January 2022 – An Informed Faith

Lydia, Dorcas, and Phoebe: three significant strategic leaders in the early church

Today, 27 January, is the day that is designated, in some churches, to remember three females who appear in the stories told by early followers of Jesus: Lydia, Dorcas, and Phoebe. These three women are impressive and important figures in their own right.

They stand in the tradition of strong female figures who regularly appear throughout the stories of the Hebrew Bible: Miriam, alongside her brother Moses, in the flight of Hebrews from Egypt; the prophetic leader, Deborah, during the time of the Judges; Abigail, who was blessed by David for her canny leadership; Huldah, a key prophetic figure in the reformation under Josiah; assorted prophetic women who are noted by the prophet, Joel; Lady Wisdom, teaching in the streets and at the city gates; the Eshet Ḥayil, woman of valour, extolled in Prov 31; Naomi and Ruth, a strategic team at a critical,time; Esther, influential in the Persian court; and Judith, another canny strategist in the time of the Assyrian occupation.

In the very early stages of the Christian church, there are a number of women leaders whom we know by name because they are specifically mentioned in Letters of Paul or in the account of the church in Acts: Priscilla of Rome, later found in Corinth and then Ephesus; Phoebe of Cenchreae; Junia the apostle; Mary of Jerusalem; Tabitha, known as Dorcas, of Joppa; Lydia of Philippi, Euodia and Syntyche of Philippi; Chloe of Corinth; Tryphosa, Persia, Julia and Olympas of Rome; and many more unnamed. The number of women in leadership in the early Pauline churches, given the cultural context, is breathtaking.

The prominence of women leadership in the ongoing church (much to the consternation of some prominent male leaders!) attests to the valuing of female leadership in the movement that became Christianity.

*****

Tabitha, a Jewish woman introduced as “a disciple”, is described as a woman “full of good works and acts of charity” (9:36), a quality she shares with Barnabas (11:24). Tabitha also has a Greek name, Dorcas, and so she prefigures the kind of gentile believer who will become important in the narrative; she is devout and devoted to charitable acts, like Cornelius (10:2), and both come to full acceptance of the good news about Jesus.

The resuscitation of Dorcas by Peter recalls the similar act performed by Jesus in Nain (Luke 7:11-17) and prefigures another by Paul in Troas (Acts 20:9-12). These stories stand in the Jewish tradition of resuscitations or reawakenings (1 Ki 17:17-24; 2 Ki 4:32-37). Yet such an act is striking, and comes to be “known through the whole of Joppa” (9:42), just as the healing of the lame man “became known by all who live in Jerusalem” (4:16) and the defeat of the Jewish exorcists became “known to all residents in Ephesus” (19:17). Each of these events have significance beyond the immediate act performed. Indeed, the desire to have “known” what God is doing frames the whole of Acts, from Peter’s Pentecost speech in Jerusalem (2:14) to Paul’s final speech in Rome (28:28).

The interaction of Peter and Dorcas feeds into this overarching strategy that is being recounted in Acts. This encounter provides a pattern for future missionary activity.

*****

We meet Lydia, a well to do business woman, in Philippi, which Luke describes as “a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony” (Acts 16:12). She trades in purple cloth (16:14), indicating that she deals with people of the upper classes (purple dye was expensive and much valued by these classes). Although Lydia comes from Thyatira, in the region of Lydia in Asia Minor (Rev 1:11; 2:18), she works as a business woman in the important commercial city of Philippi, in Macedonia. Lydia obviously has wealth and status.

Whilst in Philippi, Paul and those travelling with him find a place of worship on the sabbath (16:13)—not, as expected, a synagogue (see 13:5), but “a place of prayer” (16:13) for some women. Lydia, the presumed leader and perhaps host of those who gather at this “place of prayer” is a godfearer, as were characters in earlier chapters—Cornelius (10:2) and probably the Ethiopian (8:27). What takes place in Philippi puts Lydia in a paradigmatic position akin to that occupied by Cornelius.

Lydia is the first individual convert identified once Paul, Silas and Timothy, under divine guidance, have crossed over into Macedonia (16:6-10). She thus presents a paradigm for the process of conversion and leadership; as the first convert in Europe, she models a faithful response to the message of Paul. The narrative includes a number of key phrases which point us to other scenes in Acts, where the same dynamics are at work.

What takes place in this scene is directly interpreted as an act of God, for “the Lord opened her heart” (16:14) to listen eagerly to Paul’s words. The “opening of her heart” (16:14) echoes the discoveries made by the archetypal disciples on the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:31,32) and by the larger group of followers gathered in Jerusalem later that day (24:45). Her “eager listening” (16:14) repeats the response evoked by Philip in Samaria (8:6).

Lydia is judged as being “faithful to the Lord” and, with her household, is baptised (16:15), in accord with the programmatic declaration of Peter’s Pentecost exhortation (2:38-39). The baptism of her household follows the pattern already seen in Caesarea (10:24-48; 11:13-16) and foreshadows a pattern which will be repeated soon in Philippi (16:31-33), and subsequently in Corinth (18:8).

Her belief leads to the offer of hospitality (16:15), as was also the case with the Gentiles in Caesarea (10:48); this same pattern follows in the story of the conversion of the Philippian gaoler and his household (16:34). Lydia’s role as a patroness echoes that of Mary, the mother of John Mark, in Jerusalem (12:12) and prefigures that of Priscilla (with Aquila, 18:13). Paul will encounter, and convince, other women of relatively high social status later in Thessalonika (17:4) and Beroea (17:12).

Lydia sets the pattern for other significant female leaders in the mission amongst the wider gentile world that Paul (according to Acts) was spearheading.

*****

The first person to explain Paul’s letter to the Romans was probably a woman, Phoebe, Paul’s emissary to the Roman churches. Paul introduces her with a brief letter of commendation (Rom 16.1-2), at the start of a chapter where many individuals are mentioned by name—both males and females. Phoebe is the first of nine women identified by name or key relationship: Prisca (Priscilla), Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Rufus’ mother, Julia, and Nereus’ sister follow in later verses.

Perhaps Phoebe stands at the head of this list because she was the person bearing the letter from Paul, and she would have delivered it, maybe even read it out, to the believers in the various house churches in Rome. That’s certainly a hypothesis that various reputable scholars advocate.

Two very significant terms are used to indicate the leadership role of Phoebe. The first word, diakonos, is a term used by Paul to describe his own preaching activity. The correct translation should be deacon (not deaconess). The word is used by Paul to describe himself and Apollos (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6, 4:1), as well as Epaphras (Col 1:7), Tychicus (Col 4:7), and “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the oversees (episkopois) and deacons (diakonois)” (Phil 1:1). It is used later to describe Timothy (1 Tim 4:6).

The second word, prostatis, can mean “helper” (perhaps in the sense of a “Girl Friday”)—but it can also mean “benefactor”, in the sense of one who helps from a position of prestige and power. It is this second meaning which Paul clearly has in mind; there were other words he could have used if he really wanted to relegate Phoebe to a subservient position as assistant or helper.

We can see that Paul wants to indicate Phoebe’s role as a leader in the church, from his use of the same term in the list of gifts at Rom 12:6,8 (where it clearly indicates a leadership, oversight, role), and in the directions to the Thessalonians to “to respect those who labour among you and have charge of you (proistamenous) in the Lord and admonish you” (1 Thess 5:12).

