God with Us: Christ in the Synoptic Gospels: from the Coming of John the Baptist and the Genealogy of Jesus Through His Healing of Legion, the Demoniac

By Thomas Barton Philpot III

GOD WITH US is a commentary on the New Testament which communicates in an informal and sometimes humorous way some of the information and experiences the author has accumulated over a period of more than thirty years. Written in an easy-to-understand manner, it requires no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to read, thus making it an excellent addition to the library of not only pastors, but Sunday School teachers and other lay persons as well.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Mar 29, 2008
• ISBN: 9781462823550

Thomas Barton Philpot III

Thomas Barton Philpot, III, was born and reared in Shelbyville, Tennessee. He held a Bachelors Degree in Philosophy from Carson-Newman College, Jefferson City, Tennessee; a Master of Divinity from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, and a Master of Arts in history from Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. After finishing seminary in 1965, he became the pastor of two English-language Baptist churches in Bamberg and Hanau, Germany. Upon returning to the United States, he taught history for more than thirty-two years in the public schools of Tennessee and Florida, until he was forced to retire due to deteriorating health. He died in 2004.

Book preview

Copyright © 2008 by Thomas Barton Philpot, III.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

45381

CONTENTS

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

Chapter VI

Chapter VII

Chapter VIII

Chapter IX

Chapter X

To Gayle

Loving wife,

Cherished partner,

Eternal friend.

FOREWORD

You will be glad to know that I have finally completed the first ten chapters of GOD WITH US," my husband, Tom, said in June, 2004. For months, I had been urging him to quit revising what he had written and move on, but to him, this book was a work for the Lord and he wanted to get it as correct as he could.

Thirty-four days after making this statement, Tom died. Thus, at the age of 62, a wonderful man of faith, gentleness, love and courage entered his eternal rest with the Lord he had served so faithfully.

No other event in his entire life reflected the faith and courage that he possessed as much as how he faced his fight with cancer. During his entire illness, he was never once heard to complain or question God. His attitude was always, Whatever happens, it’s in the Lord’s hands.

Tom’s ordeal began in May, 1996, when he went to our family doctor, Dr. Bruce Thomas, for a routine check up and while there, asked him to remove a mole on the back of his neck. The doctor took one look at the mole and would not let him leave his office until it and another smaller mole on his back, had been removed. The following week, the biopsy report came back that both moles were malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer that exists. The melanoma on his back was a Stage 1 and never caused any more trouble. However, the one on his neck was already a Stage 3.

Three weeks later, wide incision surgery was performed on both places. The neck surgery resulted in a 3 by 5 laceration, which had to be covered with a skin graft. The surgeon told Tom he had about eighteen to twenty-four months to live, but Tom refused to accept that prognosis. We were referred to a very competent oncologist, Dr. Joseph McClure, who begin chemotherapy. The protocol for treatment was twenty infusions of the drug, five days a week for four weeks. It was a terrible experience! The drug made him nauseous, and he had to be given an infusion of compazine with the Interferon to keep him from being violently ill. He slept twenty hours a day, getting out of bed only for meals.

At the end of four weeks, he began an eleven-month regimen of Interferon injections three times a week. Though not as debilitating as the infusions, the injections still left him nauseous, constantly tired, and extremely susceptible to infection. Due to loss of appetite, he lost thirty pounds in less than a year. He took Tylenol every four hours, around the clock, to control pain.

Despite his health, he continued to teach his history classes. He was completely honest with his students, telling them what was wrong with him and asking their cooperation in helping him get through the school year. He shared with them his almost constant nausea, telling them that if they saw him drinking a carbonated drink, they would know that he was not feeling well. He explained about his lack of energy and appetite and about his need to be extremely careful not to expose himself to any germs.

Much is said today about the irresponsibility of teenagers, but Tom’s class showed what teens can do when they are called upon in a crisis situation. If a student came to class with a cold, he stopped at the door and said, Mr. Philpot, I have a cold, so please don’t get near me. They were quick to volunteer to pass out papers, etc. so he could sit and conserve his dwindling energy. Once he mentioned in passing that he would love to have some chicken noodle soup; the next day, a student brought in some homemade soup! It was still warm, because her mother had just made it that morning.

In short, his classes that year were the best behaved he had ever had, with one exception. A young man entered class at the middle of the year and therefore was not aware of Tom’s physical problems. His first day in class, the boy tried to give Tom a hard time. Later, his classmates explained the circumstances to him, ending with the advice, "You don’t mess with Mr. Philpot!" That was the last problem Tom had with that student.

During this year, his greatest support came from me, his church and his faith in God. By the grace of God, he finished the Interferon in June, 1997.

The 1997-98 school year began in high hopes and good spirits. However, in October, 1997, his melanoma returned, this time in the lymph nodes on the left side of his neck. A second surgery and a second round of chemo followed. In March, 1998, melanoma was discovered in the lymph nodes on the right side. He underwent more surgery and was told he had about a year to live.

Since the Interferon was obviously not working, the oncologist advised five weeks of radiation, five days a week. After chemotherapy, radiation was no problem at all. After radiation, he went into a twenty-three month remission period, with check ups, X-rays and scans every three months.

In February, 2000, a CT scan revealed spots on both lungs. Tom underwent surgery on the right lung in March. He was back at his teaching job in four weeks. In May of that year, out-patient surgery was again performed on suspicious spots on both sides of the neck. The right side was melanoma but the left side was only scar tissue. The melanoma in the left lung was removed in August. Again, Tom was out of work for a month, but came back to his teaching job in September, 2000. That same month, he began his second round of a five-week radiation treatment on his neck and lungs.

All went well until January, 2001, when a CT scan showed melanoma on one of the adrenal glands. The gland was removed and Tom endured a third round of radiation.

