Luke 1:18-35 I wondered why Gabriel appeared frustrated when Zechariah was made speechless for asking "How can I be sure of this?" (Luke 1:18), but when Mary asked "How will this be..." (Luke 1:35...), Gabriel provides her an explanation of HOW, with no apparent rebuke? Was it the way the question was raised? Zechariah's query seems to be more about "prove it to me..." vs. Mary's being more of HOW? Also Zechariah was a priest & Mary a young girl...was it more about Mary's faith in what Gabriel told her?
Most commentators would agree with you in your reasoning for the different responses Gabriel gives to these two people. Zechariah should not have questioned Gabriel since:
He was a priest who well knew the stories of Abraham and Sarah as well as Samuel's parents being given sons in their old age (Zechariah pretty much quotes directly from Genesis 15:8 and 18:11 in his reply to Gabriel.)
He and his wife had apparently been praying for just such an event (see Luke 1:13). Sort of like praying for rain, but not bringing an umbrella with you because you really don't expect your prayer to be answered.
By contrast, Mary is given more slack by the angel since she was only a teenager who had not asked for such an event in her life, there was no precedent in history for a virgin birth, and she merely inquires as to the method by which it will be brought about.
I. Howard Marshall (Commentary on Luke, p. 60) is just one of several commentators who point out the threefold purpose for Zechariah being struck dumb. It was punishment for Zechariah's unbelief, it acted as the sign that Zechariah asked for, “and it served the deeper purpose of concealing the wonder of what was to happen until the due time.”
These paired stories serve as a good example of Luke's distinctive literary technique of giving purposely contrasting responses to similar circumstances (see Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, p. 279 for a table showing the close correspondence in details between the two annunciations.) In the Book of Acts we have the following examples:
A. Barnabas sells land and donates proceeds to the church (Acts 4:32-37) while
Ananias and Sapphira sell land but secretly keep some of the proceeds (Acts 5:1-11).
B. Simon the magician believes (Acts 8:9-13) while
Elymas the magician doesn't believe (Acts 13:6-11).
C. There are almost magical healings using Paul's handkerchief (Acts 19:11-12) but
an attempt at magical exorcism by unbelievers fails (Acts 19:13-20), etc., etc.
Luke 5:33-39 I wondered about the parable of the wineskins (also in Mt 9:14-17, Mk 2:18-22), specifically at the end of the parable, "...for he says, 'The old is better.'" I assume He is still talking to the Pharisees, but I wondered what is the interpretation of this parable?
This verse at the end of the parable only appears in Luke's account (5:39). The problem is basically this: In the previous parable, old wine stands for OT laws and customs while new wine stands for the message of the Gospel. Taking Luke 5:39 literally appears to endorse the keeping of OT traditions rather than accepting Christ's teachings.
Because of this apparent discrepancy, Marcion (who didn't think much of the OT) and those influenced by him removed this verse from their versions of the text. Another probable reason for some early manuscripts deleting this verse was to bring Luke's account more completely in line with the other Synoptic accounts. (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament)
Rather than just remove this verse because it is difficult, it is preferable to wrestle with the apparent contradiction. Here are a few of the approaches that have been taken:
1. The early manuscripts are evenly divided in this verse between the use of “good” and “better.” If it is “good,” then the meaning is “good enough.” In other words, he who drinks old wine does not compare old and new; he is content not to try the new.” (I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke) Similarly, “The point at issue here has nothing to do with the comparative merits of old and new wine, but refers to the predilection for old wine in the case of those who are accustomed to drink it.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX) In other words, these people say, “The OT law is good enough for me. Why should I even try to listen to any new teachings?”
2. Some early manuscripts add “immediately” before “desires.” The same occurs in a similar saying in the Gospel of Thomas, which may actually preserve some early versions of Christ's original sayings. (Fitzmyer) If this is the intent of the verse, then it means that most people are not likely to immediately adopt new teachings without first thinking them over.
3. Almost all commentators labeled it as an ironic or wry comment by Jesus not to be taken literally.
New Bible Commentary: “An ironic comment on Jews who rejected the new wine of the gospel and held that the old ways are better. Jesus quotes the saying without endorsing it.
