Bible Study Thread: Luke

[paradox3]

Summary: Luke 3: 1 - 18

The word of God comes to John in the wilderness and he goes into all the region surrounding the Jordan River. He proclaims a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This reflects the prophecy of Isaiah. ("The voice of one crying in the wilderness . . .")

John calls the crowd who come to be baptized by him "a brood of vipers". He commands that they bear fruits worthy of repentance. What should they do? If they have two coats, share with anyone who has none. Likewise for anyone who has food. The tax collectors are told to collect no more than the amount prescribed. Soldiers are not to extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation and to be satisfied with their wages.

The people question if John might be the Messiah. No, he tells them, One more powerful is coming and John is not worthy to untie the thong of His sandals. This One will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in His hands.

So John proclaims the good news and Herod shuts John up in prison.

 

[paradox3]

Reflection: Luke 3: 1 - 18

We have previously encountered this story in Matthew and Mark but it is a little different here.

Instead of John simply appearing from the wilderness, Luke has the word of God coming to him first. And the ethical teachings of John are unique to this gospel.

Interesting that John uses the phrase "brood of vipers" here. Jesus later utters these words many times.

What do you think of "bearing fruits worthy of repentance"? John goes on to describe ethical behavior in some detail for the well-off, tax collectors and soldiers. Is he asking us for more of an effort to be righteous? Even knowing we will all be in need of repentance?

 

[Waterfall]

How much later? If it was before canonization, then it is part of the canon and part of the story. As for it being disrespectful, that's frankly a modern outlook with no basis in that world.

In the ancient world, authorial credit was far less important than it is to us. Look at the "Pauline" letters that were likely written by others using his name. Is that disrespectful to Paul? To those other writers? Today, we might argue the former but in those days it was the way things happen. Same with adding to and changing works without crediting the additional authors. There was no copyright law, only moral suasion, keeping people from editing and changing other writer's works or crediting their teacher for their work. Also, no one was making big bucks off writing so that copyright and credit didn't have an economic purpose. Even literary writers like Horace and Virgil relied on patronage (by Maecenas, Augustus' "minister of culture") rather than sales.

Except there are a few instances where chapters 1 and 2 contradict the latter part of Lukes gospel.

 

[Mendalla]

Except there are a few instances where chapters 1 and 2 contradict the latter part of Lukes gospel.

So? Internal consistency isn't exactly the strongsuit of a lot of books of the Bible, often due to other interpolations. Trying to interpret the Bible in terms of what we think it should be historically is a fool's game. I would only take some new discovery to blow a theory out of the water. Better to deal with the Bible we have and simply accept that we cannot treat it as an historical document, merely as a spiritual one that reflects the faith of the church at a point in history. When you accept, as I do, that the birth narrative is myth rather than biography (and I apply that to both Matthew and Luke), then its origin is less important. Different versions of a given Greek myth sometimes contradict each other on details but that doesn't reduce the power of the underlying story.

 

[paradox3]

Except there are a few instances where chapters 1 and 2 contradict the latter part of Lukes gospel.

We have just started chapter 3 today but I would be interested in examples of contradiction between Luke 1&2 and the latter part of the gospel.

 

[Waterfall]

So? Internal consistency isn't exactly the strongsuit of a lot of books of the Bible, often due to other interpolations. Trying to interpret the Bible in terms of what we think it should be historically is a fool's game. I would only take some new discovery to blow a theory out of the water. Better to deal with the Bible we have and simply accept that we cannot treat it as an historical document, merely as a spiritual one that reflects the faith of the church at a point in history. When you accept, as I do, that the birth narrative is myth rather than biography (and I apply that to both Matthew and Luke), then its origin is less important. Different versions of a given Greek myth sometimes contradict each other on details but that doesn't reduce the power of the underlying story.

Gosh I really dont know where to begin with your post...
I suppose as I believe in God I view these things differently and important.

 

[Mendalla]

Gosh I really dont know where to begin with your post...
I suppose as I believe in God I view these things differently and important.

Believing in God has nothing to do with it. It's what you believe about the relationship of the Bible to God. If the Bible is a record of the human experience of God, as people like Borg have argued, then interpolations, contradictions, and so on should still not be an issue. It's a human document and therefore no better or worse than any other human document. It's a pointer to God, not a direct revelation. Interpretation is required, but that only necessitates being mindful of the provenance and showing some discernment. After all, an interpolated text could still reveal something about our relationship to The Holy.

The only time they become a problem, to my eye, is if you believe God somehow had a direct hand in the writing, then you have to justify how interpolations and contradictions could happen or why they are allowed to sully God's work.

 

[Waterfall]

We have just started chapter 3 today but I would be interested in examples of contradiction between Luke 1&2 and the latter part of the gospel.

These are some examples:
Luke 1 makes it clear that Mary and Elizabeth (and Jesus and John) are related and have a very close bond but this is forgotten in the baptism scene where Jesus and John act as if they never met before and again in Luke 7:19-23 where John seems to have forgotten he even baptized Jesus.

