Prof: The chronological
and geographical structure of
Luke-Acts is thematic and
theological, not historical.
That's what we talked about
last time.
How you can actually see the
author of Luke-Acts taking
sources that he took before him,
perhaps some oral sources,
I've argued that some of these
were even written sources,
because it seems like you can
actually see where he takes
something that was in a written
account of the spread of
Christianity,
slices it at one place,
separates that,
and puts several chapters in
Acts between them.
 
It's very clear from the ten
chapters in the Gospel of Luke,
which we call the journey to
Jerusalem section,
that this is an artificial
construction on the author's
part because,
he tells us at one point,
at this point Jesus set his
face to go to Jerusalem.
And then he's taken material
that he's found in the Gospel of
Mark in different places,
some parables here,
some stories here,
some teachings here,
he's taken other things that he
probably found in Q,
in different places,
although because remember we
don't possess an actual written
document of Q,
it's a hypothetical document,
but we figure that if he did
this with Mark,
whose document we do possess
and therefore can see how he
changes the order of material he
presents from Mark,
he probably did the same thing
with Q also.
 
We can see that he's taken
things from different sources
that he had and put them into
this ten chapter long journey to
Jerusalem.
 
Luke and Acts looks like a
historical document and this is
what fools people.
 
Do you remember back earlier in
the beginning of the semester
where we compared the first two
chapters of Paul's letter to the
Galatians with the way Paul is
presented as being in and out of
Jerusalem,
and how many times he went to
Jerusalem,
what happened in Jerusalem,
what happened in Damascus,
and I asked you to compare
those two accounts.
 
Some of you thought,
well I believe the Acts account
because Paul clearly has an ax
to grind in Galatians,
he's clearly trying to make a
point of his independence from
the Jerusalem church.
 
The book of Acts just looks
more like a history;
it looks more like a historical
account.
Well by now you know that,
yes, even though it looks like
a historical account,
especially by ancient
historiographical standards,
it's not a historical account
in anything like the modern
sense.
One of the most important
things to realize,
these texts you're reading are
creative texts,
they're put together for
purposes, not one of them is
coming to you without some kind
of ax to grind,
without some kind of tendency,
without some kind of
theological or ethical or
political statement to make.
I would go further,
well I just think I'm an honest
realist,
some people might call me a
cynic, and say that we need to
be careful about all texts we
read and not take any text that
we read as not having some kind
of slant,
some kind of interest,
some kind of ideological
message.
That's important to read about
all texts in my view.
The last time I made this point
by pointing out how that we can
see some seams in Luke's
narrative,
where he ripped apart the
source he used to splice
something between Acts 8:4 and
Acts 11:19.
Now I want you to look with me
at another passage in Acts,
we're going to do the same sort
of thing with Acts 6 and 7.
Get your Bibles out.
 
This is the story of Stephen.
 
We've talked about Stephen
several times already,
he's supposedly the first
Christian martyr.
He was one of the Greek
speaking Hellenistic Jews who's
in Jerusalem at the time after
Jesus' death and resurrection,
and he is chosen as one of the
twelve [correction:
seven]
deacons to minister to the
widows and to do other kinds of
ministerial work,
probably because the church was
made up partly of Aramaic-Hebrew
speaking Jews and partly of
Greek speaking Jews.
Stephen seems to have been one
of those who was chosen to kind
of take care of the Greek
speaking Jewish members of this
small little community.
 
Now you have to remember we're
talking about a very early
period in the history of
Christianity.
It's not even Christianity yet.
 
This is just a bunch of Jews
who believe Jesus is the
Messiah;
they were shocked and horrified
when Jesus was crucified because
the Messiah was not supposed to
be crucified.
 
There was no Jewish expectation
that the Messiah would be a
suffering Messiah in the ancient
Jewish world.
That's something that followers
of Jesus had to invent once they
were shocked at the fact that he
was actually crucified.
The idea was the Messiah
wouldn't be crucified and
wouldn't suffer,
the Messiah would bring an army
and overthrow the Romans.
 
So the fact that they believed
he was the Messiah and then he's
executed, that just came as a
huge shock to these early
disciples of Jesus.
 
They basically had to invent a
new concept of what the Jewish
Messiah was.
 
This was a very small group of
people,
huddled in Jerusalem,
maybe some of them were in
Galilee,
maybe in Syria,
maybe a few other places but
according to Acts they're all in
Jerusalem at this time.
 
This small group of people are
trying to figure out who Jesus
was and what that means for the
history of Jerusalem.
Stephen is one of these people
and he's accused of several
things.
 
Look at 6:11,6:11 in Acts,
"They secretly instigated
some men--
" that is,
they that the Jewish opponents
of this Jesus group,
they had become offended with
Stephen and his arguments."
They secretly instigated some
men to say, "We have heard
him speak blasphemous words
against Moses and God."
They're accusing him of
blasphemy against Moses and God.
What would this kind of
blasphemy against Moses and God
mean?
 
Well we're going to pick up a
few details.
Look at 13:
They set up false witnesses who
said, "This man never
stopped saying things against
this holy place."
 
What is this holy place?
 
The temple, exactly,
"this holy place"
refers to the Jerusalem temple.
 
