Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology 0664220592

Citation preview

Jesus in the Gospels A BIBLICAL CHRISTOLOGY

RUDOLFSCHNACKENBURG Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr.

•

flJfn

Will WESTMINSTER JOHN KNOX PRESS Louisville, Kentucky

Jesus in the Gospels

Also by Rudolf Schnackenburg from Westminster John Knox Press

All Things Are Possible to Believers: Reflections on the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount

To my distinguished colleagues and companions on the way Professor Dr. Heinz Schiirmann in Erfurt (born 18 January 1913) and Professor Dr. Eduard Schweizer in Zurich (born 18 April 1913), to whom lowe many thanks, on their eightieth birthdays Translated from Die Person Jesu Christi im Spiegel der vier Evangelien, © 1993 Verlag Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau. English translation © 1995 Westminster John Knox Press

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission.

Book design by Publishers' WorkGroup Cover design by Ben Ruiz First edition Published by Westminster John Knox Press Louisville, Kentucky This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39.48 standard. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 -- 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schnackenburg, Rudolf, 1914[Person Jesus Christi im Spiegel der vier Evangelien. English) Jesus in the Gospel: a biblical christology / Rudolf Schnackenburg ; translated by D.C. Dean. p. em. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-664-22059-2 (alk. paper) 1. Jesus Christ--History of doctrines--Early church, ca. 30-600. 2. Jesus Christ--Person and offices--Biblical teaching. 3. Bible. N.T. Gospels--Theology. I. Title. BTl98.5357131995 232--ss into the context of his time, the Jewish as well as the Christian, and against this background lets the liberating message of love sound anew. There are two perspectives, first against an inadequate Jewish legalism and then against a rejection of the law or lax interpretation of the law in the Christian communities. Matthew has both wrong attitudes in mind, and he opposes them with the clear words of Jesus.

b. The kind of greater righteousness demanded by Jesus How the new and greater righteousness is supposed to look and be practiced is explained by the antitheses. The main question that is raised here is not whether and how Jesus strengthens the observance

119

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

of the law, which was announced to "those of ancient times," the Moses generation, and attested as scripture, or abolishes and surpasses it; rather, it is how Jesus confronts human behavior with the divine will. Among the six antitheses we can discern some in which Jesus contradicts the scriptural Torah; these are the third antithesis on divorce (5:31-32), the fifth on retribution (5:38-39), and the sixth on love of enemy (5:43-44). Usually the so-called primary antitheses -which in comparison with Luke exhibit a more pointed interpretation of the Torah, namely, the first (murder and anger), the second (adultery and lust in the heart), and the fourth (prohibition of swearing), and which could have been formulated antithetically by Jesus-are distinguished from the "secondary" antitheses, namely, the third (divorce), the fifth (prohibition of retribution), and the sixth (love of enemy), which in Luke show no antithetical form. 102 Yet such a distinction is too rigid and artificial. In all the antitheses Jesus' concern is to confront the Torah commandment with his instruction. "In the view of the antitheses the Torah commandment is no longer sufficient (as it was previously); now Jesus' instruction is normative. Therefore the antitheses are to be regarded as exceeding the Torah or, more precisely, as Jesus' commandments that surpass the Torah in radicality but not as radicalized Torah commandments."103 Matthew put the Jesus tradition on the "fulfillment" of the law and the prophets in an antithetical form and perhaps redactionally shaped not only the so-called secondary antitheses but even the Jesus tradition visible in the "primary" traditions and thus perhaps the entire series of antitheses. 104 In any case, Matthew brings out the radicalization of the divine will-as opposed to human interpretation-that is recognizable in Jesus' individual utterances, and in this way he emphasizes the new human behavior demanded by the proclamation of the now inbreaking kingdom of God in contrast to previous habit and practice. "The eschatological 'action' of God demands a new 'reaction' of human beings that is fundamentally not to be based on the previous authority of the Torah."105 This confrontation of human will and behavior with the eschatologically based will of God can be demonstrated throughout in the paradigms of the antitheses. When in the first antithesis the prohibition of anger is added to the prohibition of murder (5:21-22), the origin and basic cause of killing are thereby revealed. Because people are inclined toward anger and the damnation of other people, this

