents at Simeon's prediction. This suggests that this material comes from a tradition that did not know either the virgin birth or the angel's announcement. Or, perhaps, the surprise may be that the Messiah is to save all people, Gentile and Jew.

f. Jesus at the age of twelve, 2:41-52

Luke's concern in this familiar story may be to stress Jesus' early interest in religious questions. But the real clue lies in verses 49-51, where a tension between his obedience to his (heavenly) Father and his parents is suggested. Jesus' response to his parents is not fully understood by them, but he obeys, and returns home. With this passage a basic tension in the entire gospel is set up: that between Sonship and suffering. Jesus here is both the son of his parents, and God's unique Son. Luke is more interested in this theological tension than in the details of the boyhood, and this is perhaps the reason that this is the only material we have on Jesus' youth.

Matthew and Luke are treated together as a single story. In so doing, some sacrifice of completeness has been made, but by this means the reader will be able to understand that both these writers have a single purpose: to declare the meaning and content of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This section includes a number of references to Mark's gospel, and though it is not necessary that a study of Mark be made prior to this study, the reader may want at another time to look carefully at Mark, for both Matthew and Luke depend heavily on it.

Mark was the earliest gospel; it appeared sometime between AD. 65 and 70. Shortly after, two new gospels appeared: Luke, probably written for the church in Rome in the 80's or 90's; and Matthew, written in Syria, perhaps Antioch, between 90 and 100.

As you go through Matthew and Luke, you can see that they both make ample use of Mark. Long passages are taken over almost verbatim, others are used only slightly revised, and Mark's order is usually followed. Matthew and Luke, however, have access to a collection of Jesus' teachings not found in Mark. This collection is called the "Q" source. And, in addition, Matthew and Luke each has a body of material which the author of the gospel has collected himself, used only by him, called respectively "M" and "L" by scholars. If you imagine Matthew or Luke sitting down to compile his gospel, he will have Mark before him; he will be using a document or collection of early church notes on Jesus' teaching; and he will have his own independently collected source.

Luke's gospel is the first volume of a two-volume work (Acts being the second) addressed to a certain Roman official named Theophilus (Luke 1:3). He may have been a pagan interested in Christianity for its own sake; or be may have been an official involved in the persecutions of the Christians. We can be fairly certain that the author was the Luke mentioned by Paul as a physician and as one of his early associates (Colossians 4:14, Philernon 24).

There are some special characteristics that distinguish Luke. He is anxious to prove that Christianity is not dangerous to the state, and he shows this by proving that Christianity is the true successor to the synagogue, deserving of the protection that the Romans offered to Judaism. Luke stresses the universal claims of Christianity, its absence of racial limitations. In the life of Jesus, he underlines a number of things that Mark merely notes: the importance of prayer in Jesus' life; the proper use of wealth; sympathy for the poor. Luke, like Matthew, takes Mark as a basis. He adds extra material on Jesus' birth and resurrection, and he includes far more material on Jesus' teaching ministry. He is the most skillful writer among the authors of the synoptics, and the most responsible historian of the three.

It is generally agreed that the author of the Gospel according to Matthew is not the Matthew who was the disciple of Jesus. It would be hard to understand why a disciple and an eyewitness would be so dependent on Mark, who was not an eyewitness.

The one fact that is important to notice about Matthew's gospel is its strong emphasis on Christianity as a new law. Matthew seems directed to Jews or to recently converted ex-Jews, showing them that Christianity is the true fulfillment of the Jewish religion. Matthew again and again points out places in the New Testament story that can be seen as fulfillments of the Old Testament. The Sermon on the Mount begins with the beatitudes, and we recall the earlier ten commandments, also delivered from a mountain. The division of Matthew into five sections, each beginning with a distinctive discourse of Jesus, suggests a new version of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.

But this attempt to relate Christianity to the old law had very practical value. There is evidence that the Christian freedom that Paul had defended was beginning to degenerate into lawlessness and complacency. Jewish persecution of the Christians had begun alongside the Roman, and everything pointed to the need to see the new covenant as a fulfillment of the old, to stress the new righteousness as not less but more demanding than the old. So in Matthew w can see the struggling church beginning to live its life of discipline and danger in a hostile world. To Mark's message of a new Gospel of salvation, Matthew adds the further emphases on the new law and the new community of believers.