They're accusing him of
preaching against the temple and
the law.
 
"For we have heard him say
that this Jesus of Nazareth will
destroy this place,
and will change the customs
that Moses handed onto us."
 
Now notice, the writer here is
telling you these are
false accusations.
 
Are they false accusations?
 
Was he really preaching against
the temple?
Remember, Jesus is portrayed in
some of the Gospels as
himself having predicted
that the temple would be
destroyed.
 
Does that mean that Jesus was
preaching against the temple?
Some Christian writers very
quickly portray Jesus as
teaching that his followers
don't have to keep the Jewish
law.
 
I don't think that's actually
correct for the historical Jesus
as we'll talk about when we get
to the historical Jesus.
That's clearly how some early
Christian writers are portraying
Jesus as teaching that,
you followers of mine don't
have to keep the Jewish law.
 
That's what they're accusing
Stephen of doing.
So is this a false accusation
or is this just maybe what
Stephen actually was teaching,
as being a different form of
the message about Jesus?
 
Notice then we get to--these
are the accusations about
Stephen, but then in chapter 7
we get Stephen's own speech.
Now this is very interesting.
 
I wish I could read the whole
thing because it's rhetorically
very powerful.
 
What Stephen does is he starts
off just talking about the God
who appeared to Abraham in
Mesopotamia.
He tells the story that any of
us Christians would recognize as
the story of the Old Testament
God and his interactions with
Abraham and Moses,
and which Jews would recognize
as reflected in Jewish
scripture,
in Jewish tradition.
 
That's the way the most part of
the first half of that chapter 7
goes, it's a retelling of the
Hebrew Bible story about God,
the God of Israel.
 
What really becomes interesting
is, though, when he gets
to--around verse 37 in chapter
7, I mean 35 in chapter 7,
so look at that with me.
 
Now right before this,
notice he says:
"'I have surely seen the
mistreatment of my people [this
is God talking]
who were in Egypt and have
heard their groaning and I have
come down to rescue them.
Come now I will send you to
Egypt.'"
God's telling Moses,
at this point,
he's going to send them to
Egypt to deliver the people and
we expect the whole story then
of the Exodus to come next.
What does it say in verse 35?
 
"It was this Moses whom
they rejected when they said,
'Who made you ruler and judge?'
 
and whom God now sent as both
ruler and liberator through the
angel who appeared to him in the
bush."
In other words,
instead of emphasizing here
Moses' activity of leading the
Israelites out of captivity,
he emphasizes another aspect of
the story that's there in the
Old Testament story because,
yes, one of the Israelites--the
story is: Moses comes upon two
Israelites who are fighting.
They're both--they are slaves
in Egypt at this time and he
says to one of the Israelites,
is that any way to treat your
brother?
 
That Israelite rebukes him and
says, who set you up as a judge
over us?
 
Notice that's the verse that
Stephen centers on at this point
to emphasize the story about
Moses.
Not so much Moses as just
deliverer but Moses as someone
rejected by the people.
 
Have we seen that before?
 
Uh-huh, one of the themes of
Luke-Acts is prophets get
rejected by the people.
 
Verse 35, that's what he
emphasizes.
Let's just keep reading there.
 
"He led them out,
having performed wonders and
signs in Egypt at the Red Sea,
and in the wilderness for forty
years.
 
This is the Moses who said to
the Israelites,
'God will raise up a prophet
for you from your own people,
as he raised me up.'"
Now in the Old Testament it
seems like Moses is talking
about--anybody know?
Who follows Moses as the leader
of the people of Israel?
Yes sir?
 
Student:  Joshua.
 
Prof: Joshua, exactly.
 
It sounds like Moses is
predicting Joshua's being raised
up after he dies,
but that's not what Stephen
thinks.
 
"This is the Moses who
said to the Israelites,
'God will raise you ...'"
"He is the one who was in
the congregation in the
wilderness with the angel who
spoke to him at Mount Sinai with
our ancestors;
he received living oracles to
give to us.
Our ancestors were unwilling to
obey him;
instead they pushed him aside
in their hearts and turned back
to Egypt."
 
Then it tells about the golden
calf story, how the Israelites
rejected Moses and the law,
and made a golden fat calf to
worship.
 
Now look at 7:44:
"Our ancestors had the
tent of testimony in the
wilderness,
as God directed when he spoke
to Moses,
ordering him to make it
according to the pattern he had
seen."
 
This refers to the stories in
Exodus about the tabernacle,
"the tent of
testimony."
This is a big tent that's--the
construction that we just talked
about,
this is where God would meet
the people Israel and Moses
before the building of the
temple.
 
Stephen is fine with this,
he's saying,
God instructed Moses,
and Moses directed the people
to construct this tent of
witness or meeting of God with
Israel,
and that's where God chose to
be with his people according to
the Bible.
He gives that little history.
 
But then look at 45,
"Our ancestors in turn
brought it in with Joshua when
they dispossessed the nations
that God drove out before our
ancestors.
And it was there until the time
of David ..."
So up until the time of David
the people of Israel had a
tabernacle where they met
God."..
.who found favor with God and
asked that he might find a
dwelling place for the house of
Jacob."
David was the first one who
raised the idea of having a
temple to God,
not just a tabernacle but a
temple,
that's where we're going in the
history here.
 