120

MATTHEW

ultimately leads to murderous intentions. Jesus wants to tear this quite dangerous way of thinking out of the heart. This is even clearer in the continuation, which deals with reconciliation with one's brother or sister (5:23-24) or with one's accuser (5:25-26). In the view toward God, to whom reconciliation with others is more important than the gift offered at the altar, we see that God's standard is quite different from usual human behavior. In the second antithesis on adultery and the longing for another woman that germinates in the heart (5:27-28), the root of such behavior is again revealed. God looks into the human heart, which drives one to adultery. It is true that longing for another woman is already forbidden in Deut. 5:21; in this respect the antithesis is not a "strengthening of the Torah." But Jesus sees unbridled natural desire as such a threat that he stresses it individually as against God's will. Added are warnings against the tempting eye or hand that pushes one into sin (5:29-30). These are warnings that Matthew took from the original context of giving offense in Mark 9:43-47 and applied here to sexual sin. With the strongest words he warns against giving in to naturally strong human urges that can subject one to the eschatological judgment of God. The prohibition of divorce (third antithesis, 5:31-32), which directly contradicts a precept of the Torah (d. 19:8-9), is substantiated with the original will of God: "What God has joined together let no one separate" (19:6). Under the kingdom of God the will of God in creation is to be reestablished. The problems of the various formulations that result from the Jewish context ("except on the ground of unchastity," 5:32; d. 19:9) or from Greek and Roman practice (Mark 10:12) cannot be explored here. It seems certain to me that Matthew took Jewish circumstances into consideration, yet without calling into question Jesus' fundamental prohibition of divorce.106 In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew's concern is to clarify the responsibility of the husband for the continuation of the marriage; the husband may not drive his wife to enter into a new-and for Jesus illegitimate-marriage. Although the antithesis looks like a casuistic legal statement, it is more: it is the suspension of human legal thinking in the face of God's demand. Through his provocative saying Jesus achieves a prophetic perspective: everything is seen with an eye toward the inbreaking kingdom of God. 107 "Precisely in this way he confronts the husband with his wife as a human being

121

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

for whom he must be there in love."108 With this, Jesus penetrates the legal regulations surrounding the higher directive given by God. Orientation toward the holiness and untouchable dignity of God becomes clear in the prohibition of swearing (fourth antithesis, 5:3~37). One can certainly swear a holy oath to God himself; none of the weakened swearing formulas, such as those that playa role in the casuistic interpretation of the rabbis (d. 23:16-22), have the weight of an obligation made to God himself. But since all talk before God is supposed to be an absolute obligation of yes or no, the Sermon on the Mount forbids any kind of oath that could draw God down into the human realm. The substitutionary forms that avoid the name of God ("by heaven," "by the earth," "by Jerusalem") do not do justice to the grandeur of God. The name of God is not supposed to be dishonored in any way (second commandment of the Decalogue); God is absolutely above human quibbling. The fifth antithesis forbids retribution and through the cited example situations becomes a special challenge to human feelings (5:38-41). Action in response to an injustice experienced or violence suffered is natural for human beings, but Jesus requires nonviolence and even more: disarming the evildoer through goodness and overcoming evil with good (d. Rom. 12:21). Since in these cases the point is not only the forgoing of retribution but also the requirement to give in and give more (v. 40), a saying on giving is added: "Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you" (5:42). Matthew took these instructions from the unified talk about love of enemy in Luke 6:27-36 and shaped them into a separate antithesis. This makes all the more powerful the sixth antithesis on love of enemy. Matthew connects it with the commandment to love one's neighbor, to which he adds (without Old Testament support) hating one's enemy. Against this thesis Jesus counters: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." The basis for this is the behavior of God, which is to become the model for humankind. God acts differently from human beings: he makes his sun risc on the evil and the good, and he makes it rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. This wisdom saying, which uses the argument of God's governance of the world,109 tries to make vivid God's merciful action, which obligates human beings to do the same. The usual behavior, loving those who love us and greeting those we know, must be overcome if God is kept

122

MATTHEW

in mind. Only thus does one emulate the model of God, who is holy and perfect (5:48). "Through telrios ["perfect") he [Matthew) emphasizes the fundamental meaning of love of enemy. It is not one requirement beside others but the center and acme of all commandments, which leads to perfection."110 Thus the kind of righteousness demanded by Jesus comes out of the confrontation of everyday human behavior with God's action. God, who wants to establish his kingdom, can do this only in contradiction to all usual behavior practiced in the earthly world. This, God's being wholly different and acting wholly differently, which is obligatory for the disciples of Christ, is what Matthew wants to derive from the antitheses. The kingdom of God makes the future the standard for the present, without regard to the difficulties and tensions that this produces. To this extent these demands of the antitheses remain somewhat utopian and something hardly to be realized in the earthly, secular realm, but Matthew develops it in his programmatic speech as the inviolable will of God. What picture of Jesus results from this? "The Jesus of the antitheses is a Matthean Jesus. The material that Matthew incorporates into his portrait of Jesus in 5:21-48 is an extension of the picture that is already gradually emerging in 5:1-2, 3-12, 13-16, and 17-20."111 He teaches people a way that is oriented only toward the will to the new eschatological order in contradiction to human weakness and inadequacy. But it is the way that leads out of desperation and discord, distress and despair.

c. Love as the heart of the new righteousness What is already discernible in the antitheses and their concomitant admonitions is revealed in the whole work of Matthew's Gospel as the crucial center of all moral endeavor: love for people out of love received from God. We have already observed the crescendo from love of neighbor to love of enemy. The emphasis that Matthew places on love and mercy becomes evident in several special sayings and special passages in Matthew. To the defense of his devotion to "tax collectors and sinners" the Matthean Jesus adds: "Go and learn whal this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' " (9:13, quoting from Hos. 6:6). He inserts the same scriptural saying again in order to excuse the disciples for their plucking grain on the Sabbath (12:7). According to the strict standards of the teachers of the law, the