Hard Sayings of the Bible: The saying “far from expressing the mind of Jesus, could well express an attitude that he deplores it because it hinders the advance of the kingdom of God.”
Fred B. Craddock, Luke: “Luke's verse 39 is unique and unusual. Is it humor or irony?” A literal reading is inconsistent with the previous parable.
A. Luke 9:50 (parallel in Mark 9:38-40): “Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you.”
B. Luke 11:23 (parallel in Matthew 12:30): “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
Isn't there a contradiction between these two sayings?
Not really, as several commentaries explain:
NCBC: “...if the one was spoken to the indifferent about themselves and the other to the disciples about someone else.”
NBC “While the principle of Mark 9:40 should govern the attitude of the Church toward those without, the principle of Matt. 12:30 must be part of the Church's preaching both to those without and to those within; to be neutral toward Christ is to decide against him.”
NICNT: The exorcist honored Jesus' name. In the other case it was Jesus' opponents who questioned his God-given authority.
NBC: In the one case it is loyalty to Christ himself that is referred to. In the other case it is loyalty to the disciples that is talked about.
NICNT and AB: “He that is not against us is for us is the test by which we should judge others; he that is not for me is against me is the test by which we should judge ourselves.
Comments on A
Bible Knowledge Commentary: John must have felt that the disciples' own greatness was diminished if others could also cast out demons.
Hard Sayings of the Bible: “John has always had his successors in the church, who feel unhappy when things are done in Jesus' name by people whose authority to do them they cannot recognize.”
Craddock: “Where leaders compete, it follows that they will also seek to exercise control over the membership of the communities they lead.”
Comment on B
Bible Knowledge Commentary: “Jesus stated that it was impossible to be neutral in the battle between Christ and Satan. The people who were watching had to make up their minds.”
Luke 9:60-62 “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God. No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” This saying appears to both break the commandment to honor our parents and to not allow any doubts in the Christian life. Is that the only possible understanding?
“Dead” has been variously taken to mean the spiritually dead (preferred), waverers, pallbearers, or to have the overall meaning of “let the matter take care of itself” (doubtful). Many of the alternative understandings posit a mis-translation from the original Aramaic.
If this refers to the literal dead, the following should be taken into account:
NIGTC: Burial of relatives took precedence over all other duties. Even priests could do it. To leave it undone was something scandalous to a Jew. Jesus' teaching even seems to go against the ethic of the early church (I Timothy 5:8). “The urgency of the task of preaching the gospel could not be clearer.”
NCBC: Burial was a ceremonial obligation like fasting and observing the Sabbath. It supposedly imparted benefits to those doing it in the present and future life. Jesus treats it like other sacramental rites as secondary to following him. “If discipleship requires one to forsake living parents, how much more should it require this in regard to the deceased.”
Hard Sayings of the Bible: A Scottish preacher was scheduled to speak the same day his father was to be buried. Jesus seemed to say to him: “Would you rather bury the dead or raise the dead?”
NICNT: The father can't have just died or the man would have been home helping with preparations. Burial usually took place the same day as the death.
Bible Knowledge Commentary: The father was probably not dead yet. The disciple is waiting until it happens. It may also mean that he wanted to wait until his inheritance was settled. Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem so a decision needed to be made then and there.
Beale: Secondary burial of bones after one year may be in mind. If so, then it was not really an urgent duty.
Craddock: “Jesus never said to choose him over the devil but to choose him over the family. And the remarkable thing is that those who have done so have been freed from possession and worship of family and have found the distance necessary to love them.”
DNTT, I, 493: “For the disciple there is no looking back at associations and ties that are left behind, no looking back into the past, and no looking at former achievements. See Genesis 19:17,26; Luke 17:31-32; Philippians 3:13.”
International Bible Commentary and others: Reference to a plowman is a reminder that God's call to Elisha came while he was plowing (I Kings 19:19).
Beale: “Luke 9:54 is also an allusion to Elisha. Another allusion to the Elisha story is found in 9:59. Elijah allowed Elisha to bid farewell to his family before following him. The contrast between Jesus and Elijah highlights Jesus' authority and points to the eschatological urgency of Christ's ministry. A plowman who looks back has his mind still partly on the life he left to follow Jesus.”