Continued, regular scans showed so further problem for eight months. However, a routine blood test revealed that his red blood count was dangerously low. He began weekly injections of Procrit and blood transfusions.

A colonoscopy in September of that year showed malignant polyps in the colon. On September 25, eighteen inches of his colon were laproscopically removed and he was home after only an overnight stay in the hospital. In May, 2002, a routine scan revealed melanoma in his small intestine and doctors removed two feet of it. The only bright spot in this period of recovery was the fact that his anemia was improving and he was able to go several weeks without Procrit or transfusions.

In November, a malignant left kidney was removed. He was hospitalized for eight days; he had no appetite and lost still more weight. However, he was able to make a trip to Tennessee to visit family during the Christmas holidays.

In January, 2003, two melanomas were discovered under the skin near the navel. Since they were not immediately endangering any vital organs, the decision was made not to have them surgically removed but to go back on the Interferon in combination with a new drug, Temodar, that was showing some promise in treating melanoma. After several weeks of this combined treatment, one of the tumors disappeared. However, the two drugs were taking a toll on his health in other areas: he began experiencing heart problems, inability to breath and bronchial congestion, and spent three days in the hospital. He was taken off the Interferon, a new combination of Temodar and thalidomide was proscribed, and the remaining tumor under the abdominal skin was removed.

A PET scan at the end of December, 2003, revealed a one inch malignant brain tumor. This was removed by a neurosurgeon in January, 2004. Three months later, another scan showed multiple melanomas in his liver. There were too many to be removed surgically, and the amount of radiation necessary to kill the tumors would also have destroyed his liver. In desperation, the oncologist put him on a regimen of Interluken, a more powerful chemotherapy than Interferon. After a month of this, he experienced such a severe reaction that he was forced to stop treatment.

On June 26, 2004, Tom taught his last lesson to our adult Sunday School class. By Thursday of that week, he had to be hospitalized. He continued to rapidly lose strength. He was dismissed from the hospital on July 9 under the care of Hospice. By then he was unable to sit up or eat and could barely lift his arms.

Around midnight on July 11, 2004, I was awakened by a change in his breathing pattern. It was painfully obvious that he was dying. I sat by his bed, singing the songs and reading the Bible verses which he had chosen for his memorial service. He was very restless, his eyes, though open, would not focus, but he was still able to hear. I told him over and over that I loved him, and he would struggle to say I love you to me. At 1:22 a.m., while I held his hand, Tom gave a gentle sigh and left his earthly body, after an eight-year fight that included twelve surgeries, four times on chemotherapy and three times with radiation. Over four hundred people attended his memorial service at our church, First Baptist of Melbourne, where his ashes lie interred in the church’s Memorial Garden.

In one of the chapters of his book, Tom wrote the following:

I know what it is like to be the object of feelings mixed with pity, dread, and incredulity. I have cancer. Some feel sorry for me; others cannot bring themselves even to discuss the fact because of their fears of the disease; still others do not understand what keeps me joyful and productive. I am under no illusions about cancer. I know how dangerous and how cruel it is, but I am not possessed by cancer; I belong to the God of life. I am His here and hereafter, and any worth or value I shall ever have in life will be derived from being an honor to Him, for I am nothing without the love of God. I am convinced by Calvary that I am loved by the Creator of all the Universe. While I do not understand the marvels of His creation or the purpose in His plan, I know that I am loved; and it is enough to sustain me through life with all its trials and through eternity as well.

Though cancer took his earthly life, it did NOT defeat him! He rests now in the eternal and loving arms of our Savior, and I know I shall see him again one day.

—Gayle Anderson Philpot

Melbourne, Florida

2007

PREFACE

They came into history class like bubbling water, tumbling over one another with the normal exuberance of teenagers; and as soon as they saw the desks stacked neatly against the wall and that familiar piece of furniture sitting alone in the middle of the room, Serena said, Oh, cool! It’s a ‘rocking chair lecture day.’ The rocking chair had become the symbol of the informal teaching session, when students gathered about on the floor and listened as if they were five years old instead of fifteen. They would transpose themselves into the past as I related experiences about growing up in the fifties, traveling behind the iron curtain in the cold war years, segregation in the south, marching with Martin Luther King, talking to Alvin York, taking part in a sit-in, how Vietnam affected the class of ’59, rock stars and hot rod cars that still roar through my memory.

In light of the enjoyment my students and I have shared, I have always wanted to adapt the concept of the Rocking Chair Lecture into a commentary on the New Testament, an opportunity to communicate on an informal and sometimes humorous level some of the information and experiences which have accumulated during the last thirty-odd years of teaching and study. As an informal commentary, the reader may be put at ease by three things. First, it is not necessary to be conversant in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin in order to make use of this volume. Although thousands of young theologues struggle with languages in seminaries every year, they are promptly forgotten when involved in the greater struggle of the pastorate. Within ten years, most have forgotten the distinctions between first and second aorist, between daghesh lene and daghesh forte, and have found infinite comfort in a theological wordbook by a reputable and reliable author. While scholarly pursuits in language are of great value, those who are specialists in the field are so much better than the rest of us who only dabble, it seems preferable to allow them to practice their art without being second-guessed by neophytes who remember only a basic vocabulary.

Second, it is not necessary to accumulate an extensive library of historical and theological works in order to use this book. I shall try to include the appropriate passages rather than refer the reader to volumes which seldom adorn the shelves of pastors or Sunday school teachers.