The same word appears in a later letter, referring to individuals who have a role in managing and overseeing household affairs (1 Tim 3:4,5,12) as well as in ruling the church community (1 Tim 5:17). This is the position that Phoebe held in the church in Cenchreae, the eastern harbour port for the city of Corinth, which is where Paul was staying when he dictated the letter to the Romans (Rom 16:22).

Phoebe is thus an impressive leader, having charge over the church in Cenchreae and possibly also playing a significant role in communicating to the church in Rome.

It is good, therefore, today, to remember these three female leaders in the early church: Lydia, Dorcas, and Phoebe.

The Aboriginal Tent Embassy: 50 years

On 26 January 1972, four Aboriginal men—Billie Craigie, Michael Anderson, Bertie Williams, and Tony Coorey—set up a beach umbrella on the lawns opposite the Parliament House in Canberra. The men were protesting the resistance that the conservative Liberal-Country Party federal government were exhibiting towards granting land rights to Aboriginal people.

Even though Aboriginal people had lived on the land of the continent of Australia for millennia, they had no rights to land in most places across the continent. The British Invasion of Port Jackson in 1788, some years after Lt James Cook had imperiously claimed the land of New Holland for the British Crown in 1770, led to expanding colonisation of the land over the ensuing decades. Each new colonial settlement was associated with battles between the local indigenous people and the invading British. Massacres resulted in almost every location.

The men sitting under the umbrella in Canberra in 1972 described it as the Aboriginal Embassy, alluding to the fact that the city of Canberra was home to scores of embassies from the governments of overseas nations. Indeed, the city had been established early in the 20th century with the guarantee that those nations could have a piece of territory in the new capital city where their diplomatic staff could live and work.

By the late 1970s, seventy nations had embassies in Canberra (see https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/115002/2/b11766608.pdf), but there was no formal channel for relationships with the First Peoples of Australia. Somewhere around 400 groupings of Aboriginal people were believed to have lived across the continent and on the surrounding islands, including the Torres Strait Islands, with at least 250 languages being spoken.

But decades of British colonisation had seen the indigenous people marginalised from “mainstream” white Australian society. Numbers declined, living conditions deteriorated, especially in towns and cities, and racist attitudes towards “the blacks” predominated. Of those 250 languages, less than a half had continued into the 20th century, and many of those continuing languages were in peril of dying out completely.

Aboriginal leadership had been agitating for their people for some time. The YES vote at the 1967 referendum augured well, it seemed. Yet the Prime Minister of the day (and arguably one of Australia’s worst leaders), William McMahon, and his conservative government colleagues exemplified the cultural arrogance and racism that held sway across the nation at that time.

The National Museum of Australia reports that “On the eve of Australia Day 1972, the McMahon government announced the implementation of a new system that rejected granting independent ownership of traditional land to Indigenous people in favour of 50-year general purpose leases for Indigenous communities, provided they could demonstrate a social and economic use for the land and excluding any mineral and forest rights.

“After the ongoing disappointments of the land rights struggle, this announcement sparked action among many Indigenous groups and directly contributed to the founding of the Tent Embassy.” (see https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/aboriginal-tent-embassy) The time was ripe for Aboriginal leaders to step up and speak out on behalf of their peoples.

The initial demands of the group which established the Tent Embassy read today as a sensible set of actions which, although achieved in part, are sadly yet to be completely fulfilled. Those demands included:

• Complete rights to the Northern Territory as a state within Australia and the installation of a primarily Aboriginal State Parliament. These rights would include all mining rights to the land

• Ownership and mining rights of all other Aboriginal reserve lands in Australia

• The preservation of all sacred sites in Australia

• Ownership of areas in major cities, including the mining rights

• Compensation for lands that were not able to be returned starting with $6 billion and including a percentage of the gross national income every year.

See https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-tent-embassy-canberra

In the ensuing years, there have been legal challenges, removal of the embassy, reinstitution of the embassy, arson attacks, moves to other sites in Canberra, and eventually, the registration of the embassy site with the Australian Heritage Commission as a part of the National Estate.

The Embassy has been maintained continuously since 1972 by First People leaders, and this month the 50th anniversary is being celebrated. (The recent incident at the front of Old Parliament House was not associated in any way with the Tent Embassy, nor with any responsible Aboriginal leadership.)

Professor Bronwyn Carlson, Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University, writes that “Nowhere else in the world have we seen such longevity around a site of protest. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is an impressive achievement that demonstrates the tenacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and our continued fight for the reclamation of our lands and sovereign rights as First Nations peoples.” (see https://theconversation.com/a-short-history-of-the-aboriginal-tent-embassy-an-indelible-reminder-of-unceded-sovereignty-174693)

*****

https://johntsquires.com/2018/10/13/on-covenant-reconciliation-and-sovereignty/

https://johntsquires.com/2019/01/16/the-profound-effect-of-invasion-and-colonisations/

Two prophets of Israel, the widow of Sidon and the soldier of Syria: an inclusive community of Jews and Gentiles (Luke 4:25–27; Epiphany 4C)

We have seen how the two faithful followers to whom Jesus referred in his sermon in Nazareth differ from one another (in terms of gender and social status). We have also noted the way in which they are similar, as characters who are displaced from the mainstream of society. See https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/24/jesus-the-widow-of-sidon-and-the-soldier-of-syria-representatives-of-the-community-of-faith-luke-425-27-epiphany-4c/

Now, we consider all four faithful figures together. There are two faithful Gentiles: one from Sidon, another from Syria. Each of these individuals receives and responds to a faithful Jewish prophet, respectively Elijah and Elisha. Taken together, the four figures stand for another dimension of the inclusiveness of the community of the faithful: both Jews and Gentiles are part of this community.

For Luke, this theme assumes a place of high importance, and comes to dominate especially the second volume of his work, the Acts of the Apostles. The verse which is often cited as being the key to this volume is the declaration of Jesus, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Such a movement of the mission can be systematically traced throughout the work, from the centre of Judaism (chs. 1–7), into Samaria (ch. 8), on into various hellenised Jewish communities (chs. 9–11), then throughout the Diaspora (chs. 13–21) and on to the capital of the Roman Empire (ch. 28).

Three times in the course of preaching to Jews in the Diaspora, Paul announces that he is turning from the Jews and taking the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 13:44–49; 18:5–6; 28:23–28). These announcements seem to be symbolic of the broadening scope of the church, beyond the Jewish world, into Gentile arenas. Yet Paul continues preaching to Jews as well as Gentiles.

After his declaration in Antioch that he is turning to the Gentiles, he persists in returning to the synagogue when he visits Iconium (14:1), Thessalonica (17:1), Beroea (17:10), Athens (17:17) and Corinth (18:4). After a similar declaration in Corinth, he twice visits the synagogue in Ephesus (18:19; 19:8). Even though he announces in Rome that “the Gentiles will listen”, in contrast to the Jews whose ears are blocked, he continues to preach to “all who came to him” in that city (28:30–31). In context, this comment must refer to both Jews and Gentiles.

