Last week, we took a look at how Matthew used messianic prophecy and – in general – the writings of the Old Testament to make his point about Jesus. If you remember, I said that I thought Matthew’s use of the Old Testament was very well structured and that he moved logically through a few different themes that you could discern as you moved through the Gospel: (1) who Jesus was and where he came from, (2) to establish Jesus as one who was credible as a teacher of the Law and the Prophets, (3) to identify Jesus as the Messiah, (4) to establish that the Jewish Messiah had a ministry to the world, and (5) to demonstrate that how Jesus acted and taught was entirely in keeping with the expectations of how the Messiah would act and teach. Tonight I want to think about the Gospel of Luke, and how Luke uses the writings of the Old Testament, and what it tells us about his particular understanding of Jesus and of what he felt was important about Jesus’ ministry.
I think you should
always take the time to make a comparison of Matthew with Luke, if only because
most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke wrote to completely different
audiences. Matthew’s Gospel is one that seems to be directed toward the Jewish
community which had largely rejected Jesus, while Luke’s Gospel is one that
seems to be largely directed toward the Gentile community which was
increasingly starting to embrace Jesus. We know from Paul’s letters (which were
almost certainly written before these two Gospels) that the Gentile churches
were wealthier than the remaining Jewish church in Jerusalem, and, in fact,
Paul asked the Gentile churches he was in contact with to take up a special
collection to support the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. So the audience is
very different. Matthew’s audience is probably discouraged and feeling somewhat
defeated or deflated, whereas Luke’s audience is in the ascendance; the Gentile
church is growing, the message of Jesus is spreading to the far corners of the
Empire and beyond. So, does that difference get reflected in how the two
authors make use of the Old Testament writings. I think it’s clear that it does
when you look at the entirety of the two Gospels.
I said last week
that it isn’t necessarily easy to actually count how many references a Gospel
writer makes to the Old Testament, because many of them aren’t identified as direct
quotes, and some are allusions more than anything else. I identified 28
references to the Old Testament in Matthew’s Gospel. Given that Matthew was
writing to the Jewish community you would probably expect more references to
the Jewish Scriptures in Matthew than in Luke – and you’d be right to expect
that. In a Gospel that’s a bit shorter than Matthew’s, I could only find 20
identifiable uses of the Old Testament in Luke, compared to Matthew’s 28. But
it isn’t just the number of references that make Luke’s use different than
Matthew’s. Most of the references to the Jewish Scriptures in Matthew are
fairly clear. They might not be introduced as “it is written in Isaiah,” but still,
if you’re looking carefully and have a decent knowledge of the Old Testament,
you can see the references fairly clearly. That’s not really the case with
Luke. Even more rarely than Matthew does he ever say “it is written in” –
whatever prophet you want to cite. He’ll share some of the stories and
teachings from the Jewish Scriptures, but he doesn’t generally specifically
reference them. And why would he? He’s writing to a Gentile audience, so even
if he did identify a passage as coming from Isaiah or Micah or Malachi, his
Gentile audience probably doesn’t have access to the scrolls that the Jewish
Scriptures were written on. So you can see right away that, whatever his point
is going to be, it’s going to be different from Matthew’s. One thing that did surprise
me is that Luke makes the point that Jesus is the Messiah 12 times – not as
often as Matthew, but still surprising considering that the concept of Messiah
is specifically Jewish and might not have had much meaning to the Gentile
community. Having said that, Luke is very clearly challenging the paganism and
polytheism of the Gentile world, and offering the Jewish God (if I can put it
that way) as the real God. So, perhaps he sees it as important to make sure
that he places Jesus within a specifically Jewish context even while holding
him up as the appearance of God for the Gentiles. Because Gentiles have no real
place for a “Messiah” he also, unlike Matthew, probably feels no particular
need to defend the idea that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. He just states it as
a given part of Jesus’ identity.
Beyond that, though,
Luke’s use of the Jewish Scriptures is a lot more chaotic (for lack of a better
word) than Matthew’s. He refers to books without naming them far more often
than Matthew does (perhaps not surprisingly, since his readers, as I said,
aren’t familiar with the Jewish Scriptures and don’t have access to them or to
Jewish teachers anyway.) And while Matthew offers a step by step journey
through the Scriptures (as I said, moving through five basic points over the
course of his Gospel) Luke, while I believe we can identify an over-arching
message, doesn’t really have any sort of systematic approach. I suggested that
you should read seven fairly short passages from Luke that kind of illustrate
both how he uses the Jewish Scriptures and the overall point he’s trying to
make, so I want to talk a little bit about those seven passages.
