Biblical Exegesis Gospels of John and Luke

Convocation Address at Bethel University, August 29, 2016 about recent troubles in Minnesota, particularly the shooting of Philando Castille, and our responsibility as followers of the Gospel. There is an audio link also available. After you click the link, it's the first one in the queue; fast-forward to 15:00:  https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/2016-2017-chapel-college-arts/id1148681753?mt=10

" The Gospel According to Luke " was meant to be read aloud to 1 st century Christians (1:1-4). This oral medium creates a dramatic dimension that is often lost on modern readers. Even a brief analysis of the literary conventions in Luke shows a perfect dramatic structure and masterful use of dramatic devices.

In his discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus compares his coming crucifixion to the incident of the bronze serpent (Jn.3:14 – 15).  The incident has deep literary-theological resonance that illuminates both the entirety of the Pentateuch and the Gospel of John, along with a very significant contribution by Isaiah.  Jesus' citation of the bronze serpent story from Numbers 21 reflects an intertextual, literary understanding of prior biblical texts, and becomes an organizing theme in John's Gospel.

This article examines John 21 by means of Wayne Booths reading strategy of conduction. As a later redactional addition, ch. 21 casts a different understanding upon the preceding narrative of chs. 1-20 through the implied author's intertextual interpretation. One of the most obvious ways in which the intertextual interpretation of the implied author is manifest is in the form of narrative echoes, implicit references to earlier parts of the narrative discourse in chs. 1-20. These become intratextual connections for the implied reader, whereby the interplay between the derivations in chs. 1-20 and their intertextual interpretation in ch. 21 creates new meaning.

Other than presenting Jesus as the expected Messiah Luke uses his account of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem to define the role of a disciple among his contemporaries as one on whom lays the responsibility of bearing testimony to what Jesus represents amidst rebuff, opposition and hostility. This work therefore examines the role Luke assigns to the disciples at the event of Jesus’ formal visit to Jerusalem and how this challenges his present-day Christian reader. This is done in the context of the general Lukan concept of discipleship.

This paper argues that, when the mother of Jesus tells her Son that "they have no wine" in the Cana wedding narrative, she is implicitly describing all the subsequent characters we will encounter in the Fourth Gospel, all of whom are in some way "thirsting" in a way which only Christ can satisfy.  Christ satisfies this thirst by creating a new family, one that is "born again" when He offers quenching water from His Body on the Cross; and this creation of a new family occurs when he tells the Beloved Disciple that His mother is now the Disciple's mother.  Thus, the words from the Cross are a response to the request at the wedding; and the new birth consists of becoming a child of Jesus' Mother.

For many, Christianity is a matter of churchgoing, soldiering on, doing ones best and believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (Green 1975, 11).  Our lack of Spirit-awareness or Spirit-dependence is often a result of poor Spirit-knowledge, or rather, a shallow pneumatology, in that we have fallen short of adequately engaging with this central person and doctrine of the Bible.  As we explore the Spirit’s role in the synoptics, chiefly Luke’s gospel, we can begin to discover a Spirit of prophecy, anointing and holiness.  Our method is that of uncovering the exegetical foundations of Lucan passages in koine Greek, such as Jesus’ conception, birth, baptism, temptation, ministry commissioning and his sending out of the apostles.  This work helps to scale back the current academic preoccupation with the Spirit in the Pauline epistles, as we go back to the heart of the matter, and arguably the foundation of the doctrine, in one of the most thorough of the Gospels.

This paper aims to look at the structure of the Greek text, and the context in which it was written. We shall look at the writer of the Gospel of Luke, and understand why he inscribed the events in the text in such details manner. In the footnotes for the translation, we shall look at the word study of key words in the passage. Throughout this paper, we shall do a literary analysis of the text, and understand why this portion of text is placed in this passage with relation to the whole gospel.

The episode of the trial of Jesus before Herod Antipas, being unique to Luke’s Gospel (23:6-12) – and despite the popular notion that it does not contribute to the development of the Lukan Passion Narrative – is nevertheless shown to fulfill a pertinent and multi-faceted function. In the course of the literary analysis, the most intriguing problem discussed was the origin of this narrative. Despite the prevailing opinion arguing for the Markan origin of the text, it seems more reasonable to assume the existence of an independent source (or sources), written or oral, which gave rise the whole tradition of the encounter between Jesus and Herod. Luke was fully responsible for the wording of this episode. As to the historicity of this encounter, there are good reasons to accept the fact that it really took place. All the objections advanced by a substantial number of authors can be reasonably countered. The exegetical analysis pointed out the importance of Jesus’ silence, the act of putting a white robe on Jesus, and the reconciliation between Herod and Pilate. Each of these three realities has profound christological meaning, revealing Jesus’ true identity.

