NTiR: Luke makes Acts bearable (Acts 1-4)

Bible and magnifying glass With the completion of the Gospel of John, all four canonical Gospels are now in the can. We can now move on to fresh material. I have to say that I am not quite looking forward to the Acts of the Apostles (from here on in referred to as Acts). I remember Acts as the book that subverted Christianity. It pulled people away from the core teachings of Christ and towards what the Apostles wanted to teach. The authority for this apparently comes from Jesus saying that he was granting his disciples the Holy Spirit, and the ability to bind things on earth and heaven. I can understand why people would follow this. The question is, when you have to choose between what Jesus said and what the Apostles said, which do you choose? To me, that seems pretty straight-forward.

But I am not a bible scholar. Nor am I a believer. Nor do I really remember a lot of Acts. In the end, I might be either remembering falsehoods or not remembering Acts at all. There’s only one way to find out. On to:

The Acts Of the Apostles

Chapter 1
Hey! Hey now! Within the first sentence of the first chapter of Acts, I am suddenly filled with great joy and hope! Why? “In my first book, Theophilus…” I remember that Theophilus is someone who is lost to history, but I also remember who wrote the first book for Theophilus: LUKE! The man who wrote the most wondrous of the Gospels and one of the most magnificent books in the Bible (rivaled only by Ecclesiastes). Why didn’t I know that Luke wrote Acts? I don’t know how that escaped my attention. Of course, I only realized just how amazing Luke’s Gospel is earlier this month. So even if I had known Luke was the author, there would’ve been no attachment to make.

No matter how you slice it, though, this is a wonderful surprise!

Luke starts out by wrapping up the story of Jesus. Jesus has been back from the dead for 40 days now, and has been teaching his disciples what to do as they move forward without him. Jesus forbade the disciples to leave Jerusalem, but instead to wait for the Holy Spirit to descend upon them. Jesus then ascends into heaven in a cloud. This whole section of Acts corresponds perfectly with Luke’s tale of Jesus’s ascension in Luke 24:48-51.

The disciples rent a room in Jerusalem to await as Jesus instructed them. Luke is nice enough to give the name of the Eleven: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James, Simon the Zealot, and Judas (not Iscariot). Jesus’s mother and brothers are there, as well as “other women.”

More people gather as time goes on. There are about 120 people present at this point. THE disciples are a man short, though: apparently The Eleven felt strongly that they should be The Twelve. So they nominate two men from among the 120 or so, and draw lots. Matthias is our big winner, and is officially part of The Twelve.

One other thing that I must note from Chapter One is the final fate of Judas Iscariot: “Now this man bought a field with the money he got for his crime. Falling on his face, he burst open in the middle, and all his intestines gushed out.” EWWWW!!!!

Chapter 2
In one of my previous entries, I mentioned that I went to a psycho church back in the day. Psycho is a little harsh, true, but I just like the sound of that. 🙂 It was a Pentecostal church, which is very relevant here. A huge part of Pentecostal church doctrine is anchored in Acts 2. The Holy Spirit descends on the disciples, and suddenly the Disciples start to speak in other tongues. People from nations throughout the area hear the disciples speaking in the people’s native tongues. This is much like a meeting in the United Nations, except the Holy Spirit takes the place of the hundreds of UN translators.

The people who haven’t heard the translation trick just figure the other people had been drinking too much wine. Peter speaks up against this, though, pointing out that they can’t be drunk, because it is only 9:00 in the morning. Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw at a concert once: “You can’t drink all day if you don’t start in the morning.”

You know the thing I love about Luke? Characters sing in his books. I don’t mean a line or two: when his subjects get started, they can sing for a half a chapter or more. Joel 2:28 has never sounded better than when Peter stands in front of the crowd and sings:

In those days I will even pour out my Spirit
on my slaves, men and women alike,
and they will prophesy.

But it gets even better, as Peter then goes on to sing David’s prophecies of the coming messiah:

I always see the Lord in front of me,
for he is at my right hand
so that I cannot be shaken.

That is why my heart is glad
and my tongue rejoices

Unfortunately, the lusciousness of the lyrics are used to hide some rather specious logic. This is kind of hard to follow, mostly because it is crap. Peter says that David proves that God rescued Jesus from the pains of death. David was a prophet, of course, and so far, this holds up okay. A prophet prophesying the Messiah would be raised from the dead holds logic, even if one doesn’t believe in prophesy or resurrection. However, in his prophecy, David is not talking about the Messiah, he is talking about himself (“For you will not abandon my soul to Hades). Peter gets around this minor issue by saying that since David provably died, David could not be talking about himself. So David had to be talking about the Messiah.

I am not making this up! I can hear the cries of logicians throughout the centuries, their whimpers saying “There’s no logic here, none at all.” This speech does show one important fact, something that we must be certain to remember: Peter is not above distorting scripture to get his point across.
Chapter 3
I just noticed a slight bias in what I wrote in the previous chapter. I am assuming that Luke wrote everything that happened, and that included Peter’s logic bending, scripture twisting speeches. So I am attributing all of the things I like about Acts to Luke, and all of the things I don’t like to Peter. I know, that is definitely biased. I will try to be a bit more level-headed about this. The bias could be Luke’s own, and he could be quoting Peter out of context. (However, in my defense, Luke is quoting long swaths of Peter’s speech. And Peter’s topics don’t sound like anything out of Luke’s Gospel.)

This chapter starts out with one of those stories that Luke excels at telling. There’s a crippled man who sits outside the Beautiful Gate every day begging for food or money. Peter and John walked by the Beautiful Gate and the man stopped them. The man stops Peter and John and asks them to give him something. Peter says he does not have gold or silver with him, but will give the man something even more valuable. Peter grabbed the man by the hand and says “In the name of Jesus Christ.” The man is healed, of course.

Instead of saying thanks or telling everyone around him to look at him, the no-longer-crippled man starts walking, then running and jumping to the temple, praising God the whole way. People in the town who knew that the man was crippled stand in amazement. They ask how this was possible. Peter and John have an answer for them: Jesus.

But not in the way that you might imagine. Instead, this is about Jesus the servant.
“The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacobthe God of our ancestorshas glorified his servant Jesus, whom you betrayed and rejected in the presence of Pilate, even though he had decided to let him go. [..] It is his name, that is, by the faith of his name, that has healed this man.”

Servant?

Peter kinda continues in this vein, talking about Jesus as a prophet. Which is interesting, only because of how he isn’t talking about Jesus. e.g. as the Messiah.