Even when he reaches Rome, the capital of the Empire and the symbolic heart of the Gentile world, Paul deliberately meets with “the local leaders of the Jews” (28:17). His mission is resolutely oriented towards Jews and Gentiles alike. The great breakthrough in this regard has come when the story of Peter and Cornelius is told (10:1–11:18). Luke takes great pains to underline the significance of these events.

Four times the narrative indicates that what happens to the Gentiles who are gathered in Caesarea is of the same order as what happened to the Jews who were gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Peter declares that they “have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (10:45), that “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as it had upon us at the beginning” (11:15), and that “God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed” (11:17). The council gathered in Jerusalem thus concludes that “God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life” (11:18). For Luke, there is no doubt that the community of believers incorporates Gentiles on an equal footing with Jews.

And so it is that, when Paul narrates his ‘conversion’ on the road to Damascus, he reports that the commission which he received was to “be a witness to all the world” (22:15). This global mission field has already been specified, in Luke’s initial narrative of the incident, in God’s charge to Paul to be “a chosen instrument, to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel” (9:15).

The same global vision has already been made clear, however, long before Paul’s Damascus road encounter. In Luke’s report of the preaching of John the baptiser, the prophetic vision was already in view: “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6, citing Isa 40:5). And even at the moment when the spirit-inspired Simeon holds the infant Jesus in his arms, he speaks of God’s salvation as being “a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (2:32).

The universal implications of the Gospel are thus in view from the very earliest stages of Luke’s first volume. Specific indicators of this in the first volume are relatively rare. The crowds from Tyre and Sidon who listen to Jesus’ teachings are Gentiles (6:17), as is the centurion who exhibits great faith (7:1–10). The mission of the seventy-two disciples (10:1–20) may allude to the Gentile mission begun in the Acts of the Apostles. The centurion who exhibits sympathy for Jesus at the moment of his death (23:47) is, of course, a Gentile. Yet the course has been clearly set by the Lukan Jesus for the ultimate inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God.

Having noted these explicit statements and implicit portrayals of Jewish- Gentile relations, then, when we return to the incident in the synagogue in Nazareth, we can see the symbolic significance of the figures to whom Jesus referred. He speaks of two Jewish people, each linked with a Gentile person. Each connection is a microcosm of the faithful community. Luke has carefully shaped the sermon of Jesus so that it delicately prefigures the faith community which is created in the second volume of his work—a community in which Jews and Gentiles belong together.

One final comment remains to be made concerning the possible symbolic significance of Jesus’ reference to Elijah and the widow of Zarephath. Elijah is sent to her in a time of famine. The biblical account of this meeting reports how the Gentile widow was commanded to set before the Jewish prophet a jar of meal to eat and a jug of oil to drink (1 Kings 17:8–16). Implicit in the story is the sharing of food across what was, for the Jew, a clearly-defined boundary. This is precisely the issue which is at the heart of the events which draw Peter and Cornelius together (Acts 10:1–11:18).

The vision seen three times by Peter (10:9–16; 11:5–10) communicates the breakdown of the Levitical food laws, so that foods were no longer to be classified into ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ categories. This opened up the possibility of Jews and Gentiles sharing table fellowship together. This is indeed what takes place, when hospitality (a place to sleep—and presumably food to eat) is offered by the Jew, Peter, to Gentile messengers in Joppa (10:23); and then by the Gentile, Cornelius, to Jewish believers in Caesarea (10:48).

It is for this reason that the Peter-Cornelius story is such a watershed in the narrative. It makes explicit what has previously been implicit; in it, Luke argues that God now acts to bring together those who have previously been held apart by divinely-sanctioned laws. In the light of this incident, then, the table fellowship enjoyed by Jesus in Luke’s Gospel takes on an added significance. See https://johntsquires.com/2019/05/22/jesus-and-his-followers-at-table-in-lukes-orderly-account/ and https://johntsquires.com/2019/05/08/resurrection-life-economic-responsibility-and-inclusive-hospitality-markers-of-the-gospel-acts-9/

Jesus, the widow of Sidon and the soldier of Syria: representatives of the community of faith (Luke 4:25–27; Epiphany 4C)

When he visits the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16), Jesus claims that the Spirit has equipped him for his public activity (4:18). The gift of the Spirit had not yet been poured out on the faithful followers of Jesus; that comes at the beginning of Luke’s second volume, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Jesus will call his companions to follow him (5:27; 9:23; 14:27; 18:22), confident that the Spirit will sustain them in their response; even before he explicitly issues this call to be faithful, the Lukan Jesus speaks about who may be called to such faith.

As he interprets the reading from Isaiah in the synagogue (Luke 4:16–21), Jesus retells two very short stories about faithful people long ago in the history of Israel. A faithful prophet, Elijah, is sent to a faithful widow in Sidon (4:25–26). Another faithful prophet, Elisha, is sent to a faithful Syrian (4:27). We hear these two stories within the Gospel section offered by the lectionary this coming Sunday (Luke 4:21–30).

The prophets who are described by Jesus were faithful to God’s call. Both Elijah and his successor, Elisha, are known as men who struggled with what it meant for them, personally, to be obedient to God’s claims on their lives. As prophets, these two men represented a class of people within Israel who dared to speak forth God’s word, recalling Israel to the covenant that they held with Yahweh. Jesus stands in that tradition, functioning himself as a prophet in his words and his deeds.

From their knowledge of the scriptural stories, those to whom Jesus spoke in the synagogue would have known that the woman who provided hospitality to Elijah declared to him, “now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth” (1 Kings 17:24). Likewise, they would have recalled that the man healed by Elisha was prompted to declare, “now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15).

The figure of the prophet is important in Luke’s Gospel. This work contains the most direct description of the prophetic role of Jesus, when the crowds in Nain declare him to be “a great prophet” (7:16). There are prophets present at the start of Jesus’ life, amongst those who foresee his importance: Zechariah, who “speaks a prophecy” (1:67); Simeon, whose spirit- inspiration and predictive oracles surely qualify him as a prophet (2:25–35); and Anna, “a prophet the Acts of the Apostles, Luke makes mention of various prophets, both male (Agabus, Acts 11:28; 21:10–11; Barnabas, Saul and three others in Antioch, Acts 13:1) and female (the daughters of Philip, Acts 21:9).

In the stories about the ancient prophets, Elijah and Elisha, we see how they engage with people who have a representative function. The widow of Sidon and the soldier from Syria are singled out because, together, they indicate what is it that characterises the community of God’s faithful followers.

There are four aspects of those who are identified as such in Jesus’ hometown sermon: gender, social status, the inclusion of edge-dwellers, outcasts, and outsiders, and the inclusion of Gentiles alongside Jews.

1. The two prophets identified by Jesus in his Nazareth sermon, although both male, are sent to individuals of different genders. Elijah is sent to a faithful woman, who typically remains unnamed; Elisha is sent to faithful man, identified as Naaman. Each of these figures receives the prophet and their message. Once more Jesus does not elaborate on the point but it must have been self-evident to his Jewish audience from their knowledge of the scriptural stories (1 Kings 17:8–24; 2 Kings 5:1–14). The individuals who responded with faith and obedience represent both male and female genders. Each is equally capable of a faithful response.

