Point of View

Point of View

Luke Chapter 24

Delirium

Nowhere is the contrast among the Gospels as apparent as it is in the four accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Mark does not have a birth narrative. John tells us of Christ’s origin from a cosmic perspective. Only Matthew and Luke have an account of the birth of Jesus, and these are generally overlapping. But all four Gospels have the story of the women going to the tomb, and the contrast among them is striking. In vv. 1-12 of Luke, the women come and find the tomb open, and two men appear to them. In Matthew (28:1-10) an earthquake happens as the women approach and they find an angel atop the stone that had sealed the tomb. In Mark (16:1-8) there is no earthquake and it is a young man who sits atop the stone. In John (20:1-18) there is no mention of an angel, but it is the Lord himself who speaks to Mary.

Perhaps all these things happened, and different pieces were included in the different Gospels for various reasons. First, the events may have happened to different people. Four names are mentioned: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna. Perhaps some entered the tomb and some did not. John makes it clear that Mary Magdalene was alone when the Lord appeared to her. So, the Gospels writers had various sources to choose from. Also, as Luke says, the stories were unbelievable. The Greek is translated “idle tales” or “nonsense”, but the original is the same as our word for “delirium”. Here, again, Luke uses a physician’s language, and describes a patient speaking nonsense in the throws of some medical crisis. It is no wonder the Gospel writers could not get their stories straight. Peter himself went to investigate, and came back shaking his head.

The Gospels do agree on this. The tomb was empty. But the empty tomb itself, and whatever other miraculous signs there may have been, perhaps more than are recorded in all the Gospels combined, these were not enough to make the disciples believe.

Remembrance

The Gospels each have their own selection of post-resurrection appearances. The first in Luke is in vv. 13-35. This passage raises several questions. How was it that these two failed to recognize the resurrected Jesus? When did this event occur? When did Jesus appear to Peter? Where was Jesus going? How did Jesus disappear?

We can investigate these questions, but we simply cannot answer them completely. This is no great loss. In the Information Age when it seems that every event is recorded on camera, we have the illusion of knowledge provided by the abundance of fact. But the Gospels writers knew that knowledge comes from truth. The author of Luke says that he collected these things from those who witnessed them, and we accept them as historical fact, but the primary purpose of scripture is never facts about the past, but truth that applies to us today.

Whatever the complete reason was that the two disciples did not recognize Jesus, it is clear they were not expecting to see him. Luke gives us another amazing word picture describing their mental state when, in verse 17, he says they stood still, looking sad. Probably, most of those who had followed Jesus had simply left, and were waiting for something else to capture their interest, but those close to him were severely disappointed – they were in shock, and it had completely shut them down. As Jesus questioned the two, it became clear that their disappointment was because he was not what they expected him to be, even though they had evidence that he was much more than they expected.

The wonderful storytelling of Luke continues as Jesus walks along the road with the two disciples and explains to them all the scriptures concerning himself. It would be common for a rabbi to teach disciples in this way, and Luke has been careful to show, in the extended passage on Jesus’ return to Jerusalem before his death, that he was teaching and healing as he went. The study of scripture is critical. It prepares us for encounter with the Lord. The two disciples say later that their hearts were burning as he spoke. But it was not scripture alone that made them believe.

They reached the place they were going and invited Jesus to stay. God always makes himself available to us, but it always our choice to invite him in. It was the personal, intimate encounter around the table that finally made them recognize their Lord. We all need those moments. Perhaps for the two disciples it came when Jesus broke the bread, and they remembered, as Luke records in 22:19, that he had said “Do this in remembrance of me.” We have made this into a ritualistic observance, and there is nothing wrong with that observance. It is recorded in Deuteronomy 6:6-9 that God, when he made that covenant with the people through Moses, wanted the people to keep his commandments in their hearts and homes. How could they literally keep the commandments in their hearts? They could not, but they could literally wear them on their hands and foreheads, and write them on their doorframes and gates. Jesus invites us to remember him at table with family and friends, and we have turned it into a symbolic event. These intimate meals are gone from our culture, and perhaps we even romanticize what they were in Jesus’ day. Do we need to recreate them to create a space for family, friends, and the Lord? That might be a good thing, but we cannot create a place for God, any more than we can write his words in our hearts. We need only want him; he will find us.