Chapter 4
The Sadducees make their return, showing that they are still in the mood to be pricks. Even though Jesus is dead, they are still raging against what he said and did, and they are infuriated that the apostles are continuing to teach as Jesus did – even if the disciples are starting to change the message. The Pharisees high priest Annas and underlings Caiaphas (who we’ve met before), John and Alexandar have Peter and John arrested, then interrogate them.

The Pharisees want to know how the disciples healed the crippled man. Peter goes all old-tyme preacher on them, saying that all of Israel must understand that it is in Jesus of Nazareth’s name that the man was healed. The Pharisees had no answer to this, especially since they saw Peter and John as uneducated morons. But the Pharisees couldn’t persecute them for being uneducated, so they are forced to let them go. First, though, they gave Peter and John a warning, that they would be arrested if Peter and John did not stop talking about Jesus.

There is one thing rather confusing in Acts, and it isn’t something that Luke did in his Gospel: we can’t tell for certain who is talking. In his Gospel, John gave pretty much all of his characters a name, and specifically told us who was speaking when there was dialogue. In Acts, Luke keeps saying that “Peter and John said..” I don’t know which of the two are doing all the talking. Does this mean that Luke isn’t sure who was delivering the speeches? Or that they took turns while delivering the speeches, like Peter saying one paragraph then turning it over to John to say the second? Confusing. I’m just going to assume that Peter did all the talking, and John was his wingman. Note that I have no basis for this assumption. 🙂

Peter takes umbrage at the veiled threat, and delivers an excellent zinger: “You must decide whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than God…” There’s no better way to insult a supposed man of god than that!

Of course, that royally ticked of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But they could still find no reason to arrest the disciples. Peter and John return to where the rest of the disciples are staying, and proceed to give a group choir version of Psalms 2:1. Peter pays just a touch of revising history, saying that Herod and Pilate met against Jesus. Astute readers will remember that Herod and Pilate did their best to release Jesus, but in the end were forced to turn Jesus over for crucifixion.

Up next: Everyone goes a little nutso

New installments of The New Testament In Review will be posted each Monday and Thursday. The new posts will always be on my blog, http://biffster.org. The entire series is accessible via http://biffster.org/ntir. If you are one of my Facebook friends, you can get an advance preview on my Facebook page. You can also follow me (@biffster) on Twitter to be alerted to new posts.

NTiR: I’ll leave the foot washing to Jesus (John 13-18)

Bible and magnifying glass The Gospel of John is weighing on me. I am really not liking it much at all. As I noted in my previous post, there are just so many things in John that are different or don’t exist in the other Gospels. And John is putting so much energy into painting Jesus as confident and sure of his own divinity, but it comes off as cocky and preachy. I’ll have more in a conclusion at the end of the post. I can give you the short version: Thank God John is almost finished.

Chapter 13
John agrees with Luke that it is the devil that actually causes Judas to betray Jesus. Which is interesting, considering what John wrote about Judas in the previous chapter. While Satan is working his dark magic on Judas, Jesus goes around the room, washing all of the disciples feet. Simon Peter refuses, until Jesus tells Simon that Simon can no longer follow Jesus if Simon doesn’t allow Jesus to wash Simon’s feet. [ed. note: I hate sentences where I can’t use a pronoun without adding more confusion…] Simon relents, of course.

I have a side story here. Once upon a time, about two decades ago or so, I developed a crush on a woman. A strong enough crush that I started going to her church. I have since named this church “the psycho church” for many reasons. One is because of the practice of that denomination. It’s a United Pentecostal church. If you don’t know the Pentecostals, you probably won’t believe this. They are ultra-fundamental, believing that men shouldn’t grow their hair long, women shouldn’t cut their hair nor wear makeup, unmarried men and women shouldn’t mingle, no one should even think about watching tv or movies, etc. I am getting a little off-track here, so let me try to be a bit more concise.

At the psycho church, parts of the Bible were taken literally. Not all the parts of the Bible, mind you, but some disturbing parts. Including washing feet. It was an annual tradition to have one night where people would get together and wash one another’s feet. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, men and women didn’t mingle, which means that the pastor actually wanted men to wash other men’s feet. That was right about the time that I decided I needed to flee the psycho church.

Back to our story, Jesus tells the disciples that he is going to give a piece of bread to the man that will betray him. Jesus then hands the piece of bread to Judas. For some reason, the other 11 don’t immediately say “A ha! Judas is the traitor!” Instead, they continued to wonder who Jesus could be talking about. Apparently the Disciples are dumb as a box of hammers.

At the table, there was an interesting scene. John delivers this as a throw-away line: “One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus kept loving, was sitting very close to him. So Simon Peter motioned to this man…” I continue to believe that Mary is actually Jesus’s wife, and is the disciple that John is referring to. The “this man” statement sounds tacked on to me, put in place of “her”?

One other detail: Chapter 13 has another one of those verses that make my brain hurt as I try to parse them: “If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify the Son of Man in himself, and he will glorify him at once.” That is John 13:32 in the ISV. The King James Version is even more muddied (if that is possible): “If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.”

Chapter 14
Jesus shares his last words with his disciples. Two of whom get name checked: Phillip, and Judas (not Iscariot). And I swear that “not Iscariot” is directly from the Bible. Look it up! John 14:22.

It is kind of surprising to me just how much of Jesus’s speech in John 14 is used by Christian denominations as major parts of their dogma. “There are many rooms in my Father’s house.” “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” “If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it.” “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you”

Oh, and Unitarians love this chapter, too: “The person who has seen me has seen the Father.” “Believe me, I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

For the most part, though, I find this a boring chapter. Moving on.

Chapter 15
Two for two on the boring meter. Jesus talks about vines and branches, and says that no one can bear fruit unless it is through Christ. Which I am pretty sure contradicts what the other gospels say. The other gospels state that a person can do good acts because they are good at heart. It doesn’t say that they can only do these good deeds through Jesus. I find this oddly possessive. Perhaps indicative of a religion that wanted to make its followers listen only to the church?

Chapter 16
Jesus continues to try and prepare his disciples for life after Jesus dies. The disciples – who we’ve already established aren’t necessarily the brightest – still don’t understand that Jesus is saying he is going to die soon. They question his words, trying to make sense out of them. Jesus warns that he will soon leave them, and that the world will then want to persecute and kill the disciples.

Chapter 17
I am starting to see a conspiracy theory here. This chapter very neatly echoes Chapter 15, but in a very clumsy way. Chapter 17 is theoretically a prayer from Jesus to God. The crux of the prayer is: I am leaving so that the Disciples can become the new rulers of my church. Please guide them well, and allow the rest of the world’s people follow what they say. My conspiracy theory is this: John used the latter part of his Gospel specifically to justify the Disciples and their descendents as the de facto leaders of the Christian church. Much of what John writes in his Gospel that doesn’t appear in the other three relates to the Disciples and how they relate to Jesus’s teachings.