"But it was Solomon who
built the house for him.
Yet the Most High does not
dwell in houses made with human
hands."
 
Where does the story go?
 
The story's gone fine up to
this point.
It's just like we see it in
Exodus and the Old Testament,
the Hebrew Bible,
David wanted to build a temple
for God, God said,
no.
Solomon comes up later and he
wants to build temple and
finally God says yes,
at least according to part of
the Hebrew Bible.
 
But another part of the Hebrew
Bible always had a little bit of
a prejudice against the idea
that anybody could build a house
for God.
 
Some prophets seem not to like
the temple so much,
other prophets seem to like the
temple so much.
What Stephen is doing,
he's pulling out of the Hebrew
Bible that kind of anti-temple
prophetic strain,
and he's emphasizing that as
part of his message.
Then notice what he quotes
there, a passage from the Hebrew
Bible, and then in verse 51:
"You stiff necked people,
uncircumcised of heart and
ears, you are forever opposing
the Holy Spirit,
just as your ancestors used to
do."
 
What happened to Stephen?
 
He just went--all of a sudden
his panties are really in a wad
for no obvious reason.
 
He's been telling the story of
the building of the temple.
He's been going along fine,
now he starts--he's gone from
preaching now to insulting his
audience.
He's insulting the Jews in
Jerusalem;
he's accusing them of being on
the wrong side of history.
Why?
 
Because they wanted to build a
temple.
"Which of the prophets did
your ancestors not persecute?
They killed those who foretold
the coming of the Righteous One,
and now you have become his
betrayers and murderers.
You are the ones who received
the law as ordained by
angels."
 
What?
 
Angels gave the Jewish law?
 
I thought God gave the law,
the Torah, on Sinai.
I thought God wrote the stones
with his finger and gave them to
Moses, and Moses carried them
down the mountain.
Well, yeah, that's what the
scripture says,
but by this time in Jewish
history it was not uncommon for
Jews,
even pious Jews,
to believe that God did not
himself directly write the law
and give it to Moses,
angels did.
Most of them believed that this
was with God's pleasure and
principle.
 
God wanted the angels to
deliver the law through Jews,
but at least they put,
between God and Moses,
angels.
 
And angels, according to some
of these traditions,
were the ones who actually gave
the law to the Israelites and to
Moses.
 
As we'll come to see,
Paul believed this also,
it wasn't an uncommon view
among Jews.
But notice what Stephen does,
he actually uses this tradition
that the angels were the ones
who gave the law to Moses to
distance God a bit from the law,
to make the law a little bit
less connected to God.
 
He demotes the law by reading
the angels in between them.
Stephen has done two things in
this speech.
He's grabbed hold of a certain
prophetic tradition that we know
is already there in the Bible,
which criticized the Jerusalem
temple.
 
It's there in some prophets,
why should God need a house?
God doesn't need a house,
God lives everywhere.
Stephen pulls on that tradition
that's already in the Bible,
and then he adds this tradition
about--
that was common at the time
about angels being the ones who
actually gave the law to Moses
rather than God directly.
Then he turns all this on his
Jewish attackers,
his critics,
and that's what he accuses them
of,
and then says,
you crucified Jesus just like
the people rejected Moses and
all the prophets.
 
When they heard these things
they became enraged and ground
their teeth at Stephen,
and they stoned him.
Is it any surprise they stoned
him?
Now I ask the question again,
when the author of Acts sets
these things up as false
accusations against Stephen,
who's right?
 
Stephen or the author?
 
Stephen actually does look
like, in his own speech,
to be attacking both the law
and the temple.
That is "this holy
place" and Moses.
I think what's going on here is
another place we see the author
of Acts taking material he has
before him,
and sticking it into a place,
and then writing around it.
For example,
the author of Acts is the one
who says,
these were false accusations
against Stephen,
they set up and they were
totally false,
Stephen was totally innocent,
but then he actually includes
Stephen's speech which backs up
the accusations.
 
The other thing that makes this
seem to me clearly that the
author is using prior material
is that this view of the temple
that Stephen presents,
this view that the temple is
not good,
that God doesn't like the
temple, and it's only stiff
necked and uncircumcised of
heart people who believe in the
temple.
That's not the view of the
author of Acts.
How do you know that?
 
Because over and over again
Luke, the author of Acts,
actually portrays the disciples
as meeting in the temple right
after the resurrection of Jesus;
where does it say they met and
had prayers and preached,
and prayed?
In the temple,
the disciples of Jesus meet in
the temple.
 
They're not anti-temple.
 
When Paul goes off around the
world, and then he comes back to
Jerusalem, what does he do to
show his piety?
He takes a vow,
a Nazarite vow,
he shaves his head,
he donates money which goes to
the temple for sacrifices,
and he himself goes to the
temple to worship.
 
Paul worships in the temple.
 
The author of Acts is not
himself anti-temple.
He believes that the Jerusalem
temple is just fine for Jews.
He actually doesn't think
Gentiles need to pay that much
attention to it,
but he believes it's perfectly
fine for Jews.
 