Witnesses

In vv. 36-49, Jesus appears to the assembled disciples, who are excited and disturbed by the news of various sightings of Jesus. Jesus immediately begins to calm them. He assures them that he is real, asking them to touch him and them eating in front of them. This is in contrast to his appearance to Mary in John, as he tells her (20:17) not to touch (or “cling to”) him, as he has not yet ascended to his Father. Jesus was certainly real at this point, and he says he was no spirit, but he does not seem to be your every-day human, either.

Jesus goes on to remind and instruct them concerning the prophecies of his life and death. At about this point, Matthew and Mark have the Great Commission, and John has the extended exchange with Jesus commanding Peter to “Feed my sheep.” Luke simply has Jesus reminding the disciples that the prophecy was that his name was to be preached to all nations and “You are witnesses.”

Point of View

The final verses of Luke (50-53) show Jesus ascending to heaven while continuing to bless his disciples, and then the disciples go joyfully to the temple. It is fitting that the Gospel of Luke ends in the temple. It began there, with the angel appearing to Zechariah. The first recorded words of the boy Jesus were at the temple, and the first recorded words (in Luke) of Jesus’ ministry were at the temple in Galilee.

The four Gospels each have their own point of view. Luke wants us to understand that Jesus was a real person, not that we should have a complete historical record, but so that we might have a sense that he lived a life. Luke shows us that no one understood Jesus in his lifetime. At the end, he explains that it was all prophesied. What kind of explanation is that? I think it says two things. First, it says that God is always in control. Never in any of the Gospels is Jesus shown as impatient with his disciples for their lack of understanding. God is in control whether we understand it or not. Second, Luke never tried to give us an answer. The whole Gospel is all about the only answer there is.

Through the years there have been many points of view of who Jesus is. The two on the road said he was a great prophet. I hear people say he was a good man, or he had good things to say. I do not think those people have paid close enough attention. As a man, he stirred up trouble and died alone. The things he said included that he was the son of God. He is either Lord or nothing.

I know him as Lord.

Into Thy Hands

Into Thy Hands

Luke Chapter 23

Jesus before Pilate

A continuing theme of Luke is the nature of the day-to-day life of Jesus. There are many examples. Luke, of course, gives us what we have of the family history of Jesus: the more elaborate of the two birth narratives, the story of the birth of John, and Jesus as a child in the temple. But there are also contrasts between Luke and the other Gospels which show Luke’s emphasis on the human experience of Jesus. For example, the other Gospels portray the final return to Jerusalem as an event. Matthew (20:17-19) and Mark (10:32-34) say that Jesus explained to his disciples exactly what would happen to him there. John (11:1-16) makes it clear that they did not understand him. But for Luke, the return is not an event, but a journey during which Jesus is constantly teaching, healing and gathering a following.

There is a similar contrast in Luke’s account of Jesus before Pilate (vv. 1-25). In Matthew (27:11-26) Pilate is in his judge’s seat, removed from Jesus, and is warned by his wife to have nothing to do with him. Pilate’s chief purpose seems to be to deliver the line “I am innocent of this man’s blood” so the Jews can reply “Let his blood be on us and our children.” In Mark (15:1-15) we have only the bare essentials of the exchange. In the extended exchange in John (18:28-19:16) Pilate is a complex, almost tragic figure, who asks “What is truth?” when he has the Truth standing right in front of him.

In Luke, there is no special theological emphasis, no attention to fulfillment of scripture. Instead, as so often in Luke, there is a picture. In this picture, there is Jesus, who had just come just triumphantly into Jerusalem with crowds of hosannas and is now alone and defenseless. It is supposed to be his trial, but all the action happens around him. The King of Kings is nothing but a pawn.

“Do not weep for me”

In vv. 26-31, we are first told of Simon, a man from Cyrene, was pressed into service carrying the cross for Jesus. The law was that any inhabitant of the occupied territories could be pressed into service by a Roman soldier at any time, and the summons was a tap on the shoulder with the flat of the sword. It seems as though Simon was not one of the crowd, either the disciples of Jesus or those who had come for the spectacle, but someone who was just on his way, perhaps coming to the city for the time of the feast. What must he have thought of this man, Jesus, whose indignity he shared?