This characteristic of discipleship is found in all four canonical Gospels, but is particularly noticeable in Luke’s orderly account: from the two faithful pairs early in his narrative, Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:5–25, 57–80), and Simeon and Anna (2:25–38), through to the end of his Gospel, where those who watched Jesus die on the cross include both genders: “all his acquaintances, including the women” (23:49), and women serve as the first witnesses to the empty tomb (23:55–56; 24:1, 10).

2. It is not only the gender of these two individuals which is significant for understanding discipleship in Luke’s Gospel. The pairing links another set of contrasting factors. Jesus refers to a faithful person of means, the military commander; this is balanced by his reference to the faithful person with no means, the widow. The snapshot of faithful followers which the Lukan Jesus provides is inclusive in terms of social status.

The widow represents those of the lower classes; specifically, she stands amongst those who are described as “the poor” (4:18, citing Isa 61:1). This is a term which recurs in Luke’s Gospel; the precise term used refers to the real struggle for survival which was faced by people without the security of income which came from being in a patron-client relationship. “The poor” were literally beggars.

In Nazareth, Jesus appropriates the scriptural task of “preaching good news” to the poor (4:18); as he subsequently reports to the messengers sent by John, this characterises his ministry (7:22). His preaching is marked by his thematic beatitudes, in which he reassures the poor, “yours is the kingdom of God” (6:22), and promises the hungry, “you will be filled” (6:21).

Alongside the poor widow, Jesus refers to Naaman (4:27), whom we know from scripture to have been a man of means, with servants (2 Kings 5:13), owning silver, gold and fine clothes (2 Kings 5:5), and commanding many troops, horses and chariots (2 Kings 5:9). If Jesus in Luke’s Gospel makes more references to the poor than in the other canonical Gospels, then he also makes more references to people drawn from the upper classes of his society.

Luke reports how Jesus engaged with a centurion who was wealthy enough to contribute to the building fund of a synagogue in Capernaum (7:1–10); a synagogue leader in Galilee (8:40–42, 49–56); and a chief tax collector who had grown rich from his business dealings (19:1–10). A number of his parables include characters drawn from the upper strata of his society (12:13–21; 14:28–30; 14:31–32; 15:11–32; 16:1–13; 16:19–31; 17:7–10; 18:1–8).

3. We have seen how the two faithful followers to whom Jesus referred differ from one another (in terms of gender and social status). Now, we note the ways in which they are similar. One characteristic that they share is that they are displaced from the mainstream of society. The community of faith thus includes edge-dwellers, outcasts, and outsiders.

Without a relationship to a husband, as her legal and financial protector, the widow of Sidon is dislocated from her place within society and is completely dependent on the goodwill of her late husband’s family. Being thus vulnerable to exploitation, widows were to be granted extra privileges (Exod 22:22–24; Deut 24:17–22).

From an Israelite point of view, the leper Naaman ought to have been banished to the outskirts of the society. He would have been forbidden to enter the city (Num 5:1–3), and must avoid anybody who might come into contact with him (Lev 13:45–46). Because his disease rendered him unclean, a leper was liable to undergo various rites of purification (Deut 24:8; Lev 13–14) and was certainly unable to participate in the temple rituals until purified (Lev 13:3, 8, 11, etc.).

Once again, we find that this particular characteristic of these figures points to a significant tendency running throughout Luke’s Gospel. Once again, also, we find that Luke takes a motif already present in his sources, and intensifies it. Jesus welcomes and incorporates those on the edge into the fellowship of his followers: women, lepers, those suffering from physical limitations, those described as being “possessed by a demon”. See https://johntsquires.com/2019/08/26/disreputable-outsiders-invited-inside-parables-in-luke-14/

*****

There’s a further post on this passage to come, considering all four characters together (two prophets of Israel, the widow of Sidon, and the soldier of Syria) …

A Day of Mourning

Every year the Uniting Church marks a Day of Mourning to reflect on the dispossession of Australia’s First Peoples and the ongoing injustices faced by First Nations people in this land.

For the millions of Second Peoples in this country—those whose ancestors arrived on this continent from 1788 onwards—it is a day to lament that we were and remain complicit with the invasion and colonisation of the country, with the massacres of First Peoples that took place in so many locations across the continent, and with the continuing marginalisation and oppression of First Peoples in so many communities.

The observance of a Day of Mourning was endorsed in 2018 by the 15th Assembly of the Uniting Church, arising from a request of the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress (UAICC). At that same Assembly, an affirmation of the sovereignty of the First Peoples was also made.

As an expression of the Uniting Church’s commitment to justice and truth-telling, we keep the Sunday before Australia Day as a Day of Mourning. Today across Australia, people in many Uniting Church Congregations are reflecting on the effects of invasion and colonisation on First Peoples.

In the resources prepared for this day, the President of the Assembly, Rev. Sharon Hollis, and the Interim National Chair Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress, the Rev. Mark Kickett, state: “In marking a day of mourning, we hear the call of Jesus to a love one another. We live into our covenant relationship to stand together with, and listen to the wisdom of First Nations people in their struggle for justice. We affirm the sovereignty of First Peoples and honour their culture and their connection to country.”

See https://uniting.church/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Day-of-Mourning-2022-FINAL_2_web.pdf

The President and National Chair continue, “We reaffirm our understanding that First Peoples encountered the Creator God long before colonisation. We confess and seek forgiveness for the dispossession and violence against First Peoples, we lament our part, and we recommit to justice and truth-telling.” This echoes the words now embedded within the Constitution of the church, in a Revised Preamble which was adopted at the Church’s 12th Assembly in 2009 and subsequently endorsed by the Synods and Presbyteries throughout 2010.

See https://assembly.uca.org.au/images/stories/covenanting/PreamblePoster-web.pdf

The resources prepared for worship on this day include an expanded Acknowledgement which also draws on words in the Revised Preamble: We acknowledge that the First Peoples had already encountered the Creator God before the arrival of the colonisers; the Spirit was already in the land revealing God to the people through law, custom and ceremony. We acknowledge that the same love and grace that was finally and fully revealed in Jesus Christ sustained the First Peoples and gave them particular insights into God’s ways; and so we rejoice in the reconciling purposes of God found in the good news about Jesus Christ.

In a section known as “Truth-Telling and an Invitation”, the Congregation is invited to reflect: “In a nation, now called Australia, where is truth-telling not always told? To know mourning is to truly know injustice—a struggle for justice. We seek guidance from ancient wisdom of past and present, to hold this mourning in our hearts and minds, to honour, to pay respect, to know, to appreciate and to act on injustice. Layers of mourning unfold in the stories not told.”

At the conclusion of the service, again drawing on the Covenant relationship that the Uniting Church has with the United Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress, the resources offer this word of mission to conclude worship, and to shape the witness and service of those who have shared in these services:

People of God, go from here to live out the covenant into which we, the First and Second Peoples of this land, have entered with one another. Confront and challenge injustice wherever you see it. Act justly yourselves and insist that others do the same. Rejoice in the richness of our diverse cultures and learn from them. Celebrate and demonstrate the unity we share in Jesus our Lord. Commit to worship, witness and serve as one people under God, until God’s promised reconciliation of all creation is complete.