What do you think? Am I on to something here?

Chapter 18
Judas betrays Jesus. Judas actually leads officers and a detatchment of soldiers to arrest Jesus, which again is interesting. Since when did Judas hold a position of power? Or if he didn’t, why would the Pharisees allow him to be in a place of command? This doesn’t make any sense to me, though by now you know that is not out of the ordinary. I am not a fan of the Gospel of John.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus walks up to meet the traitor and the Pharisee’s troops. Jesus calmly announces that he is the man they’ve come to arrest. And then John’s perplexing writing confuses me.

At first, this seems straight-forward. In verse 6, John writes that “they backed away and fell to the ground.” Sounds like John is saying that the soldiers and officers were so stunned by Jesus that they fell backwards out of fear. That actually makes sense, in context. But then v. 8 muddies this, as Jesus is talking to the soldiers, it sounds like Jesus is saying it is his disciples that fell to the ground: “I told you that I am [Jesus]. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.” I am so confused.

Jesus is brought before the high priests, then marched to Pilate. Pilate interviews Jesus, and finds him blameless. He tells the Jews this, but they want him put to death. It is the Sabbath, so the Pharisees cannot do it themselves. So the Romans have no choice but to do it for them.

Again I ask: how is it that the Romans have to do what the Pharisees say? The Romans have conquered Judea; why does Pilate have to do anything for the Pharisees?

Up next: John writes a new end to the Gospels

NTiR: Jesus and the Pharisees call each other names (John 7-12)

Bible and magnifying glass In case you didn’t notice from my previous entry, I am not liking the Gospel of John. Mostly this is because John is creating a very different version of Jesus than any of the other gospel authors. In John, Jesus is almost condescending in how he talks to his disciples and followers. He is also obsessed with telling everyone “I am the Son of God! No doubt about it! It’s true!’ John’s Jesus seems far more concerned about himself than others.

Yeah, I think that is my biggest problem with John. It didn’t occur to me until I typed that last sentence. Jesus is not likable in John, because he is so concerned about himself and how others see him that he doesn’t have a lot of his time/attention/thoughts in helping those who want to follow him.

Or am I again reading too much into these things?

Chapter 7
John tells a lot of stories that aren’t in the other three gospels. One of the most important set of stories takes place in Chapter 7. Jesus and the disciples are hiding out in Galilee because “the Jews” want to kill Jesus. I still find it interesting that John refers to those who want to kill Jesus as “the Jews” and not “the Pharisees.” Is John anti-Semitic? The time of the Festival of Tabernacles rolls around, though, and Jesus and the disciples decide to go to Judea for the festival.

The Festival is Jesus’s major coming out party. He goes to the Temple in the middle of the Festival and begins to teach. And to directly confront the Jews (John’s phrase, not mine. I’ll continue to use that for the rest of John’s gospel). He asks why the Jews want to kill him; the answer he is given is that the Jews believe Jesus is deceiving the crowd. Blasphemy is not tolerated, and the punishment is death. However, the officers do not arrest Jesus, partially because no one has ever spoken the words Jesus has, but mostly because they wanted to avoid a riot.

Oh, our old friend Nicodemus from John: 3 is also at the festival. He also backs the decision not to arrest Jesus. And Nico has an honorable reason: “Surely our law does not condemn a person without first hearing from him and finding out what he is doing, does it?” It’s always good to have friends in high places! The Pharisees (hey, John finally switched from Jews to Pharisees. I wonder if that lasts) give up for now.

Chapter 8
This Gospel just keeps getting more and more surreal. John either saw and heard a lot that the other gospel authors didn’t, or he’s making things up as he goes along. Or both. It’s hard to tell…

The chapter starts off with the Pharisees bringing a known adultress – the woman was actually caught in the act of adultery, which seems rather rude to me – before Jesus. The Old Testament law demanded that the woman be stoned to death. The Pharisees wanted to see if they could get Jesus to break this law. Instead, Jesus turns his back on the whole scene and begins to write in the sand. (I would really like to know what he was writing. Something like “Jesus was here?”) The Pharisees continued to demand the woman be stoned, still hoping Jesus would act against it. Instead, Jesus simply states “Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” No stones are thrown, and the Pharisees slip away in shame. After everyone leave, the woman and Jesus are left alone. Jesus asks who accuses the woman of adultery; she points out that no one is there. Jesus tells her to go home, and don’t sin again.

THAT was awesome! I love that story; it’s one of those things that I wish Christian denominations nowadays would make part of their core dogma. Instead, many (most?) Christians nowadays believe in throwing that first stone as fast as they can.

There’s one little bit of dialogue that I quite like. Jesus is proclaming himself to be the light of the world. A Pharisee tells him, “You are testifying about yourself. Your testimony is not valid.” It was so rare to see a Pharisee get a zinger in on Jesus that this really made me chuckle. It’s also funny because it is true, as far as the law was concerned.

Jesus and the Pharisees then have a discussion about who is the father of whom. The Pharisees claim to be the sons of Abraham. Jesus says if they truly were, they wouldn’t kill Jesus. The Pharisees respond, “We are not illegitimate children. We have one Father, God himself.”

Translation comparison time again, because I laughed at the “we are not illegitimate children” part. That’s obviously a modern translation (from the ISV), so I wanted to see how the less-modern language Bibles translated that. And I have to say, they are even MORE humorous:

[ASV] We were not born of fornication
[KJV] We be not born of fornication
[NETtext] We were not born as a result of immorality!
[WEB]We were not born of sexual immorality.

[laughing] Sorry, but that is funny stuff!

This conversation devolves into flat-out personal attacks, as the Pharisees tell Jesus that he is controlled by a demon and Jesus says that the Pharisees are really the sons of the Devil. The Pharisees tell Jesus that he is obviously full of crap: Jesus isn’t even 50 years old, yet claims to have seen Abraham. Jesus retorts “Truly, truly I tell you, before there was an Abraham, I am!” There truly is no comeback to that one, so the Pharisees pick up stones to throw at Jesus, so Jesus runs away and hides.

And again I have to say: where did John come up with this stuff?

Chapter 9
John slows way down again to tell the tale of Jesus making a blind man see. I have lost track of where Jesus is right now. In Chapter 8, Jesus fled from the temple in Jerusalem after trading insults with the Pharisees. I don’t know where Jesus fled to, however, so I am not sure where this story takes place.This is the basic story that we’ve heard in the other three Gospels, including Mark’s detail that Jesus spits in dirt, makes mud and then smears it on the blind man’s eyes. (I think this was a practical joke on Jesus’s part, since the major parts of this miracle seem to be the man’s faith and the pool of Siloam.) John then blazes his own trail, as he tells of the immediate aftermath from this miracle.

