Luke v.33-39

Much violence has been done to this text in the past. I fear I have done this myself - thanks to LB for his gentle suggestions regarding the proper exegesis of this text.

It seems to be the expectation of the Pharisees that proper religious activity is what they do and what John’s disciples do: prayer and fasting, and that Jesus’ disciples should do the same. I’m not sure it’s quite about making amends, but rather human religious activity in general, e.g. self-denial (only a very subtle difference). Jesus says that that makes as much sense as trying to make wedding guests fast when the bridegroom is around, i.e. at the heart of the wedding celebration. It’s just not right. Jesus’ disciples eat and drink for they are sinners who have received forgiveness and have been made Jesus’ disciples. It is a joyous thing: Levi throws a feast. (I’d point to v. 29 for this.) In seeking to understand the parables, I’ve tried to identify the points of comparison between the parable and the real situation that Jesus is addressing. The situation seems to be the tension between wedding guests fasting and the presence of the bridegroom, i.e. human religion and the discipleship that Jesus offers. This parallels the old garment and old wineskins, and the new garment and new wine respectively. When Jesus is calling you to repent and offering forgiveness you don’t respond with fasting. The old won’t be properly patched up, and you’ll have ruined the new. The new will have been spilled and the old will be destroyed. One isn’t going to receive forgiveness and in fact, one is heading for destruction. I can see how v. 35 might fit in now, too. It could function as a warning of what would happen if the response to Jesus is simply to fast and pray rather than come to him for forgiveness - he will be taken away and then one would fast - because the opportunity for forgiveness has gone and all that is left is terror - cf. Hebrews x.26. It would certainly be consistent with the idea of tearing the new garment and spilling the new wine. New wine needs fresh wineskins. Could this be that the discipleship that Jesus offers requires requires people who respond in a radically different way (to the Pharisees), i.e. by heeding Jesus call to repent, trusting him, and entering the joy of forgiveness, rather than fasting? Given the incompatibility of people fasting and Jesus offer of discipleship and forgiveness, that Jesus is highlighting, it does seem to be the emphasis that people need to respond in a new way (compared to the Pharisees’ way). V. 39 seems to ask why one would want to go for fasting and ritual prayer when Jesus is the One who makes sinners his disciples. It just doesn’t make sense.

So it’s more about the “old corrupted” (the expectation of the Pharisees and scribes) being contrasted with the “new” (”old corrected/fulfilled”) than old and new covenants in absolute terms. And it’s certainly not about charismatic renewal!

Implications:

The proper response to Jesus is to heed his call to repentance and come to him for forgiveness.
This warns us of the perils of human religious activity: fasting etc. While not intrinsically wrong, it is certainly not necessary and when a substitute for coming to Christ in repentance and faith will lead to damnation and misery.
This also warns us of the perils of refusing the forgiveness that Jesus offers.

Luke v.27-32

Given the amount of effort required to write one of these posts, I’m not going to promise consecutive expositions of Luke’s gospel. I have, however, discovered how to send entries in by e-mail, which makes the whole process a lot more fun. It feels like I’m sharing some encouragement with a friend.

This is the third of a series of three episodes in which Jesus interacts with outcasts of some kind or another. If I were preaching all three in one sermon (given my Puritan tendencies, this is most unlikely), I guess my headings would be “The Leper”, “The Lame” and “The Loathed”. We don’t like giving money to the Tax Man now, but the tax collector would have been reviled in the first century A.D. He worked for the hated Roman invaders, collecting taxes from his own people. He more than likely would have taken more money than he needed too and kept it for himself. Indeed, I understand this practice was encouraged by the Romans. “Tax collector” was synonymous with “notorious sinner”. Jesus sees Levi and says, “Follow me.” Levi left everything, rose and followed him. So often we take these narratives as normative and we make Levi to be an example. Are we to leave our worldly jobs when we become Christians. Perhaps there are some forms of employment that are inconsistent with the gospel. Prostitution springs to mind. Interestingly, working for “the Revenue” isn’t - see Luke iii, 12-13. Besides, Levi is to be one of the twelve, set apart for the preaching of the Word and the establishment (note the little “e” there!) of the church. I am reminded of the words of Paul: “Are all apostles?” (I Corinthians xii.29). To make Levi an example for our lives is, I think, to divorce these verses from their context, and takes the focus off the Lord Jesus, which is surely to rob him of his glory. (This is perhaps symptomatic of human selfishness - from which I am not immune, I hasten to add! - which says that the text is primarily about me. No! As Christopher Ash said on the Cornhill Summer School (and I think he got it from someone else), the Bible is “God preaching God to us”.) The point of verses 27 and 28 are surely this: Jesus makes disciples even of notorious sinners. (Notice the irresistibility of Jesus’ call.)

Levi throws a great feast, and Jesus is there, showing table fellowship - the closest form of fellowship in first century Jewish society - with Levi’s colleagues, more of the notorious tax-collectors. The Pharisees and scribes grumbled: surely the true man of God would keep himself separate from these sinners. Jesus responds by saying that those who are sick are the ones who need a doctor, not the well. In the same way, it’s the sinners (which the Bible tells us means every single man, woman and child) who are the ones who need Jesus’ ministry. They are the ones who need the preaching of the gospel and the call to repentance. That’s why he has gone to them.