The first was
what’s known as the Song of Simeon in Luke 2. Simeon is an interesting
character. There’s no suggestion that’s he’s a priest – he’s simply described
earlier in the Chapter as a righteous and devout man upon whom the Holy Spirit
rested, and v. 26 tells us that “It had
been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he
had seen the Lord’s Messiah.”
That’s the second time in Luke that Jesus is identified as the Messiah (the
first was the appearance of the angels revealing to the shepherds that a
saviour had been born, who was the Messiah.) What’s interesting to me is that
Simeon, while he’s not a priest, takes Jesus in his arms in the temple and
offers the traditional blessing over him. Perhaps the point of the story is
that it isn’t the religious leaders (the priests and others) who will respond
to Jesus, but those who are close to God and who are searching for God’s
presence and activity. The words Simeon spoke over Jesus are largely a
compilation of words from Isaiah’s prophecy – not a specific passage, but
allusions to three different verses of Isaiah. So Isaiah 42:6 says “I will keep
you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the
Gentiles …”, Isaiah 49:6 says “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth,” and then there’s
Isaiah 52:10 that says, “The Lord will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of
all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our
God.” So Luke takes a bit of a scattergun approach to using Isaiah’s words
here, but while it may not be what I called “systematic,” it certainly seems to
establish his point – this Messiah is for the whole world; this Messiah will
reveal God to the whole world. This Messiah isn’t just for the Jewish people.
Luke continues
this when he introduces the ministry of John the Baptist. It’s interesting to
compare this to Matthew’s introduction of John the Baptist’s ministry. Matthew
says simply that John was the one spoke of by Isaiah, who called him “a voice
of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths
for him.” Matthew’s citation from Isaiah simply reveals Jesus to the Jewish
audience he’s writing to, and it’s an abridgement of Isaiah. Luke (this is one
of the few times he identifies the prophet he’s citing) offers a more expanded
version of Isaiah, ending with the words of Isaiah 40:5 that “all people will
see God’s salvation.” So you can already see the trend here. Where Matthew
presented his very structured appeal to the Jewish Scriptures, going step by
step through why Jesus is the Messiah, Luke takes for granted that Jesus is the
Messiah and his only real interest is to say to his Gentile audience – “Jesus
is the Jewish Messiah – but he came for you, too!”
He then goes on in the next Chapter to
the story of Jesus being rejected at the synagogue in Nazareth. You’ve heard
the story. Jesus goes to the synagogue in Nazareth, he’s asked to read
Scripture and he reads from Isaiah (another place where Luke identifies the
prophet), “The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to
proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the
prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to
proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” He then declared to the congregation
that “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” – so, he identifies
himself as the Messiah (he is the “anointed”) and he’s then rejected, driven
out of town and almost killed by the people of Nazareth. Last week, I spent a
bit of time discussing Matthew 11, when Jesus tells the disciples of John the
Baptist to go back to John and tell him that what they’ve been seeing
demonstrates who he is, and Matthew also refers to Isaiah’s words (although, in
this case, he doesn’t cite Isaiah directly and his words are more of a
paraphrase: “The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are
cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the
poor.” Neither are exact quotes (remember they’re likely citing Isaiah from
memory rather than carrying the scrolls around) but the spirit of what both
Matthew and Luke wrote is covered in Isaiah 61:1 “… the Lord has anointed me to
preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to
proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” But Matthew and Luke use the words
of Isaiah in different ways. In Matthew they’re offered as a proof of Jesus’
identity, while in Luke (while Jesus self-identifies in how he uses the passage)
they’re used as part of a story in which Jesus is rejected by his own people –
not just by Jews, but by the people of his own hometown. Again, Luke takes the
words of the prophet, and uses them to point to the message being directed
outward rather than to the “chosen people” (whether those of Nazareth or, more
broadly, to the entire Jewish nation.) Just a little later on, in the next
passage I suggested you look at, Luke’s Jesus makes that point clear; “no
prophet is accepted in his hometown.” Then (without naming 2 Kings – it’s a bit
of an obscure book even to Christians today, so to the Gentile world of the 1st
century it would likely have been unknown), he cites a story from 2 Kings about
Elijah being sent to “a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon.” Sidon was
within the territory broadly considered to be part of the land of the Jewish
tribe of Asher, but what’s significant is that it was a region that was never
really subdued or controlled by Israel. It was not a Jewish territory, and yet
this is where the great prophet Elijah was sent. Now, Luke seems to be saying,
the Messiah (Jesus) will follow in Elijah’s footsteps and go into non-Jewish
territory.