The other residents of the unnamed town are amazed once the unnamed beggar gets his sight back. The citizens of the town want to know exactly what happened, but the Pharisees want to know exactly how the man’s sight was restored. The people of the town have to be careful: anyone caught proclaiming their belief that Jesus was the Christ would immediately be thrown out of the temple. This made it harder for the man to tell his story, but he still found a way.

The Pharisees are besides themselves with rage by this point. They refuse to believe that the man’s sight was restored, then refuse to believe that the man was blind at all. He interviews (interrogates?) the man’s parents, who repeated attest that the man was born blind. The Pharisees decide to try and trap someone – anyone – to make themselves feel better. They try to trap the parents into proclaiming that a miracle had been performed, but the parents won’t bite. They tell the Pharisees to go talk to their son directly, since he is of legal age. As you can guess, this doesn’t help the Pharisees mood.

This story can get confusing since John decided not to give anyone a name. If my recounting of this story seems a bit more confusing than normal, don’t blame me. It’s John’s fault. 🙂

The Pharisees question the man again, asking how Jesus could’ve restored the man’s sight. He asks the Pharisees “Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t want to become his disciples, too, do you?” *BURN!!!!* This infuriated the Pharisee, who screams back “we are disciples of Moses!” They demand to know if the man believe Jesus is the Christ so they can condemn either Jesus or the man (or both? John really needed to use names for his characters). The man says simply: “If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do” these miracles. The Pharisees stay true to form and throw the man out of the temple.

Chapter 10
Jesus starts to talk (rant?) about sheep and shepherds. His basic conceit is that people are sheep (I believe that one, actually) and he is the shepherd who will guide the people into heaven. But he also throws in there that his predecessors were thieves and bandits (I assume he was talking about the Pharisees and not the Prophets) who come to steal, and other flocks that come by that he also must lead. Jesus goes way off-topic to say that he will lay down his life so he can take it back up again.

As should be expected, the people around him are baffled and confused. “Many of them were saying, ‘He has a demon and is insane. Why bother listening to him?'” But others pointed out that a demon-possessed man wouldn’t be able to perform the miracles they’ve seen Jesus perform. They ask Jesus directly to proclaim whether or not he is the Christ. Jesus says “I and the father are one,” and the Jews pick up stones to throw at him again. (Hey, John switched from “the Pharisees” to “the Jews” again!)

The Jews say they are going to stone Jesus for blasphemy to which Jesus decides to school them. “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”‘? […] Scripture cannot be set aside.” Again they tried to seize Jesus, and again he slipped away. The Pharisees are like the Keystone Kops of the bible. No matter how much they try to catch Jesus, he always gets away. Well, until Judas betrays him, of course.

Chapter 11
John can be lax on details about people, but he’s done a good job at giving hints about the chronology of events. Assuming they take place in the same year, about six months has transpired between Chapter 7 (the Festival of Tabernacles) and this chapter (Passover).

This is one of those chapters where a lot happens in a relatively short amount of time. Some of this is very important to the Bible narrative, so I am going to write about this in a lot of detail. Fair warning. 🙂

Jesus has had to flee Jerusalem after practically being stoned in Chapter 10, and is making his way towards. Mary (” the woman who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair”), Martha and Lazarus, all who are at least very good friends of Jesus (Mary maybe more than a friend) live in Bethany, which is within shouting distance of Jerusalem. Mary sends word to Jesus that Lazarus is very sick and is about to die. Jesus waits a couple of days, then tells his Disciples that they must return to Judea.

The Disciples are incredulous, as one might imagine. They (John doesn’t say which one, of course) ask Jesus to reconsider, since he was practically stoned to death just a few days earlier. Jesus tells them that he can see because he is the light of the world, so they must go back so he can awaken Lazarus. Yeah… that didn’t quite make sense to me, either. Some of what John writes that Jesus says by this part of the Gospel sounds very random and disjointed. Thomas on the other hand proves to be loyal and courageous. He states that they will stand by Jesus’s side, and would rather die with Jesus than abandon him..

Thomas is pretty cool.

Jesus and his Disciples arrive in Bethany, where Martha has arranged them a place to stay. Martha is lamenting the loss of her brother, and comes to Jesus to accuse him of not being there to save Lazarus. Jesus reassures her that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and that Lazarus will truly live again.

Mary catches up with Jesus, and is also tormented with grief. Jesus sees her grief and misery, and cries with her. He then insists that he be taken to Lazarus’s tomb. Jesus thanks God as a way to let everyone gathered know that God sent him (random!) and then commands Lazarus to awaken. Lazarus does, and walks out of the tomb, even though he is still tied up in bandages and burial cloths. John doesn’t state that those gathered ran screaming and fleeing from the zombie/mummy Lazarus, but isn’t it safe to assume that at least some did?

The last third of this chapter takes on a very weird turn. Instead of discussing Lazarus’s resurrection, John discusses politics. An un-named member of the council said that people believing in Jesus would ignite the Romans wrath, and that the Romans would then destroy their temple and their nation. To which I say, “wtf?” Where did this come from? In the other three Gospels, it seemed like the Romans didn’t give a flying fig about the Jesus or the Pharisees. As long as order was maintained, the Romans were content to rule and let the locals sort things out on their own. This can definitely be seen in the way that Pilate was so reluctant to allow Christ’s execution.

So why are the Pharisees afraid that the Romans are going to interject themselves now? And that the Romans would move only because people believed that Jesus was the Messiah? That doesn’t make any sense at all. I can’t make heads nor tails of it.

Caiphas – the high priest – then muddies the water a little more. He states that Jesus must die so that Judea can be saved. Apparently, he has prophesied that Jesus will be killed to save the Jews, both in Judea and the other tribes who were scattered about. It was for this reason that the Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death. And they were not going to be deterred from doing so. They issued a standing arrest warrant. Which meant that Jesus again had to flee, this time to Ephraim.

Chapter 12
John continues to veer further and further from the path set by the other three gospel authors. It’s not just that his gospel details things the others don’t. Like I’ve mentioned earlier, I know that all four gospels are separate, distinct works, with different authors who had different views and themes that they wanted to emphasize. John’s theme is the divnity of Jesus, and he has his Jesus continually telling people “I am the son of god! Truly, truly listen to me! I really am the son of god!!!” Which is annoying, since it doesn’t match how Jesus speaks in the other gospels. But I can handle that.