“Those who look back” – see Hebrews 12:1f.
AB: The first would-be follower wants to follow but Jesus tells him to first count the cost. There was a different approach with other followers. Jesus can obviously read their minds.
Luke 13:28-29 (Matthew 8:11) If eternal salvation is based on belief in Jesus Christ, then how did the Patriarchs and prophets end up in heaven? Weren't the Patriarchs only promised physical salvation?
A few points to begin with:
1. The Hebrew and Greek words for “salvation” are terms “denoting all the benefits, physical or spiritual, that are graciously bestowed on humans by God.” (New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p. 762)
2. This is not the only place where these same Patriarchs are said to be still alive (see Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38). Similarly, God took both Enoch and Elijah into heaven without them even seeing death. In addition, Hebrews 11:13-16 explains that the Patriarchs “desire [note the present tense] a better country that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them.”
3. Belief in the resurrection of the dead is not stressed in the OT, but neither is it foreign to it. See Job 19:26; Psalms 17:15; 49:15; 73:24; Isaiah 26:19; 53:10-12; and Daniel 12:2,13. Eternal life with God is seen for those who are righteous. But Romans 4 deals with the example of Abraham, who was reckoned as righteous by God due to his faith alone, and that was faith in God not at all associated with any specific faith in Jesus. Hebrews 11:35 points to pre-Christian women who believed in the resurrection, and Hebrews 11:17-19 specifically states that Abraham believed in the bodily resurrection of Isaac after death.
With that background, here are some possible approaches to answering your question:
OT believers who hoped in a future Messiah (Christ) before He actually appeared on earth may be counted as having a faith in Christ that is acceptable in God's eyes. For example, Matthew 13 has Jesus stating, “Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.” And another example would be Simeon: “This man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel...It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah.” Simeon interpreted His coming as “God's salvation.” (Luke 2:26-30).
Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 both quote from Joel saying, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Three things to note, however, are:
(1) It doesn't say that calling on the name of the Lord is the only path to salvation;
(2) In the original OT saying “Lord” meant God whereas in the NT it is taken to mean Jesus. That may indicate that before the time of Christ on earth, salvation was available to all mankind, especially the Jews, by calling on God's name.
(3) “Salvation was actually achieved and made available before any human response to the message of salvation, as a result of the passion of Christ (I Peter 1:10-11).” (NDBT, p. 766)
Acts 4:12 seems to go a little further in stating that there is no other name under heaven that can save other than that of Christ. But, again, that certainly does not exclude the name of God the Father, only names that are “under heaven.” However, a blanket statement precedes that statement: “There is salvation in no one else (i.e., Christ).” This may apply only to Peter's audience and others living after the death and resurrection of Christ, and not to OT saints.
An additional factor to take into account is the mode of appropriating Christ's atoning sacrifice. We tend to think that this can only be done by specifically associating ourselves with His death in order that we can be associated with Him in the resurrection. However, there are hints that other means of appropriating His sacrifice may be available for those who have never even heard of Him. Romans 2:14-16 seems to describe how a “righteous pagan” may possibly be excused on the Day of Judgment on the basis of a clear conscience alone.
The very difficult passage I Peter 3:19-21 may possibly provide another solution to the question you posed if it refers to Jesus, after his death, preaching the Good News to the righteous OT saints so that they could fully appropriate eternal salvation. But that is not a likely interpretation.
But the best explanation is found in looking again at the Faith Chapter 11 of Hebrews. The author reviews the careers of numerous OT believers who all looked for fulfillment of the “promise” given to those from Abraham on. It is granted that this promise most prominently included land, numerous children, freedom, and prosperity. But it also included, at least according to the author of Hebrews, the promise of “rest” (see Hebrews 3:18-4:11). It is this unfulfilled OT promise that the author refers to in Hebrews 11:39-40 when he says, “Yet all these (righteous OT examples), though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.”
Commenting on this last passage, Ellingsworth explains that the OT believers had to wait for fulfillment in Christ. F. F. Bruce similarly states that none of them saw the promise in terms of actually witnessing its fulfillment in Christ. “But he still procured perfection for them and for us.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments