Thoughts on the Widow's Offering in Luke 20:1-4

This narrative episode begins in 19:45 and carries through to 21:38.  It is thus important to hold together the various scenes and how they are related to one another, and not isolate them from the narrative co-text or episode in which they occur.  So let us take a brief look at the scenes before our episode and establish the contextual features that may shape the way we understand the rest of this section.  An overview of the chapter with its various narrative scenes looks something like this:

 

Conflict with the Jerusalem Leadership (19:45-21:4)

1.     The Prophetic Demonstration in the Temple (19:45-48)
2. The Question of Jesus’ Authority (20:1-8).  See especially 20:8.
3. Jerusalem’s Unfaithful Leadership (20:9-19).  See especially 20:19.
4. The Question of Caesar’s Authority (and the Priority of the Temple) (20:20-26).
5. The Question of Moses’ Authority (20:27-40).
6. The Question of the Messiah’s Authority (20:41-44).
7. Warning to the Disciples (20:45-21:4)
8. Prophecy of Judgement on the Temple (21:5-6)

We are now ready to take a closer look at 20:45-21:6

Vs. 45 In the hearing of all the people he said to the disciples:

Vs. 46 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets.

The teaching is directed specifically at the disciples because they are not to emulate fellow teachers in certain respects.  They provide a counter-example for what Jesus is advocating.  This is seen in Jesus’ stringent critique of their quest for status and honour in the community at the expense of faithfulness to the heart of Torah. 

“Long robes,” like refers to “the outer garment by which a person is noted for his or her status.”[1]  This is in keeping with a Lukan theme where clothes note social status (cf. 7:25; 8:26-35; 16:19).

 

“‘Best seats’ [πρωτοκαθεδρία] and ‘places of honour’ [πρωτοκλισία] translate parallel Greek terms, both signifying the location of the seats reserved for the “first” among the gathered assembly.”[2]  This teaching is echoed in other places of Luke’s gospel (11:43; 14:7-11), suggesting an emphasis on religious leaders who want to be treated as wealthy benefactors.[3]

The four phrases used in 20:46 to characterise the teachers of the law are all ways of indicating claims to advanced social position through nonverbal behaviour.  Each illuminates the attempt of the teachers of the law to lay claim to exalted social status. 

Vs. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.

The scribes have been shown to be inadequate interpreters of scripture (20:41-44).[4]  This failure of interpretation is now illustrated in their lives as they engage in activities that are not faithful to the scriptures. 

How exactly do they devour widows’ houses?  Fitzmyer lists several options.[5]

a)      Scribes accepted payment for legal aid to widows, even though such payment was forbidden.

b)      Scribes cheated widows of what was rightly theirs; as lawyers, they were acting as guardians appointed by a husband’s will to care for the widow’s estate.[6]

c)      Scribes sponged on the hospitality of these women of limited means, like the gluttons and gourmands mentioned in Ass. Mos. 7:6.

d)     Scribes mismanaged the property of widows like Anna who had dedicated themselves to the service of the Temple.

e)      Scribes took large sums of money from credulous old women as a reward for the prolonged prayer which they professed to make on their behalf.

f)       Scribes took the houses as pledges for debts which could not be paid.

 

 Jesus' response to this treatment of the poor widows is a pronouncement of greater condemnation.  The poor widow, a symbol of all those vulnerable in socieity, has been taken advantage of by the very system that was supposed to care for her.  As Green notes,

Jesus has gone on the offensive against them, and the ultimate charge he can lay against them is their participation in behaviours and their perpetuation of a system that victimizes widows, counted among the weakest members of society, whom both the law and leadership were to protect.[7]

 

Vs. 1   He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury;

Vs. 2   he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.  

A λεπτός was a small copper coin.  A usual day’s wages was 120 lepta.  The offering was insignificant. The widow is described as “poor” but this is not the usual word πτωχοί (Lk. 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 16:20, 22; 18:22; 19:8; 21:3) but another rare word, πενιχρός (Exod. 22:24; Prov. 28:15; 29:7; Lk. 21:2).  BDAG defines the word as “pertaining to being in need of things relating to livelihood).[8]  This women therefore has no income.  She is destitute.  What happens to her now that she has given all that she has?  How will she support herself?  Where will she get money for food, shelter and other necessities?  What are her options?  Slavery?  Prostitution?  Death? 
 