Let us now turn to the contents of the two gospels. The events they describe are claimed by Christians to be not only human occurrences, but also, taken together, a single drama that is God's gift of salvation to man. But we dare not claim that they mean this to us until we have observed, as carefully as we can, what they meant to the participants and to the authors.

The purpose of this "Modern Reader's Guide to the Gospels" is simple: to enable the reader to understand intelligently four basic Christian documents. I am convinced that lay groups in the churches and students on the campuses are beginning to realize that careful Bible study is one form of Christian obedience that must not be avoided. This guide is meant to be a contribution to that study, without which Protestantism, cannot effectively live, think, or act.

By itself, this volume would be useless and unintelligible. The reader will need copies of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These can be found in most homes and bookstores. Even more helpful would be a copy of Gospel Parallels, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons. Part One, combining the gospels of Matthew and Luke, has a slightly different form and function from Parts Two and Three, dealing with Mark and with John, because the writers of Matthew and Luke have a single purpose. Full coverage of all the material in these two gospels could not be achieved, but the major sections are dealt with, the material is arranged in a roughly chronological way, and the reader will be able to discover what the authors of these gospels were attempting to do as they presented their witness.

There are many useful and even sprightly books about the Bible on the market today. Their function is in general to make us feel that we ought to read the Bible and that we might find it enjoyable. The Bible, however, still presents some problems to the modern reader as he faces the actual text, and so this book tries to meet those problems for the person -- alone or in a group --who is willing to sit before the material and allow it to speak to him.

There is little that is original in the content of this guide. J have drawn heavily on the work of experts in the field of biblical studies: William Manson, G. F. P. Cox, Sherman Johnson, S. MacLean Gilmour and some others, in the guide to Matthew and Luke; Frederick C. Grant, A. M. Hunter, C. H. Dodd, Vincent Taylor, and some others, in the guide to Mark; and W. F. Howard, C. K. Barrett, William Temple, Sir Edwyn Hoskyns, and some others, in the guide to John. In one sense, the work of the author has been little more than that of an editor, but the form may be slightly more original. This is neither a study guide such as the student movement sometimes uses nor a commentary such as scholars hope that Christian ministers use. it is something in between --fuller and more technical than the first, less technical and more practical than the second-and therefore of more value, I hope, for the layman.

For those who prefer it, this one volume guide to the gospels is also available as three separate, soft-covered Reflection Books: The Modern Reader's Guide to Matthew and Luke, The Modern Reader's Guide to Mark, and The Modern Reader's Guide to John.

The citations and references to the Bible herein are from the Revised Standard Version of The Holy Bible.

From the Sermon on the Mount read Matthew 7:24-29. For the parallel passage see Luke 6:47-49. To follow up the theme look at I Corinthians 3:10-15.

On Daniel Webster’s tomb in Marshfield, Massachusetts, is the epitaph which the famous statesman dictated the day before his death:

"Philosophical argument . . . has sometimes shaken my reason for the faith which is in me; but my heart has always assured and reassured me that the gospel of Jesus Christ must be Divine Reality. The Sermon on the Mount cannot be a mere human production. This belief enters into the very depth of my conscience. The whole history of man proves it."

According to Matthew, those who first heard Jesus had a similar reaction. Without benefit of all the centuries of history that Webster looked at, they sensed something amazing. "The crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes."

 A New Authority

Even on the surface the note of authority was obvious. Jesus' listeners were acquainted with two kinds of appeal to authority in their tradition. First, they knew the scribes, who started from the authority of the Mosaic Law, then expounded it. Second, they knew the inspired prophets, who started with the ringing declaration, "Thus says the Lord." But Jesus did neither. We have seen how he introduced startling statements with the words, "but I say to you." We have seen how be looked ahead to the day of judgment when some will hear him say, "I never knew you." No wonder people said he spoke with authority.

There had been other clues along the way. At the synagogue in Capernaum people were astonished, "for he taught them as one who had authority." Immediately afterwards, when he healed a sick man, spectators marveled that he had authority even over unclean spirits. (See Mark 1:22, 27 and Luke 4:32, 36.) Still more amazing -- some thought it blasphemous -- was his assumption of authority to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2-8).

All these signs led to the recognition on a deeper level that there was some mysterious power and authority in Jesus himself. But, before we can understand that, we need to consider what we mean by authority.

