Tag Archives: Luke

Blind Man Moves

Posted on by
Reply

Small Wonk-Tangent

Doing some real research today, and ran across this helpful observation: The Blind Man (men) of Jericho move from the exit to the entrance in Luke.  Since we know Luke is using Mark, the question is: why the change?

First, Luke inserts the two stories Lk 19.1-10 (Zacchaeus) and Lk 19.11-28 (Minas) between his use of a Markan sequence (Mk 10.13-11.10).  Second, Zacchaeus takes place inside Jericho, not allowing Jesus to arrive and depart immediately.  But since, he moves the Blind Man to the entrance of Jericho and exits via the Parable of the Minas, we can conclude that Luke (or an earlier source) sees a very necessary link in the narrative sequence from the Zacchaeus’ story to the Minas (as 19.11 suggests).  What do you think this could be?  Any other thoughts on the synoptic comparison below?

(Matthew 20:29-34 ESV) (Mark 10:46-52 ESV) (Luke 18:35-43 ESV)
And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, there were two blind men sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out,
 “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more,
“Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” And stopping, Jesus called them and said,
   “What do you want me to do for you?” They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.” And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him.		 And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more,

“Son of David, have mercy on me!” And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart. Get up; he is calling you.” And throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. And Jesus said to him,




“What do you want me to do for you?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.

 

 As he drew near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” And he cried out,  “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more,

“Son of David, have mercy on me!” And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him. And when he came near, he asked him,

 

 

 

 

“What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.

Supposing the Kingdom

Posted on by
Reply

 

As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
(Luke 19:11 ESV)
 
Ἀκουόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ταῦτα προσθεὶς εἶπεν παραβολὴν διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι Ἰερουσαλὴμ αὐτὸν καὶ δοκεῖν αὐτοὺς ὅτι παραχρῆμα μέλλει ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναφαίνεσθαι.

This is the transitional statement that links the Zacchaeus story with the Parable of the Minas (Lukan version of the Parable of the Talents).  Truthfully, for the modern reader, this is an ambiguous statement.  We are given two reasons for the telling of the parable: 1) Jesus is near Jerusalem, and 2) Jesus’ audience thought, because of the Zacchaeus incident, that “the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.  Yet, it seems by the telling of the parable that the kingdom has not arrived, nor will it arrive soon.  Scholars typically deal with two options for interpreting the Minas Parable.  First, in Matthew, the parable is told next to the bridesmaids, suggesting that the parable exhorts the listeners to wait vigilantly for the return of the master.  But we do not have this context in Luke.

Another option for the interpretation of the parable is that Jesus tells it as evidence that the kingdom of God is not about to appear.  In other words, Jesus tells this parable against the master, against the nobleman who wants to be king (19.12).  The exploitation of the nobleman is evidence that the kingdom of God has not arrived, nor will it arrive soon.

Yet, I am curious, if there is a more complex answer, for when the people expect the nearness of the kingdom of God, Jesus tells a parable about the proximity of a different type of kingdom.  And in Luke’s version of the parable, the third servant is not condemned, but those who defy the king are (19. 14, 27).  There is a conflict over the kingdom and to whom it belongs, and it is not clear which is the good side.  Perhaps, the parable suggests that the “war” for the kingdom is on.  Thoughts?

Debt and Gospel: Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB, 3.

Posted on by
Reply

Part 3: Elizabeth Warren and St. Luke

(Part 1, Part 2)

When I was a young college student, I was probably not the only one bailed out by my parents from credit card debt. Because you don’t see your accumulating debt as you spend, and the minimum payments they require you to pay are often less than or equal to the interest they charged for that month. I won’t sit here and blame the credit card companies only for my previous predicament, for I really should have known better. I had a job, I could have budgeted. But not everyone has those means. And while it may not be the most rational thing to apply for a credit card in such a situation, one must understand that people are not rational actors in the market place, and people who can ill afford it are often the most desperate.

The moral thing to do is to help the poor, share resources, donate money, etc. The Free Market thing to do should be to leave them alone, and perhaps make sure you do not give too much credit to them. But what we have is some credit card companies targeting the poor, so that the poor cannot escape debt. Now the companies may keep poorer people’s credit limits low, but what few who remain in debt know, is that the credit card companies are paid decent fees from sellers each time a consumer uses their card. So, even though a consumer may not make any payments on the card, the credit card company is still making some money off of consumer usage. This acts as a disincentive for credit card companies to collect on their debt, so long as they are collecting the interest. It also acts as an incentive to the credit card companies to have their cards used as many times as possible. And if anyone is going to be making frequent small payments with the credit card, it will be those who can least afford small things in life: the poor. The perfect target.