*****

https://johntsquires.com/2018/10/13/on-covenant-reconciliation-and-sovereignty/

https://johntsquires.com/2019/01/16/the-profound-effect-of-invasion-and-colonisations/

The holistic spirit-inspired mission of Jesus (Luke 4:18–19; Epiphany 3C)

Continuing my reflections on the Gospel passage set for this coming Sunday (Luke 4:14–21). See also https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/20/jesus-and-conventional-jewish-piety-luke-416-epiphany-3c and https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/21/jesus-scripture-and-experience-luke-417-21-epiphany-3c/

In this story, when Jesus reads in the synagogue in Nazareth, he quotes a scripture passage which begins with a reference to the holy spirit. The understanding of the spirit as an agent for divine guidance of human beings, as found in this passage early in the orderly account of Luke’s Gospel, is the same understanding which is found right throughout the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. The follow list summarises the key points concerning the spirit in these writings.

First, the spirit is active in the creation of the world (Gen 1:1–2; Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Isa 42:5). Then, the spirit guides selected leaders within Israel, such as Moses (Num 11:16–17); Joshua (Deut 34:9); Othniel (Judg 3:10); Gideon (Judg 6:34); and David (1 Sam 16:17).

Further, it is the spirit which inspires prophecy (1 Sam 10:6, 19:23–24; Ezek 37:1; Joel 2:28–29; Mic 3:8), enables the interpretation of dreams by Joseph (Gen 41:38) and Daniel (Dan 4:8,18, 5:1), and gives other specific gifts to Israel (Num 11:25; Deut 34:9; Dan 4:8–18; Prov 1:23).

The qualities of the spirit will characterise the coming Messianic figure envisaged by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 11:2–5). This idea is taken up later in Isaiah in descriptions of the Servant (Isa 42:1–4; 61:1–7). In second Isaiah the spirit is promised as a gift to the people who are led by the Servant (Isa 42:5; 44:3; 48:16; 59:21). Third Isaiah recalls the time of Moses as a period when the spirit was given to Israel (Isa 63:11–14).

Jesus appropriates the passage from Isaiah 61 for himself in the claim “today this scripture has been fulfilled” (Luke 4:21). In so doing, he asserts that this spirit has now rested upon him, as the one anointed by the Lord. The previous chapters of Luke’s narrative have already established this point; the spirit has rested upon the adult Jesus at his baptism (3:21) and led him into the wilderness to be tempted (4:1).

Jesus returns to Galilee to begin his preaching “filled with the power of the spirit” (4:14). Indeed, even as an infant, the spirit is seen to be at work in Jesus (1:35, in his conception; 2:25– 34, in Simeon’s prophecy about the future role of Jesus). Thus, the reading of this scripture citation in the synagogue in Nazareth—“the Spirit of the Lord is upon me”—and the claim that it is now fulfilled in him, together confirm the Lukan claims about Jesus by undergirding them with scriptural validation.

Further references to the spirit in the life of Jesus are few (as he prays, 10:21; in his sayings, 11:13; 12:10–12; at his death, 23:46). Yet the principle that the spirit guides Jesus has been established beyond doubt in Luke 1–4 and stands as the keynote for understanding the activities of Jesus which will follow, and indeed for understanding the activities of the early church also.

In the second volume of this orderly account, the Acts of the Apostles, the presence of the spirit is widespread and consistent throughout the early church. The church is motivated for mission by the outpouring of the spirit (Acts 2:4, 17–18, 33). Specific leaders within the early church are said to be “filled with the spirit”: Peter (4:8), Stephen (6:3, 5; 7:55), Paul (9:17; 13:9), Barnabas (11:24). The spirit inspires Agabus to prophesy (11:28) and probably also guides the preaching of Apollos (18:25).

Indeed, in the early period, the whole community in Jerusalem is filled with the spirit (4:31); subsequently, the spirit falls on the Gentile believers in Caesarea (10:44–45; 11:15–16). The spirit guides Philip to travel with the Ethiopian eunuch (8:29, 39). The Spirit guides Peter to meet the men sent by Cornelius and travel with them to Caesarea (10:19; 11:12).

The Spirit guides Barnabas and Paul to Seleucia and onwards (13:2) and later guides Paul away from Asia Minor, towards Macedonia (16:6–7). Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem and his subsequent arrest there are also guided by the spirit (20:22–23; 21:11).

What does the spirit equip Jesus to do? The citation from Isaiah 61 identifies four activities: “good news to the poor…release to the captives…recovery of sight to the blind…freedom for the oppressed”, all summarised in the phrase “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:18–19). The holistic nature of these deeds characterises the activities of Jesus in subsequent chapters of the Gospel.

Jesus proclaims the good news (4:43; 8:1; 16:16; 20:1) and releases people bound in the captivity of demon possession (4:31–37; 8:2, 26–39; 9:37–43; 11:14–26; 13:32). He heals not only those unable to see (18:35–43) but also those with physical disabilities (5:17–26; 6:6–10; 14:1– 4), lepers (5:12–12; 17:11–19) and a number of women with specific ailments (4:38–39; 8:43–48; 13:11–13). He even raises one person from the dead (7:11–17).

When John the baptiser sends messengers to ask of Jesus, “are you the one who is to come?” (7:19), in his reply Jesus refers to precisely these kinds of deeds: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them” (7:22). This answer draws on Isaianic descriptions of the restorative deeds of the Lord (Isa 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 61:1).

In Luke’s second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, the early church is characterised by the ability to perform similar signs and wonders (Acts 2:43) alongside of their public proclamation of the good news (5:42). The apostles perform healings in Jerusalem (3:1–10; 4:22, 30; 5:12) and interpret these as being God’s actions.

Through the spirit, Stephen is able to perform signs and wonders (6:3, 8). Philip both heals and exorcises (8:6) and preaches the good news (8:4, 12, 25, 40). Peter heals in Lydda (9:32–25) and raises the dead Joppa (9:26–43). Barnabas and Paul perform signs and wonders as they travel throughout Asia Minor (14:3, 8–10; 15:12) and proclaim the good news (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35).

Alongside his public speaking, Paul continues his miraculous activity in Ephesus (19:11–12), Troas (20:7–12) and Malta (28:6–10). The spirit enables Paul to oppose the magician Elymas on Cyprus (13:4–12) and to cast out demons in Ephesus (19:13–20).

So we see that the presence of the spirit within the early church continues the holistic ministry which was seen in the life of Jesus, through proclamation, healings, and exorcisms. The scriptural citation in Luke 4:18–19 thus provides a declaration of a major theme running throughout both of Luke’s volumes.

*****

This post draws on my work published as AT TABLE WITH LUKE (UTC Publications; UTC Bible Studies 2, 2000) ©John T. Squires 2000

Jesus, scripture and experience (Luke 4:17, 21; Epiphany 3C)

Continuing my reflections on the Gospel passage set for this coming Sunday (Luke 4:14–21). See also https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/20/jesus-and-conventional-jewish-piety-luke-416-epiphany-3c/

In this passage, Luke reports that Jesus attends synagogues in his home region, Galilee (Luke 4:14) and especially in his hometown of Nazareth (4:16). As a faithful Jew, in the synagogue on the sabbath day, Jesus would expect to hear scripture read and interpreted. In fact, this is the task which he himself undertakes on this sabbath day in Nazareth.

Luke expands the Markan account of the incident (Mark 6:1–6) by noting that Jesus unrolled the scroll and read a passage from the prophets; he then provides a direct quote from the passage, which we recognise as being found in Isaiah 61:1–2a, with the additional insertion of a line from Isaiah 58:6b, “to let the oppressed go free”.