Three Kinds of Authority

1. Often when we speak of authority we mean some pronouncement that settles an issue for us. This authority is external. The parent decides some issues for the child -- wisely, we hope, but whether wisely or not, the decision is made. Congress decides the rates for income taxes; we citizens have some influence on the decision, but whether we like it or not, we acknowledge its authority. Such external authorities can change their minds. When they do, we are bound by the new decision rather than the old.

Such authority may exist in religion. The Pharisees accepted the authority of a code of laws and its official interpretation. Our Roman Catholic friends accept the authority of the pope. When he changes his mind, as he has often done, they change accordingly -- whether it be a question of belief or of the rules for fasting. Although they may voluntarily accept the authority, it is external to themselves.

2. Sometimes people who chafe under authority rebel and say: "I am tired of having someone decide things for me. I reject authority. From now on, I'll make my own decisions. I recognize no authority except myself." Usually this kind of protest is quite impractical, but it may give one a tremendous feeling of exhilaration, at least temporarily.

Unfortunately, people often seem to think there are only these two kinds of authority. They think: Either I am the master of my soul, or I am the slave of someone else. Either I am my own authority, or I submit to some external authority.

But there is a third kind of authority.

3. Truth is an authority that no one can long defy. It is superior to any individual; yet it is not external to us. It is imbedded in ourselves and our universe. It does not change its mind and then require us to change accordingly. Unless we are hopelessly adolescent rebels, we know we must come to terms with truth.

God is that kind of authority. Because he made us in his image, something of his truth is part of our inmost beings. When we defy him, we defy our truest selves. When we respond to his Word, we say: "This is no alien voice, no external commander ordering me around. Nor is it any mere whim of my own. This is no ruler who may change his mind tomorrow. This is my Creator. He calls me to be true to that self which he made and filled with the breath of life, not to this twisted self that is torn by conflicting loyalties and warped understanding. This is the authority of the Physician who can heal, the Savior who can redeem, the Creator who can even now give new life."

That is why Christian faith has always said we are most truly ourselves, not when we boast of our independence but when we love; not when we command but when we serve; not when we buck the truth but when we freely accept what is given.

That is why we recognize that Christ speaks with authority.

The Sermon and the Christian Gospel

The authority of the Sermon on the Mount is like the authority of the rock foundation in that final striking parable. In the debris of history are countless crumbled buildings, shattered when their sand foundations washed away. This rock foundation endures. It is the Rock of Ages, the Rock of Eternity.

But the truth of the Sermon is not just abstract truth, locked in sentences which we tediously translate and study. You can lose or misunderstand a sentence here or there, and the truth remains. For it is the truth of the living Spirit who gave us the sentences, the truth of the God who acted through this man teaching on the mount for our salvation.

Martin Dibelius points out that many of the sentences of Jesus have parallels in the sayings of Jewish literature. Yet the rabbinic statements won no authority outside Judaism. Why did the Sermon on the Mount inspire such universal acclaim? Because it was Jesus who proclaimed these sayings.

Occasionally you may have heard the curious idea that the Sermon on the Mount is a simple moral message, which has nothing to do with the rest of the church's teaching about Jesus. Someone says: "I don't believe all this theology, but I believe in the simple teachings of Jesus."

But you cannot say that, if you know what is in the Sermon on the Mount. A vast, profound theology is there. There is the promise of God's kingdom, the assurance that maii eaii trust God, the warning that we are evil, an ethic so searching thatit convicts us of sin and sends us helplessly searching for life, the prayer for forgiveness, the confidence that a merciful God will forgive, the warning that life stands under divine judgment and that the voice that speaks the sermon will be the voice heard at the judgment. All this is in the Sermon.

Still the Sermon is not the entire Christian gospel. It makes us ready to hear the gospel. As Archibald Hunter says, "If God means that, in order to be saved, we must completely fulfill all these demands, then we are all doomed to be damned." (A Pattern for Life by Archibald Hunter, p. 102 The Westminster Press, 1953. Used by permission.) But the gospel goes on to tell us that this Jesus, who gave us the Sermon, was crucified, that in his very crucifixion he forgave his murderers, that his forgiveness was the forgiveness of God for humankind. It goes on to say that God raised from the dead this Jesus, the Lord and Savior of all who trust him.