The odd thing about John’s gospel is how John tries to twist the fact and his characters to fit a certain mold. Take Judas Iscariot, for example. In the other three gospels, he goes to the high priests and asks for money if he betrays Jesus. Jesus proclaims to know that there is a traitor in their midst at the Last Supper. In John’s gospel, however, Jesus says that he knows who the traitor is very early in the story. And then here in Chapter 12, John says that Judas is a thief who was willing to steal money from the destitute. To me, this connotes after-the-fact character assassination. It reads like John really wants Judas Iscariot to have been a life-long evil person. But I digress.

Jesus goes to Bethany to have dinner with Mary, Martha, Lazarus and Judas (John doesn’t state whether the rest of the 12 were there). Mary anoints Jesus’s feet with expensive perfume, and wipes it off Jesus’s feet with her hair. Judas yells that she should’ve sold the perfume and given the money to the destitute (so he could then steal the money, apparently), but Jesus hushes him. I think that John is the only gospel author who writes that Judas told Mary not to waste the expensive perfume on Jesus?

Interesting side note: The high priests planned to kill Lazarus, since Lazarus’s resurrection were making many people believe that Jesus was the Christ. Poor Lazarus, to be raised from the dead only to then have a death sentence put on you.

Jesus decides it is time to return to Jerusalem in glory. The voice of God speaks, though people around assume that it was either thunder or an angel. I think it was probably someone playing a practical joke on them. I do the same thing to my kiddos from time to time.

Up next: Ill leave the foot washing to Jesus

NTiR: John 3:16 makes me shudder in horror (John 1-6)

Thank you for coming back to read more of this series, The New Testament in Review.

As much as I liked the Gospel of Luke, I am starting to get a bit bored with the Gospels. It’s the same thing as reading four novels based on the same events back-to-back-to-back-to-back. Even though the gospels are so different, and the authors had different views on what events happened and what they meant, in the end, the Gospels are far too similar for a fourth reading. Because of this, I am going to do my best to fly through John’s Gospel. If I can get through this in one week, I’ll be a happy camper.

Gospel of John

Chapter 1
John immediately annoys me by stealing from the Dao De Jing, but twisting the words. Seriously, the first three lines of John 1 echo the first few lines of the Chapter 41:

John 1:1-4:
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

Dao De Jing, Ch. 41:
The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

John settles down and tells the tale of John the Baptist. Though verses 6-9 could just be John giving himself some love (“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him.”) John baptizes people and tells that Jesus will follow him and baptize people in the holy spirit. John gives the “I am not worthy to untile his sanda straps” bit.

John tells those gathered that he had heard God saying that Jesus was God’s son while John baptised Jesus. I can’t help notice here that only John heard this, and he then told everyone else “I heard this voice say…” Mind you, this is John the Baptist, he who wears clothes made out of camel hair, fasts all the time and chooses to live in the wilderness. In other words, he might not be the most credible witness in Judea at the time.

John tells his disciples that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” This sounds promising, so John’s disciples abandon him and run to follow Jesus instead. One of the two is Andrew, who also brought his brother Simon Peter to follow Jesus. Nathaniel also joins the group, but first delivers a line which made me giggle: “Out of Nazareth? What good can that be?”

Chapter 2
We’ve mostly gone over this in the previous three Gospels. The wedding in Cana where Jesus turns water into very good wine at his mother Mary’s behest. On a side note: how much fun would it be for Mary to have a child who can perform miracles on demand? Instead of taking your son with you and saying “Why don’t you show Uncle Jim how well you can whistle,” you could say “Why don’t you show Uncle Jim that you can cure his skin cancer!”

Jesus also drives out the moneychanges and vendors from the Temple, using a whip out of cords. That sounds painful… Jesus’s disciples then remember a bit of scripture (“Zeal for your house will consume me.”) which doesn’t really seem to fit Jesus’s reaction, but they feel that Jesus just fulfilled that prophesy. I think that is something of a stretch.

Jesus also says the “destroy this sanctuary and I will rebuild it in three days” which – at least according to some of the previous gospels – ends up being the charge that leads Jesus to a death sentence.

Chapter 3
Nicodemus the Pharisee comes to see Jesus. This gives Jesus a chance to dictate a favorite theme of John’s: a person must be baptized to see the kingdom of heaven. Jesus speaks in parable, of course, saying that a person must be born of spirit as well as flesh. Actually, I guess that isn’t really a parable. Still, his point comes across.

This chapter also contains the verse loved by sign holders everywhere, John 3:16. This is either supposed to be universally known or is a secret code known only to sign-holders and true believers, since the signs normally only say “John 3:16” with noting quoted out of the verse. I reckon I should do the same, but just in case some of my readers don’t know, this verse says “God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that those who believe in him may have everlasting life.” Or something like that.

I find this verse and the whole idea repugnant. Who would sacrifice their son? Who could condone human sacrifice, even if that human is part God? There is just something wrong with that whole concept. I know that many people use this as a tent pole for their faith. I see it as proof that God is off of his rocker. If God is God, he could’ve simply said “Sacrifices are no longer necessary, everyone’s sins can now be forgiven, you no longer need to use blood – animal or human.” Instead, he chooses to allow humans to torture then murder his only son? That is not a sign of a stable person. Or stable Deity. Take your pick. (Another side note: the Unitarian view reduces the harshness of this, since they believe that Jesus was God in his totality, so it wasn’t a son who was murdered, just a temporary form of the Almighty.)

John the Baptist is back. People have noticed that Jesus has started baptising people, and those who know of John want to know what the deal is. John says that he is not jealous, nor is Jesus wrong. John has a great line about being second fiddle: “It is the bridegroom who gets the bride, yet the bridegroom’s friend, who merely stands by and listens for him, is overjoyed to hear the bridegroom’s voice.” (John 3:29)

Chapter 4
I think John is the first of the Gospel writers to point out that Jews had issues with Samaritans. This adds context to the story of the good Samaritan (though I am guessing that John doesn’t recount that particular story). The other Gospel authors could’ve just been assuming that their readers would know that Jews didn’t like Samaritans. Or this could be a bias on John’s part which wasn’t shared by the other three.

Jesus ends up in Samaria after fleeing from the Pharisees. This was apparently a very long journey, because Jesus is so weary from the journey that he collapses at the side of a well (Jacob’s Well). He asks a woman if she can get him a drink from the well. The unnamed woman knows how Jews feel about Samaritans, so she is very shocked to have Jesus make such a request. Jesus tells her about living waters and eternal springs. John appears to find this whole subject very interesting, but it really isn’t. The end result: Jesus’s disciples return to him before the woman actually gets Jesus a drink.

The disciples are mortified that Jesus is talking to a woman (they apparently have nothing against Samaritans either) but hold their tongues. The woman leaves her water jar and presuably drinks.