The main objective of this article was the search for the most plausible reason(s) for including this episode within the Lukan Passion Narrative. Jesus always plays an active, dynamic role elsewhere in the Lukan Passion Narrative, but in the Herod pericope there is a striking contrast as Jesus remains passive. Jesus likewise usually dominates the Passion scenes, yet even when that domination is not by means of his words and deeds, as is the case in this episode, he remains in control through his silence. It seems that the main stress of the whole narrative lies on Jesus’ innocence. Under that overriding theme, the passage is seen to have at least a four-fold purpose: historical (Jesus was guiltless despite being placed on trial); christological (the true identity of Jesus’ person and mission is disclosed by Jesus’ behavior and its effect, i.e. reconciliation); pedagogical (Jesus is a model for later Christians to imitate, and Herod is an anti-model by his lack of faith); and apologetic (Jesus, and consequently Christians, are innocent of the charges brought against them by both Rome and the Jews).

A lo largo del evangelio de Lucas, Satanás ha tratado siempre infructuosamente de hacer fracasar toda la acción evangelizadora de Jesús, como una suerte de poder en la sombra. En este momento, en la hora de las tinieblas, parece haberse desatado con un poder insospechado y desmedido. No se trata de la simple caída de un discípulo, sino del mismo poder demoníaco que había azotado a Jesús en las tentaciones, para acabar marchando, «hasta otra ocasión» (4,13). Ahora, el «poder de las tinieblas» (22,53) parece estar a punto de engullir a Pedro; de ahí la intercesión de Jesús por sus discípulos probados (22,31).

A summary and critical analysis of Hans Conzelmann's life and contributions to the study of Luke-Acts. This chapter particularly focuses on Conzelmann's contributions in the areas of theology (Luke as a theologian) and methodology (redaction criticism). This chapter is posted with permission from the publisher.
www.kregel.com/stanley-e-porter/luke-acts-in-modern-interpretation/

El relato de la pasión de Cristo fue una herramienta apologética fundamental para los primeros cristianos pues los proveía de una perspectiva soteriológica y, a la par, reflejaba las experiencias políticas y sociales de las comunidades redactoras.
Los episodios del arresto y muerte de Jesús eran narraciones claramente destinadas a la polémica con los externos, judíos y gentiles, pero también con las otras vertientes cristianas. En base a esta noción proponemos analizar el episodio de las discípulas de Jesús ante el sepulcro vacío en una perspectiva histórica que explique las alteraciones sufridas a raíz de las posturas e intereses de los diferentes redactores. Para esto abordaremos una franja temporal que abarca desde mediados de la década del 70 del siglo i hasta finales del siglo ii. Comenzaremos el análisis con el Evangelio de Marcos, primer testimonio del episodio de la tumba vacía. El mismo es una novedad proveniente del círculo cristiano-helenista de Antioquía, pues Pablo no parece haberlo conocido en sus cartas. Luego procederemos a considerar las versiones propuestas por los evangelios de Mateo, Lucas, Juan, la Epistula Apostolorum y el Evangelio de Pedro. Como elemento de cierre y balance recurriremos a la opinión del crítico pagano Celso.

Were Pilate and Herod being churlish and vindictive, rubbing it in when the unfortunate Jesus was being led away to crucifixion while they renewed their friendship? What is behind Luke's statement that on the day of Jesus' death, they became "friends"?

The article focuses on the understanding of sin in John 5:14, as well as the relationship between sin and sickness presented in this verse. It provides a thorough status quaestionis on both of these issues. After examining various hypotheses regarding the meaning of sin in John 5:14, the Johannine notion of sin as unbelief is expounded as the most convincing. This sin encompasses the past, present, and future life of the healed man. Thus, contrary to the exegetical opinio communis, the cause-and-effect relationship between sin and sickness does not apply to John 5:14. In light of this explanation, the messages of John 5:14 and 9:2-3 do not contradict each other. Jesus' words in 5:14, intentionally pronounced in the temple, should be understood as an invitation to follow him in faith.

A review of A Gospel Synopsis of the Greek Text of Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Comparison of Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus. Edited by Jenny Read-Heimerdinger and Josep Rius-Camp, in collaboration with Enric Muñarch. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Pp. xxi + 315. Cloth, $240.00.