The scene deliberately contrasts the giving of the wealthy verses the giving of the poor.  The wealthy give with no consequence, but this poor widow has now sacrificed everything she has.  The wealthy thus give to a corrupt system, but with no real negative consequence to themselves.  The poor give to a corrupt system, but at great negative cost to themselves. 

Vs. 3   He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;

Vs. 4   for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

Is Jesus’ offering this widow’s giving as an exemplary paradigm to be embraced and imitated?  Or, is Jesus offering a decisive and lament worthy illustration of the result of crooked scribes “devouring widows’ houses”? 

The inner disposition and outward bearing of the widow are not described or hinted at in the text, and nothing is said about divine vs. human measuring of gifts, because those are not the point of the story. And finally there is no praise of the widow in the passage and no invitation to imitate her, precisely because she ought not to be imitated.[9]

 

Thus, it is contextually more appropriate to read this narrative as specifically related to the warning Jesus is giving to the disciples.  Here, as so often in the gospels, we have a real illustration of the teaching/warning Jesus has just given concerning the scribes and those associated with the templ. 

 

The poverty of the widow, who gave her last pennies to the temple, illustrates what Jesus meant when he said that the teachers devour widows’ houses.  The poor are robbed, and the oppressive deeds are covered up with a show of prayer and religiosity.[10]

 

Vs. 5   And they were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said

Vs. 6   “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.”

If, indeed, Jesus is opposed to the devouring of widows’ houses, how could he possibly be pleased with what he sees here?[11]

 

And the evidence that Jesus is not pleased with what has happened to the widow, is seen here in his pronouncement of judgement.  This beautiful temple, dedicated to God, has become a symbol of oppression and abuse, and therefore does not represent God faithfully. 

And thus does Luke draw attention to a system, the temple treasury itself, set up in in such a way that it feeds off those who cannot fend for themselves.  What is worse, because it is the temple treasury, it has an inherent claim to divine legitimation.  How could it be involved in injustice?  It is God’s own house!  This widespread assumption about the temple only highlights the necessity of Jesus’ criticism of the temple, a criticism already began in 19:41-48.  Because it has fallen into the hands of those who use it for injustice, Jesus must comport himself and his message over against the temple and its leadership in prophetic judgement.[12] 

 

So this narrative episode begins with a prophetic utterance of judgement noting that the temple is filled with "robbers", it ends with a prophetic utterance of judgement, "not one stone will be left standing."  Throughout the various scenes in this episode, there is conflict between Jesus and the scribes, those associated with the temple.  Just before the pronouncement of judgement, Jesus offers his disciples a stark warning: The scribes are selfish and corrupt, and they are taking advantage of poor widows, and they will receive the greater condemnation.  Jesus then notes a specific example of a poor widow being taken advantage of, and walks out of the temple and announces one last time that the temple, along with those associated with it, will be judged. 
 

Many, including myself, have been guilty of using this text in a manner not faithful to the context and intent of Jesus.  With this passage we have a stark indication that sometimes our traditional understandings of Scripture are utterly misguided and mistaken, and perhaps driven by pragmatic or contemporary concerns. 

Critical exegesis is supposed to inform preaching, piety, and church thinking; but one wonders to what extent preaching, piety, and church interests have affected critical exegesis in the history of the interpretation of this text.[13]

 

This is why it is so important to always examine the narrative context in which we read specific stories.  The context must help us determine the intent of the author. 

 

 

What is the significance of this story for Churches and Christians today?

---

[1] Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke, 726.  See E.g., Gen 41:14, 41-42; Esth 6:8; 1 Chr. 15:27; 2 Chr 5:12; 1 Macc 6:15. 

[2] Green, 727.

[3] Green, “Good News,” 66-67.

[4] Green, 725.

[5] Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 1318.
[6] See J. D. M. Derrett, “‘Eating Up the Houses of Widows’: Jesus’s Comment on Lawyers?” NovT 14 (1972): 1-9.
[7] Green, 725.
[8] BDAG #5776.
[9] A. G. Wright, “The Widow’s Mite: Praise or Lament? – A Matter of Context,” CBQ 44 (1982): 256-65, here, 262-63.
[10] Evans, Luke, 302.
[11] Wright, The Widow’s Mite,” 262.
[12] Green, 728-29.