You know, I almost think that Jesus is delirius from hunger and thirst here. The subjects he speaks of are random, and his words seem disoriented or hazy. For example, in verse 22, he tells the woman, “You don’t know what you’re worshiping. We know what we’re worshiping, for salvation comes from the Jews.” In verse 34, Jesus answers a question of “have something to eat!” with “My food is doing the will of the one who sent me and completing his work. You say, don’t you, In four more months the harvest will be here? Look, I tell you, open your eyes and observe that the fields are ready for harvesting!” That just seems a bit random to me…

Chapter 5
John’s view of Jesus is… I guess “interesting” is the best word. In John, Jesus spends a lot of time telling everyone that he is the son of God. He’s trying to convince people of this, but in a really weird, indirect way, it sounds like he is trying to convince himself. Either that, or he is trying his hand at fake humility. In John 5:31-34, Jesus says “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true” but if John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Christ, then it has to be true. At least, I am assuming he is referring to Mr. The Baptist. He only mentions “John,” so this could be Gospel author John proclaiming his own importance to Jesus’s teachings and claims of being the Son of God. At this point, I really don’t know. This chapter has officially lost me.

Oh, at the end of the chapter, Jesus says that Moses was writing about Jesus. That might or might not be important further on in the story, but I figure it can’t hurt to mention it.

Chapter 6
John’s Jesus has an air of a arrogance about him that is inherently disagreeable. It reminds me a bit of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix when Harry starts getting so distraught that he became a bit unlikable. The same kind of thing is happening here. For example: in the miracle of the loaves and fish, John says that “Jesus said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do.” That feels wrong to me; it’s almost teasing his disciples, who just wanted to do right by him. John also states that Jesus realized the people were “about to come and take him by force to make him king.” Where did that come from? In the previous Gospels, the people loved Jesus and referred to him as their great prophet and teacher. They never wanted to make him a King, though. Where’d John come up with this?

Jesus and his disciples head back to Capernaum (one thing all of the Gospel authors agree on: Jesus was practically tied to Capernaum. He always returned back to the town, though we aren’t given a reason as to why). In the synagogue there, Jesus goes back to teaching the people. And again, Jesus’s words seem to be mostly about establishing himself as the definite, true son of god: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day. For this is my Father’s will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.”

(Another interesting disparity between John and the other three Gospels: in John’s gospel, Jesus constantly says “Truly, truly I tell you…” while in the other three, Jesus does not add the forceful repetition of “truly.” Contrast “Truly I tell you” with “Truly, truly I tell you.” Does not the second implore – almost command – one to believe?)

Jesus spends the last half of this chapter declaring and repeating that his flesh and blood are the true bread and wine of everlasting life, and that everyone who wants to believe must both eat and drink of these. He says this so many times and the imagery is so stark that all of his disciples except for the 12 abandon Jesus. Where in the world did that come from? The previous three gospels didn’t hint at this, either.

Jesus finishes off this chapter by reassuring the 12 remaining disciples: “I chose you twelve, didn’t I? Yet one of you is a devil.”

Ayup, that was pretty reassuring.

Up next: The Festival of Tabernacles and Jesus’s unveiling

NTiR: Luke gives a different tale of Christ’s death (Luke 19-24)

Thank you for coming back to read more of this series, The New Testament in Review (NTiR).

Jesus’s death is creeping nearer and nearer, but a funny thing happens on our way there: Luke’s story starts to deviate from Matthew and Mark’s. Sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways. But the overall effect highlights the fact that the Gospels are written by different authors, and those authors have different views, different philosophies, and different agendas in their recounting of Jesus’s last days.

Chapter 19
Luke emphasizes the importance of Christ going to Jerusalem. I don’t remember this from either of the other two gospels… perhaps Mark mentioned it, too? But I digress. Jesus rides on a borrowed colt as he makes his way down the road to the holy city. A crowd of his disciples (all 82 of them) follow, singing praises to god and to Jesus. They made enough of a ruckus that the Pharisees demanded silence!

Jesus gets to the walls of Jerusalem, and then bemoaned the fate to come for the city. I know that I didn’t read this lament in either Matthew or Mark. Jesus cries “For the days will come when your enemies will build walls around you, surround you, and close you in on every side. [..] because you didn’t recognize the time when God came to help you. (v. 43)

Chapter 20
Luke depicts Jesus telling the parable about the vineyard owner and the tenant farmers who killed the owner’s servants (prophets) and finally the owner’s son (Jesus), and the terrible vengeance that was in store for those who perpetrated such crimes (the Pharisees). In Matthew and Mark, the Pharisees are irked by this. In Luke, they are seriously pissed off. to the point that they wanted to attack Jesus then and there. The only thing that kept them from doing so were the crowds of Jesus’s followers around the temple.

There is another slight variation in theme between M&M and Luke here. The Pharisees ask which of a number of deceased husbands a wife will be with in heaven. In Matt and Mark, Jesus answered that there is no such thing as marriage in the afterlife, so after they are dead, there’s no need to worry about such things. Jesus’s answer suggests the answer is for the living: “but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.” It’s a small difference, but gives a very different outlook. Jesus could very well be saying that those who deserve to be resurrected will not marry while they are alive. Question: Is this where the Catholic Church gets the idea for unmarried priests?

Holy crap, Jesus then decides to get medieval on the Pharisees asses, as he freely and publicly disparages them, “They devour widows’ houses and say long prayers to cover it up. They will receive greater condemnation!”

Chapter 21
Jesus has had his run-in with the Pharisees, which means he is now in a bitter mood. His next recorded teachings make this crystal-clear. Jesus warns about the coming apocalypse, just like in Matthew and Mark. But then Luke imparts another side of the story, as Jesus cautions his followers of persecutions to come. If the persecution does come, Christians are in for some really bad times: “You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated continuously by everyone because of my name.” Eeek!

(Note: For you Christians who think that this is already happening, please do some research on victim mentality.)

Chapter 22
This is another recounting of the betrayal and arrest of Jesus. Luke provides a big departure from M&M, though, and this leads to an interesting retelling. First off, Judas doesn’t betray Jesus on his own, instead Satan “went into Judas.” Judas was still a weak-willed fool, but in Luke’s telling, it was the hand of Satan that directed Judas. I find that very interesting.

During the Passover meal, Satan is once again mentioned, this time by Jesus. “Satan has asked permission to sift all of you like wheat.” Jesus is very concerned that this could happen, so he continues to pray for the continued faith of his disciples, and charges Peter with keeping his brothers strong. I had absolutely no idea that Jesus made this charge. A lot of the following books in the New Testament now make a lot more sense.