Luke also adds the firm declaration of Jesus, “today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). In these brief put potent additions, Luke signals another of the themes which will recur throughout his story of Jesus: the inter-relation of scripture and experience.

An explicit citation of scripture, with an associated comment that it could be understood to explain events that were taking place, is moved to the very start of Luke’s description of the activities of the adult John the baptiser (3:4–6, quoting Isa 40:3–5).

The same pattern of interpreting an event by reference to scripture is followed by Jesus when he comments on the people’s misunderstanding of parables at 8:9–10; then when he criticises the practices being carried out in the temple courtyard at 19:45–46. Luke inserts a similar comment into his account of the passion of Jesus, at 22:37.

In his final appearance in Luke’s Gospel, the risen Jesus articulates the principle which undergirds these instances: “everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, must be fulfilled” (24:44). That is to say, inherent in scripture is the potential for shedding light on the meaning of any event associated with Jesus.

These passages are the tip of the iceberg, where the link is explicitly noted; at many other points in Luke’s story of Jesus, there are scriptural allusions or suggestions that scriptural passages lie just below the surface of the narrative.

This particular hermeneutic is not unique to Luke; it is also to be found in other early Christian texts: in the good news told by Mark, in the book of signs attributed to the beloved disciple (John), and in certain of the letters of the apostle Paul. It saturates the sermon which we know as the epistle to the Hebrews, and recurs with a particular intensity throughout the book of origins, attributed to Matthew. It is also to be found, in a variant but related form, in the so-called pesher scrolls amongst the library discovered in the caves near Qumran. Such a hermeneutic was widespread throughout the Jewish world in the late hellenistic period.

In Luke’s second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, the same dynamic inter- relation between experience and scripture is to be found. This is most conspicuous at the start of Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost, when he interprets the portentous events of the day by relating them to Joel 2:28–32, “God declares, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:14–21).

It is also highlighted quite firmly at the conclusion of Paul’s defence speech in Caesarea. Paul declares to King Agrippa, Queen Bernice, and Governor Festus that the prophets and Moses have all pointed to the suffering of the Messiah as well as to the proclamation of light to the people and the Gentiles (26:23). This same perspective recurs on the lips of others who preach in the Acts of the Apostles: Peter (2:25–35), Stephen (7:2–50), Philip (8:32–35), James (15:16–18) and Paul (13:27–37; 28:23–27).

The perspective which the Lukan Jesus exemplifies in the hometown incident at Luke 4 is thus replicated throughout both volumes of Luke’s work. In this perspective, scripture and experience are brought into an intimate relationship—the one interprets the other. The experiences of faith are informed by scriptural passages which resonate with those experiences; and the passages which are read in scripture resound with the experiences of people of faith.

*****

This post draws on my work published as AT TABLE WITH LUKE (UTC Publications; UTC Bible Studies 2, 2000) ©John T. Squires 2000

Jesus and conventional Jewish piety (Luke 4:16; Epiphany 3C)

The Gospel for this coming Sunday recounts the teaching activity of Jesus in the synagogues of Galilee, and particularly his visit to his hometown, Nazareth, where he enters the synagogue on the sabbath day and teaches the people (Luke 4:14–21). The scene continues in next week’s Gospel selection (Luke 4:22–30).

This scene is not unique to Luke’s orderly account of the things being fulfilled among us; it appears both in Mark 6:1–6 and Matt 13:54–58. In all three accounts, as this same incident is reported, it is introduced in a very similar way, and runs a rather similar route towards its conclusion. Yet, in reporting this incident, Luke reshapes, expands, and highlights a number of aspects which, as we shall see, are of fundamental significance in Luke’s distinctive portrayal of Jesus and those who follow him.

What Luke but hints at in this passage is made explicit in more detailed ways throughout the rest of his account of the public activities of Jesus in Galilee, as he journeys towards Jerusalem, and then as he teaches in the Temple precincts. As he signals some of the main features of his portrayal of Jesus, he also gives clear indications of what it means to follow Jesus.

The incident in Nazareth takes place in the synagogue, a commonly found place of worship for Jews outside of Jerusalem. It takes place on the sabbath —the seventh day of the week, long devoted by Jews to prayers and the study of the Law. Jesus takes a scroll, from which he reads words of scripture, drawn from the prophet Isaiah. The passage speaks of the work of the Spirit of the Lord, the figure within Jewish history who has often implemented the will of the Lord God amongst the people of God. Each of these elements in the story is fundamentally and unequivocally Jewish.

These factors signal the inescapable fact that Jesus is intensely Jewish in Luke’s Gospel. His story is set in the heart of Jewish piety, from the very opening scene of the Gospel which reveals a pair of righteous Jews who faithfully keep the commandments of God (Luke 1:5–6). The man, Zechariah, is devoted to the service of God in the Temple (1:8–9). His wife, Elizabeth, expresses an attitude of deep faith in God, accepting her surprise pregnancy as “what the Lord has done for me” (1:25).

Her relative, Mary, demonstrates a similar faith as she submits to a similar fate with the words, “here am I, the servant of the Lord” (1:38). In turn, the traditional hopes and expectations of the people are articulated in spirit-inspired hymns sung by Mary (1:46–55), Zechariah (1:67–79) and Simeon the righteous (2:29–32). The children who are born—Jesus and John—bear the weight of these traditional hopes and expectations as they come into being.

The sense of deeply devoted and strongly conventional Jewish piety continues in the reports of the early years of Jesus. It is only in Luke’s Gospel that we find the information that Jesus was circumcised (2:21) and dedicated in the Temple (2:22–24), and that he showed an early interest in the Law (2:41–51).

In recounting the events of his adult years, Luke notes that Jesus regularly attended the synagogue (4:16, 44; 6:6), where he was accorded the status of a teacher (4:20–27; 4:31–33; 13:10). Luke emphasises that Jesus regularly prayed to God (3:21; 5:16; 6:12; etc.). He knew the importance of the daily prayer, the Shema (10:25–28) and the Ten Commandments (18:18–21). Like other Jewish teachers of the day, Jesus taught in parables (8:4–8; etc.); Luke reports a number of especially well-known parables of Jesus (10:29–37; 15:3–32; 16:19–31).

Indeed, as Luke narrates events leading to the birth of Jesus, he indicates that Jesus will seek the renewal of the ancient promises which God made to Israel (1:46–55; 1:67–79; 2:29–35). Thus, the Lukan Jesus insists that the purpose of his mission is to fulfil the hopes once spoken by the prophets (4:18–21; 7:18–23; 24:18–27; 24:44–47).

He is clear that what he has to offer is a grand vision of the kingdom in which all are invited to share in the Messianic Banquet (13:29; 14:15–24). This is one vision within Second Temple Judaism—it was not shared by all, but it draws on Jewish traditions, especially as articulated in the latter sections of the book of Isaiah (Isa 42:1– 6; 52:7–10; 55:1–5; 60:1–7; 66:18–24). So the Lukan Jesus functions as a prophetic voice in Israel, calling for change from within.