Third, and most importantly, there are no tests! Then again, maybe there is a test. I do not believe it is possible to come close to Jesus Christ without experiencing a change in one’s thinking and in one’s life. Maybe the test is always there, with another multiple-choice to be made just around the corner, another short essay to respond to life’s next opportunity or your child’s next inquiry, or the next office conversation about ethics and morality. Fortunately, even the worst of tests is not so bad if you are allowed to have Someone with all the right answers standing beside you.

It would be impossible to identify in footnotes and bibliography all of the ancient and modern scholars whose works have contributed to this commentary, but I must offer my thanks to those whose influence has been of great importance to me. Some came through conversations which, although important to me, were probably inconsequential in the lives of very busy men. I owe thanks to mentors like Paul Brewer of Carson-Newman College, Eric Rust and Glenn Hinson at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, James Huhta at Middle Tennessee State University; to teachers and colleagues in Germany and Switzerland; and to the hospitality of Martin Niemueller, Papa John Watts, Emil Brunner, Paul Tillich, Rudolph Bultmann, and Helmut Theilicke, men who graciously took time to entertain the novice questions of a young student/pastor.

INTRODUCTION

You could immediately see that they were foreigners. That distinctive Greek accent was unmistakable. But Greeks were known for their frequent travels to other lands and their insatiable quest for truth, or at least for philosophical novelties, so it was no wonder that they should be here in Jerusalem for Passover. Maybe they heard about all the commotion in the Court of the Gentiles yesterday; perhaps some of them had even seen Jesus in his fury driving out moneychangers, wrecking pigeon-sellers’ booths, and scolding religious leaders. In any case, they now came to the twelve and sought out the one with the Greek name. To Philip they made the request which was to be echoed by countless millions in every age to come: We would like to see Jesus.

To reach out and touch the face of God has been the desire of the ages. One of the disciples’ last requests was to show us the Father. Ethan the Ezrahite closed the third book of Psalms (89:46) with the cry, How long, O LORD? Will you hide yourself forever? Paul was sensitive to this when he wrote the church at Corinth that the same God who had created light for the world had also created light in each of us so that we could see the presence of God when we saw light . . . in the face of Christ (2C 4:6). So the desire of those Greeks in John 12 becomes the key for our quest as well, because the way we see the Son determines what we shall see of the Father.

There are numerous strategies which allow one to view the life of Jesus, but selecting such a strategy is important because it ultimately determines the pigments and hues which color our inner picture of who God is. We need to see the Jesus who was a bundle of vitality, alive and active and vibrant. We need this partly because the picture we often have of Jesus is largely institutional, medieval, or calendar-oriented. Jesus is head of the church, but sometimes it seems like he is an unseen staff member buried deep in some unnumbered office in Building C. Medieval art works adorn our bibles, our buildings, and our brains with crucifixion scenes and post-resurrection appearances. The Christ is somewhere in the confusion of elves, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus, and spring break, but the exact location is debatable.

This is not the Christ of the gospels. The Jesus who greets us in scripture is a man of warmth, and humanity, and joy. He’s the fellow surrounded by kids laughing and playing, giggling with such glee that even his disciples are distracted. He is the center of attention in the crowds, so much in demand that multitudes follow him into the mountains disdainful of their lack of food and water. He is the man who exhibits joy, promises joy, even endured the cross for the joy set before him. He’s the man hosts seek out when the wedding party begins to drag. He’s the center of the parades winding through crowded village streets, and even in Jerusalem. Never would you hear Jesus announce solemnly in a stained-glass voice: The subject of this day’s discourse is ‘the concept of sanctification as it pertains to contemporary morality.’ His teachings are exciting: kings plan for battle, banquets, harvest time, treasure hunts, demons on the warpath, hypocrites on parade! Sick people were healed by this Jesus. How many people could sit draped in gloom when they have been set free of cancer, when a withered limb has been renewed to strength, when a seven-year hemorrhage stops, when sight is restored, when a child can laugh again?

The joy and excitement of families who experienced the vitality of Jesus’ presence made the religious opposition so angry that they were sure he was just too happy to be holy! John said that he started his ministry at a wedding with feasting and singing and dancing, a village event where there were more guests who showed up to party than anyone had ever anticipated. He closed it by going on a fishing trip with his disciples and cooking breakfast for them over a campfire. Those who knew the vitality of Jesus shared the joy. It was a joy which allowed them to sing; they could sing at midnight; they could even sing in prison at midnight; they could sing at midnight during an earthquake in a prison with such joy that other prisoners preferred to stay and listen than escape through the open doors! Outsiders saw the joy and the power. Simon the Magus wanted to buy it; the Sanhedrin tried to destroy it; but like the Romans who witnessed the martyrdom of Polycarp, all the multitude marveled that there should be so great a difference between the unbelievers and the elect. This is the Jesus of the gospels, who came to us that our joy might be full; not a martyr trampled beneath the march of history, but the Messiah who overcame the world and wanted his people to remember him just that way.

The Synoptic Gospels

Walking the streets of a small Swiss town one afternoon, I was struck by the beautifully carved wooden doors of a lovely church. In the uppermost panel flew a delicate dove, but it was the four lower panels which caught my eye. In one was a roaring lion, pawing the air; another pictured an ox, placid and calm; the third bore a human likeness; and the last framed the image of an eagle. It brought to mind the differences in perspective of the gospels, for each is distinct and bears the imprint of the author’s personality. The lion was used by the church to represent the gospel of Matthew, who pictured Jesus as the Lion of Judah. Luke’s emphasis on the sacrificial ministry of Jesus resulted in his being represented by the ox, a sacrificial animal. Mark’s realism in depicting Jesus’ humanity made man the appropriate symbol for his gospel. And John, who wrote his gospel in powerful theological strokes which evolved from a long life in the service of the master, seemed to be represented best by the eagle’s piercing eye which catches every detail of the distant landscape below. The symbols come from Revelation 4:7, but it was this application by Augustine which was most accepted by the church.