But he includes in here a
speech by Stephen that is both
anti-temple and somewhat
anti-law.
This shows that this author is
using these different sources
the speech of Stephen comes from
a pre-Lukan source and its set
into the book of Acts.
 
Now that means we can see his
editorial activity,
but notice what it also tells
us we can see.
We actually have,
then, two different forms of
early Christianity.
 
Luke represents one and Stephen
even embedded within Luke's own
document represents another.
 
We've got two different ideas,
is the law of Moses something
that's given by angels and
therefore demoted and not very
good,
in which the law of Moses gets
criticized,
or is the law of Moses
perfectly fine?
 
The Jewish law with--that
signals their ethnicity as being
people of Israel,
that's the point of view of
Luke.
 
Is the temple something that is
good,
that's a sign of God's covenant
with Israel,
which seems to be the view of
most of the people in Luke-Acts
or is the temple something that
shows that you're stiff necked
if you believe in its efficacy?
 
That seems to be Stephen's view.
 
In other words,
we have little hints here that
even within one book in the New
Testament we have different
kinds of early Christianity
represented with slightly
different theologies.
 
Now we can also see it several
other times where Luke takes and
changes things.
 
I talked about this at the very
last of my session last time,
but I want to just reiterate it
very quickly.
Some of you,
if you don't have
Throckmorton's Gospel parallels,
or some other Gospel parallels,
this is why these are very
useful,
because I'm going to use this
that way I have Mark right here
and Luke right here for the same
passage and I can compare them
very,
very directly,
see exactly what words they
have different.
If you don't have that put one
of your fingers where we talked
about last time,
Mark 13:14-27,
and put another finger at Luke
21:20-33.
And if you have Throckmorton
it's paragraph 216,
section 216 in Throckmorton.
 
Look at the Mark passage first,
3:14:
"But when you see the
desolating sacrilege set up
where it ought not to be (let
the reader understand) ..."
And then he says,
get out of town,
get out of Judea.
 
Go to the mountains because all
hell is breaking loose anytime,
and then he gives several
things that are there.
If you look at Luke where Luke
has a parallel in Luke 21:20,
Luke doesn't say "the
desolating sacrilege,"
he just says,
"When you see Jerusalem
surrounded by armies,
then know that its desolation
has come near."
 
There's a common wording there
but it's slightly different.
Then Luke also says:
"Those inside this city
should leave,
those out in the country should
not enter it."
 
And then you go on.
 
There's great distress in both
places.
Look at verse 21 of Mark 13:
"If anyone says to you at
this time, 'Look,
here's the Messiah!'
or 'Look, there he is!' do not
believe it."
False prophets.
 
Now that's also going to be in
Luke but in a totally different
place that's contained in Luke
17.
So Luke's using that false
prophet material but not in this
context.
 
Then look at Mark 13:24:
"But in those days after
that suffering,
the sun will be dark and the
moon will not give its light,
the stars will be falling from
heaven."
 
In other words,
after all this other stuff he's
told you, that's when the big
catastrophe takes place.
The sun eclipses,
the stars fall from heaven,
the moon is dark.
 
Luke also has something like
that in Luke 21:25,
"There will be signs in
the sun,
the moon, and the stars,
and on earth distress among
nations caused by the roaring of
the seas."
Luke gives slightly different
material.
The problem is Luke then--yes,
notice how right after that it
says--Mark has the Son of Man
coming with the clouds of glory
in verse 26.
 
Right after that you have the
Son of Man coming down,
but Luke has a bunch more
material and you don't get
anything until you see Luke
21:32 where he says,
"This generation will not
pass away until all things have
taken place.
 
Heaven and earth will pass away
but my words will not pass
away."
 
Then where does--well,
I must have passed it.
Where is it that Luke talks
about the time of the Gentiles?
Give me the verse--24?
 
Yes, that's right.
 
In 24:
"There will be great
distress on earth and wrath,
they will fall by the edge of
the sword and be taken away as
captive among all nations.
And Jerusalem will be trampled
on by the Gentiles until the
time of the Gentiles has been
fulfilled."
Notice Luke inserts there
something that's not there in
the other sources,
which is that Jerusalem will be
captured,
it will be destroyed,
it will have a time of the
Gentiles in between.
And then Luke goes on to talk
about the coming of Jesus and
the very end.
 
Again, one of these places
where you can clearly see the
editorial seams of the writer
and you have the time of the
Gentiles.
 
One of the things that we've
seen is that Luke is carefully
constructing his sources to make
his own point.
What I want to do now is now
turn our attention to,
okay, what are some of those
points?
What are some of the points
we've already talked about?
What are some of Luke's basic
messages?
One, Jesus is like the prophets;
Jesus is like Elijah and Elisha.
Two, prophets get rejected by
their people.
Three, when you're rejected by
the people then the message goes
out to other corners of the
earth,
and then this schematic view of
history that we talked about
later from Jerusalem to Judea,
to Samaria, to the ends of the
earth.
 
Now let's look at how some of
these things play out.
One of Luke's most important
messages is "to the Jew
first."
 
Let's look at Luke 1:5-7,
we're going to spend a little
bit of time in Luke now,
the beginning parts of Luke.
Luke is very concerned to show,
as I said last time,
that Jesus is a good Jewish
boy, his parents are good Jewish
parents,
he comes from good Jewish
extended family.
 