After the Passover meal, Jesus follows his habit of going to Mount Olive in prayer. Luke states that an angel appears to Christ and gives Jesus strength to get through the coming ordeal. Which is a pretty cool image, and a very tender thought; even Jesus needed comfort from God.

M&M distinctly stated that Judas betrayed Jesus by kissing him. Luke sees things differently, as Jesus stops Judas, and then asks Judas “are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” Judas stops, but the mob knows they have the right man, and they move to capture Jesus. The disciples try to fight, but Jesus holds them back. Jesus asks the Pharisees why they are stooping to come for him at night, when they didn’t dare lay a hand on him during the day when they were all in the temple. If there was an answer, it is lost to history.

There’s another major departure here. In both Matt and Mark, it is the Romans who torture and mock Jesus after Pilate sentences Jesus to death. In Luke, the Pharisees and scribes do this. It is also the Pharisees who try Jesus and pronounce him guilty.

Chapter 23
Luke continues to bring more context and depth to his Gospel. He also brings more discrepancies and inconsistencies to light. Luke’s Gospel is a very different book than Matthew and Mark’s. These last few chapters really highlight that.

Jesus is finally brought before Pilate, who almost immediately declares Jesus innocent of all charges (“I do not find anything blameworthy in this man.”) The mob doesn’t care what Pilate thinks, so Pilate does best thing he can think of: he passes the whole issue off to Herod. As one may recall from earlier in this gospel, Herod rules over Galilee, Herod had John the Baptist beheaded to please Herod’s own wife. Herod also wanted to meet Jesus for a long time; Herod even had his messengers go to Jesus. As can be imagined, Herod jumped at the chance to spend some time with Jesus.

So Herod gets his time with Jesus, but it isn’t what he expected. Jesus refuses to speak; Jesus won’t answer any of Herod’s questions. Worse, Jesus will not perform any miracles, which is the real reason Herod wanted to meet Jesus in the first place. Herod and the Galilean Pharisees mock Jesus, but Herod then dresses Jesus in “a magnificent robe” and gives him back to Pilate.

This left Pilate with a conundrum: he had an innocent man but a mob that seemed ready to revolt. Pilate tried reason: “What has he done wrong? I have found nothing in him worthy of death. So I will punish him and let him go.” Pilate was willing to punish an innocent man, hoping that the Pharisees and their mob would be happy with this. But mobs are not logical, and they tend not to be all that respectful of the law. The Pharisee-inspired mob practically started a riot, threatening to break in and lynch Jesus. So Pilate took the coward’s way out: he released Jesus to the mob and washed his hands of the whole thing.

We know how the mob handled Jesus’s release. According to Luke, Simon is forced to carry the cross by himself. Or at least that’s the way that I read Luke 23:26 (“they put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.”) I have to stop here and look through a few different translations of the Bible to see if I am imagining things. Because what Luke has does not jibe with the crucifixion story I know. I use five different translations of the Bible for these articles. This is how the five translated this verse:

^[ISV]As they led him away, they took hold of Simon, a man from Cyrene, as he was coming in from the country, and they put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
^[ASV]And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus.
^[KJV]And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
^[NETtext]As they led him away, they seized Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country. They placed the cross on his back and made him carry it behind Jesus.
^[WEB]When they led him away, they grabbed one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it after Jesus.

To me, that doesn’t sound like Simon was helping, but that he was being forced to carry the cross, all by himself.

Back to the story, where Jesus is being led to Golgotha. Jesus encountered a group of women who were “wailing for him.” Jesus told the women not to cry for him (Argentina!), but for themselves and their children. He also meets the two other men who are also to be crucified. Matthew and Mark pretty much ignore them, but Luke shows more of the men. Criminal A (neither are actually named) mocks Jesus, telling him to save them all. Criminal B, however, shows a spirit of honor. He chastises Criminal A, saying both deserve their fate, but Jesus has done nothing wrong. He then turns to Jesus and asks not for salvation, but just that Jesus remember him when Jesus enters his kingdom. This is, again, Luke at his finest.

Jesus lasts for three hours on the cross, then finally succumbs, dying at 3:00 in the afternoon. The Roman centurion who had been supervising the crucifixion was moved, and declared that Jesus was truly righteous. Those in the crowd who saw this interaction also realized that crucifying Christ was wrong, and turned their backs on the whole thing.

Jesus’s loved ones do not abandon him, of course.

Chapter 24
After Passover and the sabbath are over, “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and some other” women make their way to Jesus’s tomb to anoint Jesus’s body with spices. When they got there, however, the cover stone for the tomb has been rolled away. Two men in “dazzling robes” greet them. Notice that these men are not called angels? The women immediately headed to where the 12 (er, sorry, it is 11 now) are gathered. The women try to explain what happened, but it was assumed that the women were just speaking gibberish. Damned misogynists! Peter was curious enough that he went to the tomb to investigate, but when he saw the empty tomb, he decided to go home and figure out just what happened.

Two of the 71 disciples are walking on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus. A man they didn’t recognize them joins them on the seven-mile journey. (Have I mentioned I love the little details Luke adds to his tales?) He asks what they are discussing, which astonishes them. They ask him the equivalent of “Have you been living under a rock?” They give him the short version of the story, up through the women finding an empty tomb. The man then joins in on the conversation, discussing scriptures and how they apply to the story at hand. “Then, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them all the passages of Scripture about himself.”

The two disciples aren’t the brightest of the bunch (though Luke credits them with being blinded by God instead of not being very smart) and don’t realize who they are walking with. They do offer the man a place to stay, and ask him to join them for a meal. The man does, and at their meal he breaks and blesses the bread for the meal. The men finally put two and two together (“Then their eyes were opened.”) Unfortunately, once they figure it out, Jesus disappears.

These two immediately got up and headed back to Jerusalem, and ran directly to the eleven. They spilled their story, and everyone started to discuss this. I can only imagine the discussions, but I am sure it was almost impossible to hear anything over the buzz of the conversation. Sadly, Luke doesn’t give any fragments of the conversation.

As the discussion continues, Jesus enters the room. Everyone is terrified, of course. They are seeing a dead man walking amongst them, after all! Jesus calms them, asking those gathered to touch him to prove to themselves that he isn’t a ghost. While they tried to digest this, Jesus turns his mind to a different type of digestion: “Do you have anything here to eat?” The disciples did, of course, so they gave him some broiled fish, which he ate with them. And really, who can blame him? Lord knows I’d be hungry after three days.

Luke gives his Gospel a happy, promising ending. Jesus tells his disciples that all of the promises in scripture have been fulfilled by him, and that “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations.” Jesus walks with the disciples to Bethany, blesses them, and leaves them.