All four are gospels or good news (euaggelion), but Matthew, Mark, and Luke share so much of the same information that they are often considered apart from the more theological work of John. They are called the synoptic gospels because they give us a multidimensional picture of Jesus. Just as humans perceive depth and distance because we look at an object through two eyes simultaneously, the syn (together) optic (sight) gospels give us a perspective of Jesus which is more than just repetition of the same story three times. Each gospel has its own distinctives which flavor its presentation to the reader.

Matthew, the Apostolic Perspective

1.   Matthew was written for people whose ethnic background was Jewish. He is careful to introduce Jesus by tracing his genealogy to Abraham through David.

2.   He quotes the Old Testament more frequently than the other gospels. Even when he copies the quotations used by Mark, he often adds some of his own. He knows a reference for everything and includes eleven quotations not found in Mark.

3.   His work was probably written in Aramaic before being used to compile the material into a Greek book. Matthew is not a translation. Aramaic was the common language of the day in Palestine, while Greek was the language of scholarly literature.

4.   He emphasizes Jesus as the King, the Lion of Judah, the son of David. While Pharisees scorned him as prince of demons (12:24) the amazed people were asking, Could this be the son of David? The magi seek the king of Jews, Pilate calls him the King of the Jews, and the title above his cross was INRI (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews). More than twenty times Jesus is associated with the title of king or called son of David. There is a strong emphasis on his royal return and judgment.

5.   Matthew is the only synoptic gospel which refers to the church (16:18 {Peter} and 18:17 {settling disputes}). Peter’s confession identifies those who will be built as living stones upon the foundation of a living Christ into a spiritual building.

6.   Matthew emphasizes the ethical and moral nature of discipleship. Acceptance of Jesus as lord is only the beginning of a discipleship which entails doing all those things which I have commanded you.

7.   There is a strong emphasis on Old Testament law. The Christian is one whose righteousness must surpass the ceremonial legalism of the scribes and Pharisees, for Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it.

8.   There is a strong emphasis on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophet . . . occurs sixteen times. From the arrival of the Magi who studied the prophets to learn about Jesus’ birth to the betrayal by Judas, Matthew relates more than a dozen prophetic passages directly to events in Jesus’ life. It is Matthew who remembers warnings about false prophets (7:15, 24:11, 24) that will appear to plague believers.

9.   Matthew often arranges material by topic. Mark’s outline of events is generally followed by Matthew, but Matthew groups teachings about the same subject, even when he is aware that they are not in chronological order. In this arrangement, he shows the handiwork of a great teacher. While numerous attempts have been made to establish a central structure for Matthew’s organization, no acceptable hypothesis has yet been offered.

10.   Matthew often arranges material in groups of three or seven, probably to make learning the ideas easier. There are 7 woes of the Pharisees, 14 generations (2x7) from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the deportation, and 14 from the deportation to Jesus. It would seem from this and his topical arrangement that Matthew is constructing a textbook for new disciples!

11.   Matthew includes five long teaching sections, the best-known of which is called the Sermon on the Mount(Chs. 5-7). These chapters, along with 10, 13, 18, 24-25 are collections from years and miles of walking with Jesus. They are arranged, illustrated, and reinforced in such a way that they parade through the memory in vivid procession: Blessed are the merciful; salt of the earth; not a jot or tittle; you have heard it said . . . but I tell you . . . ; love your enemies; our Father who art in heaven; lilies of the field; wolves in sheep’s clothing; houses built on sand.

12.   Matthew is the only synoptic gospel attributed to an apostle. Matthew, one of the hated tax-collectors (publican from the Latin publicanus in the Vulgate), tells about his despicable career and his conversion in 9:9. But if Matthew was one of the twelve, why would he be dependent upon Mark for biographical material? Is Matthew the work of the disciple or not? Yes and no. Papias was a Christian writer born around 60 or 70 AD He said, So then Matthew composed the ‘loggia’ in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could (Apostolic Fathers p. 265). This loggia (words) is sometimes referred to as Q or Quella (source), a block of material comprising about 200 verses which was used in both Matthew and Luke. Matthew also makes use of additional material which was never put in written form. When all of this material was edited into a single book about 80 AD, it was logically called Matthew because the bulk of the material was his. Ignatius of Antioch quotes from Matthew in 115 AD in a letter to Ephesus, chapter 19. As is customary with most students of the gospels, I will refer to Matthew with the understanding that we are reading the disciple’s material as prepared and edited by another Christian hand.

Mark, the Perspective of Youth

1.   Mark was the interpreter of Peter and there are some things in the book that only Peter would have known. In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3:39, the author writes: And the Elder (Papias) said this also: ‘Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, but without recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For he did not hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, he (followed) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of the people) but had no intention of giving a systematic account of the Lord’s words. So Mark made no mistake, when he wrote some things as he remembered them, because he made it his primary concern not to leave out anything he heard or to include any false information’ (Apostolic Fathers, p. 265) To show how much confidence the other writers had in Mark, only four sections (24 verses) of the 104 sections of Mark are not duplicated in one of the other two synoptics.

2.   Mark was younger than the other gospel writers, probably only in his teens when Jesus met in the upper room in his mother’s home.

3.   Mark was present at the arrest of Jesus (14:51-52) and records events which Peter could not have remembered because he had fled the scene. His experiences can only have been enhanced by the influence of his Christian mother, his uncle Barnabas, his experiences (both disappointing and exhilarating) on the mission field, and his association with Paul, who asked for him when death drew near. Mark is reputed to have founded the church at Alexandria.