Luke 1:5, this is right after
the very beginning of the
prologue which I mentioned
last--which I talked about last
time.
 
In the days of King Herod of
Judea there was a priest named
Zachariah who belonged to the
priestly order of Abijah.
His wife was a descendant of
Aaron, and her name was
Elizabeth.
 
Both of them were righteous
before God, living blamelessly
according to all the
commandments and regulations of
the Lord.
 
But they had no children
because Elizabeth was barren,
and both were getting on in
years.
Doesn't that sound kind of
familiar?
Old, very righteous couple,
can't have children,
she's getting on in years,
she's barren,
Abraham and Sarah,
sounds like lots of--
it sounds like Abraham and
Sarah, it also is going to sound
like Hannah,
the mother of Samuel.
These are these wonderful
stories in the Bible about this
old couple who want to have
children and can't have
children.
 
So this is already evoking this
idea of Jesus' family being like
a story--
they're a family like--you
might find them right there in
scripture,
they're just like that.
 
Look at 1:25,
this is when Elizabeth
conceives, for five months she
remained in seclusion,
she said,
"This is what the Lord has
done for me when he looked
favorably on me and took away
the disgrace I have endured
among my people."
Sounds like its right out of 1
Samuel, second chapter.
Look--keep one finger right
there--in fact first read
1:46--this is the Magnificat.
 
Look at 1:46, Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the
Lord, my spirit rejoices in God
my Savior.
For he has looked with favor on
the lowliness of his servant.
Surely from now on all
generations will call me
blessed."
 
I read this last time,
there's a lot of message about
the rich will be sent to go
away,
the poor will be raised up,
the reversal of status in the
world.
 
Now keep your finger there and
go all the way to the Old
Testament, the Hebrew Bible,
to 1 Samuel.
It's right before the two books
called Kings and right after the
book called Ruth.
 
1 Samuel tells about the birth
of the prophet Samuel,
his mother is Hannah,
and here's her story in chapter
2 of 1 Samuel,
Hannah prayed and said,
"My heart exalts in the
Lord,
my strength is exalted in my
God, my mouth derides my enemies
because I rejoice in my victory.
 
There is no Holy One like the
Lord, no one beside you;
there is no rock like our God.
 
Talk no more so proudly,
let not arrogance come from
your mouth, for the Lord is a
God of knowledge,
and by him actions are weighed.
 
The bows of the mighty are
broken, but the feeble gird on
strength."
 
It's a whole song,
you can read the whole thing
there,
but if you just keep one finger
at 1 Samuel 2,
and one finger at Luke 1:46,
Mary's song is obviously
fashioned on the song of Hannah.
The message is the reversal of
status of rich and poor,
weak and powerful.
 
That's not all.
 
Look at 1:14.
 
This is talking about the birth
of John the Baptist,
his father is the priest
Zachariah, his mother is
Elizabeth.
 
And this is the prophecy that
comes with the angel to
Zachariah.
 
"You will have joy and
gladness and many will rejoice
at his birth,
for he will be great in the
sight of the Lord.
 
He must never drink wine or
strong drink;
even before his birth he will
be filled with the Holy
Spirit."
 
John the Baptist is portrayed
like Elijah.
You read stories about Elijah;
similar things are said about
him.
 
Look at 2:36,
we're going to move quickly,
There was a prophet,
Anna the daughter of Phaneul,
of the tribe of Asher.
 
You hear how biblical that
sounds?
That's real biblical.
 
The guy who wrote this,
I don't think he was a Jew,
I think he was probably a
Gentile, but he spoke Greek as
his main language.
 
It's not like he's just
automatically talking this way
in a sense,
I think he's consciously
constructing his book to sound
like the Bible,
to sound like the Jewish
scripture.
She was of great age,
having lived with her husband
seven years after her marriage,
then as a widow to the age of
eighty-four she never left the
temple [there's the temple]
but worshipped there with
fasting and prayer night and
day.
 
At that moment she came,
and began to praise God and to
speak about the child [that's
Jesus]
to all who are looking for
redemption of Jerusalem.
Anna is this holy woman,
just like many of the holy
women in the Bible.
 
Then you have these psalms and
prayers.
I've already talked about the
Magnificat, that Mary says.
Look also at 1:68,
this is the prayer that
Zachariah, the father of John
the Baptist prays:
"Blessed be the Lord God
of Israel for he has looked
favorably on his people and
redeemed them.
He has raised up a mighty
Savior for us in the house of
his servant David."
 
In other words,
he goes on to quote basically
what sounds like a psalm.
 
It's very much a psalm-like
piece of literary poetry there.
Mary had her Magnificat,
which sounds like scripture.
Zachariah has his Benedictus,
again these are these songs
that if you're Roman Catholic,
or if you're Episcopalian
or--do Lutherans say the
Magnificat and the Benedictus in
these things in liturgy?
 
Any Lutherans in here?
 
Any other denominations in here
say these things?
I'm not sure I know which ones
actually say the Magnificat,
"my soul magnifies the
Lord," or the Benedictus.
If you're Roman Catholic or
Episcopalian you say these
psalms as part of the liturgy.
 