[13] Wright, “The Widow’s Mite,” 65.

Holiness

Second Temple Judaism often viewed holiness as a call to separation from secular society, because that was contaminated and unclean.  However, in the life and teachings of Jesus, we see a dramatic shift in perspective regarding holiness.  This is helpfully captured by Marcus Borg, in his brilliant book, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. 

In the teaching of Jesus, holiness, not uncleanness, was understood to be contagious.  Holiness – the power of the holy, of the sacred – was understood as a transforming power, not as a power that needed protection through rigorous separation.  Such is implied in the metaphor of the physician in Mark 2:17 par., set in the context of table fellowship.  Physicians are not overcome by those who were ill, but rather overcome the illness.[1]

 

Borg further notes that, "The viewpoint of the Jesus movement in Palestine is clear: holiness was understood to overpower uncleanness rather than the converse."

This understanding of holiness permeates early Christianity, and has its roots in the teachings of Jesus.  As Borg further notes,

This prodigious modification of holiness in both Paul and the Palestinian church is best explicable as derivative from (and evidence for) the practice of Jesus.  He implicitly modified the understanding of holiness.  No longer was holiness understood to need protection, but as an active force which overcame uncleanness.  The people of God had no need to worry about God’s holiness being contaminated.  In any confrontation it would triumph.[2]

 

Thus, when we study holiness in early Christian writings, we should be careful about what is determinative in our understanding - be it Philo, Qumran, the Pharisees, or other writers from Second Temple Judaism - because Jesus seems to have had the greatest impact on Christian conceptions of holiness. 

---

[1] Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. (Harrisburg: Trinity International Press, 1998), 147.

[2] Borg, 149.

Justice and Peace

Matt Hosier provides a thoughtful post on War and Peace, offering this penetrating question: *Does the pacifist emphasis on peace, love and reconciliation lead to a neglecting of the equally biblical emphasis upon justice? *

I'm quite sure that the NT vision of Justice is not justice by any means, and there is such a thing as passive resistance (ala Ghandi and Jesus). In fact, in Matt 5:39 Jesus specifically instructs disciples not to engage in violent resistance by using a technical term ἀντιστῆναι. Josephus uses the word with the sense of “violent struggle” 15 out of 17 times. Thus, what Jesus is saying here is that disciples are not to follow the way of violent resistance [like many Jews of the period. cf. Shammaite Pharisees and other messianic movements who started several revolutions] but rather, to follow his path of creative non-violent resistance. Thus, as Richard Hays notes, *Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus re-enacted in the church.*

The book of Revelation provides the strongest support for this position. Rather than taking up arms and engaging in violence, they overcome the beast by peaceful protest in worshipping the Lamb, and laying down their lives. The eschatological vision of Revelation is that God's future will bring vindication and ultimate justice. So the question becomes not *is there not something rather perverse in the tolerance of a tyranny compared to which resistance may be a lesser evil?* But rather, do we trust God? Do we trust God enough to lay down our lives in peaceful protest, knowing that God's future will bring justice and vengeance for the oppressed? The NT commands us never to “repay evil with evil” but instead to “overcome evil with good” (Rom.12:17; cf. I Thess 5:15; I Pet 3:9).

Gehenna - What rubbish

What do J. I. Packer, Rob Bell, and Edward Fudge have in common about Hell? They're wrong! Gehenna was NOT a rubbish dump outside Jerusalem. [I must confess that I too at one stage believed this myth.]

The simple fact is that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is true in the first century. There is no archeological or literary support for this claim. So where did the idea come from? It appears to have come from a Rabbinic commentary on Psalm 27:13, written in 1200 CE!

 

See further:

• Peter Head, “The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The reader must understand: Eschatology in Bible and Theology. eds. K.E. Brower and M.W. Elliott; (Leicester: Apollos, 1997), 221-227.
• G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 376n.92.
• Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1922-56), 4:2:1030.
• Lloyd R. Bailey, “Gehenna: The Topography of Hell,” Biblical Archeologist 49 (1986): 187-191.