The passage goes on to say that Jesus speaks to the women who were already mourning him. He tells them not to weep for him, but for themselves. He uses a strange expression: “If they do this when the wood is green, what will they do when the wood is dry?” We think of green wood as not being ready, but we know from scripture that Jesus was ready. But green wood does not burn. There had been every opportunity for riot, for Jesus to involve his followers in an uproar, but he forbade them to behave that way. Jesus is the one person in history who could every say “I am right, and I know I am right, and everyone else is wrong, and I will stand on principle.” He did do that, but not the way it is generally done.

Father, forgive them

Verses 32-34 continue with detail that is unique to Luke. Jesus’ prayer “Father, forgive them; for they no not what they do” is only found in Luke, and it should be noted that it is not found in some early manuscripts. Did they know what they were doing? Luke tells us that they had been seeking to kill Jesus for some time. They had plotted with Judas, paying him money. They had willfully lied about the charges against him. They knew they wanted to kill an innocent man.

We might ask another question. Jesus had taught his disciples (Matthew 6:6) to pray in private. Why was he praying aloud? Jesus prayed aloud in order to teach. He taught us so, in a prayer (John 11:41-42). What was it Jesus wished to teach us in this prayer? In the model prayer (Luke 11:2-4) we are taught to “forgive everyone who sins against us.” It is difficult, however, when we are sure that someone (sometimes it seems everyone) has acted so deliberately against us.

Jesus knew that among those who nailed him to the cross, those who hurled insults at him, those who deserted him, none of them knew who he really was or what was really going on. However personal an attack may feel, there is only one who truly knows us, the rest have their own agenda and we are merely in the way. If Jesus can say “this is not about me,” then so must we.

With me in paradise

Luke continues to provide unique details in vv. 35-43. Matthew (27:44) and Mark (15:27, 32) say that the robbers crucified with Jesus hurled insults at him along with the crowd. Perhaps they both did at first, but Luke tells us that one of the criminals recognized Jesus as a blameless man. From his request, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom,” or, as some manuscripts say “come with your kingly power,” it is not clear what he expected. May be he was still looking for an earthly Messiah.

Did he really believe? If he had faith, where were his works? Why did Jesus say “paradise” and not “heaven”? The man had certainly not gone down the “Roman Road” we teach for the conversion of sinners, not had he said any shibboleth we recognize today. May be his faith was not great, but just asks only for the faith of the grain of a mustard seed. And any place where we will be with Jesus will be paradise. Our Lord is in the business or redemption. His ways are not our ways.

Into thy hands

In vv. 44-46, Luke tells us of the actual death of Jesus. In the Luke account, two supernatural events are mentioned: the sun stops shining for several hours, and the curtain before the Holy of Holies was torn into. Matthew (27:50-53) adds that there was an earthquake, and that graves were opened and many who had been dead were raised and appeared to those in the city. Matthew and Mark say that Jesus gave a loud shout before he died. John (19:30) tells us that he said “It is finished” (in the Greek, it is the one word “finished”) and gave up his spirit. Perhaps word “finished” was the loud cry, and Luke tells us how he gave up his spirit.

Whatever the actual order of the sayings of Jesus on the cross, Luke chose to include this prayer because it continues to paint his picture. It shows us Jesus so completely abandoned at the moment of his death that he must pray for himself. It shows us that Jesus was so close to the Father that he was never alone. It shows us that, at the very end, Jesus had complete confidence in his fate.

Luke must also have been in awe of the picture this prayer presents. We do not know what form we will have in heaven. Jesus says we will be spirit. We do not know what heaven will be like. There are passages that describe the splendor of the place, the awesomeness of being in the presence of God. As long as man has existed there has been mixed curiosity and terror over what it would be like to see God, to be in his presence. What form does he have? What will our encounter with him be like? Jesus says that, though our earthly bodies will be gone, he will care for us with his loving hands.

Strangers

Chapter 23 closes in vv. 47-55 with strangers showing respect to Jesus. First, there was the centurion. Like the criminal on the cross, his conversion was unorthodox. How did he know anything of God? Was it enough that he said Jesus was a “righteous man.” We do not know what happened to the centurion, but we have to remember that it is our Lord who redeems, and it is not for us to say.

Then there is Joseph, the member of the Council. Hid did not consent to their actions. Did he show active descent? We do not know. Often it took a person several days to die on a cross, and the Romans left the bodies for the birds and the vermin. Joseph was bold in going to Pilate, and deliberately broke Jewish law in handling the body.