123

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

disciples are desecrators of the Sabbath, but according to Jesus they cannot be accused: already in the Old Testament there are exceptions to this cultic regulation. There is the case of David who with his companions was hungry and ate the consecrated bread of the Presence (12:3-4), and then there is the general permission for the priests to break the Sabbath regulations because of the Sabbath sacrifice (d. 12:5; Num. 28:3-4). "Something greater than the temple is here." Because of v. 8 ("For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath") this assertion can be interpreted as applying to Jesus, who thereby invokes his authority. One can also relate it to the required mercy, which makes the train of thought more unified. ll2 Jesus' superiority to the cult is revealed precisely in the fact that he demands and practices mercy. Mercy (eleos) and being merciful (eleein) are generally for Matthew the quintessence of the love demanded of the disciples of Christ. The Beatitudes say fundamentally: "Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy" (from God). Matthew has formed into a Beatitude the exhortation that in Luke stands at the end of the commandment to love one's enemy, "Be merciful [oiktirmones), just as your Father is merciful" (6:36), and at the same time has brought the mercy of God into the last judgment. This gives the demand greater weight. The greatest reproach against the teachers of the law is that they neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith, because of their narrow legal precepts (23:23). Mercy appropriate to the mercy experienced from God becomes the criterion of concrete action based on love. This encompasses within a broad range helpfulness, generosity, and forgiveness. Jesus becomes the guiding image for such merciful action. It is not coincidental that Matthew takes up the cries of tormented people for mercy, which are heard by Jesus. The cries of the blind man of Jericho (Mark 10:47-48), "Jes\1s, Son of David, have mercy on me!" are reinforced in Matthew in that there are two blind men (20:30-31). In addition Matthew incorporates a healing of blind men, who approach him with the same request, into his collection of healing stories (9:27-29). Also the Gentile Canaanite woman pleads with Jesus for her daughter: "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David" (15:22). Finally, Matthew has the unfortunate father of the epileptic boy cry: "Lord, have mercy on my son" (17:15). Jesus heals all these people; the picture of Jesus that shines forth here also shapes his moral teaching: mercy before everything and above everything!

124

MATTHEW

Especially valuable is the parable of the unforgiving servant (18:23-35) passed down by Matthew in his special material. It is characterized as a parable of the kingdom, and the king appearing there is a symbolic figure for God himself. He has a reckoning with his slaves-a preview of the coming judgment. An especially indebted man, who owed him a gigantic sum, is brought before him, and the initial judgment is for the man to be sold with his wife and children and all possessions. But when the slave falls down and begs for patience, the lord is moved by pity, lets him go, and absolves him of the gigantic debt. This alone would be a paradigm for the extremely great generosity and mercy of God, but the story continues and becomes an urgent admonition to forgive one another and absolve all debts. The pardoned slave demands from a fellow slave a ridiculously small debt and has him thrown into prison. All pleading for patience with the same words used by the slave pardoned by the king is of no avail. Then the lord becomes angry and says to him: "Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?" (I8:33). Here is the key word mercy; the whole story is based on this mercy. This word (and not v. 34) is the point of the story. The punishment of the man who was absolved of a great debt and showed no mercy to his fellow slave becomes in Matthew's view a warning against misusing God's generosity.ll3 In the scene on the judgment of the world (25:31-46) the key word mercy does not occur. But the works of love, which are gathered together according to the Jewish conception, make graphic the mercy and good deeds expected of human beings. Again, as in the parable of the unmerciful slave, the judgment awaiting the unmerciful is stressed. What is special is the emphasis on the Son of Man in the good deeds shown to those who are poor, needy, and in prison. In Jesus one encounters the neighbor to whom one is supposed to fulfill the commandment of brotherly love. The neighbor, sister, or brother, whom Jesus sees in one's fellow human being, is an appeal to the love owed to God, which is to be shown to those suffering need, with whom Jesus has solidarity and indeed identifies. For the picture of Jesus Christ this means: 1. Jesus is the one who presents the love and mercy of God in his person; because he is the one who loves, he can judge by the standard that deeds of love for those in need are done for Jesus himself. His own love is the presupposition of his requirements of love.

125

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

2. Jesus requires works of love as a concrete expression of the new and greater righteousness. What already became clear in the Sennon on the Mount-that it is a question of doing the commandments of God-is confirmed and reinforced in the scene of world judgment. There is no excuse for failing to render concrete help. 3. The demands of the earthly Jesus can be understood only in the light of the Lord and Judge who will come one day. They achieve their weight through future repayment in judgment. What is now still hidden will then be revealed. 4. Challenged first of all and above all is the community of faith, which knows itself subject to its Lord, the Son of Man. Everyone in the church will be judged according to his or her own deeds (d. 16:27). But other people will also be measured by the standard of love, and thus all people are alike before God in the judgment. The universal dimension, which emerges already in the wisdomlike substantiation of the Sermon on the Mount (5:45), is maintained in the judgment scene. 5. God's being different and acting differently, which stands over against the usual behavior of human beings, is also transferred to his representative and agent, to Jesus, the Son of Man. This Judge surprises and shocks humankind with his pronouncement of judgment, which it did not expect. It is the otherness of the loving God who confronts human beings with his love and obligates them to mutual love. Thus, with its demands not to practice retribution (5:38-42), to love enemies and evildoers (5:43-48), and to do for one another what each one expects from the other (7:12), the Sermon on the Mount falls within the comprehensi ve ethics of love; and the first commandment places love of neighbor on the level of love of God (22:37-40). In terms of content, what Luke presents in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) is also contained in the ethical instruction of Matthew. The Samaritan does what the Matthean Jesus constantly demands: has compassion for those wl)o suffer (10:37).