Luke does not play Jesus off, over against ‘the Jews’, in the way that we find happening in the work of his near-contemporary, in the Gospel according to John. Rather, the Lukan Jesus is immersed in the midst of his religion; he is one of the people of Israel at his birth, and he remains so even up to his death and beyond. Luke’s Gospel—and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles— will provide no basis for a rejection of Judaism as no longer in keeping with God’s will. On the contrary, the story which Luke tells is about the way that the hopes of Jewish faith are brought to fruition in the life of Jesus, and in those who follow the way set forth by Jesus.

This motif continues in the second volume of Luke’s orderly account. The earliest followers of Jesus remain involved in Judaism. They participate in the Temple rituals in Jerusalem (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 5:12) and attend the synagogues of the Diaspora (Acts 9:20; 13:5,14; etc.).

At the close of his missionary activity, Paul is to be found participating in a ritual in the Temple (21:26). When he is brought to trial, Paul insists that he has remained faithful to Judaism (23:1, 6; 24:14–16; 25:8, 10; 26:22–23; 28:17). Even in the final scenes of the book, in Rome, Paul is engaged with Jewish leaders, debating with them the identity of Jesus (28:17–28). There is no point at which Luke has in mind a decisive, irrevocable and universal split between church and synagogue.

As we have noted, Luke portrays Jesus as a pious Jew, devoted to the Law of Moses, loyal to the people of Israel. Yet Luke was also aware that Jesus was not uncritical of his religion. This is crystal clear in the “hometown incident” which Luke reports. At first, the people in the synagogue in Nazareth marvel at the “gracious words” he speaks to them (Luke 4:22). But as they listen to more of what he says, they gradually sense the challenge that is being placed before them.

This incident sounds the first indication of the tragedy of the story of Jesus; the actions of the people in Nazareth foreshadow his ultimate rejection in Jerusalem. Eventually, they become ‘enraged’ at Jesus and seek to kill him (4:28–29). The cost of taking a stance is clearly articulated.

Jesus acknowledges the difficulty that people in the synagogue will have in accepting his words, in the terse proverb, “no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown” (4:24). He stands firm for what he believes in— whatever the ultimate cost.

The same saying about the unacceptable prophet is quoted in the report of this incident—the hometown rejection—by Mark (6:4) and Matthew (13:57), and is inserted into another context in John’s Gospel (4:44). It is likewise attributed to Jesus in a scrap of Gospel-like material on one of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1:6) as well as in the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas (31). It seems sure that it is an authentic saying of Jesus. The cost of standing up for what one believes in is a thread running through many of the early Christian documents relating the life or sayings of Jesus.

What is it that leads the Nazareth crowd away from marvelling at the gracious words to wanting to kill out of blind fury? Jesus has presented a provocative challenge to his audience. The models of faithfulness which he puts forward in 4:25–27 contain a certain element of shock. His statements are implicitly critical of an exclusivist understanding of faith which is attested in some strands of Jewish religion in the Second Temple period. Jesus functions as an agent provocateur here, and indeed elsewhere in the Gospel.

*****

This post draws on my work published as AT TABLE WITH LUKE (UTC Publications; UTC Bible Studies 2, 2000) ©John T. Squires 2000

Leaving out key moments, so they can appear later in the story: turning to Luke’s Gospel III (Year C)

I have suggested that reading the orderly account (which we know as Luke’s Gospel) requires attention to a number of elements, with one looking back to sources, to see how they are used in telling the story of Jesus, as the other eye looks forward to subsequent events, to see how they influence the story of Jesus. See https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/17/with-one-eye-looking-back-the-other-looking-forward-turning-to-lukes-gospel-i-year-c/

As we read, and reflect on, this account in this way, we may well note a number of key features that characterise this orderly account.

I have previously noted the strong commitment in this orderly account to the claim that the message of good news about the Jewish man, Jesus, and his Jewish followers, has implications that are universal. This is a story that makes its mark beyond Judea, through Samaria, far beyond—“to the ends of the earth”. See https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/18/a-light-for-the-gentiles-salvation-to-the-ends-of-the-earth-turning-to-lukes-gospel-ii-year-c/

As we look steadfastly back to the earlier source that was used in the writing of this orderly account—the beginnings of the good news, which we call the Gospel according to Mark—we do well to note the omissions in the narrative that Luke shapes. These omissions are significant.

Most strikingly, there is a large section of Mark’s narrative (6:45–8:26) missing in Luke’s orderly account. We would have expected it at Luke 9:17, immediately after the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:30–44; Luke 9:10–17); but Luke 9:18 jumps to to Peter’s declaration that Jesus is Messiah (Mark 8:27–30). This is sometimes known as The Great Omission (a term coined as a riff off The Great Commission in Matt 28:16–20). Why has Luke omitted it?

Luke’s commitment to the universal impact of the message of Jesus can explain this. The omitted section includes the story of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30), which Matthew includes (Matt 15:21–28) because it reinforces his view that Jesus avoided Gentiles and Samaritans. Luke would have been happy to omit this, especially as it infers that Gentiles are dogs (Mark 7:27–28: Matt 15:26–27).

Immediately prior to this story in Mark (and Matthew) is the debate about Torah halakah that Jesus has with scribes and Pharisees, after they noticed that “some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them” (Mark 7:1–23; Matt 15:1–20).

The editorial declaration that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19) is withheld by Luke from his story of Jesus, and deployed as a key statement in what serves as a major pivotal moment in the life of the early church—the moment when Peter sees a vision in which a voice from heaven declares, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (Acts 10:15; 11:9).

This central affirmation about food is then applied to relationships with people: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (10:28). So the Jew Peter and the Gentile Cornelius eat together at table—and provide a striking image for the life of the community of faith in Luke’s own time. Luke has removed the declaration of Jesus in the Jewish halakhic debate about food, so that it can serve as the punchline in the pivotal moment in volume 2—the turn to the Gentiles.

This orientation towards Gentiles is evident at many points in the story told in Acts. That is not to say, however, that the Jewish origins of the movement are ignored or left behind. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the believers in Jerusalem remain connected to the Temple, participating in the worship of that place (Acts 2:46; 3:1) and used the Temple area as the basis for their public preaching (5:17–21, 25–26; 5:42).

In like fashion, Paul and his fellow workers are regularly found proclaiming the good news in synagogues—in Antioch (13:14–15, 43, 44), Iconium (14:1), Thessalonians (17:1–3), Beroea (17:10–11), Athens (17:16–17), Corinth (18:4) and Ephesus (18:19 and again in 19:8–10). The “place of prayer” by the river in Philippi (16:13) was, most likely, also a place of gathering for Jews. Finally, Paul visited the Jerusalem Temple and took part in a purification ceremony there (21:17–36, when he is arrested).

However, in some of the locations, Paul addresses Gentiles who had already expressed interest in Judaism, known as godfearers (13:16, 26; 13:43, 50; 17:4; 17:17). Indeed, after commotions broke out in synagogues relating to the message that Paul was preaching, he turned explicitly to Gentiles—in Antioch (13:48) and Iconium (14:1–3), in Corinth (18:7) and in Ephesus (19:9–10), as well as in two highly significant scenes in the public marketplaces of Athens (17:16–34) and Ephesus (19:23–41).

Commentators regularly highlight the three occasions in Acts when Paul explicitly declares that, because of Jewish intransigence, he is turning to the Gentiles.