Historical Jesus - Just the Facts

Historians, of many ideological and philosophical persuasions, hold to the following almost certain facts concerning the historical Jesus.

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• He began his public life as a disciple of John
• He was a teacher and healer/exorcist
• He had a group of followers, with twelve being of central importance
• There was a focussed mission on Israel
• Jesus preached the coming of the “kingdom of God”
• He clashed with the Jerusalem authorities concerning the temple
• He was crucified as a Messianic pretender by the Romans on the authority of Pontius Pilate
• Jesus’ followers believed they encountered him after his death
• Jesus’ followers formed a movement, awaiting his return, winning new adherents.

Jesus’ message was that the Kingdom of God was arriving in and through his own ministry. He saw himself as a prophet announcing God’s word to Israel. His proclamation of the Kingdom was demonstrated and advocated in teaching and symbolic praxis. Jesus’ perspective and understanding of the Kingdom was significantly different to what his contemporaries, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees, were expecting and performing. Jesus’ call to Israel was specifically to repent of their nationalistic ambitions and embrace his new vision of being Israel with him as their new King. Jesus saw sin/satan as Israel’s real enemy, not Rome. In and around himself, Jesus was re-gathering a reconstituted Israel. Healings and exorcisms were a sign of God’s in-breaking reign. For those who would not heed his call and command, Jesus prophesied judgement and destruction within a generation, of nation, city and temple. 

An Example of Recurrent Attestation

Dale Allison has argued for a criterion of recurrent attestation.  These are themes, ideas, and elements that occur across a wide variety of materials and give a certain impression of the historical Jesus.  Allison gives the following as an example:

• The temptation narrative, in which Jesus bests the devil (Mark 1:12-13; Matt 4:1-11 par. Luke 4:1-13)
• Stories of successful exorcism (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-27; Matt 12:22-23 par. Luke 11:14; Matt 9:32-34; cf. the passing notices of successful exorcisms in Mark 1:32, 34, 39; 3:22; Matt 8:16; Luke 13:32)
• Jesus’ authorization of disciples to cast out demons (Mark 3:15; 6:7; cf. 6:13; Matt 7:22; Luke 10:19-20)
• The saying about Satan being divided (Mark 3:23-27; Matt 12:25-27 par. Luke 11:17-19)
• The parable of binding the strong man (Mark 3:27; Matt 12:29 par. Luke 11:21-22; Gos. Thom. 35)
• The story of someone other than a disciple casting out demons in Jesus’ name (Mark 9:38-41)
• The declaration that Jesus casts out demons by the finger/Spirit of God (Matt 12:28 par. Luke 11:20)
• The report of Jesus' vision of Satan falling like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18)
• The announcement that the ruler of the world has been driven out (John 12:31; 16:11; cf. 14:30)

 According to Allison, “one infers from all this material not only that Jesus was an exorcist but also that he and others saw his ministry in its entirety as a victorious combat with Satan. This holds, whatever one makes of the individual units, at least some of which may be difficult to think of as historical. What counts is not the isolated units but the pattern they weave, or the larger images they form.”

Coming out of Retirement - Recurrent Attestation

So I'm coming out of retirement, I hope. And the first thing I'd like to do is note something I explored some time ago [2005] about what Dale Allison has recently called "recurrent attestation." I'll explore this more in an upcoming blog...

----------------------------------------

Stephen Patterson, in his book The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning offers an interesting idea, borrowed from R. W. Funk, about typifications. Patterson in explaining the problem caused by judging which events or deeds of Jesus are in fact historical, writes:

The best provisional solution to this problem is to say simply that the deeds of Jesus present us with the creative memory of the church. In the Jesus Seminar, it was seldom that we could assert, even tenuously, the historical accuracy of any particular event or occasion as it is depicted in the gospels, or in fact, that such and such an event occurred at all. But we did notice that certain types of events are depicted with great frequency in the Jesus traditions, and across a variety of sources and forms. Things like healings and exorcisms, cavorting with the unclean and the shamed, conflict with his family - such things began to emerge as "typical" of Jesus in the widespread memory of the early church. Such typifications became the basis for a general description of the sort of things Jesus probably did, even though the historicity of any single story in the gospels was always hard to demonstrate.          Patterson, The God of Jesus, 57.