d. Judgment of the lawless and unloving Can love, however, be maintained as the basic principle of Jesus' ethical proclamation according to Matthew, if the threat of judgment repeatedly appears? Must not the mercy of God go so far as to accept into his kingdom even those who fail, those who reject Jesus' message, and those who are obstinate sinners? If Jesus accepts sinners on

126

MATTHEW

earth and promises even tax collectors and prostitutes that they will enter the kingdom of God before the scribes and Pharisees, because they were converted by the preaching of John the Baptist (21:31-32), could one not then expect God in a general amnesty, as it were, not to exclude from salvation even those shunned people? Did not Jesus die precisely for sinners, so that through his blood shed for all "for the forgiveness of sins" (26:28) all might share in his covenant of grace? This undeniable tension between merciful forgiveness and damning jUdgment, which comes forth so emphatically in Matthew (7:23; 8:12; 13:41-42,50; 18:34; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30, 41, 46), will have to be explained by certain presuppositions of Matthean ethics: 1. Matthew adopted judgment according to works from the Jesus tradition. There are unambiguous judgment statements by Jesus for those who reject his message. 114 2. The merciful love of God even in the extreme is contained in the proclamation of salvation. But this gospel of grace presupposes faith in Jesus' message. Where this faith is culpably rejected, where not even Jesus' miracles lead to a change of mind (cf. 11:20-24; 12:41-42; 13:54-57; 21:31-32), God's offer of salvation is forfeited. That is the other side of God's great decree of grace, the "necessary consequence of rejected or disregarded salvation."115 3. Out of his critical position in regard to the unbelieving part of the people of Israel, Matthew has intensified the statement of judgment for Israel. Because Israel has undertaken a persecution of the prophets, sages, and teachers sent to it, all the blood shed on earth will come upon guilty Israel (23:34-36). The judgment over Jerusalem will occur in the waiting future (cf. 23:37-39; 27:25). It is a part of God's plan for history and must be considered the expression of God's punishing righteousness after disappointing efforts to love. 4. Because, however, the new community of salvation, the church, comes into the inheritance of the old people of God, it is also measured by the same standards as the old Israel. Those in this community who associate with evildoers (7:23; 13:41) or whose deeds do not meet the demand of the heavenly Lord (cf. 22:11-13) will be excluded from the future kingdom. Judgment will apply, of course, not to the whole church but to its unworthy members. Matthew reinforced this demand on the community because of the offensive behavior of some community members. It accords with his

127

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

basic position as a strict admonisher and warner who wants to lead the community to produce the fruits of moral behavior {21:43; d. 5:16; 7:16, 20}. In the context of his community Matthew places beside God's everlasting love the threat of judgment for those who do not love {25:31-46}. The connection with and difference from the denying Israel is recognizable in the parable of the wedding banquet {22:1-14}. Because of the unfaith of its leaders Israel is subject to the judgment that comes in the Jewish war and destruction of Jerusalem {22:7}. But the new community, which also includes Gentiles, is not subjected to the threat of earthly judgment but only placed under eschatological judgment, in which the unworthy members will be excluded. Among the many who are called, there are nonetheless-as the warning at the end says-only a few chosen who will reach the eschatological time of joy {22:14}.1 16 Was Matthew at all aware of the juxtaposition of unlimited, unconditional grace, as proclaimed in the parable of the prodigal son, and the judgment announced to those who do not fulfill the will of the Father? For him the exceedingly great love of the Father seems to disappear in the apocalyptic announcement of the judgment of the Son of Man. Matthew also proclaims Jesus' devotion to sinners {9:12-13}; he knows of the mercy of God revealed in Jesus (d. 9:1-8). But he requires repentance as a precondition in order to enter the kingdom of God {d. 21:28-32}. Now, repentance is also presupposed in the parable of the prodigal son, yet the accent does not rest there; it is on the unconditional acceptance of the son who was lost. Whether Matthew had before him all the parables of the lost (Luke 15) remains uncertain. Matthew knows the parable of the lost sheep, yet he interprets it not in terms of God's all-encompassing love for sinners but in terms of the community's duty to go after lost community members (18:12-14). The heavenly Father does not want one of the "little ones," the disciples of Jesus, to be subject to temptation and enticement (18:7-9) and to go astray. Those who are not even to be won by the church's solicitous care are excluded from the church (18:17). For participation in the kingdom of God we find throughout conditions for moral behavior: care for fellow slaves {24:44-50}, increase of entrusted goods {25:14-30}, and deeds of love for the poor and oppressed (25:31-46). One must see, however, that all this happens on the eschatological horizon with a view toward the last judgment.