They come from the New
Testament but they sound very
much like the Old Testament.
 
Zachariah has one;
we call it the Benedictus
because in Latin,
if you had a Latin Bible in
front of you,
the first word of that psalm
would be benedictus,
"blessed be the Lord God
of Israel."
 
The other psalm is 2:19,
which Simeon prays.
Simeon's this holy man living
in the temple,
again there's that theme of the
temple.
When he sees Jesus the baby he
says,
"Master,
now you are dismissing your
servant in peace according to
your word.
For my eyes have seen your
salvation, which you have
prepared in the presence of all
peoples, a light for revelation
to the Gentiles."
 
Already at the very beginning
of the Gospel,
though Jesus himself won't go
to the Gentiles during his life,
this is something that Luke
will wait until Acts to show us.
Simeon predicts it,
he prophesied about it in this
little psalm.
 
This is called the Nunc
Dimittis in Christian liturgical
tradition,
because in Latin "now
departs your servant,"
that's what the Latin means.
Then there's the piety of the
holy family already mentioned
before.
 
Only Luke tells us about the
circumcision of Jesus,
in 2:21.
 
Only Luke tells us in 2:22,
this is worth looking at,
"That after the prescribed
period according to the law of
Moses," Jesus' family
followed the law of Moses very
well.
 
They brought him up to
Jerusalem to present him to the
Lord,
as it is written in the law of
the Lord,
"Every first born male
shall be designated as holy to
the Lord."
They offered a sacrifice
according to what is stated in
the law of the Lord,
a pair of turtle doves and two
young pigeons.
 
In other words,
over and over again,
I could cite several different
other examples,
Luke wants to portray the holy
family,
John the Baptist's family,
and the holy family of Jesus
and Jesus himself as all being
good Jews who honor the temple,
who keep the law.
 
They do everything like they're
supposed to do.
It's no surprise that when you
get to the book of Acts the
theme that comes out more than
anything is "to the Jew
first."
 
Look at Acts,
I'm not going to read all of
this,
but Acts 13:46,
this is Paul and Barnabas,
they've been speaking on the
Sabbath day to a crowd in a
synagogue and the people--
some of them believe and some
get jealous.
In 13:46:
Then both Paul and Barnabas
spoke out boldly saying,
"It was necessary that the
word of God should be spoken
first to you [that is to the
Jews].
 
Since you reject it and judge
yourselves to be unworthy of
eternal life,
we are now turning to the
Gentiles."
 
It happens again--the same
thing is said in Acts 18:6,
the same thing is said in
26:20.
Over and over again,
see Paul goes to a town,
he goes first to the synagogue,
he preaches in the synagogue,
the Jews reject him,
he kind of shakes the dust off
his feet,
you Jews rejected the Gospel
therefore we're going to the
Gentiles.
But he never gets to a point
where he finally and completely
turns away from the Jews;
he keeps going back to the Jews
in every town he gets too.
 
This idea that the message must
be preached first to the Jews
and only then to the Gentiles,
is a point that Acts makes
over, and over,
and over again.
So is it any surprise that in
the Gospel of Luke he wanted
to--he's careful to set up Jesus
as a good Jew?
That's the beginning of it.
 
It's only later that it will go
to the Gentiles,
so that pattern gets played out
over and over again until the
very end of Acts.
 
Now look at the end of Acts,
chapter 28 of Acts,
verse 28.
 
This is at the end of Paul's
last speech in Acts.
He was in Jerusalem,
he was actually trying to go
worship in the temple,
but some of the bad Jews who
didn't like Paul thought he was
trying to take Gentiles into the
temple,
which would have been against
the law.
 
So they grab him,
a big riot ensues,
and they take Paul before the
Sanhedrin,
the big sort of Jerusalem kind
of senate type body,
and they put him on trial.
 
Paul's message in all of these
things is that,
I didn't do anything wrong,
I'm just here to obey the law,
I'm here to serve my people,
to honor the traditions of my
people and my ethnic group,
the Jews.
And then eventually,
though, such a big dispute
arises that Paul is arrested by
the Roman governor in order--
he says to protect Paul from
being lynched.
Paul is imprisoned then.
 
Finally Paul is afraid he's
going to lose a trial with
these--
his Jewish enemies on one side,
so he appeals to the Roman
governor straight to the
Emperor,
he says, I'm a Roman citizen,
I appeal to the Emperor,
so that means he has to go to
Rome.
 
They have to take him to Rome
for trial.
The last part,
chapter 28 is Paul in Rome.
He preaches again there,
he has the same kind of things
happen,
he rents a hall where he again
conducts classes and conducts
sermons, and that sort of thing.
And then this last sermon that
he's given to the Jewish leaders
and the Jewish elders,
and notice how it turns out he
says:
"Let it be known to you
then that this salvation of God
has been sent to the Gentiles.
They will listen."
 
He lived there two whole years
at his own expense.
He welcomed all who came to
him, proclaiming the kingdom of
God and teaching about the Lord
Jesus Christ with all boldness
and without hindrance.
 
In other words,
the very end of the two-volume
work ends with this message that
the message was preached to the
Jews,
they rejected it,
so Paul and the others went to
the Gentiles.
And it ends up in Rome,
the capital of the whole world
which represents the idea that
the Gospel has now proceeded to
the whole world.
 