Implications

We can’t be too sinful to be disciples of Christ. We can’t say, “Surely God wouldn’t want me.” Jesus will take the worst of sinners.
Jesus came to call sinners to repentance: therefore we must repent, i.e. turn away from our rebellion and turn to Christ, to live with him as our Master and trust in him as our Saviour.
It isn’t right to completely withdraw from sinful people into a holy conclave. Yes, God insists that we keep ourselves pure and undefiled by sin - see, for example, II Corinthians vi.14-vii.1 - and so there may be situations that we don’t go into, so that we are not tempted into sin ourselves, and so that we are not associated with a sinful lifestyle (one particular example, I think, would be clubbing), Jesus came to call sinners to repentance and ours is the same commission.

Luke v.17-26

I’m currently reading through Luke’s gospel and it’s my hope in this ‘blog to share some of my thoughts on it. If I have time, I might publish my musings on earlier chapters. As it is, I’m afraid we’ll have to plunge into the middle of a chapter. I promise to try to be sensitive to the context, though!

In the Benedictus, Zechariah says that the knowledge of salvation that God will give to his people is “in the forgiveness of their sins” - Luke ii.77. When we hear the word “salvation”, we immediately think of forgiveness of sins but really the scope is much wider. The salvation that Zechariah is referring to is deliverance of God’s people from their enemies - see Luke ii.71, 74 - that they might serve God in perpetual holiness and righteousness - Luke ii.75. In God’s tender mercy, he promises to “give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide [his people's] feet into the way of peace” - Luke ii.79 - which is the language the Old Testament prophets used to refer to Restoration from exile and is connected with the putting down of God’s enemies that his people might have peace. See, for example, Isaiah ix.2 and Psalm cvii.3, 10-16. (Providentially, I read Psalm cvii this morning. Whatever you think about Anglicanism and liturgy, the Book of Common Prayer rather helpfully appoints Psalms to be read each day of the month, in the morning and in the evening. I find reading the Psalms aloud a helpful practice - you spot things you wouldn’t otherwise (at least I do!) and what better way is there to start and end the day than by speaking to God in words he has given to his people by which to speak to him.) Getting back to the point, salvation should be primarily seen in terms of God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises and the enlargement of the blessings that were previously enjoyed under it, with an expansion of its beneficiaries to include vast numbers of Gentiles like me, which is made possible by the forgiveness of sins. This, according to Zechariah, finally comes in the time of Christ, of whom his son, John, is the forerunner.

So in Luke v.20, when Jesus declares that the sins of the paralytic are forgiven, he is claiming to be the One who brings about God’s salvation through the forgiveness of sins, which we know is brought about through his death on the cross, suffering the punishment for sins in the place of those Jesus came to save. The Pharisees who had gathered to see Jesus in action (Luke v.17) were perturbed by Jesus’ statement and they rightly asked, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Sin is above all an offence to God and so only he has the right to forgive it. They only go halfway in their thinking though accusing Jesus in their hearts of blasphemy. Jesus sees into their hearts and asks why they question him. Clearly they are inexcusable for their unbelieving response to him. Jesus then asks whether it is easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven you,” or, “Rise and walk,” to which the answer is, “It is easier to say that your sins are forgiven.” But how can one really know? Jesus then heals the man as a proof that he has the authority to forgive sins.

The logic is something like this: “I claim to have the authority to forgive sins. You can’t tell that this man’s sins have actually been forgiven. Therefore, to prove my authority, I will do something visible to prove it, something that itself is difficult, indeed, requires the miraculous.” This Jesus does. Often, people then say that simply because Jesus did the sign that he said he would do, his claim is proved. But I think this is to miss the context of salvation as covenant restoration. The healing of the lame is one of the explicit characteristics of the Restoration, when God returns to his people, delivers them from their enemies and blesses them greatly as relationship with him is restored - see Isaiah xxxv.6, Jeremiah xxxi.8 and Micah iv. According to Leviticus xxi, physical defects including lameness prevents access to God because of his holiness and perfection. If the lame are healed, then access to God is restored. Jesus is the one who has come to bring about the forgiveness of sins, and by healing the paralytic, Jesus is identifying himself as the Christ who is bringing about the Restoration, at the heart of which is the forgivenes of sins. God alone has the authority to forgive sins: this identifies Jesus as the God who has come to his people to deliver them.

Implications:

We must go to Jesus for forgiveness.
We live in the in-between times, so while the coming age has broken into this age in Jesus, we can’t expect the full blessings of the Restoration now. Nevertheless, this passage tells us something we can look forward to in the Restoration and from which we can draw much comfort in the present: physical healing. If we are Christ’s, if we are included in the covenant by responding to him in faith (i.e. putting our trust in him), then we can be confident that one day, no matter how bad things get now, all will be perfect in the new heavens and the new earth which Jesus will usher in when he returns.

Would someone please tell me if I am “hitting straight”, to use Dick Lucas’s phrase!