That is the only reason we have the Sermon on the Mount. Otherwise it would have been lost long ago. But the early Christians were convinced that in this Jesus, the eternal God had entered into human life for the salvation of men. This "gospel" -- the word, you remember, means "good news" -- was the most tremendous thing in their lives. So they collected and treasured the words which Jesus spoke when he was on earth, passed them on to newcomers in their fellowship, and wrote them down in the "Gospels" that are now part of our New Testament. These were the sayings of their Lord who reigned in heaven, the Savior who had bestowed upon them the Holy Spirit, who had promised and brought into their midst the revolutionary power of the kingdom of God.

Building on Rock

The Sermon on the Mount ends with the parable of the two houses. "How terrifyingly it is driven home!" said Augustine. Look at some of the phrases. "These words of mine" -- there's the note of authority we have seen. Everyone who "does them" and who "does not do them" -- that is absolutely clear and leaves us no out. Then the two men -- one building on rock, the other on sand. The listeners perhaps thought of the desert wadies, streams that are dry most of the year. The smooth sand might seem an inviting place to build, and in calm days the house would seem secure. But then come rain, flood, and wind -- like the struggles which come into every life. One house stands; the other falls.

It's clear, but still puzzling. Can we really build a life upon this foundation that Christ offers? We have seen in our study many ways of dodging the issue. Let them pass in review. One method is to reduce the whole thing to some practical version of the Golden Rule, or to identify it with the common goals of Americanism. That can be done only in ignorance or dishonesty. The opposite method is to make it all an ideal, not quite practical but lovely to aspire to. That is certainly not making it the foundation rock. In between these two are the many variations on them. Some say this kind of life is possible within a Christian community, but not among outsiders. Some reserve many of Jesus' "counsels" for the lives of a few saints, and frankly settle for a good deal less everywhere else.

Jesus does not allow these evasions. True, he is proclaiming the kingdom of God in all its holiness and purity. We can say in complete truthfulness that the kingdoms of this world are still far, far from the kingdom of God. And we must live in the kingdoms of this world. But Jesus calls on us to seek God's kingdom. So what shall we do with this disturbing preacher?

One qualification we have discussed. Jesus was not legislating for any conceivable civil government. If in democratic citizenship we take responsibility for government, we cannot rush the Sermon on the Mount through Congress. Governments provide for laws, courts, powers of enforcement, the maintenance of objective norms of overt actions -- things which the Sermon on the Mount dismisses. Yet even in this area of government we cannot ignore Jesus.

"You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them," said Bismarck. Coercion and armies do things -- we cannot escape it. But they are not the rock foundation on which a house can sit through wind and flood.

What, then, of our personal lives -- insofar as we can distinguish them from political life? No one has such trust in God, such disdain for mammon, such courage and faithfulness that he can claim to have built on rock. Much of what we have built -- what every one of us has built -- is doomed to crash. Many of our dearest accomplishments are destined for destruction "on that day" of which Jesus speaks.

If we recognize that, the Sermon has done something for us. "It plants a seed of permanent dissatisfaction in the soul," (The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VII, p.155. Abingdon Press, 1951) says Amos Wilder. It sends us to the Father, with whom there is forgiveness.

But that forgiveness, if sincerely received, is no idle escape batch. It is the source of the trust and confidence which alone can -- with some reality in every Christian life-bring alive in humanity the spirit that Jesus demands and imparts.

"Thy kingdom come," the Sermon teaches us to pray. That kingdom comes with storm and destruction to our works of proud ambition. It comes with healing mercy to the merciful who trust in God and long for the "blessedness" that he offers.

A fitting conclusion for a study of the Sermon on the Mount is a prayer from the Book of Common Order:

Give ear, 0 Lord, unto our prayer, and attend to the voice of our supplication.

Make us poor in spirit: that ours may be the kingdom of heaven.

Make us to mourn for sin: that we may be comforted by thy grace.

Make us to hunger and thirst after righteousness: that we may be filled therewith.

Make us merciful: that we may obtain mercy.

Make us pure in heart: that we may see thee.

Make us peacemakers: that we may be called thy children.

Make us willing to be persecuted for righteousness' sake: that our reward may be great in heaven. Amen.

From the Sermon on the Mount read Matthew 7:21-23. For the parallel passages see Luke 6:46; 13:25-30. To follow up the theme look at Matthew 12:46-50; 21:28-31; 25:31-46.

The world has tried to get rid of Jesus in two ways, Someone has said. The first was to crucify him. That failed. The risen Lord could win more people than the man of Nazareth. The second way was to worship him. That has almost worked.