Isn't it funny that this author
doesn't tell us what happened to
Paul?
 
Does anybody know how Paul
supposedly died?
Anybody know?
 
Yes sir?
 
Student:  Decapitated.
 
Prof: He was
decapitated, not accidentally.
It was a Roman sword that did
it.
According to Christian
tradition, Paul was martyred by
being beheaded because he was a
Roman soldier [correction:
citizen],
again according to tradition,
Paul actually never tells us he
was a--
I mean a Roman citizen.
 
He never tells us that he was a
Roman citizen,
but according to tradition he
was, and in Acts claims that he
was a Roman citizen.
 
According to that tradition you
can't crucify a Roman citizen.
So the tradition was that Paul
was martyred but unlike Peter
who was crucified upside down,
according to tradition,
Paul was beheaded in Rome,
probably sometime in the 60s,
that's the tradition.
 
Why doesn't Luke tell us that
story?
Wouldn't that be the more
logical end of the story?
He's told us about Paul's
ministry,
he's told us about Paul's call,
he's told us Paul becoming an
Apostle,
he's told about Paul's
different missionary journeys,
and he ends up with Paul living
in rented rooms in Rome.
 
I don't think this author
wanted to tell us about how the
story ended,
if it actually ended with Paul
being martyred in Rome,
because that kind of would
spoil the story,
wouldn't it?
Although you kind of could get
the hint that,
since all prophets and all
messengers of the Gospel,
according to this author,
are martyred and rejected,
then maybe he could have
portrayed Paul as a martyr and
told about his death after all
because,
and that's a nice little segue
way into the next major theme of
Luke-Acts that I'm going to talk
about,
prophets as martyrs.
 
Prophets in Luke-Acts get
martyred.
Jesus was one of them.
 
Notice, first John the Baptist,
I'm not going to read this
because we're running a little
bit out of time.
John the Baptist himself gets
martyred.
Jesus also is a prophet martyr.
 
Look at Luke 9:31,
now unfortunately we're going
to be going back and forth from
Luke to Acts,
so you might want to keep
fingers in both places.
This is a very important point,
9:31 of Luke,
this is the transfiguration
story, you know how it goes.
Jesus takes some of his
disciples Peter,
John, and James up onto a
mountain and while they're up
there,
this is on their way to
Jerusalem, clouds overcome,
it's thunder and lightning.
Imagine Cecil B. DeMille,
Hollywood type lighting
effects.
 
And Jesus appears there with
Moses and Elijah flaming,
they're shining.
 
And Peter says something,
and there's a voice from
heaven, all that sort of thing.
 
But notice most of the Gospels
don't tell us what Jesus and
Moses and Elijah were talking
about up on the mountain.
Luke tells us, 31:
They appeared in glory and were
speaking of his departure which
was about to be accomplished at
Jerusalem.
 
Now the Greek word there for
departure is exodus.
Yep, that word,
the very word of the second
book of the Bible in Greek.
 
They're talking to Jesus about
his exodus.
If you read that in Greek that
would immediately--now I know
why Moses is there talking to
him.
He needs some advice on how to
do an exodus,
and the exodus doesn't refer to
just his leaving the country,
it refers to his martyrdom.
 
And Jesus also will be
portrayed as the prophet to the
Jews first.
 
I've already talked about
Stephen being a prophet and a
martyr.
 
The end of Acts with Paul in
Rome,
again I just read it to you,
Paul ends up as a prophet to
the Jews,
he is the innocent martyr,
he's proclaimed innocent over
and over again.
Several times,
as a matter of fact,
Paul will be proclaimed--first
Jesus is proclaimed as innocent.
People--the different rulers
will say, this guy's innocent,
he's innocent,
what are you getting upset
about?
 
Over and over again,
Paul himself will be taken to
governors,
Roman governors,
and they'll say,
well I would have released him
but now he's appealed to Rome so
we've got to send him to Rome.
When he gets to Rome,
even the Jewish elders in Rome,
who first see him,
they say now we've heard
rumors,
Paul, about you,
we've heard some bad stuff
about you,
but we don't have any good
evidence.
You're innocent as far as we're
concerned.
Even the Jewish leaders in Rome
declare Paul innocent,
so, over and over again,
people in the Book of Acts and
Luke are portrayed as innocent
martyrs and prophets.
Notice how we see there all
these different diversities of
Christianity.
 
Those are some basic themes,
but if you take--what do these
different Christian groups
believe about the Jewish law?
What did Moses believe about
the Jewish law?
Anybody remember?
 
What was Moses stance on what
people should do with the Jewish
law?
 
You know, just remember back a
week or so.
What did I say, Moses?
 
I mean Matthew, I'm sorry.
 
I'm crazy.
 
What was Matthew's view of the
Mosaic Law?
What did Matthew believe about
the Mosaic Law?
All followers of Jesus should
obey it, it's just there.
Matthew doesn't ever get rid of
the Jewish law;
he never has Jesus get rid of
the Jewish law.
What does Mark say about the
Jewish law?
Well, Jesus declared all foods
clean, so Jesus modifies the
Jewish law in a substantial way
for Mark.
What does Luke believe about
the Jewish law?
This is an interesting point.
 