Repentance and forgiveness of sins. What a wonderful message.

Conclusion
And thus ends Luke’s gospel. This is – by far – my favorite of the gospels so far. As I mentioned a few times through this series, I am impressed and entranced by the richness Luke gives to his writing. I also love that Jesus and the disciples are not the only people in the story to play a prominent role. Luke shows that others were capable of love and honor and courage and compassion. Luke’s Gospel is grounded in the people and places and atmosphere of the time. His Gospel reads more like a novel than a history text, and I mean that in the best possible way.

Luke painted his Gospel – and his rendition of Christ – with love and hope and, most of all, forgiveness. His Gospel is uplifting and heartening, and is truly beautiful. Reading the Gospel of Luke has been a pleasure, one that I won’t soon forget.

Translation key:
[ASV] = American Standard Version
[ISV] = International Standard Version
[KJV] = King James Version
[NEText] = New English Translation
[WEB] = World English Bible

Up next: The Gospel of John, which I can already tell is going to annoy me.

NTiR: Jesus sings, but does he dance? (Luke 13-18)

Thank you for coming back to read more of this series, The New Testament in Review.

I’ve heard it said that people cannot or will not envision Christ as a human, with human interests. Luke hints at Jesus as a drinker, a joker and a singer. I don’t know about you, but I find this depiction of Jesus much more than the idea of a conservative (not in the political sense) goody two shoes who never drinks, never curses, is always clean-shaven and dressed in his Sunday best.

Chapter 13
Jesus has lightened up a little bit, and instead of threatening his listeners with an eternity of burning in hell, he tells the listeners how to repent to get back into God’s grace. Jesus tells a parable here, a man wants to cut down a fig tree that hasn’t given fruit in three years. The gardener says “no, give me another year, and let me fertilize it.” Christ is obviously the gardener here, but who is the gardener after his death?

Jesus does have a rebuke for Jerusalem. And to rub it in, he rebukes them in song:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones to death those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you didn’t want to!
Look! Your house is left to you deserted. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘How blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'”

Chapter 14
Luke spent much of the first chapters of his gospel writing about everything except for what Jesus was teaching. In the last few chapters, he has written nothing but what Jesus was teaching. Much of this chapter is new to me. At least compared to the previous two gospels. Luke had a specific part of Christ’s teachings that he wanted to concentrate on or clairfy, and we’re to it now.

For example, regarding the “the greatest among you must become the least” idea that was mentioned in Matthew and Mark.” Luke details a parable that Jesus told to highlight this. If a person is invited to a wedding banquet and sits in one of the seats of honor, that person will probably be asked to get up and take one of the lesser seats. Christ says that this would leave the person in disgrace. However, if the person takes a seat that indicates no honor, the host will tell the person, “come up closer, my friend!” and that person will be honored by those watching.

Luke also highlights Jesus’s parables that charge one with taking care of “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.”

I have a big aside here, and this is going to dig deep into politics. A lot of Christian denominations align themselves with the Republican Party. However, it is the Democratic Party that fights for such things as health care and unemployment insurance and food stamps and welfare. It seems clear to me which party most embodies Christ’s call to take care of the poor and ill and homeless. And that party isn’t the Republican Party. So why do so many Christians stick with them? But I digress.

In the remainder of Luke 14, Christ describes what one must do to become a true disciple. And it isn’t pretty. A true disciple must “hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as his own life,” take up their own burdens, give up everything that is important to a person, as well as any possessions they may have. Is there anyone nowadays that can live up to those requirements?

Chapter 15
This chapter is a celebration of repentance, a rejoicing in forgiveness. It is at once glorious and joyous. Everyone knows the story of The Prodigal Son. It’s a story of joy and rebirth. Everyone – except for the faithful brother who really does get the short end of the stick – rejoices when the prodigal son returns. The one who was presumed lost is celebrated when found again. As is the stray sheep who is found. The sheep parable is a little odd, because the shepherd risks losing the other 99 just to find the one. I personally would’ve kept the 99 and written the 1 off, but that’s just me.

Chapter 16
The chapter opens up with another warning about monetary wealth. This time in parable form: a (financial?) manager who is about to be fired gets his clients to falsify the amount of money they actually owe to the Master. One who owes $100 states that he owes $50, etc. This seemed logical, until the next bit: ” The master praised the dishonest manager for being so clever.” Hmmm… To make things a little more confusing, Jesus then explains the parable with: “I’m telling you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous riches, so that when they’re gone you’ll be welcomed into eternal homes.” That has me totally and completely baffled. Can anyone explain to me exactly what this means?

Luke doesn’t have much respect for the Pharisees either, sneaking in another little dig, “Now the Pharisees, who love money…” Jesus told another parable, this time of Lazarus the leper and an unnamed rich man. Lazarus would go to beg for table scraps at the rich man’s table. Both died; Lazarus ended up in heaven with Abraham, while the rich man ended up in Hades. The rich man begged for help, but Abraham told him it was not allowed, nor was it possible. Abraham said that people have the teachings of Moses and the prophets to help them get to heaven. We just need to listen to those teachings and live our life by these.

Mind you, the Pharisees are well versed in scriptures, and should know the teachings of Moses and the prophets better than most. This is a double-slight on Jesus’s part, telling the Pharisees both that their love for money has pulled them off the path set out by scripture. Needless to say, the Pharisees don’t like being told they are going to hell.

Chapter 17
Not much going on here. More teachings on faith and sin (don’t lead anyone to sin, forgive someone whenever they ask for forgiveness). There’s a slight contradiction regarding how to tell when the kingdom of god is coming. On the one hand, Jesus says that “The kingdom of God is not coming with a visible display” and warns his disciples that there will be people claiming to be Christ but actually aren’t. However, Jesus then says “For just as lightning flashes and shines from one end of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.” which one is which?

Jesus also warns that not everyone will be allowed into the kingdom of god (this is a very common theme in the gospels so far, especially in Luke). A wife might be chosen while her husband is left behind. The disciples asks where this will happen, and Jesus gives a grisly answer: “Wherever there’s a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” [shudder]

Chapter 18
This is a quick chapter. Jesus finishes up his sermon and gets the disciples ready to travel. He tells the 12 that they are going to make their way to Jerusalem. Jesus also warns that he is going to be tortured and killed, but the disciples don’t understand what he is saying.

Up next: Luke tells a new tale about the death of Christ

New installments of The New Testament In Review will be posted each Monday and Thursday. The new posts will always be on my blog, http://biffster.org. The entire series will be accessible via http://biffster.org/category/bible If you are one of my Facebook friends, you can get an advance preview on my Facebook page.