But how can it almost work? How can people get rid of him by worshiping him? Will not every thought of Jesus, every bit of devotion toward him, draw us closer to him?

No. Not necessarily. The ways of the human personality are subtle and devious. The mind knows a thousand tricks to dodge an issue.

It takes a certain amount of bravado to stand up and defy God. That is occasionally done, usually by people trying to attract attention. But the more common device, which takes no nerve at all, is to adapt God to our petty thoughts and desires. We can do this without ever letting on to our closest friends or to ourselves that we are doing it.

Hence that disturbing Dane, Soren Kierkegaard, could say: "The Christianity of the New Testament simply does not exist." Instead, millions of people through the centuries have cunningly "sought little by little to cheat God out of Christianity, and have succeeded in making Christianity exactly the opposite of what it is in the New Testament." (Attack upon Christendom by Soren Kierkegaard, translated by Walter Lowrie, pp. 32-33. Princeton University Press, 1944. Used by permission.)

Does Kierkegaard exaggerate? Certainly we hope so. But as we have studied the Sermon on the Mount, we must frequently have had an uneasy feeling that led us to a judgment something like Kierkegaard's.

The Problem in the New Testament

The process started early. In the short ministry of Jesus it got under way. With his typical directness -- some would call it tactlessness -- he met it head on.

Look at the record in the Bible. There, in the next to last paragraph of the Sermon on the Mount, is the unmistakable warning: It is not enough to say, "Lord, Lord." The need is to do the will of the heavenly Father. Luke's version is still more direct and poignant than Matthew's: "Why do you call me Lord and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

The next two sentences (in Matthew) carry us in imagination to the Day of Judgment. (Compare them with the more detailed parable of judgment in Matthew 25:31-46.) Once again we see that the Sermon on the Mount is not merely moral advice. It is the Good News of God's kingdom for those who accept it, and the fateful news of doom for those who reject it. We see the vivid picture of despairing, painful response from Jesus, "I never knew you," and the command (quoted from Psalm 6:8), "Depart from me, all you workers of evil."

The words are still alive today. We think of the Easter throngs crowding the churches to sing, "Christ the Lord is ris'n today" -- many of them there merely because church is the place prescribed by American folkways for the display of spring finery. We think of ornate church buildings where people go to forget their troubles -- and to hear sermons which never remind them of the slums in the shadow of the sanctuary. We think of uneasy folk engaged in the "return to religion" because they yearn for "peace of mind" -- never realizing that Jesus grants peace only to those who follow him along the path of lowly service. As vividly as did Jesus himself, we hear the words, "Lord, Lord," and see the refusal to do the will of God. We too are guilty.

The Perils of Worship

The life without reverence is barren and insensitive. And worship is the proper expression of reverence. The Sermon on the Mount leads to adoration, thanksgiving, and prayer as truly as it leads to acts of service. But there are perils in worship.

Some of the worship that goes on in our churches is merely lip service, talk takes the place of activity. True worship is the expression of the reverence of a human personality for his Lord and Creator. Reverence makes us eager to serve and obey. But false worship and lip service can be worse then open defiance.

The story is told of Mark Twain's encounter with a man who managed to combine the appearances of piety with a predatory career in business. "Before I die," said the hypocrite, "I mean to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I will climb to the top of Mount Sinai and read the Ten Commandments aloud." "I have a better idea," answered Mark Twain. "Why don't you stay right at home in Boston and keep them?"

After the warmth of the worship that says, "Lord, Lord," there is a chill in the words, "Do what I say." But if we do not meet the chill, the warmth is not the warmth of life. Bishop Gore ended his book, The Sermon on the Mount, by saying: "Many will come to him in that day with a record of their orthodoxy and of their observances, of their brilliant successes in his professed service; but he will protest unto them, 'I never knew you.' He 'knows' no man in whom he cannot recognize his own likeness." (The Sermon on the Mount by Charles Gore, p. 188. John Murray Ltd., London)

His own likeness? If we understand the Sermon on the Mount, we will never claim that. But if it sinks in, it does begin to remake us.

 Doing God's Will: Evangelism

What happens when we take seriously the Christian opportunity and responsibility to do the will of God and the things that Jesus taught? Probably it means more than we usually think. God asks of us a whole life. He is not satisfied with a few externals that do not touch the heart. Nor does he want some religious emotionalism that generates no activity.