Matthew C. Williams' "Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels" promises more than it can deliver, misleads readers with its subtitle, and stymies rather than advances the agendas of text-critical research and gospel criticism. Williams' study not only fails to shed new light on the synoptic problem, but also misappropriates (and misapplies) text-critical criteria to problems beyond their purview. The result is a work that amounts to little more than a cataloguing of well-known arguments for Marcan priority, encumbered by repeated attempts to tether a text-critical approach to the Synoptic Problem. Despite the appearance of copious detail, the work is selective in its treatment and founded upon a number of abstractions.

The present note is part of a series of notes 1 intended to highlight how certain narratives in the Gospels resonate with—or ask to be read in light of—certain OT narratives. The text of Luke 9.28-37 strongly resonates with the text of Exod. 24.1-18, where the heavens descend to earth on the summit of mount Sinai. As Alastair Roberts has helpfully pointed out, 2 the wider context of 9.28-37 (namely 9.1-43) also has parallels with the exodus narrative as a whole, and should therefore be viewed in light of it. Jesus is a 'greater than Moses', who has come to accomplish at least three important objectives: a] to inaugurate a new era in Israel's history, b] to release Israel from bondage, and c] to begin the construction of a new tabernacle in the wilderness.

"The early papyri of Luke are remarkable for their diversity. Six pre-fourth century witnesses are extant. The content, date, provenance, textual relationships, and scribal habits of each vary from fragment to fragment. Their texts range from a few paltry lines to nearly an entire gospel. All were produced in the second, third, or fourth centuries. All are from Egypt--though their precise sites of discovery differ. The nature and frequency of their scribal variations also fluctuate. Nonsense readings, itacisms, and similar orthographic 'deviations' prevail in some; others exhibit little to none of these. The incidence of nomina sacra and numerical abbreviations varies from scribe to scribe, even line to line. Their significance is debated. The amount of surviving text is at once both an accident of history and a byproduct of particular scribal habits. The rates of additions, omissions, transpositions, and the like can be tracked to the individual copyist. Human hands have shaped the bequeathals of history and the absence of 'expected' readings continue to hold the imagination hostage. Questions swirl over textual alignments, while the very nomenclature of 'text types' is decried in some quarters. More than simple artifacts of early Christian piety, these papyri disclose the fault lines of Luke's textual history--well in advance of the great fourth-century codices."

Roger Stronstad inaugurated what is currently known as the William W. Menzies Lectureship at Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, Baguio City, Philippines, in February, 1993. This volume includes the four major lectures that he gave, revised and updated for publication. It was originally produced by Sheffield Academic Press in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series in 1999. It was also reprinted by T & T Clark in 2003. Now it is a delight to see the new edition of Stronstad’s The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology in print once again, courtesy of the CPT Press. It brings out the best of Pentecostal scholarship. This volume is a follow-up work of the author for one of the crucial Pentecostal publications on Luke-Acts, namely, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Hendrickson Publishers, 1984) where he argues that Luke should be treated as a theologian in his own right apart from Paul and so should his pneumatology be seen as vocational. Accordingly, the charismatic theology of Luke-Acts is prophetic in nature. His conclusion is based on an inductive study of the Spirit. In The Prophethood of All Believers, once again the author focuses on the narrative hermeneutics in interpreting Luke-Acts. The result of his study is a strong argument for viewing the pneumatology of Luke as describing the prophethood of all Christian disciples. It has been highlighted again in this title that Luke is using his narrative to communicate theology. Stronstad's exegesis of Luke-Acts is a perceptive one and it is contributing something to the articulation of Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology. Hence, this work of Stronstad is appropriately reissued in a new edition by the Centre for Pentecostal Theology– CPT Press in the Pentecostal Theological Seminary, Cleveland, Tennessee. Reading The Prophethood of All Believers is a must for this current generation of Pentecostal students and ministers.

A Muslim father kills his daughter for the sake of family honor when she marries outside the faith. A Japanese leader steps down in shame over the mistakes of his subordinates. They both live in shamehonor societies in which shame is generally to be avoided and despised while honor is to be upheld and sought.