While I abhor many of the absurd presuppositions that the Jesus Seminar approach the gospels with when doing historical enquiry, this method seems to make much sense. We know for sure that the gospels don't record every single detail of the life of Jesus. Whatever we think of the historical value of John's gospel, his statement that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book [or any other I might add] appears a priori valid. It seems axiomatic that the gospels are a sampled survey of all the things about Jesus and they are not in an exact diary collection of facts and data.

Could the deeds of Jesus be likened to the position of Darrell Bock who has argued that the sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels are the "voice" of Jesus, and not the exact literal word for word dictation that many assume? Could we have echoes of the typical deeds of Jesus recorded in the gospels? Patterson notes that "the limits of ancient history are considerable, indeed."

Could this approach fit better with a critical realist epistemology, where certainty on any exact event [with a few notable exceptions such as the temple action, cross & resurrection, and perhaps a few others?] is unknown but the gist and typical features of Jesus' actions in healing, exorcism, interaction with Gentiles and Jews are known? The plausibility of this being the case seems almost certain given what we know about the limits and strengths of oral tradition as well. Maybe the memory of two separate encounters got blurred into one event [would that explain gospel differences better than or as well as editorial emphases?]

Wright notes that there is nothing to suggest that the sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the Plain are the same event. Jesus probably regularly gave a set piece of didactic speeches - Luke and Matt record summaries of them - in different locations because that was typical of Jesus teachings in various locations.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? Are there any published critiques or advocates of this view? In my mind, which is now reeling over the possibilities, this could alter our conception of the criteria of authenticity and exegesis.

Jesus Interrupted

Michael Kruger, Associate Professor of NT and Academic Dean at RTS in Charlotte, NC, reviews Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted. Here’s the conclusion:

In the end, Jesus Interrupted can be best summarized as a book filled with ironies. Ironic that it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be “right” (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is “right;” ironic that it dismisses Papias with a wave of the hand but presents the Gospel of the Ebionites as if it were equal to the canonical four; and ironic that it declares everyone can “pick and choose” what is right for them, but then offers its own litany of moral absolutes. Such intellectual schizophrenia suggests there is more going on in Jesus Interrupted than meets the eye. Though veiled in the garb of scholarship, this book is religious at the core. Ehrman does not so much offer history as he does theology, not so much academics as he does his own ideology. The reader does not get a post-religious Ehrman as expected, but simply gets a new-religious Ehrman–an author who has traded in one religious system (Christianity) for another (postmodern agnosticism). Thus, Ehrman is not out to squash religion as so many might suppose. He is simply out to promote his own. He is preacher turned scholar turned preacher. And of all the ironies, perhaps that is the greatest.

Stanton and Dunn on the Kingdom

Love your what?

Today's study brings me to Matt 5:43-48. The opening two verses are shocking, and jolting to say the least - especially if one is a follower of Jesus and takes these words seriously:

Vs. 43 “You have heard it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ Vs. 44 However, I am saying to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

Reading Dale Allison's excellent book: The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, I found this quote which penetrated my thoughts:

Jesus quotes Lev 19:18 not to contradict it but to enlarge it. The Pentateuch, like subsequent Jewish tradition, understands “neighbour” to be Israelite (see Lev 19:17), and this reading allows one to confine love to one’s own kind, or even to define neighbour in opposition to enemy. Jesus, however, gives “neighbour” its broadest definition. If one loves even one’s enemies, who will not be loved? One is inevitably reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan, who is good to an Israelite, his enemy (Luke 10:29-37). Love must prove itself outside the comfortable world of family, friends and associates.

Allison, The Sermon on the Mount, pg. 100

This saying embodies the activities of Jesus perfectly - and thus it is a call to disciples to be perfect, as their Father in Heaven is perfect (vs. 48). Anyone who thinks being a follower is easy, has obviously not understood what Jesus requires!