This seems obvious. Yet church people misunderstand it every day. To accept the Sermon on the Mount will require some changes in several areas of our Christian living.

One of these areas is evangelism. The word is what the experts call a "loaded" word. It carries an emotional load beyond its literal meaning; it obscures our thinking because we respond favorably or unfavorably to its sound, before we think what it means.

Two common meanings of the word are mistaken. (1) Some church literature gives the impression that evangelism is identical with increasing the number of names on the church rolls. This meaning is obviously too shallow. Of course, the follower of Christ belongs in the fellowship of followers. But, as Jesus keeps insisting, you can take part in the organization and never really meet God. Perhaps the biggest evangelistic job today is within the churches.

(2) Some people think of evangelism as a campaign that stirs up an emotional turmoil and produces a dramatic experience of being "saved." Let's not deny that some people can come to God in that way. But such an experience may leave a person as far as his pagan neighbors from the Sermon on the Mount. In some religion, as Phillips Brooks said, the boiler has no connection with the engine. The words, "Lord, Lord," are there. The service of God throughout the whole of life is absent.

When we understand what evangelism is, we recognize it as the responsibility of every Christian. Evangelism is the carrying of the gospel to men. It is no job to be left to the professionals. It is one of the things Jesus bade us do. If we say, "Lord, Lord," but do nothing to help others find his gift and know his will, we may expect to hear that he does not know us.

Stewardship and Vocation

If we do the things Jesus tells us, we make all of life a part of his service. We recognize ourselves as God's stewards. Life and all its benefits are God's gifts, entrusted to us for a time. In the earning of our daily bread we are conscious of a calling to serve our fellowmen. In the use of our abilities and our wealth, we can honor God and do his will. The purpose of life becomes, in the phrase of the Calvinists, "to glorify God and enjoy him forever."

Yet how seldom does it occur, even to faithful churchmen, to consider the new job offer, with its increased salary, in terms of religious opportunities? And how seldom do we think of spending or investing our incomes -- apart from the fraction given to worthy causes -- in terms of serving God?

A paper published by a religious agency in the Philippine Islands justifies gambling with the argument that "we are entitled to set aside a fair share of our money for entertainment, and if we think it is all right to spend that money on gambling, God doesn't care." Note how the argument avoids the whole issue of stewardship. But no more so than the common statement we often hear, "I earned the money, and I'm entitled to spend it as I please." The man who says that, though he might be a tither, is not a steward. Not that religion leaves no place for enjoyment. We can enjoy our work, our worship, our recreation. What we cannot do is divide life into segments, saying "Lord, Lord," in some activities and assuming that "God doesn't care" about the rest.

The Life of the Nations

We have seen that the Sermon on the Mount gives no direct advice about the activities of government. But we have seen, too, that it gives us no right to divide life between "religious" and "secular" spheres, saying "Lord, Lord" in one, and going our sinful way undisturbed in the other.

Therefore we cannot help asking why centuries of Christian worship have not made more difference in the life of the nations. The bitter but deeply troubled Thomas Hardy once wrote:

"Peace upon earth!" was said, We sing it,

And pay a million priests to bring it.

After two thousand years of mass

We've got as far as poison-gas.

(From "Christmas: 1924" in Winter Words in Various Moods and Metres. The Macmillan Co., 1929. Used by permission.)

The history of the twentieth century is a bitter one for us to acknowledge. It embarrasses our missionaries when the so-called heathen nations ask about the behavior of the so-called Christian nations. Granted, plenty of the misery of this century has been the work of men who were defiantly anti-Christian. But much of it came from men who worshiped but did not obey.

The sessions of the United States Congress regularly open with prayer. No doubt there would be protests if the chaplains ceased to say, "Lord, Lord." But there might be real cries of pain if the prayers made a difference in the national life. Powerful lobbies would interfere with the public interest less often. Nationalism would give way before the needs of this one world.

But this, say some, is politics and economics, not religion. As though Jesus had said, "Do the will of my Father -- except in some areas of life." What is left for religion, says Lewis Mumford, if political and economic life are unaffected?" Little more than a brief code for mating, a ceremonial for marriage, chicken broth and visitation for the ill, and a few seemly words and gestures at the burial service." (Faith For Living by Lewis Mumford, p. 152, Harcourt, Brace & World, In., 1940, Used by permission) What is left? Mainly the chance to say, "Lord, Lord."