4.   Mark was the first to put his remembrances on paper, sometime before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Chapter thirteen shows no signs of the last stages of the Jewish war (66-70), like Luke does in chapters 20, 21, and 24. Irenaeus (ca. 135-202) and the Anti Marcionite Prologue agree that Mark wrote after the death of Peter. Peter died in Nero’s persecution of 64-65, and we may generally assume that Mark was written about 65 to 68.

5.   Mark is the closest thing we have to a biography of Jesus. It served as an outline for the other synoptics. None of the gospels is a true biography; over thirty years is encapsulated in a few pages which would comprise little more than a single section of a daily newspaper. There are long periods of silence, followed by detailed word-for-word accounts of Jesus’ teaching. Mark comes closest to providing the second generation of Christians a life story of the Master.

6.   Mark uses realistic simplicity. His statements are seldom theological masterpieces. He does not attempt to interpret the motives of Jesus or the ethical implications. He is content to report the event just as it was related to him.

7.   He gives us our most human look at Jesus the man. In Mark we see Jesus when he is tired, when he is hungry, when angry, when the sigh comes from deep inside, when he feels the pathos of needy people. While Matthew sees the son of David, Mark sees the carpenter’s son who carries on his father’s trade.

8.   There is a grand sense of amazement in Mark. Typical of the youth who will go to any extreme to see heads turn, Mark revels in the amazement caused by Jesus. He frequently notes the amazement, then heightens the amazement. The crowds were amazed at his teaching with authority (1:22) . . . SO amazed they began to ask questions (1:27); the disciples were amazed (10:24) . . . even MORE amazed (10:26).

9.   Mark’s love of vivid details is that of a storyteller who captures his audience and transports them into the tale. He tells the story of the feeding of the 5,000 with such precision that we see the crowds sitting in groups of designated sizes on green grass, Jesus looking into the heavens, the distribution of five loaves, the division and distribution of the fish, the collection of leftovers in twelve narrow-necked kophinos baskets.

10.   There is an excitement and enthusiasm about Mark which is again the trademark of youth. It shows up particularly in his use of connective words and the present tense. Mark connects clause after clause with and, immediately, straightway, or other conjunctions which would drive any journalism teacher to distraction. Chapter three is actually thirty-four sentences with only one period because there are thirty conjunctions connecting them all into one gigantic run-on sentence! Instead of describing what Jesus did or said, Mark uses the present tense: Jesus says, Jesus sends, Jesus comes . . . . Think of that youngster who has just seen his first circus. Words and thoughts tumble out in a torrent as he relives the excitement of the event: "And this lady jumps right through the fire, and the lions are roaring so loud they shake the seats, and the clowns are in the funniest little car, and a man does a triple somersault off a high trapeze, and I’m eating cotton candy, and . . . and . . . and . . . and . . . And this is Mark. While Mark was certainly no longer a teenybopper by the time he wrote, he seems to have relived his youth in the telling of the story.

Luke, the Perspective of Scholarly Research

1.   Luke was a Gentile who was not famous as a leader in the early church. Indeed, except for his writings, Luke’s name would be generally unknown. Legend relates that he was interested in art and was a skilled painter. In Col. 4:10-14, Paul distinguishes between those men of the circumcision and others. Luke is specifically excluded from the Jewish group, making his perspective very unique among New Testament writers.

2.   Luke wrote for Gentile readers and is especially sensitive to those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew customs and vocabulary. Therefore, Rabbi becomes Master; Golgotha (skull) will appear as kranion; and Simon the Cananaean will be rendered Simon the Zealot. Luke will date events by Roman leaders for the benefit of Gentile readers.

3.   Luke was not a local. While the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke names Antioch of Syria as his birthplace, the matter is by no means settled. Eusebius favored Antioch of Syria, but Antioch of Pisidia has also been suggested. The account in Acts seems to favor the Macedonian city of Philippi as Luke’s home. Luke himself was probably the Macedonian man whose pleas urged Paul to come and share the Christian message. The beginning of the first we passage in the following verse (16:10) indicates that Luke joined Paul to evangelize his homeland. He apparently remained in Philippi when the group moved on to other provinces, then rejoined them as they passed through Philippi two years later. Luke’s pride in Philippi as a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia, may be read as the pride of citizenship. This affects his vocabulary in some cases. Consider, for instance, those tiny trickles of water which westerners would call rivers, and easterners would consider creeks or ditches. Local Palestinians spoke about the Sea (thalassa) of Galilee; but Luke, whose travels made this diminutive body of water seem tiny by comparison to real seas, always called it the Lake (limne) of Galilee.

4.   Luke writes in absolutely beautiful Greek. After our Baby Greek class had struggled through the first traumatic weeks of grammar, we were introduced to our first real opportunity to translate a section of the New Testament. Luke 1:1-4, we were told, contains quite probably the two most perfectly constructed Greek sentences in the New Testament.

      From the time I was four or five years old, I received an allowance. The completion of certain chores and maintaining good behavior would net me the princely sum of ten cents, a really valuable amount in those days. My parents were both wise and devoted Christians; they instilled in me early the value of honest labor and the reminder that one-tenth of my earnings belonged to the Lord. I got my allowance on Saturday night and I usually got it in pennies. That’s where the problem arose for a little fellow. A full dime can buy lots of different stuff, but nine cents? I remember many Saturday nights when my dad and I would sit down and go over each of those coins. There always seemed to be one of those old dull steel ’43 war-pennies, and you could depend on there being a bunch with dings and scratches. Finally we would pick out the best penny of all. Very carefully I would wash it with a toothbrush and rub it hard with a pencil eraser until it was as bright and shiny as new. It just had to look better than all the others because it was that special penny which would be placed in the collection plate the following day. After all, the thing you give to Jesus has got to be your very best, even if it’s only a penny. Luke was giving his best to Jesus; toothbrush-scrubbed and eraser-rubbed, it was to be the bright and shining reflection of his love.