Jesus of History vs. Christ of Faith

Against any attempt by pious Christians of a mystical or docetic bent to swallow up the real humanity of Jesus into an “orthodox” emphasis on his divinity, the quest affirms that the risen Jesus is the same person who lived and died as a Jew in 1st-century Palestine, a person as truly and fully human – with all the galling limitations that involves – as any other human being. Against any attempt to “domesticate” Jesus for a comfortable, respectable bourgeois Christianity, the quest for the historical Jesus, almost from its inception, has tended to emphasize the embarrassing, nonconformist aspects of Jesus: e.g., his association with the religious and social “lowlife” of Palestine, his prophetic critique of external religious observances that ignore or strangle the inner spirit of religion, his opposition to certain religious authorities, especially the Jerusalem priesthood.

Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:199

Matt 5:3 - those who Lack the Spirit?

Dr. Bob Robinson was my teacher for Kingdom Ethics: A Study of the Sermon on the Mount paper, and it was fantastic.  We discussed the Beatitudes. After the class I sat down with the text and just worked through them one by one. What struck me was the usual interpretation of Matt 5:3.

Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι,

ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.

There is some interesting discussion on the translation of Μακάριος, which I translate as Blessed by God or Privileged by God... The interesting thing that I noted however, was the translation of πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι - which is usually translated as the poor in spirit - a reference taken to mean those economically marginalised and bankrupt. However, I'm not convinced this is accurate. Instead I'm thinking through a translation like this:

Privileged by God are those who lack the Spirit,

for Heaven’s Kingdom is theirs.

Here's my rationale: Matt 3:11; 12:28; 22:43 all refer to the Spirit of God. Matt 3:11 has noted John's prophecy that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit.  Scholars agree that a background to the beatitudes is probably Isaiah 61, which notes that:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners...

If this is true, then we could have Jesus' announcement of blessing/privilege to his audience consisting of an announcement concerning the Holy Spirit, which is now available through Jesus to anyone who lacks the Spirit. What a blessing!

I recognise that there are possible problems with the construction (See the criticism of Luz, Matthew 1-7, pg. 191 n. 59), but it does appear to make more sense than the usual interpretation, which ignores τῷ πνεύματι.

France, The Gospel of Matthew, pg. 165 sees this as a "poverty in spirit" but in a positive spiritual orientation, the converse of the arrognat self-confidence which not only rides roughshod over the interest of other people but more importantly causes a person to treat God as irrelevant. This is closer to my understanding, but again, it forces πνεύματι to refer to the human spirit which is impoverished or lacking, when Matthew's usage suggests a reference to the Divine Spirit.

Thoughts? Have I missed something?

Last Supper Singing

What Did Jesus Sing at the Last Supper? This is the question Brant Pitre raises, and it's one I got side-tracked with a few weeks ago. In my quick distraction from Colossians, I found this beautiful quote by Jeremias which tells an interesting story...

We know the prayers with which Jesus concluded the Last Supper. They are all prayers of thanksgiving. They praise him who delivered Israel from the Egyptians, before whose presence the earth trembles (Ps. 114). They praise him as the one living God, in whom the people of God put their trust; and who blesses those who fear him, and who will be blessed evermore (Ps. 115). They promise to the merciful redeemer, who has delivered the living from death, sacrifices of thanksgiving and the payment of vows in the presence of all his people (Ps. 116). They call upon the heathen to join in praise (Ps. 117). And they conclude with a prayer expressing the thanksgiving and jubilation of the festal congregation: ‘O give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his steadfast love endures for ever’ (Ps. 118:1). ‘Out of my distress has the Lord heard me’ (v. 5). Now the songs of jubilation resound: ‘I shall not die, but I shall live, and recount the deeds of the Lord’ (v. 17). ‘The rejected stone has become the chief cornerstone through God’s marvellous doing’ (vv. 22f.). ‘Blessed be in the name of the Lord he who comes’ (v. 26). To thee will I give thanks: ‘Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; yea, his steadfast love endures for ever (v. 29). These were the words in which Jesus prayed.

Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pg. 256

Enjoy celebrating the victory of God tomorrow morning!

The Twelve?