In verses 44-46, Jesus started defending the woman’s action. By hearing the parable of the two debtors, Simon the Pharisee may have gotten Jesus’ main point that the woman’s great love was a product of the great forgiveness, but Jesus gave Simon more details by comparing their actions. Verse 44 starts with the phrase καὶ στραφεὶς pρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα. The word στραφεὶς has the function of bringing the woman back to the center of this narrative. The word “see” in Greek in this verse is bλέpεις. This word is used in the Gospel of Luke many times and is used as a metaphor for perceiving the word of God. In Luke, to see the truth is to perceive the word of God.1 There are two kinds of people in view here, one who receives the word of God and the other who does not receive it. For example, in Luke 2:20, after the shepherds saw baby Jesus, they rejoiced and praised God for all they had heard and seen. They are an example of seeing God’s truth. On the other hand, Herod wanted to see Jesus but he did not believe in him. The Gospel of Luke used this comparison a lot and one of them is seen here in 7:44. Jesus asked Simon, “Do you see?” This word is not merely to ask Simon to see what the woman did but to see God’s truth that she was a woman who was forgiven by God and showed much greater love than Simon did.2 As I mentioned in Part I, Simon failed to see it. Jesus started to retell what the woman did for Jesus in order to make a vivid contrast between Simon and the woman, and He mentioned three things: water, kiss, and oil (ὕδωρ, φίλημά, ἐλαίῳ). The first thing Jesus mentioned was water. The structure of the entire sentence εἰσῆλθόν σου εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ὕδωρ μοι ἐπὶ πόδας οὐκ ἔδωκας, is important to note. The word ὕδωρ is a direct object of ἔδωκας. Elsewhere in the Gospel of Luke, there are 167 examples of a verb with two complements following it. However in only four other places in Luke do the two complements precede the verb. Three of them are seen here in verse 44, 45, and 46.3 Two complements ὕδωρ μοι precede the verb ἔδωκας. This structure shows the speaker’s emphasis on the word that comes first. The three things that Jesus mentioned, ὕδωρ, φίλημά, ἐλαίῳ, to compare Simon and the woman’s action are parallel and do not have a conjunction.

Misinterpreters conclude that Jesus universalizes the Second Great Commandment (2GC), erasing distinctions between Church and world, which subverts ecclesiology’s biblical foundation. Several exegetical factors overturn this consensus and restore 2GC to ecclesiology. 1) Interpreters uncritically accept anti-Samaritan polemics while ignoring reversal of Samaritan status over the last fifty years, but first-century sectarian competitors debated Samaritan Israelism (SI), with many early Tannaim (like Gamaliel) and Jesus here affirming SI. 2) The context of fulfilling expectations of messianic reunification (MR), a reunited Davidic kingdom (Isa 11:12-13; Ezek 37:19, 22, etc.). 3) Questions provoking the parable concern Torah obedience for participation in messianic Israel, with Lev 19:18 neighbour always meaning “Israelite” (Meier, Law and Love, 492-93, 527, 651). (Thus, those asserting that Jesus alters this bear burden of proof.) 4) The parable structurally follows the well-known scriptural-Mishnaic triadic genre of priest-Levite-Israelite, indicating that the third character (Samaritan) is an Israelite. 5) The Samaritan’s actions allude to northern-southern Israelite relations (2 Chr 28:15). 6) The Samaritan practices covenantal חסד / ḥesed, seen through consistency with first-century ḥesedism (Sorek 2010, Giambrone 2016), use of a Septuagintal Hebraism, the tripartite ποιεῖν + ἔλεος + μετά (=עשׂה + חסד + עמ) collocation (Luke 10:37a; cf. 1:72a), etc. Thus the Samaritan protagonist (Luke 10:33) represents inheritors of Northern Israel undergoing MR (accomplished in Acts 8; cf. 15:16 quotation of Amos 9:11).

The Gospel of Luke is a beautiful book. It contains unique stories that cannot be found in the other Gospels, stories that have fascinated me. At the time I was in Bible School, even though I had never studied theology, Greek, or any issues among the Synoptics, I was able to see that Luke had a special ability to write stories. By reading his product, my faith has grown. After I entered Bible school and seminary, I was engaged in studying historical backgrounds, the Synoptic issues, etc. It made a deep impact on me when I came to know that the Gospels are not merely storybooks that have been preserved from the ancient times but are collections of pericopes, and there are intentions and purposes for which the author of each Gospel placed each pericope in a particular place in their Gospels. There are four Gospels and each of them reflects the author’s understanding of Jesus, the author’s purpose, and the readers’ needs. At the same time, we are able to see whom Jesus really was to the people who lived in the Jewish culture in the first century, to the readers each Gospel author wrote to and to us who live in this present age. The more we study the Bible, the more we can love Jesus. The more we understand what is behind each story in the Gospels, the more we understand the meaning of the good news. This paper will present who Jesus was to the people of his time, to the readers of the author and to us today. In Luke, we can see a very interesting and significant story (Luke 7:36-50).