5.   Luke was a doctor whose education is evident in his method. While research has indicated that much of Luke’s medical vocabulary was not confined to professionals, he frequently uses a more technical vocabulary,as in Lk 4:38 (Cf. Mk1:30), in which Mark’s fever is described as megalo malaria by Luke. His use of the word prospeinos (hungry) in Acts 10:10 is extremely rare, having been used by the first-century eye doctor Demosthenes. Considering Paul’s probable eye affliction as inferred from Gal. 6:11, a reasonable case may be made for Luke’s having studied medicine outside the area of Palestine. There may be a little professional pride in the way he deals with the case history of the woman with the issue of blood. When Mark makes a disparaging comment about the medical profession in 5:26, Luke softens the statement considerably in Lk. 8:43.

6.   Luke was writing a two-volume work. Not only is Luke the longest of the synoptics, but it is designed to end at a specific point at which a second volume will continue the subject to its completion. The gospel deals with the life of Jesus to the ascension; Acts picks up the baton at that point and continues the activity of the Holy Spirit until the church reaches the center of the civilized world, Rome. The book was written around 78 or 80, (a) after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 (chapter 21) and (b) after the Lord had come into common usage for Jesus, late in the decade of 70-80.

7.   Luke’s stated purpose is to provide an orderly confirmation of the things which his readers have heard or learned. That means that he is preparing a practical and useable volume, written with accurate detail even if not in chronological order. His is a confirmation in the sense that what he writes can be verified by people still living in his day. His inspiration, someone has pointed out, is the product of careful research, not sitting with hands folded in introspective anticipation, but the awesome combination of the searching heart and a revealing God. While Luke is not primarily a theological writer, he is very practical in sharing the events in Jesus’ life which define for us the essence of the Christian teachings.

8.   Luke’s unstated purpose seems to be apologetic. There is a conscious effort to let Roman readers know that this new religion is law-abiding and contributes to the good of society. Luke goes out of his way to emphasize that Christianity is not politically dangerous. The appointed representatives of Roman authority are portrayed as open and frankly impressed by Christ and Christians. Pilate is convinced of the innocence of Jesus; and Paul frequently demonstrates the positive nature of the new faith before Felix, Festus, Gallio, and the city magistrates of Ephesus and Philippi.

9.   Luke has several special concerns which appear repeatedly:

a.   Women are given a high place in his books. Some of his most important characters are women. Elizabeth, Anna, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, and the widow of Nain figure prominently in his gospel. The birth narratives are told from Mary’s point of view.

b.   Social outcasts find a place in Luke. Gentiles, the unclean, Romans, the prodigal son, Samaritans, and the poor are all accepted here. Here, even Zacchaeus can see Jesus.

c.   The graciousness of Jesus is an emphasis which caused wonder and amazement (4:22). Jesus shows a tenderness and compassion upon those who could make no demands upon him or provide any compensation to him.

d.   The Holy Spirit appears in Mark six times, in Matthew twice that number, but seventy-four times in Luke-Acts. There are four unique scenes in 4:1, 4:18, 11:3 and 24:49.

e.   Lordship is more developed in Luke than in the other gospels. The term is used more in Luke than in both of the other two combined.

f.   Prayer is a major factor in Luke. Prayer occurs before the important events in Jesus’ life, as he selects the apostles, on the cross, at the transfiguration; and Luke includes two parables about prayer (The Friend at Midnight and the Unjust Judge) not found in Mark or Matthew.

g.   The severity of the demands of discipleship is seen in Luke. Chapter 14 provides examples in verses 26, 33, and 34. The demands seem to be even stronger than parallel passages in Matthew and Mark.

h.   The universal aspects of Luke are throughout the book. The compulsion to reach all nations, to search the highways and hedges, and to be a light to the non-Jewish world is an integral part of the Lucan gospel.

i.   Luke deals frequently with money and the use of material possessions. Jesus’ use of money is described three times and parables like Lazarus and the rich man or the Rich Fool reinforce the concepts.

j.   Of all the emphases of Luke, the most memorable and the most beautiful are his glorious passages of joyful praise. The phrase praising God is used more by Luke than all of the scriptures combined. Who can ever forget the haunting beauty of Mary’s Magnificat (1:46-55), the Benedictus(1:68-79), or the Nunc Dimittis (2:29-32), or the song of the angels: Glory to God in the highest? Luke has a very special place in our hearts for teaching us the joy of praise. These are passages that would be at home with a mighty organ, a full orchestra and choir; passages which contain a depth of thought, a power of feeling, and artistic composition. They are radically different from contemporary praise songs in which a clever ditty is mated with maudlin repetition or words which might have come from a bumper sticker. Luke is a master of praise.

Chapter I

We Are Pleased To Announce . . .

The Genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:24-37)

A Chicago banking firm once called Lee, Higginson and Company, an investment firm in Boston, for references on a prospective employee. They were informed that the young man under consideration was of the Cabot family, that his mother was a Lowell, and that his ancestors included the Appletons, Peabodys, and some of the first families of Boston. Chicago sent their request for information again, this time stating that they did not intend to employ the young man for breeding purposes.

Genealogies became important in Hebrew life in the post-exilic period in order to determine one’s racial purity, establish his legal rights or rights of kinship, or establish his authority. Josephus begins his autobiography by reciting his own ancestry. Priests were required to establish their relationship to Aaron and their wives had to show a pure Jewish line for five generations. With the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 586, religious and political leaders were gone, along with the most promising youth of the nation. By 537 when Cyrus began to release the Jews to rebuild their homeland, men came from many lands, but there was no sense of camaraderie or unity. By establishing a kinship through their ancestry, the people were able to establish ties of blood and culture that would weld them into a single people.