Another story that both Matthew and
Luke make use of is the story of Jonah. I included it for tonight because I
think it’s the clearest example of Luke using the Scriptures in an entirely
different way than Matthew to prove an entirely different point. For both
authors, Jonah served as a sign about Jesus. But the signs they cited were
different. In Matthew, the sign was that Jonah spent 3 days and nights in the
belly of the great fish – and that was used as a sign that the Messiah would
spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the earth. Setting aside that Jesus
was not buried for 3 days and 3 nights, the point was that Jonah’s experience
was a sign of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jonah would be swallowed by the great fish but would come out; Jesus would be placed in a tomb but would come out.
But what does Luke say? Yes, he cites Jonah (by name – so the story must be
known) – but for him and his purpose the “sign” contained in the story of Jonah
was different. Luke doesn’t make any reference to Jonah being swallowed by the
great fish. In Luke, all that matters was that Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites
– again to the Gentile world. For Matthew, the importance of Jonah was that it
pointed to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; for Luke, the importance
of Jonah was that it demonstrates that God wants the message of repentance and
salvation taken to the wider world. So even when they make reference to the
same story, Matthew and Luke give the story different meaning and purpose.
I just want to briefly discuss the last
two passages I gave you. In Luke 20, Luke makes reference to the opening words
of Psalm 110: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies a footstool for your feet.” The purpose of using this verse is
interesting. Jesus introduced it by asking “Why is it said that the Messiah is
the son of David?” and then comments after reading the verse that “David calls
him ‘Lord.” How then can he be his son?” For Luke, the specific connection of
Jesus with David isn’t all that significant. Why would Gentiles care
particularly that Jesus was a son of David? That would establish his importance
to the Jewish world but not the Gentile world. But by making Jesus greater than
David (that’s the implication of how Luke words this) Luke is making a far
greater claim than simply that Jesus is a son of David or that Jesus is
Messiah. Luke has already (in the beginning of the Gospel – what we call the
Christmas story) made an explicit identification of Jesus as divine. That seems
to be the point here as well. Far more than Jews, Gentiles would be far more
likely to relate to the idea of a God who becomes incarnate (it’s a well known
motif in pagan mythology) so it’s not surprising that only Luke includes this
story, and for that matter that Luke has a much more expansive Christmas story
than Matthew, who doesn’t ignore Jesus’ divinity, but who passes over that part
of the Christmas story fairly quickly – we’ll look at that in a couple of
weeks. But this is again Luke appealing directly to Gentiles – you can
understand this Jesus, he’s saying. He’s more than just a man. He’s exactly
what you would expect – a messenger of God (or even possibly God himself)
coming to you.
Finally, I asked you to read a few
verses from Luke 24, near the end of the Gospel, after the resurrection, as the
risen Jesus spoke to his disciples. It’s said that Jesus told his disciples
that “everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of
Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Then he opened their minds so they could
understand the Scriptures. He told them, ‘This is what is written. The Messiah
will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and the
forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations …” Of course,
this wasn’t “all that was written about [him.]” It’s all that really matters to
Luke, given his audience. Actually, Luke doesn’t very often make reference to
or even allude indirectly to the Law of Moses, probably because the Jewish Law
would be of little interest in the Gentile world. All that matters to Luke is
that the Jewish Scriptures identify Jesus as the Messiah who came for all the
world, not just as the Jewish Messiah who came for Israel, and that’s
consistently how he uses the Jewish prophets and Scriptures – to demonstrate
that the Messiah was Jesus, and that the Messiah was for the Gentiles as well
as the Jews.
Comments
Post a Comment