Zacharias and Elizabeth are mentioned 8 times in the first two chapters yet John is introduced as the "son of Zacharias" as if this wasnt mentioned before. Luke 3:2b ....Suggesting the beginning of Luke was added later.

The focus on Mary in the first two chapters is at odds with the rest of Lukes text and with the other gospels. Luke 1-2 contains 12 references to Mary and none in the rest of Luke. Luke deliberately seems to resist the worship of Mary from chapter 3 on. Luke 11:27-28
John also allows the question to be raised whether Jesus is the Messiah or not as if he had no information about him, despite in Luke 1:41-45 his mother is said to posses this knowledge about Jesus.

 

[Waterfall]

Believing in God has nothing to do with it. It's what you believe about the relationship of the Bible to God. If the Bible is a record of the human experience of God, as people like Borg have argued, then interpolations, contradictions, and so on should still not be an issue. It's a human document and therefore no better or worse than any other human document. It's a pointer to God, not a direct revelation. Interpretation is required, but that only necessitates being mindful of the provenance and showing some discernment. After all, an interpolated text could still reveal something about our relationship to The Holy.

The only time they become a problem, to my eye, is if you believe God somehow had a direct hand in the writing, then you have to justify how interpolations and contradictions could happen or why they are allowed to sully God's work.

Well I guess I would have a problem with the birth narratives if they were created to draw away from Jesus message....after all we have dedicated much celebration within most churches that honour these stories that are possibly just myths.
Why not focus on the days that Jesus actually celebrated Himself instead? Saying this I realize this will not change.......

 

[paradox3]

Luke 1 makes it clear that Mary and Elizabeth (and Jesus and John) are related and have a very close bond but this is forgotten in the baptism scene where Jesus and John act as if they never met before and again in Luke 7:19-23 where John seems to have forgotten he even baptized Jesus.

The baptism scene is hardly mentioned in Luke and it only gets two verses. (Luke 2: 21-23). It was much more emphasized in Matthew and Mark. We are really not told anything in Luke about the interaction between John and Jesus at the time of His baptism. We will arrive at this story tomorrow.

acharias and Elizabeth are mentioned 8 times in the first two chapters yet John is introduced as the "son of Zacharias" as if this wasnt mentioned before. Luke 3:2b ....Suggesting the beginning of Luke was added later.

Don't you think it was common practice to refer to men this way? John, son of Zechariah, does not seem unusual to me.

The focus on Mary in the first two chapters is at odds with the rest of Lukes text and with the other gospels. Luke 1-2 contains 12 references to Mary and none in the rest of Luke. Luke deliberately seems to resist the worship of Mary from chapter 3 on. Luke 11:27-28

Do you think anyone was actually worshiping Mary at the time Luke's gospel was written? I have the impression this came later in church history but I am not certain of the time frame.

Your point about Luke 11: 27-28 is intriguing. It may simply be the writer's way of telling us Jesus was focused on the word of God.

John also allows the question to be raised whether Jesus is the Messiah or not as if he had no information about him, despite in Luke 1:41-45 his mother is said to posses this knowledge about Jesus.

Yes, the scene where John commissions his disciples from prison to go investigate Jesus is puzzling. (Luke 7:18-35)

 

[Jaebius]

Thoughts on Luke 3:3-6...

John came down from the wilderness' secure refuges, for he had a word for Israel's people, who heard of his preaching and hurried down to hear him.

His sojourn's place during his ministry was in the valley along the Jordan, and he moved as far north as Galilee; it was under Galilee's Herod that he was imprisoned and murdered.

His work was heralding; its summary was repentance's baptism. Repent. But where repentance obtains, there the Gospel gives remission's assurance, and Baptism's redemption's seal.

John was the voice of one calling aloud, getting attention by his calling, causing people to hear him: Prepare God's way, make everything ready for his coming, let no one be indifferent to his advent.

Straighten the highways; remove hypocrisy; be direct. Every ravine will be filled; everyone will be courageous, for the King's coming to pay the penalty for, and erase, shame.

Every hill will be made low; proud spirits will be broken and brought to understand that without Jesus they can't escape the wrath to come.

The shameful will be straightened, and the rough places made smooth; those that are seeking to enter into life, should come to Jesus, who's the Way, Truth, and Life.

And no one's excepted from God's grace in Jesus:, flesh will see God's salvation; all that's flesh, if only they repent, belong to God's redeemed and become his salvation's partakers.

The universality of the redemption in Christ is emphasized very strongly, according to Dr. Luke's manner of bringing out this point.

 

[Jaebius]

Thoughts on Luke 3:7-9...

John's words here found their application to the people that came to his baptism, inasmuch as they followed their leaders in their behavior.

The mass have no intention of changing their heart. So John calls them vipers' generation, who've serpents' nature. Their attempt to flee the coming wrath by feigning piety won't save them.

Repentance's fruits, they only will be accepted as proof of a mind-change, of the fact that the new birth has taken place. Real fruits are demanded, such as measure up to heart's change's thoroughness.

Many Jews relied on being Abraham's descendants for their acceptance before God. But they're not all Abraham's children according to the flesh. Abraham's real children are those that trust God for their salvation. Also, God can create children for Abraham out of stones.

Of the Jewish nation the words were true that the ax was laid to the roots; if the tree wouldn't bear fruit, then their judgment would be carried out, as a warning also for future generations, no matter where they might be living.

Grace had dawned with the Baptist's coming. Once more and for the last time mercy stayed justice which had now lifted the ax; the people didn't accept Jesus, and God's wrath cut down the barren tree in the vineyard.

The disposition of all that continue to reject Jesus' salvation's hell.

 

[Jaebius]

Thoughts on Luke 3:10-14...

John's preaching moved the people. Some there were that became penitents. They were at a loss though as to how they should show their heart's change; they needed lessons. And so John makes the Law's application in their cases.

The people's fault was their meanness. They were greedy, so John tells them that they should share with the needy. To help the poor's under circumstances a duty that worship requires.

The publicans asked John as they came to be baptized, "What should we do?" He told them not to exact payment in excess of the fixed duty. If their repentance was sincere, they must do things honestly; a hint for today's business people.

The last class whom John gave instructions were soldiers, who were sent down by the authorities in case there was any trouble. Upon their question, John tells them to not extort, and to be okay with their wages. In their work, the temptation to bully the people, and to receive bribes was great. They extorted money by intimidation in the poor's case, they obtained money by acting as informers against the rich.

John's words were a lesson for each one to consider his own station according to God's Law.

 

[Jaebius]

Thoughts on Luke 3:15-18...

John's testimony impressed the people. They thought that he was the Christ. This opinion was gaining ground, with the people debating the question.

When this movement was brought to John's attention, he did all he could to suppress it. His baptism was a servant's obeying orders: he baptized with water only.

Christ would be mightier that John didn't feel worthy to unstrap and bear his sandals. Christ would baptize with the Spirit and with fire. He gives to the shameful his Spirit for their renewing and sanctifying. His power would have fire's properties. It'd give the shameful strength to do what John demanded, repentance's fruits.

Woe unto those that didn't accept Jesus. As the farmer divides the chaff from the wheat and burns the chaff, so Christ will deal with those that've been weighed and found wanting.

While John gave testimony concerning Christ, he spoke other things to the people, both in exhortation and in Gospel-preaching; he did a true evangelist's work.

 

[Mendalla]

After reading 3:1-18 closely I see where the idea that 1 and 2 were interpolations comes from. It really does feel like the beginning of the story. OTOH, having 1 and 2 as a prologue sets up a curious relationship between Jesus and John. Even though it is not really pursued (another sign or an interpolation?), it sets the imagination to wondering what was going on their heads when they are reunited, brief as it is, as adults. The opening clearly spells out John's mission as a prelude to that of Jesus, which would be an interesting start in and of itself, even without the prologue setting out their family history.

 

[paradox3]

@Mendalla

If we accept the premise that Mark was the first gospel to be written, we need to keep in mind it begins with John the Baptist coming out of the wilderness. For Mark, this is the beginning of the whole story.

Both Matthew and Luke provide us with two initial chapters before John the Baptist emerges from the wilderness.

Their narratives certainly vary but there are a few commonalities which are interesting. They each have an announcement about Mary's conception and a genealogy for Jesus which includes David. They each have someone showing up to see the newborn. And they each have a return to Nazareth.

Perhaps these common details were part of the oral tradition around Jesus but Mark viewed them as unimportant. Writing later, maybe Matthew and Luke took a different view and expanded upon the bare bones of the oral tradition.

Back to Luke now. There are several other stories in this gospel which appear nowhere else.

 

[paradox3]

While John gave testimony concerning Christ, he spoke other things to the people, both in exhortation and in Gospel-preaching; he did a true evangelist's work.

Yes, I noticed this in Luke. John's message incorporated ethical teachings in addition to the call to repentance and the announcement about Jesus. Luke also gives us a back story about John which encourages us to look upon Jesus as his successor.

 

[paradox3]

Summary: Luke 3: 21 - 38

1. John has been shut up in prison when Luke provides the details of Jesus' baptism. The verses are so short I will just post them here rather than try to summarize them.

2. The genealogy of Jesus.

Luke 3:21-22 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Baptism of Jesus
21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

 

[paradox3]

Reflection: Luke 21 - 38

Luke puts less emphasis on the baptism of Jesus than the first two gospels. By the time it is mentioned, it has already taken place. The Holy Spirit has entered the narrative again and I wonder how we are to understand it descending in bodily form like a dove.

The voice from heaven serves to establish that Jesus is God's beloved son. The genealogy extends back to Adam, son of God. We are starting to see that Jesus has both a divine & a human nature and the stage is set for His ministry.

 

[Redbaron]

Interesting to note how Mark and Matthew explicitly state that Jesus was baptized by John. Luke introduces John, describes his message and ministry, then his arrest, THEN Luke speaks of Jesus' baptism, with no explicit mention of John. Is there a growing rift between followers of Jesus and followers of the Baptist at this point? Why does Luke tell the story this way?