So, I'm still wrestling with the issue of "The Twelve", in ACTS especially. James Darlack provides some useful thinking, but then Scot McKnight went and confused me senseless with his Paper on Jesus and the Twelve, where he argues:

Jesus’ sending out the Twelve shows little parallel with the expectation of the reunification of the twelve tribes. Instead, the connotations of his choice and sending out of the Twelve show more significant parallels with Qumran leadership, T. Judah 25:1–2, and T. Benj. 10:7, and covenant reestablishment as found in Joshua 4. His expectation of the reunification of the twelve tribes in the land does emerge in the Q tradition (Luke 22:30 par. Matt 19:28; Luke 13:28–30 par. Matt 8:11–12), and his Twelve were to function in a leadership rule in that Kingdom. There is significant evidence for us to think that Jesus had in mind a restored Israel—twelve new leaders, the land under control, a pure Temple, and a radically obedient Israel. The two themes of covenant and eschatology that swirl around the number “twelve” form a combined witness to the centrality of Jesus’ vision for Israel: salvation-historical fulfillment—that is, covenant reestablishment—in his mission’s inauguration of the Kingdom and the embodiment of leadership in his twelve special leaders, who will rule and liberate the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom.

Perhaps The Twelve only made sense amongst Jewish Christians (hence James?), and in the increasing Gentile mission, such symbolic significance was lost? Far more thinking is required on this topic....

Bauckham Lecture Online

Richard Bauckham delivered the annual Drumwright lectures at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The lectures in total are three with the theme being "Eyewitnesses in The Gospel of Mark" : March 6, "Eyewitnesses: Simon Peter" (10:50 AM) March 6, " Eyewitnesses: Bartimaeus" (7:00 PM)March 7, "Eyewitnesses: The Three Women" ( 11:00 AM).

Furthermore, the first of the three lectures has been posted online. Bauckham has changed the order of the lectures leading off with the Bartimaeus lecture first. The video can be accessed here. The audio can be found here. I do hope the remainder of the lectures will be made available as well.

HT> Matt

Was Jesus Literate?

Craig Evans has published another study online discussing the issue of Jesus' literacy. See: Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus - C. A. Evans and W. H. Brackney (eds.), From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith (Mercer University Press, 2007) 41-54.

Skimming through it, it's a helpful response to the work of P. F. Craffert and P. J. J. Botha, “Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He Could Not Read and Write,” Neot 39 (2005): 5-35. Botha argue for the illiteracy of Jesus in the fourth part of his paper, under the heading “Was Jesus Literate?” (pp. 21-32). Evans response, is to that section of the paper.

As usual, Evans doesn't waste time and his familiarity with the material and the context in which Jesus was raised, lived and what the determining factors are, remain almost unmatched. The article assumes a knowledge of Greek, so either brush up or learn it, or just skip over. Another excellent offering from the mind of one of the greatest NT scholars alive.

Schweitzer's Famous Quote - Removed?

Scot McKnight in his short survey on the historical Jesus notes this famous quote by Albert Schweitzer.

“There is silence all around. The Baptist appears, and cries: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” Soon after that comes Jesus, and in the knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign.”

[Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, pg.370-371.]

If you follow the link in the reference, and scroll down to page 370-1, you'll see the quote in that edition. McKnight claims that the quote was removed from later editions of his work. My question is simply this: WHY? Did Schweitzer change his mind? Did later editors remove it, is there any explanation for this phenomenon, or is it just an enigma?

The Eucharistic Aims of Jesus

Brant Pitre, author of Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of Exile, has a brief post on his new project, provisionally titled: The Eucharistic Aims of Jesus. Pitre's aims are expressed as:

[An] attempt [at] full-scale reassessment of Jesus and the Last Supper in light of the recent advances in Jesus research, especially restoration eschatology. You would be amazed at just how small a role the Last Supper has played in many of the major historical portraits of Jesus in the century and how people have failed to connect it with the rest of his public ministry (e.g., E. P. Sanders).

I asked Pitre if he was going to interact with McKnight's proposal, and the response was positive, even hinting at some critical engagement which will be interesting to participate in. If this new offering is anything like Pitre's first offering, we will have much to give thanks for.

Concrete Kingdom!