We must note that this account agrees with Matthew and Mark, but seems to differ somewhat with John (19:31-42).

Because the Sabbath was about to begin, they left the body there to finish tending to it on the first day of the week. This is irony, that the left the body of God because of their understanding of scripture. We, too, are sometimes distracted by our own agenda. We expect to return and find God where we left him. His ways are not our ways.

Not My Will

Not My Will

Luke Chapter 22

Judas

Chapter 22 is lengthy and packed with action and meaning. It is enough material for many lessons. In this lesson, we will concentrate on some of the main characters: Judas, Jesus, and Peter. To do this, we will not be following the verses of the chapter consecutively, but will be considering the verses fires that deal with Judas, then with Jesus, and then the remaining verses.

In vv. 1-6, Luke beings by telling us the timing of these events and the role Judas played in them. The account begins before Passover, which occurred at the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Breads. Judas consulted with the chief priests and other officials, who were concerned about the crowd, and well their concern was well placed. All Jewish men within 15 miles of Jerusalem were bound by law to attend Passover in the city, and it was, and still is, the ambition of every Jewish male in every part of the world to attend Passover in Jerusalem at least once in his life. The Roman guard was increased in number and diligence during this time, and it was not a time for any trouble.

From Mathew, Mark, and Luke, we know nothing about Judas except that he was one of the twelve who betrayed Jesus. Matthew makes it clear (Matthew 26:14-16) that Judas went to the chief priests in order to get money. Mathew further tells us that when the disciples were questioning among themselves who might betray Jesus, Judas asked him if it were he and Jesus answered him directly (Matthew 26:25).

John tells us something more. First, he tells us that Judas was a thief. Luke has a story (Luke 7:36-50) of Jesus being anointed by an unidentified woman at the house of a Pharisee, presumably sometime early in his ministry. This story is not in the other Gospels. Perhaps because of that, Luke does not include the very similar story of Mary anointing Jesus at Bethany, which the other Gospels have occurring at this time. Matthew (Matthew 26:6-13) and Mark (Mark 14:3-9) say some people, generally, rebuked Mary for the extravagance of her gesture, but John (John 12:1-8) says it was Judas who complained, and he did it because he wanted the money to go to the treasury, because he was the treasurer, and he stole from the treasury.

How could this be? How could one of the Twelve — one trusted with the treasury — have been stealing from them without their knowledge? We might, more importantly, ask how one so close to Jesus could have been a betrayer without their knowledge. John tells us that even after Jesus had publicly confronted him (John 13:25-30) the disciples did not understand what Judas was about. And it is hard to understand. How could he have done such a thing, and what was it he did?

To answer the first question, the Gospels unanimously say that “Satan entered into him.” But what does that mean? Had this become some supernatural struggle between Good and Evil, with God in Jesus and Satan in Judas? There is a clue to understanding this in Matthew 16:23, where Jesus calls Peter “Satan” because he is “not on the side of God, but of men.” The timing of this statement is important to note. Peter had just made his great confession that Jesus was the Christ and Jesus began to talk about his suffering and death. Peter objected and said that could not happen. This is the way with humans. We want to have a god, but we want that god in our image. To give in to that desire is the way of Satan.

In vv. 47-53, we see something of the role of Judas. The leaders of the Jews wanted to find Jesus away from the crowd, and Judas took their gang to him. Also, Judas gave them the sign of the kiss. It was traditional for the pupil to offer the rabbi a kiss of greeting, and Matthew (26:48) and Mark (14:44) both point out that Judas had arranged that those with him would use this as a sign. But why did they need Judas for either of these? Jesus seems to have been a well known character, and Luke says (21:37) that he made a habit of staying on the Mount of Olives at night.

It is not clear why they needed him, except that they wanted to do wrong, and he decided to do it. Only Matthew tells us (27:1-10) tells us that Judas knew he had done wrong. He returned to the chief priests and said that he had sinned. In a rare flash of wisdom, they told him they could do nothing for him.

Jesus

In vv. 7-20, Luke gives us his account of the last supper. In it, Jesus tells the disciples how much meaning this final supper has for him. It has begun with some kind of advance preparation. Jesus tells Peter and John to follow a man carrying water. Carrying water was a woman’s job, and to see a man carrying water would be an instantly recognizable sign for them. Jesus said the man would lead them to a place where they would find everything they needed.