128

MATTHEW

Grace and judgment are mentioned in different contexts. In Matthew the view shifts to the future judgment that the Son of Man will render in the name of God. Then it is no longer the all-forgiving goodness of God that is highlighted, but rather the obligation that flows out of the grace of God. In the Matthean application of the Lord's Prayer it even seems that forgiving sinful fellow human beings is the condition for achieving forgiveness by God (6:14-15). In reality God's mercy as such is presupposed, and this is what makes possible and motivates human forgiving. Those who pray must ask for forgiveness by God and yet assure that they have also forgiven debtors their debt (6:12). This connection between God's generous goodness and moral obligation comes to light especially in the parable of the unforgiving servant (18:21-35). What is special about this story is the shift from the extreme generosity of the lord-who in the introduction originating with Matthew is characterized as a king-to the anger of his slave, whom he has forgiven a gigantic sum, and the slave's punishment of his fellow slave, whom he throttles because of a ridiculously small debt and throws into prison. It is a shocking comparison that is intended, however, as a deterring example. The point of the parable is missed if one trims the original text.ll7 It is a question of three narrative sequences that are internally connected with each other: the pardoning of the great debtor, the incomprehensible behavior of the fellow slave despite the generosity experienced, and the punishing verdict of the enraged lord. The notification by the fellow slaves, who are outraged by the man's behavior, is necessary to lead to the reproach of the lord (v. 33). It is evident that the small debtor appeals to his creditor with the same words as the large debtor: "Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything" (v. 29). The third part is then the result: the anger of the lord and the punishment of the hard-hearted slave. The crucial point is the reproach by the lord: "Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?" That is the internal logic of the story. It is an eschatological parable that not only holds on to the mercy of God proclaimed in Jesus' earthly activity but also reveals the consequence of merciful behavior. The extremely harsh punishment of the unmerciful slave (handing him over to be tortured) may be drawn from the conditions of the time. The last sentence is the Matthean application: "So my heavenly Father will also

129

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

do to everyone of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart." It is a parable that warns against the "threatening loss of grace" (E. Schweizer). The figure of the Judge who demands justice and gives retribution pervades the Matthean presentation. All the same, we must not overlook the fact that the prospect of reward as well as judgment is placed before the good and just. They will shine like the sun in the kingdom of the Father (13:43), will eat with the patriarchs (8:11), will partake of the heavenly wedding banquet (25:10), will be richly rewarded for their loyal service (25:21, 23), and will be taken up into eternal life (25:46). Because now is still the time of grace and testing, the community is admonished to be watchful and ready to do good, for in Matthew's opinion they are in great danger of missing the goal. Matthew reinforces the announcement of judgment, threatens with eternal punishment, intimidates, yet wants thereby only to evoke the response of the love and mercy of God. The Matthean picture of Jesus is eschatological and determined by the One who is coming, and the present proclamation of Jesus is also placed in this perspective. In sum, various elements have modified and further developed the picture of Jesus Christ in Matthew as compared with Mark. The contemporary situation with regard to rejecting and hostile Judaism produces sharp accents, but the opposition of Judaism also lets us reflect more seriously on the Messiah who comes forth from Judaism (cf. the "son of David"). Matthew recognizes that the Old Testament texts point to Jesus and for this provides more than a few "fulfillment quotations." The salvation-historical line is maintained, even in the question of the Mosaic law, which is not abolished but only placed into the new framework of Jesus' interpretation. The church comes into the inheritance of the old Israel, and it is up to the church to administer this inheritance through true fulfillment of Jesus' commandments. The view of the end gives more prominence to the Lord who is to come one day. The end time is drawn as a time of lawlessness and love grown cold (24:12), but Christ remains with his church, teaching, admonishing, and protecting, and while all the tribes of earth mourn, the Son of Man will send out his angels to gather his elect from all directions (24:30-31). The changed view of Jesus Christ is determined by the Jewish Christian perspective and the image of the church in which Jesus Christ remains present and continues his work (28:20).

130

4 Luke

With the Gospel of Luke we enter a wide horizon of reflection on Jesus of Nazareth and an overall perspective on the work emanating from him: the church of Jesus Christ. What was already perceivable in the address to the community in the Gospel of Mark and then became prominent in the clear outlines at the contemporary view of Judaism and the ongoing Christian community in the Gospel of Matthew is now placed by Luke's double volume in a historical sequence that encompasses the appearance and activity of Jesus in Jewish territory as well as his continued work in the church after his return to God. One can ask what was closer to the heart of Luke, this writer who probably came from the Gentile world and was rooted in Hellenistic Judaism: 1 the story of Jesus Christ, which he wants to pursue in an orderly fashion (Luke 1:1-4), or the story of the church that grows out of Jesus' activity. But since Luke wanted from the beginning to develop his presentation in two books (d. 1:1-3 with Acts 1:1),2 we must take the two books as a unit. The Gospel remains fundamental; it seeks to report the deeds and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, his work among the people of Israel, and his destiny guided by God. Yet just as important for Luke in his day-probably in the early eighties of the first Christian century-is the story of the church that emerges on earth, frees itself from Judaism, and finds and goes its own way to the Gentiles. 3 The Acts of the Apostles repeatedly refers back to the story of Jesus, to deeds of power, miracles, and signs that he did in Israel, but above all to the resurrection of the Jesus who was nailed to the cross by those outside the law (Acts 2:22-24). Luke wants to create a historically faithful picture of Jesus and thus follows the intentions of Greek and Roman writers of history.