He first declares this when Jews in the Antioch synagogue rebuff him: “since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth’” (13:46–47, citing Isa 49:6).

Paul says this again in Corinth, after similar upheavals: “when they opposed and reviled him, in protest he shook the dust from his clothes and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles” (18:6–7). In the final scene of the book, while Paul is under house arrest in Rome, he makes it very clear that “this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (28:28).

In the first two instances, whilst Paul moves out of the synagogue to continue preaching to Gentiles, in each case he immediately returns to the synagogues where he speaks to Jews (14:1 and 18:19, already noted above). Thus it makes sense for the final declaration in Rome to be interpreted in the same way. Paul expresses frustration at the rejections he experiences from Jews and sees fertile territory amongst Gentiles; but he is not saying that the Gospel no longer is relevant to Jews.

I think it is important not to over-interpret these three declarations as definitive rejections of the Jews within the providential plan of God. Rather, it is Paul’s way of emphasising the universal orientation and global relevance of the Gospel—a message which, as we have seen, is integral to Luke’s theology throughout both volumes of his orderly account.

The three declarations of a “turn to the Gentiles” provide narrative fulfilment of the early prophetic announcement of Simeon, that Jesus brings God’s salvation, “prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:30–32). That is the primary focus of the two-volume work that Luke writes.

“A light for the Gentiles, salvation to the ends of the earth”: turning to Luke’s Gospel II (Year C)

I have suggested that reading the orderly account (which we know as Luke’s Gospel) requires attention to a number of elements, with one eye looking back to sources, to see how they are used in telling the story of Jesus, as the other eye looks forward to subsequent events, to see how they influence the story of Jesus.

See https://johntsquires.com/2022/01/17/with-one-eye-looking-back-the-other-looking-forward-turning-to-lukes-gospel-i-year-c/

As we read, and reflect on, this account in this way, we may well note a number of key features that characterise this orderly account.

Geography is one key pointer in leading us to an important central feature of this two-volume orderly account. The earlier work about Jesus made it clear that he was from Nazareth in Galilee (Mark 1:9) and that, after being baptised in the Jordan near Jerusalem (1:9–11), Jesus returned to Galilee, where all his activities took place (1:14–9:50). After that, Jesus left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan” (10:1) and then entered Jerusalem—for the first and only time in this account—where he spent the remainder of his time (11:11–16:8).

That same Nazareth origin of Jesus is acknowledged in Luke’s account (Luke 1:26–27; 2:4, 39) and in this account, Jesus also is active for some time in Galilee (4:14–9:50). However, the majority of the narrative in this orderly account is set outside of Galilee. Once Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51, 53) he is depicted as travelling relentlessly towards Jerusalem (13:22, 31–35; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28, 41–44), where he spends the rest of his time (19:45–24:53).

Whilst in Jerusalem, Jesus spends time in the Temple precinct (Mark 11:15–19; 11:27–13:37; Luke 19:45–21:38). However, Luke takes great pains to emphasise the connection between Jesus and the Temple. Jesus does not leave the city once he has entered it (cf. Mark 11:19); in Luke, he remains there “every day” (Luke 19:47, 21:37) and this whole section is bracketed with explicit references to the Temple at 20:1 and 21:38.

In fact, the Temple connection has also been identified early in Luke’s narrative, where he tells of Zechariah the priest (1:5–10), the newborn Jesus, presented for purification (2:22–24), Simeon the prophet (2:25–35), and Anna the prophet (2:36–38), as well as the twelve-year-old Jesus himself in the Temple (2:41–52). Jesus, whilst he comes from Nazareth in Galilee, has a connection with the Temple, the centre and focal point of Judaism at that time. The story of Jesus begins in that central point, and comes to its climax also in that central location: the Temple in Jerusalem.

There are other key geographical markers in the orderly account we know as Luke. Samaria, for instance, figures in both volumes, even though there is no mention of it in Mark’s earlier narrative. (When Jesus leaves Galilee in Mark 10:1, he seems simply to go immediately to Judea! Even though Samaria is locked in between Galilee and Judea.) In the orderly account, Jesus travels through Samaria (Luke 9:51–53), tells a story about a Good Samaritan (10:25–37), and heals a group of lepers which 8n lures a Samaritan (17:11–19). By contrast, in Matthew’s account of Jesus, travel into Samaria is strictly forbidden (Matt 10:5–6).

Luke’s positive interest in Samaritans emerges in his second volume, for after the persecution in Jerusalem and the scattering of Jesus followers (Acts 8:1), it is in the region of Samaria that the good news gains traction; there is much joy after exorcisms and healings (8:8) and widespread acceptance of the message (8:12, 25), and consequent growth in believers (9:31). These scenes may well have influenced the author to include the distinctive elements relating to Samaria and the Samaritans in his first volume.

A third geographical marker is provided by the closing chapter of volume 2. Paul, the figure who has been centre-stage for 15 chapters, arrives in Rome (Acts 28:14–31). Rome was the capital of the political power which was dominant across the Mediterranean region, and had been the occupying power in Judea, Samaria and Galilee for twelve decades by this time.

Paul’s entry into Rome—even as a prisoner under house arrest (28:16, 23)—signals the arrival of the good news about Jesus in the centre of the empire. It indicates that the movement from Jerusalem, to Samaria, and then to Rome, makes it possible for this good news to reach “to the ends of the earth” (1:8). Not only Jews, but Gentiles also will become followers of Jesus (15:3, 12). So, in Antioch, Paul inform recalcitrant Jews that “we are now turning to the Gentiles” (13:46); in Corinth, he says that “from now on I will go to the Gentiles” (18:6); in Rome, he affirms, “this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles” (28:28).

The story has moved from Jerusalem, the centre of Judaism, to Rome, the centre of the dominant Gentile empire. The symbolism is powerful. Geography reveals theology.

This eventual destination of Rome, the centre of the Empire that stretches “to the end of the earth”, is read back into the story of Jesus. In fact, the Roman context for the story about Jesus has been signalled early in Luke’s orderly account, in the detailed dating provided in introducing John the baptiser (Luke 3:1–2).

The fact that the story of Jesus is to become known and valued amongst Gentiles is indicated in Simeon’s oracle that the child Jesus will bring “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32) and in the citation of Isaiah’s words that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (3:6, quoting Isa 40:5). There are a number of times in the Lukan narrative where Gentile receptivity to the good news is then affirmed.

So the reshaping of the beginnings of the good news of Jesus, the chosen one (the Gospel of Mark) into the orderly account of the things being fulfilled in our midst (the Gospel of Luke) retells the story in ways that give us clear indications about where all of this is headed. The Gospel becomes “a light for the Gentiles, salvation to the ends of the earth”.

	John T Squires on The end of the Assembly of Con…
	Dejan Siljanovski on The end of the Assembly of Con…
	John T Squires on Why Jesus never did, and never…
	Always on a donkey… on Why Jesus never did, and never…
	paulinglis1 on The end of the Assembly of Con…

	John T Squires on The end of the Assembly of Con…
	Dejan Siljanovski on The end of the Assembly of Con…
	John T Squires on Why Jesus never did, and never…
	Always on a donkey… on Why Jesus never did, and never…
	paulinglis1 on The end of the Assembly of Con…