There are many aspects of the supper we could discuss, but there is one aspect which will take some consideration: the new covenant. What is the covenant, and what was new about it? We often think that God established the old covenant and it involved the law, but since it was impossible for man to be guiltless under the law, Jesus came to free us from the law. We need to think about this carefully.

First, Jesus was God. We know this from Paul, for example in Philippians (2:5-8) and John (1:1-2, 14) and from the words of Jesus himself (John 10:30). So, the first thing we need to be careful of is characterizing God as the hard, Old Testament God who set us up, and Jesus as the New Testament Savior. We must remember that “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19b). So, God established the old covenant, and God established the new covenant.

What about the law? It is certainly true from the Old Testament that God expected his people to abide by his commandments. That is true, even now. The difference is in the conception that the commandments were a means to God. I am not a theologian, but I believe that Hosea 6:6 and 2 Chronicles 7:14 are evidence that God wants a covenant relationship with us, not to establish a roadblock for us. We were the ones who set the law up to be more than it was, and God became a man to free us from our own enslavement.

And he made a new covenant. God made a new covenant with Noah, and with Abram, and with Jacob, and with the nation of Israel, and has made a new covenant with us. What is new about it? He is the same God. The terms of the covenant are the same: that we should be his people, and he should be our God. What is new, is that he makes us new. In Revelation 21:3-5, John writes of the day when we will truly be his people, and he will be our God, and God says “Behold, I make all things new.”

In vv. 39-46, Jesus goes away by himself to pray. Luke’s version is shorter than the more familiar account from Matthew or Mark. I must note, without drawing any conclusion, that verses 42 and 43, with the ministering angel and the drops of blood, are not in all the early manuscripts. As with the supper, there is much to consider, even in this short passage. We will concentrate on the prayer Jesus prayed.

First, we might wonder what the cup was he did not want to drink. He was a man in his prime, of course, and perhaps he simply did not want to die. But was there more than that? He is the Good Shepherd, and his flock was about to be scattered and slaughtered. He was the Prince of Peace, and he was to be followed by the Crusades and the Inquisition. Peter says (1 Peter 3:18-20) that Jesus went to preach to those that had long since been dead, so perhaps the cup represents something of which we are simply not aware.

However, we must also note that it shows the free will of Jesus. Though he knew for some time (we have no way of knowing how long) what the Father expected of him up to the very end he had his own desires and when to the Fater with them. We know from many passages in the Old and New Testaments that Jesus was blameless. It is no sin to want what we want, or to take these desires to the Father, but Jesus gave us the model when he prayed “not my will, but thine be done.”

Peter

In the long passage in vv. 21-34, Jesus announces that there is a betrayer at the very table with them. This causes confusion among them, which quickly sank into a dispute over which was the greatest. Possibly this was touched off by their elaborate notion of table arrangements. In all the Gospels, Jesus’ announcement is met by confusion and denial. Since he asks that we observe the supper in remembrance, it is good for me to remember that, as often as I am at his table, his betrayer is there.

Luke does not have Peter’s first statement, and the other Gospels do not have what appears to be Jesus’ reply to him, but it seems as though, put together, it must have gone this way. Jesus made his statement that a betrayer was with him at the table. The group generally began to murmur in response, but among themselves. Bold Peter stood up and spoke, and Jesus, as he often did, spoke to the group through him.

When Jesus says “Satan has asked to sift you” he is speaking to the group. The Greek word translated “you” is plural. When Jesus says “when you have turned back” he is saying that Peter will deny him. He may be speaking of the literal denial, or of Peter’s failure to expect the resurrection, or of something else about which we are unaware, but he is saying that they would all be tempted, and it would seem that even Peter would be taken from them, but he would return to strengthen them.

Peter, of course, says flatly that he would never deny Jesus, and Jesus says he would. What must Peter have been feeling? We know he did not approve of the plan Jesus had chosen. And then, to be told he would back down, and be disloyal – it must have been disturbing. But then, Jesus, the man who had told them to turn the other cheek, began at last to talk about swords. They had two. We know from John (18:10-11) that Peter had one of them, and it was he, thinking it was about time for some action, who in the verses we already read, struck the ear of the servant of the high priest.

This, of course, was not Jesus’ plan, and in vv. 54-65, the man of action is left to lurk in the shadows while Jesus is inside being mocked and beaten. And then it happens, just as Jesus said it would, he denied Jesus three times. What should he have done? Should he have stayed away? Should he have said that he not only knew Jesus, but was one of his closest confidants? What would have happened to him if he had?