131

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

He wants to be a "historian" and yet one who submits history entirely to his kerygmatic purposes. 4 In spite of historical information (d. Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2), this is not a presentation ("orderly account," 1:3) that truly follows the course of history, as is demonstrated by the positioning of the Nazareth pericope (4:16-30) and the journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27). His Gospel is also a kerygmatic historical presentation that seeks to understand Jesus' appearance in the framework of temporal and world-historical conditions, but Luke concentrates his view entirely on Jesus and his salvific significance. Thus the result is not a biography of Jesus but a collection of events, words, and deeds of Jesus that occurred in Jesus' life and which seek to give a comprehensive picture of his work and fate. In spite of his "historical" intentions, Luke, like Mark and Matthew, has drawn the Jesus picture that hovers before him-one that comes no closer to reality than those of the other synoptists. Luke has gathered an abundance of material from sources already known to us, Mark's Gospel and the "sayings source" (Q), and from other sketches not known to us, which "many" before Luke had already undertaken (1:1), as well as from individual oral traditions. From these rich materials he made his selection and fashioned a picture of Jesus that in his opinion corresponds to historical reality. If we keep this intention in mind, it is tempting to test his picture of Jesus critically against what we can know with some certainty about the historical appearance and activity of Jesus. We want to forgo this, however, because Luke also draws his picture of Jesus' historical appearance out of faith in the resurrected Christ. Yet the Lukan Jesus is incorporated into the comprehensive history of God with his people Israel, which finds its continuation in the history of the church of Jesus Christ. Until John the Baptist-with whom for Luke the appearance and salvific activity of Jesus begin (l0:37)-the law and the prophets are sufficient; from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed (Luke 16:16). This provides a turning point in the history of God with humankind. The whole time of Jesus is a time of salvation, which is characterized by the pushing back of Satan (4:13; 10:18), the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus (10:21), and great miracles and healings (Acts 10:38). But this event taking place in Jesus must go even further after the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost and show its effective influence in the church. Luke has correctly been called a theologian of the history of salvation, who di-

132

LUKE

vided the history of salvation into certain periods: the time before Jesus as the time of the law and the prophets, the time of promise; then the time of Jesus as the time of the divine work of salvation; and finally the time of the church as the time of the Spirit. Whether the time of Jesus can therefore be designated the "middle of time"s is doubtful, because the time of Jesus is part of the time of the church and with it forms the actual time of salvation. In it the Old Testament promises are fulfilled, so that we have rather a division into the time before Christ and the time of the fulfillment of salvation, which consists, however, of two stages: in the life and work of Jesus and in the Spirit-effected birth and blossoming of the church. The salvation of God announced in the Old Testament is realized in Jesus and the church. Can even further salvation-historical phases be recognized in the Gospel of Luke, say, in the three epiphany scenes of baptism, transfiguration, and entry into Jerusalem?6 The entry of Jesus as king into Jerusalem, however, is not an epiphany story that leads further'? Such a periodization overlooks the adoption of the Markan line of tradition with the three passion announcements, which are also retained in Luke (9:31; 9:44; 18:31-33), and fails to recognize Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (19:37-38) as the close of the travel report, which from the beginning (9:51) brings Jerusalem into the picture as the city of Jesus' suffering and dying (13:31-33) but also of his glorious exaltation to God. It is a preview of the church's going out from Jerusalem, an anticipation of the joy that fills the large crowd of disciples who gather from then on (d. Acts 2:46-47). If Luke's actual view of salvation history must accordingly be reduced to the time of Jesus and the church, then the picture of Jesus Christ as bringer of salvation becomes all the clearer. Going out from him are all salvation, healings, and remission of sins, and from him also comes the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:41; Acts 2:33), which fills the early church with his blessings. In Luke's Gospel the image of the bringer of salvation, Jesus Christ, is extremely multifaceted, and it is not easy to compose an overall picture from it. Much is attributable to tradition available to Luke; other parts he himself adds from his own view. I want first (in section I) to develop fundamental and crucial perspectives of the Lukan picture of Jesus and then (in section II) to lift up some other features that fill out and round out the picture.