Matthew’s genealogy shows several distinctives. It is in descending order, which is not unusual, but it begins with introducing Jesus as Son of David, son of Abraham. Matthew, because of the emphasis on Jesus as the Lion of Judah and his Jewish heritage, was placed first in the New Testament to serve as a logical bridge between the old and new. Every Jew could claim relation to Abraham and due to intermarriage, a majority of the population could have claimed relation to both Abraham and David, but Matthew uses an interesting method to demonstrate it. Hebrew letters doubled as numbers (Aleph=1, Beth=2, Gimel=3, etc.). David’s name consisted of three letters (no vowels) which were Daleth (4) Waw (6) and Daleth (4). 4+6+4=14, and Matthew draws attention to the 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the exile (although David has to be counted in both sets of 14), and 14 generations from the exile to Jesus. This also serves as a memory aid when reciting the genealogy.

The genealogy is more useful as a general presentation to show the world who Jesus is than as a historical document. Matthew leaves out several generations which are identified in the Chronicles in order to keep the 14-14-14 sequence. To the ancients’ way of thinking, there is no discrepancy in this process. If Joe is the ancestor (or father) of Bill, he is still Bill’s ancestor whether they are separated by only one generation or a dozen. Thus, Matthew’s 28 generations from David to Jesus are no less accurate than Luke’s 41 generations listed during the same period of time. Luke’s gentile approach is closer to what moderns would insist upon as historically precise. To Matthew it is the ultimate ancestor which is important; the intermediaries are not. The names are identical in the section from Abraham to David, but the similarity ends at that point:

It is rare to find women mentioned at all in a genealogy. Ancient middle-eastern civilizations held women in low esteem. Even today James and Robbi Francovich, missionaries to India, report (CBF Newsletter, 10/28/02) the last line in Sanskrit law: No woman deserves freedom. Koran 4:34 encourages a husband to beat and scourge a disobedient wife. In Genesis 11, Terah’s genealogy includes the wives of Abraham and Nahor; Nahor’s genealogy in Genesis 22 names his wife and concubine; and in Numbers 26 the genealogy of Manasseh lists Zelophehad’s daughters, because he had no sons to inherit. While it was rarely appropriate to list women, Matthew omits several men but goes out of his way to list four very notorious women who are completely unnecessary to the genealogy. Matthew might easily have included women like Eve (I wear the plants in this family!) or Mrs. Noah (Are we there yet?), but he selected four very flawed characters to include. Tamar was a seducer and adulteress; she might aptly be described as one who was poured into her dress and someone forgot to say, when! Rahab was a pagan prostitute from Jericho, Ruth a Moabite foreigner, and Bathsheba an adulteress who became the central figure in a murder plot. Matthew shows at the very beginning that something is totally new here. Old barriers have been broken between males and females or Jews and foreigners, as well as between the heroes and the villains of history. Last fall I had the glorious experience of driving the beautiful Blue Ridge Parkway at the peak of the leaf season. I can still picture the fog on the mountain suddenly lifting to reveal a blaze of color that blanketed the landscape in a panorama of splendor. I noted two lessons from the leaves. (1) Upon close examination, every leaf I picked up had flaws—spots, a torn segment, brown about the edges, perhaps a hole or two. I thought how God had fashioned each of us; and even though we are flawed creatures individually, he has allowed us together to become beautiful to honor him. He has made everything beautiful in its time (Eccl. 3:11). (2) In examining the leaf, there was a dull side and a bright side on each one, depending upon whether it faced the sunlight. It reminded me that the splendor of a leaf or a life depends on whether we are turned to face God.

Luke’s genealogy is different. He does his in reverse order and he adds the section from Abraham back to Adam. Neither of these would be considered unusual, and the names of each are the same until you come to David. From this point on almost everything is different. To reconcile the two different genealogies, several theories have developed:

1.   Some have suggested that Matthew is tracing a royal lineage and Luke a priestly lineage and that both should be considered symbolic rather than historical. This hypothesis seems unreasonable because (a) Luke makes no attempt to trace to Aaron, the ultimate priest; and (b) if a genealogy is not historical, of what possible good is it?

2.   Catholic tradition maintains that Matthew gave Joseph’s genealogy and Luke gave Mary’s. (a) There is no biblical justification for this assumption, and (b) it requires amending the scripture to make it work. It is based on the idea that when Luke writes of Heli he really means Son-in-law of Heli. If that were the case this entire list would be son-in-law, including making David the son-in-law of Jesse. The Greek form is tau Heli, tau Matthat, tau Levi, etc. which simply translates of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi . . . . Had Luke wished to say son-in-law (nymphios, numfios) he could have done so. The feminine form of the word is used twice in 12:53 and by Matthew in 10:35. The list of identifiable names makes it obvious that he is using this to refer to son ship. Matthew used the word for fathered (Essenes) in each case.

3.   A third possibility is adoption. A legally adopted child is by law the son of his adoptive parent, but may also be considered the son of his birthfather. If this were the situation, Joseph could be both the son of Heli in Luke and the son of Jacob in Matthew.

4.   A final possibility involves levirite marriage. As described in Dt. 25, when a man died before fathering a child, it became the duty of a near kinsman to father a child for the dead person. The child would be considered legally that of the dead man, even though the birthfather was another. Obed is referred to in the Old Testament as the natural son of Boaz, even though he was legally the son and heir of Milton by the levirite marriage law. There are some early sources which imply that this may be the case with Joseph.