It is important to remember that Jesus did not pray that he should avoid it, or tat he should fight it, but that, ultimately, his faith should not fail. We should not read too much into this. It is not that our sin is predestined and therefore inescapable. It is not sinning and returning that makes us stronger. It is faith that makes us stronger, and we do not have to sin to have faith.

Not My Will

Judas made his decision. He wanted what he wanted, and he wanted the things of man, not the things of God. Jesus had his own will, and how bad could it have been? Sight to the blind, freeing the oppressed, feeding the hungry – what could be wrong with that? Whatever it was that Jesus wanted, it was not the complete will of God, and Jesus submitted himself to that will.

Peter stood on the cusp. He was fiercely devoted to Jesus, but Jesus was not the Messiah he wanted him to be. Even as we hear him say “I will never” (Matthew 26:33) we know that it is the will of Peter that concerns him, not the will of God.

What sort of God is it that requires us to bend our will to his? Not a God of tyranny, but a God of love. It is not enslavement he asks, but relationship. We must remember that he has also bent his will to us, to allow us the right to choose, otherwise this would be just some elaborate pantomime, and he himself has been human, to show us the way.

Be Always On the Watch

Be Always On the Watch

Luke Chapter 21

The Widow

Chapter 21 begins in vv. 1-4 with Jesus observing as those entering the temple placed their offerings in the various collection “trumpets”, so called because they were smaller at the top and larger at the bottom, like inverted trumpets, which, in Jesus’ day had not yet been coiled into the compact shape of today. There were many different trumpets, each for the collection of different temple needs, and the wealthy made a show of their contributions.

Jesus brought attention to a widow, and surely she was embarrassed by it. She had only two small coins. We are used to them being called “mites”, but the real name of the coin is “leptron” meaning “the thin one” and it was the smallest of the coins of the day. Today, we often leave our pennies behind us at the counter, or in a drawer, or wherever they fall, because they just are not worth the trouble. And that is the way those with wealth felt about the leptron. Jesus said they gave “out of their wealth” meaning they gave in abundance, but the widow gave a real gift, something that meant more to her than the tithes of the wealthy, because it was all she had.

Luke uses the story of the widow transitionally. Perhaps it is a record Jesus using the opportunity to provide connectivity between what he had said and what he was about to say, but we have to remember that there is no indication that Luke was present and able to give us a chronological record of the life of Jesus. It is true that the author of Luke tells us that his intention is to provide an orderly account of the things handed down by the actual eyewitnesses (Luke 1: 1-4). This transition is very orderly, whether it is chronological, or not.

This story, placed where it is, ties together a number of passages. First, there is the discussion in the previous chapter, in which Jesus points out that the coin has the image of Caesar on it, and says “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20: 20-25). At first this statement seems like a neat trick to silence those who were questioning him, but when we remember that we are made in the image of God, the implications of the statement become much larger. Likewise, the story of the widow’s “mite” seems, at first, connected to the passage at the end of the previous chapter only by the catchword “widow”, as Jesus had been condemning teachers who took advantage of the kindness of widows and others who could not afford it. But, if we look carefully, we see that the widow exemplified what Jesus had taught. She gave to God what was God’s. She gave everything.

The Temple

Luke goes on in his transition. In vv. 5-7, the disciples remark of the beauty of the temple. Remember that these remarks do not come out of the blue, as Luke has just shown Jesus sitting and watching the offerings being given for the care and maintenance of the temple. What must this point in Jesus life have been like? As already mentioned, we do not expect chronological accuracy from Luke, or from any of the gospel writers, but we do rough accuracy in the sequence of events. There are, of course, problems reconciling John with the other gospels, as he seems to have the cleansing of the temple, for instance, at the beginning of Jesus ministry (John 2:12-17). But from the evidence of Luke, it appears that Jesus at this time had developed a following, that he had been continually healing and teaching, had made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, had cleared the temple, and was at this point teaching in the temple ever day (vv. 37-38) though the leaders of the Jews wanted desperately to kill him (Luke 19: 47-48).