There are plenty of Christian blogs touting the importance of the government’s involvement in helping the poor, and there are other Christian blogs telling us of the danger of government involvement in anything. Most Christians are already decided on the issue, and their hermeneutic is often determined by their view on this issue. Let’s be honest, the Bible was not written in a democratic market society. Making the jump from the agrarian, oppressive Empire of Rome to today’s society is no easy task. And as a Bible scholar, I have no easy answers for how to end debt abuses at home and abroad. I would like to say that I am open various methods. But as I’ve argued in this series, to ask God to forgive one’s own sins, when one has not sided with the poor or participated in debt-relieving activities (Lord’s Prayer), is to misinterpret the Gospel. You can be a Socialist, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communitarian, or Independent; but if you are not biased towards, or if you are not seeking the welfare of the poor and the marginalized, then in my opinion you’ve missed a major aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Enter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency to regulate lending companies, somewhat the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren. I’ll be honest, I really like Elizabeth Warren. When she speaks, she convinces me that she understands that just because someone enters into a contract, that does not make it a fair, free market, rational process. The complaints against the Bureau have been that it itself is not regulated, and it has too much power over the banks. This may be true, and while I would have love to have seen the Bureau run under Elizabeth Warren (o, well), it could easily have been abused by another. But, in my mind, that criticism is not good enough, particularly from anyone who considers themselves Christian. Because at the end of the day, the Gospel is heavily biased towards the poor and marginalized. And any critique of the Government’s attempt to help the poor of society, should be accompanied with an equal or better suggestion of how to do it. If you don’t like the CFPB, give us something better.

I’m well aware that America is not a Christian country, and it is unlikely that my ‘gospel’ should be the guiding principle for non-Christians. However, in my experience, all the resistance I’ve had against arguments for public help for the poor has come from Christians. It is for this reason that I make this biblical argument that a Christian must always be looking for ways to help the poor. You don’t have to be a Democrat or Socialist. Libertarians too have the ability to live in such a fashion (check out Jeff Miron of Harvard).

In conclusion, another Lukan passage I’ve referred to already:

Luke 6:32-35 32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

In 32-34, the words benefit and credit are marked because they are all the same word in Greek: XARIS. This is the word we translate as ‘grace,’ one of the founding ideas of the Protestant faith. To cancel an unpayable debt is grace. To act always in a market fashion, love for love, good for good, money for money, this is evidently graceless. The challenge of the gospel is to lose, to love inefficiently, against the trends of the dominating powers, to forgive debts in order to forgive sins, to live biased towards the poor and the marginalized.

Bible Study Made Difficult* Pt. 2

Posted on by
2

 

*Difficult for people of faith.

 

Luke 17.34-37

 

34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

 

We left off here: Where is vs. 36?

 

Answer: It is a textual variant. First, we have no original Bible. There is no one original manuscript of the Bible. Instead we have hundreds, yes hundreds, of ancient and medieval manuscripts. From these, textual critics (scholars who specialize in critical examination of ancient texts, namely of the Bible) try to deduce the earliest version of varying texts. In some cases, the ancient texts are almost identical. In many cases, however, there are differences, small and large, amongst the varying ancient manuscripts.

 

A scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament, looks like this.

 


 

The text your Bible probably translates from is in the middle. The textual variants from most other manuscripts are at the bottom. And cross-references are on the page edges. Each page contains numerous textual variants. There’s also other books that help us summarize the textual variants, and tell us why they were selected over the other manuscripts. From one of them, Omanson writes:

 

17.36 omit verse {A}

 

It is possible that v.36 may have been accidentally omitted since vv. 35 and 36 both end with the verb ___ (will be left). But since manuscript support for the shorter text is so strong, it seems more likely that copyists added the words of v.36 to agree with Matt. 20.40.

 

In other words, v. 36 was ommitted because 1) Most manuscripts do not have it, and 2) it is more likely that scribes wanted the texts to agree rather than disagree. What is the original? Who knows. But it is likely that the earliest manuscripts did not include it.

 

This brings up the interesting problem in inspiration: which version of the Bible is inspired? You might say, as many do, that the original is inspired. But what good does that do for us Christians today, who do not have a single original copy?

 

Not only is this a problem, but there is also the problem of oral traditions behind the Bible. Were they inspired to? Were the sources Luke use (1.4) inspired to? And what does it even mean that the Bible is inspired. Sure, your church might have a good definition of inspiration or inerrancy, but does that fly with what we know about the Bible? Some books have argued that the texts have been edited to support agendas, and other books argue that the Gospels are intact and historically reliable. Historically reliability is thus a problem as well:
Matthew 27:3-8 3 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

 

Acts 1:18-19 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

 

Do we, as we desire for the Bible to be God’s word, try to explain away these contradictions, so we can legitimize our own theological and political stances? My opinions next time in Pt. 3.