While there is no biblical corroborating evidence to guarantee any of these, solutions 1 and 2 require doing an unwarranted violence to the text. Adoption offers a tempting alternative but has no supporting historical tradition. The same is not true for the case of levirite marriage, however. Africans, quoted by Eusebius (1:7: 13-16), recalled that genealogies of the Hebrews had been stored in archives until their destruction by Herod, who had the records burned to assuage his own ignoble Zadokite past by making it impossible for others to trace a lineage better than his own. A few however of the careful either remembering the names or having it in their power in some other way, by means of copies, to have private records of their own, gloried in the idea of preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Some of those who maintained such records were known as the disposing (those who belong to the master) because they were of the family of Jesus Christ. Having examined these records from the Judean villages of Ezra and Cochaba, Africans reported that, Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother. Heli dying childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, having Joseph, according to nature belonging to himself, but by the law to Heli. Thus, Joseph was the son of both. (Eusebius 1:7:16)

The Prologue of Luke (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke attempts to answer for us from the very outset a nagging, yet monumentally necessary question about scripture. Theologians refer to it as the nature (or problem) of inspiration. Just how did men like Luke, or Matthew, or Mark or any of the other biblical authors write what they wrote? Did they just sit down and start writing? Did God drill a hole in their heads and pour in the words? Why did they include some things and leave out others? Were they placed under a hypnotic spell and forced to write without any idea of what they were writing? Some would seem to have us believe that inspiration was inspiration of the pen, not the inspiration of men.

Luke explains the development of his material in terms of (1) research, (2) organization, and (3) motivation. He first notes that there were many accounts in circulation at that time, passed on by those who were eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus. Surely, some of the accounts were bogus, others were embellished with pious fictions, so Luke set about to research and verify each item with care (1:3). He did so with every single detail (from the beginning or from the source), without simply assuming a general scheme and adding the stories he thought appropriate. Here is no folding of the hands and sitting in contemplative silence awaiting words to appear upon the point of his pen. God does not tell us: Sit and yea shall find. This is careful comparative study, the prayerful combination of a searching heart and a revealing God. Apparently, this had been a matter of investigation for Luke for some time, like many of us who become absorbed with a hobby, an historical event, the family tree, or some consuming passion which excites and engages our mind over a long period.

Luke’s research indicates that he took time to interview witnesses about exactly what they saw and heard. He was not alone in his quest; others were doing research to see if reports were true. Consider the Roman official report of an investigation conducted about AD 34. In a letter to emperor Tiberias an account was made about the man Jesus. It related facts about his death and confirmed the rumors that he had risen. It verified miracles he had performed. The account was complete, official, and urged Tiberias to petition the Senate to recognize Jesus as a god. The Emperor was so convinced by the investigative report that he did make the petition, but the Senate informed him that ancient Roman Law prohibited imperial requests about divinity. It was a senatorial matter and must be first investigated and proposed by them. Even though his request was refused, Tiberias was convinced Jesus was some divine figure and prevented any persecution of the new religion, allowing it to spread. The investigation and the report came from one Pontius Pilate (Eusebius History 2:2).

Then came the organization, a task which has baffled and challenged scholars to this day. Luke organized his material using Mark’s outline and Peter’s remembrances, just as we have described earlier in the section on synoptics. The long and arduous task of organization presents a formidable task to the writer, particularly before the advent of word processing, copy and paste, or even erasers.

Motivation for such a task must be extremely high. Authors compile their works for a number of reasons but most often for financial gain, to preserve something important to them or to contribute to the culture of their era. At a book signing a customer asked for the author’s autograph and a note to his wife who would be receiving the volume as a birthday present. Is this going to be a surprise? he queried. I’ll say! came the reply; She’s expecting a Cadillac! Luke identifies his motive in terms of personal love and respect: he wants to confirm for Theophilus the things his friend has been told about Jesus. So who was Theophilus? The story goes that a fellow was asked to suggest a name for a newborn. After looking the child over, he suggested Theophilus as the best choice. Why? Well, he said, that’s ‘the-awful lest’ looking baby I’ve ever seen!

The name means God-lover and four theories are common. (1) Some suggest that the name simply refers to Christians in general, rather than any particular individual. It is true that Luke expected more than one person to read his two-volume work. It was not written as a personal letter to a single friend. It is also true that all of the known early works are written from Christians to Christians. If this is the case, however, it is unique in that it is the only time a book was dedicated to a symbolic character rather than a real one. It is likewise hard to fathom why Luke would have described a symbolic character as most excellent. (2) The name more likely refers to a real person. Theophilus was a common name used by both Jews and Greeks. (3) Some have suggested that the name was used as a pseudonym to camouflage the identity of a high-ranking official who might be placed in jeopardy if his association with Christians became public knowledge. (Most excellent is used on occasion in Acts in reference to public figures (Acts 23:26, 24:2, 26:25). (4) Others have suggested that the title refers to T. Claudius Clemens, cousin of the emperor Dalmatian, whose wife was close to the church.

Evidence is lacking to confirm any of these four theories, but let me make a personal observation from the viewpoint of the rocking chair. Luke is a man who has traveled the world with Paul. There is a lot of mileage on this man in addition to his many years. As he labors to write, he has poured his heart and soul into a lengthy narrative which he dedicates as the legacy of his long and eventful life to a single person of tremendous importance to him. Above all things, it is important to Luke that this person, who has been instructed already in Christian teachings, know from Luke himself that every single bit of this is true and verified by careful research from beginning to end. To me, this sounds like a grandfather. In my mind’s eye I see a wise old man with the scars of many campaigns in the service of his master, preparing the most precious gift he could ever bestow for the youngster who is the apple of his eye, a legacy of experience that even the richest nobleman in Rome could not give his heirs. I see Luke carefully sifting through the material and the memories to