He must have transformed the temple. It had been a place of business. Come in with your sins, and see the high priest. If you were worthy, which was a matter of caste and finance, you did your business and were told to “Come back real soon now, ya’ here?” If you were not worthy, you had no chance. Under Jesus control, it must have been a very different place. Recall the first teaching the Luke records for us that Jesus gave in the temple (Luke 4:16-21). It was about good news to the poor and freedom for the oppressed, not about temple tax and sacrifice. The chief priest must have been aching to get back in there.

In this short passage, the disciples remarked on the beauty of the temple, which, we are told, was quite an amazing place, and the Jews worked hard to keep it so. After all, it was dedicated to the worship of God. It was the place where their God dwelt, and where the word of God came to them. Where did they get this idea? It started, I think, back in the time of Moses, while God was giving them the Ten Commandments. The people became afraid (Exodus 20:18-21). They wanted a God, but they wanted God on the other side of Moses, or in an arc, or a tent, or in a temple. They wanted to be able to say, “We have a great god, and we worship him in this temple, see how much it means to us?” God, of course, wants us to worship him in our hearts.

Jesus knew how much the temple meant to them, how much their religion depended on it. He did not correct them for their extravagance, any more than he tried to quiet the cries of “Hosanna” coming from those who would soon turn their back on him. Instead, he told them something they already knew, that the temple would be destroyed (Daniel 9:26). Now, this might have been a matter of theological interest to them, since they depended on the temple for their interaction with God. But their question was “When will it happen, and how will we know?”

Signs

In vv. 8-28, Jesus gives them many signs, and what he is saying is more than a little confusing for three reasons. First, there are many signs. These signs include natural disasters, wars, astrological indications, and persecution of Christians. One of the confusing things is that these signs have always been occurring. There are always natural disasters and wars, and Christians have been persecuted from Jesus day until today — even in the United States, where, if a person does not hold the right views on abortion, homosexuality, and the role of women, or does not belong to the right political party, it will be said, from church pulpit and political platform, this person is not Christian.

Second, it is not entirely clear what is foretold by the signs. The disciples have asked about the destruction of the temple, and Jesus speaks of it, but is it a prophecy of the destruction of temple, or is the destruction of the temple the sign of things to come? Then there is the idea of the “Day of the Lord” (Isaiah 13:6-13) which seems to be intermingled with this prophecy, and of course, there is Jesus prophecy of his own return. It is hard to know whether Jesus tied these prophecies together, or Luke grouped them when he recorded them for us. Perhaps they had become intermingled by the time they reached Luke, since those who originally heard them did not understand how Jesus would die and return again, or that he was prophesying about himself in any way.

Finally, it is confusing that Jesus would talk about signs. Jesus has said earlier in Luke (Luke 12:40) that no one will know when he will come. Elsewhere, he says that no man knows, nor the angels, nor he himself, when he will return, but only the Father (Mark 13:32). If no one can know, why talk about the signs?

Be always on watch

The passage in vv. 29-36 is packed with meaning, and begins to make sense of the jumble of the previous section. It starts with a parable. I don’t really know anything about fig trees, though we had one at the house where I grew up, but I get the idea. There is a natural order of things. When the lightening flashes, the thunder follows. Jesus said it is the way with these signs. Then he says something even more confusing. He says that this “generation” will not pass away until all these things have happened. The word “generation” might be interpreted “race” or “people” and that might be the explanation. Or, perhaps he was referring specifically to the destruction of the temple in AD 70, in which case he would have been literally correct. However, his next statement, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (v. 33) again raises doubt that he was referring to a single event or series of events in the lifetime of those who heard him speak.

In v. 35, he makes it clear. He is talking about something that will happen to everyone. Not the destruction of the temple, not the Day of the Lord, not the second coming, but the Day of Judgment. He says we should be careful, and always be on watch; not, interestingly enough, because of evil temptation, but because of life. He mentions three things: dissolution, the vain pursuit of life; drunkenness, the dull, addictive withdrawal from life; and anxiety, simply being overcome by life. How can living be a sin? It is certainly no sin to be tired, to be afraid, to fail. It is only a sin to rely on ourselves, or the things of this world.

Heaven and earth will pass away, Jesus said. Maybe he was referring back to their concern about the temple. It was their means to God. How would they be able to reach God if the temple were gone? Sometimes we feel that our access to God is gone. The truth is that we can never reach God, but he always reaches out to us. Jesus said everything in this world would pass away, but his words would never pass away. Here are a few of my favorites.

Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)