Luke believes that the Jewish
law is the ethnic contract,
if you will,
the ethnic traditions of the
Jews.
 
It came from God,
it came from Moses,
and Jews keep it,
so throughout Acts,
if you notice,
the Jewish followers of Jesus
continue to keep the law,
even Paul.
The Gentile followers of Jesus
aren't required to keep the law.
It's as if--and people in the
ancient world knew this,
Americans have their law,
Canadians have their law,
Britain's have their law,
the French have their law,
sort of.
 
Every nation and ethnic group
has its own laws,
right?
 
This is the way Luke is
thinking about the Jewish law.
He says, of course it's good,
it's good for Jews,
so should Jews avoid pork?
 
Yeah, they're Jews.
 
Should Jews be circumcised?
 
Yeah, they're Jews.
 
Even if they're followers of
Jesus they still keep the Jewish
law.
 
Gentiles?
 
Totally other story;
why should they not keep the
Law of Moses?
 
They're not Jews.
 
The view of the Law of Moses
that you get in Luke and Acts,
is that the law is good ethnic
law and custom for the Jewish
people,
and it's perfectly fine for
them to obey it and to keep it.
 
It's just not binding on the
Gentile followers of Jesus.
They will have other ethical
things to follow,
and he gives you some of those
things in chapter 15.
That's actually very different
from what we've seen in Matthew
or even in Mark,
right?
Luke has a different view of
the law.
These are diversities of
Christianity we see.
They weren't all in agreement
about this.
They probably didn't even know
what the others thought.
They may have been living in
different geographical areas,
and just developed their own
different views about what is
the Jewish law and how should it
affect the followers of Jesus.
When we get to Paul it'll be
another story entirely because,
it may surprise you,
Paul will believe--
Luke seems to believe that--he
doesn't really come out and say
it.
 
If there's a Gentile who sort
of wants to keep kosher,
or wants to get circumcised,
well, it's no big deal,
in fact he has Paul circumcise
Timothy,
his follower at one point.
 
Timothy wasn't circumcised,
they're going to be going
through some Jewish areas,
so Paul says,
yeah, let's circumcise Timothy.
 
Well the Paul of his letters
doesn't like that at all.
He basically says,
if you're a follower of Jesus
and a Gentile,
you cannot keep the Jewish law;
otherwise you will fall from
grace.
Trying to keep the law,
the Law of Moses,
if you're a Gentile disciple of
Jesus is anathema for Paul.
And that'll get him in big
trouble with both Jews and
Jewish Christians,
Jewish followers of Jesus.
The point I'm making is that
when we get to Paul we'll see
another different kind of view
of the law,
so it all shows that these
people were trying to figure out
what does it mean to follow a
Jewish Messiah if you're not
Jewish?
 
What does it mean that we're
following a Messiah who was
predicted by Moses in the law
and yet we're not keeping the
law?
 
In fact, they would say,
what does it mean to have a
Messiah at all?
 
What does Messiah mean?
 
Here's the last little
difference I'll say in the next
two or three minutes because
we'll come back to this also.
We've already seen different
Christologies,
one of those two bit words
again.
What does Christology mean?
 
Anybody?
 
Student:  Whether you
believe Jesus was human or
divine.
 
Prof: Whether you
believe Jesus was human or
divine.
 
Very good, it means any
doctrine of Jesus.
It could be whether he was
human or divine,
it could be whether he's a
fish, any teaching about Jesus
is a Christology.
 
It's what is your theology of
Jesus Christ,
that's Christology and we've
already seen different ones.
For example,
I've already said Mark believes
that Jesus' death was a ransom.
 
Jesus died for your sins.
 
His death was sort of like a
sacrifice, say.
But at one point in Mark 10:45
Jesus says to his disciples,
"The Son of Man came to
give his life as a ransom for
many."
 
In other words,
Jesus' death is for you,
to buy you up,
to save you.
That's picked up in Matthew
20:28, do you know what?
That saying is never found in
Luke.
In fact, you can find nothing
in the Gospel of Luke which
identifies the death of Jesus as
being an atonement for sins of
people.
 
Luke does not take Jesus' death
as being a ransom in the way
that Mark and Matthew do.
 
Why?
 
Jesus' death is important for
Luke, right?
But again what is the meaning
of Jesus' death in Luke?
A prophet martyr.
 
He's the innocent prophet who
is martyred for his prophecy.
That's the meaning of the death
of Jesus in Luke and Acts.
We have very different
Christologies about the meaning
of the death of Jesus already in
these different Gospels.
All of this is just to say
we're going to find this again,
we can find it in John,
we're going to find it in other
places.
 
These early Christian texts,
if you read them really,
really carefully,
not quickly,
carefully,
you'll see amazing ways that it
opens up whole windows into the
very earliest period of
Christianity that most modern
people have no idea existed.
The idea that there could be
Christians who didn't believe
Jesus' life was an atonement.
 
The idea that there were
Christians who believed every
Christian should keep the Jewish
law.
The idea we've also seen that
there could have been Christians
who believed that the God who
created the world was evil.
These were all there.
 
We'll talk about another form
of it next week.
See you next week.
 
