Luke: third lecture – the passion “Father, into your hands...

Luke’s passion In general Luke (like Matthew) follows Mark’s narrative and chronology in passion narrative. But with additions that make it some sense a different narrative, or a least a narrative with a new focus. Some of these indicate Luke’s theme of reconciliation, forgiveness. But others want to mitigate the responsibility of Rome over Jesus’ death. And – above all -- different words of Jesus at his death.

Some details added by Luke to the passion narrative Jesus’ prayer for Peter, just before the prediction of his betrayal: 22: The disciples sleeping “because of grief” during Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane: 22: 45. Jesus to Judas: “would you betray the son of man with a kiss?”: 22:48. Jesus heals the man whose ear is cut off: 22: 51. “No more of this!” Jesus turns and looks at Peter after Peter’s thrice-repeated denial.

More Lucan details: Pilate and Jesus Specifically political charges laid against Jesus: “perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, calling himself messiah, a king”: 23: 2. Pilate’s judgment of innocence: 23: 4. And more political charges: 23: 5. Pilate tries to avoid jurisdiction: Jesus sent to Herod: 23:6-12. Pilate’s formal judgment of Jesus’ innocence: 23: Repeated at 23: 22. “no ground for the sentence of death.” No mockery by the Roman soldiers (purple robe, crown of thorns, reed for scepter, taunting). Pilate finally allows Jesus’ execution – but against his judgment of innocence.

Luke’s report of Jesus’ words on cross: Forgiveness of the Roman soldiers: 23: 34. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” The good thief and the bad thief: 23: “Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Above all: No despair on cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” not spoken in Luke. Instead, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” Luke shocked by the words of despair? And the centurion swears to Jesus’ innocence -- not to his being Son of God. Why innocence instead of Son of God?

Luke’s version of the resurrection Entering the tomb, the women find two men in dazzling apparel. And unlike Mark’s narrative, the women do tell the disciples. Apparently a larger number of women, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James “and the other women with them.” Peter goes to the tomb and also finds it empty.

Disciples on the way to Emmaus Only Luke tells this resurrection-appearance story. One of the two is named: Cleopas. “Intertextuality” is one of the points of the story – the interpretation of the events just narrated in terms of Hebrew Scriptures. Recognition in the blessing and breaking of bread. Eyes opened in response to this, and hearts “burning” in response to interpretive work of relating events to Scriptural texts. And they return to Jerusalem “that same hour.” And tell how “he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”

Carravaggio: the supper at Emmaus

Luke’s emphasis on the physicality of risen Jesus: 24: 39: “Touch me and see...” He’s flesh and blood. And he’s hungry! Grilled fish. Only Luke emphasizes the physical bodiliness of the risen Jesus. And opens their minds to understand the scriptures – as in Emmaus episode. 24:46 And the necessity of staying in Jerusalem Return to Jerusalem – “beginning from Jerusalem”: 24:47, Disciples “continually in the temple blessing God.”

Two final questions on Luke Why does this gentile writer, as it is generally assumed, insist on Jerusalem, the Temple, the background in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the essential Jewishness of Jesus? What in the late first century prompts this textual need for a deep historical sense of the connectedness of Jesus to Israel?