133

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

I THE BASIC VIEW

1. The One Sent by God in the Power of the Holy Spirit Since the Nazareth pericope in Luke 4:16-30 "contains in a certain way the whole of the gospel" and gathers into itself "like a lens all the light of the continuing narrative" (and, moreover, of the postEaster events),8 it behooves us to start with that passage and draw the Lukan portrait of Jesus from it. Jesus (in Luke 4:18-19) begins his sermon with a quotation from Isa. 61:1-2, which he applies to himself: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

Thus Jesus knows himself as one anointed by the Spirit; in the Lukan context, that means the promised Messiah (cf. 2:11, 26; 3:15; 4:41; 9:20; etc.), and he is immediately seen in his releasing and favoring function. Even if the peri cope then moves on to rejection by the residents of Nazareth and to their attempt to kill him (which foreshadows Jesus' death) and thus surveys the whole life of Jesus, the assertion of Jesus' appearance as bearer of the Spirit and anointed of the Spirit remains the crucial point of departure. Thus, according to Luke, Jesus appeared and through his devotion to the poor, his release of those in prison and oppressed in their humanity, and his healings proved himself to be the Messiah provided with the Spirit of God. According to the preceding baptismal scene (3:21-22) this outfitting with the Spirit is bestowed upon him when the Holy Spirit descends upon him visibly in the form of a dove. Luke places value on this visible, downright physically comprehensible event ("in bodily form") in order to underline the reality of the Spirit descending upon Jesus. Jesus' anointment with the Holy Spirit (and with power) is also emphasized as point of departure in the summary review of Jesus' activity in Acts 10:38. As in Luke 4:18, this is the adoption of the

134

LUKE

prophecy of Isa. 61:1, and it substantiates his appearance as benefactor and healer, who frees all who are tyrannized by the devil. Anointment by the Spirit bestows on the Messiah a great power, with which he overcomes the power of the evil one. The anointment of Jesus is also mentioned in Acts 4:27, in the church's prayer of thanksgiving for deliverance from the power of the enemy. The Spirit makes possible not only the good deeds of healing but also the power to suppress external enemies, which Luke traces back to the intrigues of the devil. This gives a clear profile to the release of prisoners: internal and external enemies are overcome. When the bestowing of the Spirit is connected with Jesus' baptism, and only from then on is he filled with the Spirit and conquers the devil, this creates a tension with the childhood stories. According to those stories the Spirit descends upon Jesus in the virgin birth, and the power of the Most High overshadows him (1:35). The future predictions are not to be related to the later baptism, for the child born as Jesus will already be cailed the Son of God. If being filled with the Spirit is thus given in the conception and birth of Jesus, then how can the Spirit not descend upon Jesus until the baptism? How can he already on the basis of the Spirit-effected birth be called "Son of God" (1 :35) if the heavenly voice does not proclaim him as the beloved Son of God until the baptism? How is this tension to be resolved? The basis of the tension might lie in the adoption of various traditions. In the baptism Luke is following the Markan presentation, which attests the descent of the Spirit in the baptismal scene, and the presentation in the childhood stories goes back to Jewish Christian narratives and their interpretations, which base Jesus' conception through the Virgin Mary on the Spirit coming from God. The baptism shows Jesus as the Messiah, who now begins his work in the power of the Spirit. For Luke, however, this does not exclude the idea that Jesus was already filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb. The evangelist can also report of John the Baptist that his father Zechariah is given the prophecy that his child will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before his birth (1 :15) and will appear with the spirit and power of Elijah (1:17). John's childhood is completely surrounded by the Spirit. His mother Elizabeth is filled with the Spirit and with a loud voice praises her relative Mary as the mother of the Messiah (1:41-42). Likewise, his father Zechariah, filled with the

135

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Holy Spirit, sings a hymn of praise to God (1 :67). The growing boy becomes strong in the Spirit (1:80). The old man Simeon, led by the Spirit, comes into the temple (2:25, 27), testifies to a prophecy given him by the Holy Spirit (2:26), and gives a prophecy himself when he tells of Jesus' way and reveals to Mary the fate that she too will meet (2:28-35).9 Also in this Spirit-shaped milieu is Mary, in whom the Holy Spirit, beyond all prophecy, works the miracle of the virgin birth. In comparison with John, what happens here is much more than being equipped with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Son of God, to whom God will give the throne of his ancestor David (1:32); he will reign over the house of Jacob, and his kingdom will have no end (1:33).1 0 Thus also in the proclamation to Mary the messianic activity of Jesus is announced, but still in reference to his Spirit-effected birth. The baptismal scene then emphasizes the beginning of Jesus' public activity, which is inaugurated for him and set into motion by God's revelation. The two reports of Jesus' being filled with the Spirit do not have to contradict each other but rather show different aspects, because they come from different narrative contexts. The childhood stories are saturated with Luke's Spirit theology, which incorporates especially prophecy and perceivable signs of the salvation given by God. The presentation of Jesus' life and work follows a different line, which we must now examine. Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, goes away from the Jordan, is led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, and is tempted by the devil (4:1-2). This pericope, adopted from the sayings source (d. Matt. 4:1-11), ends in Jprusalem in Luke's Gospel, and this is a sign of the significance that Luke gives the city of God. Jesus' eyes are set on it (d. 9:51; 13:22; 17:22; 18:31; 19:11, 28); there his prophetic fate will be fulfilled (13:33-34; 18:31). Jesus weeps over the holy city, because it did not recognize the time of its graceful visitation by the one sent from God (19:41-44). The whole event is foretold and predetermined by Old Testament prophecy. When at the end of the temptation story we read that the devil "departed from him until an opportune time" (4:13), we can see here an anticipation of the passion, when Satan enters Judas Iscariot (22:3) and for Jesus the hour strikes when he is overcome by the power of darkness (22:53). We should not infer from this that the whole time of Jesus' earthly activity was a Satan-free period,11 since even during