Jesus stands out as one who performs miracles of healing and proclaims good news to the poor as he travels throughout Israel in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies. Implicitly we are prepared for the insight that this is how God's kingly rule of Israel in the end time operates concretely and is experienced right now, through the ministry of Jesus. Something new and different is occurring in the prophetic work of Jesus. Everyone, including the Baptists, is challenged to accept the truth that God is the ultimate agent at work in Jesus' words and actions, however much the events contradict one's preconceived ideas of what the end time would be like for Israel.[1]

The kingdom of God could not be suffering violent opposition as Jesus speaks if it had not taken on concrete, visible form in the words and deeds of Jesus. The very idea of the kingdom of God suffering from such violence is an astounding notion, foreign to the OT, the intertestamental literature, and the rest of the NT. The idea implies that what is in essence transcendent, eternal, invisible, and almighty - God's kingly rule - has somehow become immanent, temporal, visible, and vulnerable in Jesus' ministry. While the present kingdom appeared in a basically positive context in Matt 11:11b//Luke 7:28b, its context in Matt 11:12-13//Luke 16:16 is darker and more troubling.[2]

[1] Meier, A Marginal Jew II, pg. 401 [2] Meier, A Marginal Jew II, pg. 403

Devotion to Jesus in James

Larry Hurtado has done a tremendous amount of ground-breaking research into devotion directed towards Jesus of Nazareth.[1] Hurtado defines ‘devotion’ as: “beliefs and related religious actions that constituted the expressions of religious reverence of early Christians.”[2]

Exclusivist monotheism is the crucial religious context in which to view Christ-devotion in early Christianity, and was a major force shaping what Christ-devotion looked like, but monotheism hardly explains why devotion to Jesus emerged. What was the impetus? There are really two questions involved. (1) Why was there such a focus on, and thematizing of, this particular figure, Jesus? (2) Why did Christ-devotion assume the proportions it did in early Christianity, i.e., amounting to a new binitarian devotional pattern unprecedented in Jewish monotheism?[3]

At an astonishingly early point, in at least some Christian groups, there is a clear and programmatic inclusion of Jesus in their devotional life, both in honorific claims and in devotional practices. In addition, Jesus functioned in their ethical ideals and demands, in both interpersonal and wider social spheres.[4]

Based on this, I wish to suggest that the scattered Jewish-Christian communities, to which James writes, represents communities that were devoted to Jesus. More so, I wish to suggest that James is an exhortation to Jewish-Christians to intensify their devotion to Jesus by embracing and implementing the teachings of Jesus, which James viewed as authoritative for communal praxis and thus honouring to God.

Although having surveyed the epistle of James in an article on “Christology” in the Dictionary of Later New Testament and its Developments, Hurtado has not [to my knowledge] applied his insights to the letter of James regarding early Christian devotion to Jesus. This appears to be a depressing lacuna in Hurtado’s research, since I hope to show that James is an important piece of evidence when studying devotion to Jesus in early Christianity.[5] Hurtado lists six specific practices that constitute a novel and remarkable pattern of devotion to Jesus that is seen across the spectrum of our earliest sources.

1. Hymns about Jesus sung as part of early Christian worship;
2. Prayer to God “through” Jesus and “in Jesus’ name,” and even direct prayer to Jesus himself, including particularly the invocation of Jesus in the corporate worship setting;
3. “Calling upon the name of Jesus,” particularly in Christian baptism and in healing and exorcism;
4. The Christian common meal enacted as a sacred meal where the risen Jesus presides as “Lord” of the gathered community;
5. The practice of ritually “confessing” Jesus in the context of Christian worship; and
6. Christian prophecy as oracles of the risen Jesus, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy understood as also the Spirit of Jesus.[6]

In future posts, I'd like to explore some of these facets in James. What do you think?

[1] Studies devoted to this topic by Hurtado include, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003); How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? (Eerdmans, 2005); One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Judaism (Fortress, 1988) and At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion (Paternoster, 1999)

[2] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 3

[3] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 53

[4] Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 4. Italics original.

[5] I find it annoying that James is so often neglected in NT research. Many books claiming to be thematically based on the writings of the NT, flatly ignore James. In a book devoted to the ethics of the NT, Richard Hays [The Moral Vision of the New Testament] offers a mere four references to James! Hurtado’s magisterial study offers a mere three references to James, and fails to interact significantly with this important document. Could this be evidence that Luther has infected modern scholarship to such a degree that many simply ignore James as a second-rate document?

[6] Hurtado, How on Earth did Jesus Become a God?, pg. 28. See also Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, pg. 74-94