136

LUKE

this time demonic forces are at work (10:17; 11:14-22; 11:24-26; 13:31-37). Nonetheless, it is a time in which Jesus overcomes all evil powers and also gives his disciples the power to withstand all hostile attacks (10:19). This authority is given to Jesus in the Holy Spirit. When he drives out demons by the "finger of God" and in this way the kingdom of God breaks in (11 :20), this means in fact nothing different from the Matthean version: "if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons" (Matt. 12:28).12 After the joyful determination that the demons are subject to the disciples who are sent out, there follows in Luke a cry of jubilation: in this very hour Jesus rejoices in the Holy Spirit and praises the Father because he has hidden this from the wise and the intelligent but revealed it to infants (10:21). This is the second passage that mentions Jesus' being filled with the Spirit. This passage is significant because Luke-in contrast to Matthew (11 :25-27)-puts Jesus' cry of jubilation into a historical situation in which the disciples report on their successful mission. For Luke they have overcome the powers of evil not out of their own strength but through the authority of Jesus bestowed upon them (10:19), and through healing the sick they have helped the kingdom of God break through (10:9). The joy that fills the disciples themselves is also the joy of Jesus. Concerning the disciples Luke adds here a saying that is certainly old that Matthew places elsewhere (Matt. 13:16-17): "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it" (Luke 10:23-24). This puts the success and the joy of the disciples into the history of salvation. In Jesus they experience the power of God and the presence of salvation. When Jesus' jubilation in the Holy Spirit is expressed, all previously reported deeds of Jesus-the healing of Peter's motherin-law (4:38-39), the healing of all the sick at the end of the day (4:40-41), the healing of the leper (5:12-16), the spiritual and bodily restoration of the paralytic (5:17-26), and the driving out of demons that occurs through Jesus and the disciples-are placed under the light of the Spirit at work in Jesus. The preaching of Jesus, however, also gives testimony to this. When he rejects the suspicions of his opponents (5:31-32; 6:1-5, 6-11) and develops his gospel of love and mercy in the "Sermon on the Plain" (6:20-49), we see the same picture of the Messiah as that already seen in Mark and Matthew. Now is the time when the wed-

137

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

ding guests do not fast but celebrate (5:34), and the Son of Man demonstrates himself as lord over the Sabbath (6:5), wants to save life (6:9), and even raises the dead (7:11-17; 8:49-56). Luke gathered all of this from the tradition available to him. Upon the Baptist's inquiry whether he is the one who is to come, Jesus refers to his deeds (7:22) with words that recall his opening speech in Nazareth. But what was announced in the initial sermon in Nazareth has in the meantime been fulfilled in Jesus' deeds and in his preaching of salvation to the poor, and therefore his cry of jubilation becomes understandable. The topic in these adopted reports is not the work of the Spirit in Jesus, but the statement "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me" (4:18) stands before them as a signpost that carries and determines the whole presentation. This whole event is to be explained on the basis of the anointment with the Spirit (Acts 10:38). Now Jesus becomes aware of this filling with the Spirit and effectiveness of the Spirit bestowed upon him, and he praises the Father who out of his hidden wisdom has bestowed this upon him. One can wonder why Luke does not tell even more often of the Spirit-driven work of Jesus. But this has to do with the tradition at his disposal, which described Jesus above all as the Son of God and Messiah. Moreover, Luke saves the full development of the Spirit for the age of the church. It is sufficient that after his exaltation the Jesus who was filled with the Spirit poured the Spirit over those who believed in him. During the time of his earthly life Jesus is the only one filled and driven by the Spirit; after his exaltation he receives the Spirit promised by the Father in order to pour out the Spirit on all who believe (Acts 2:33). Then, did he not possess the Spirit beforehand? The singular mode of expression is explained by the theocentric view that the Spirit must be given, and this precisely through the mediation of Jesus. If Jesus is to pass on this eschatological gift of salvation, he must have received it beforehand. Here it is no longer a question of the Spirit personally given to Jesus but the Spirit to be passed on to the community, the Spirit he administers as "Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36).13 All further assertions about the Spirit presuppose the outpouring of the Spirit in the early church. When according to Luke 11:13 those who confidently pray to the Father are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, this refers to the time when Christians, who are meant here in the addressing of the disciples ("you"), will pray to the Father

138

LUKE

(d. Acts 2:38; 4:31; 5:32). Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is emphatically distinguished from blasphemy against the Son of Man (12:10), no longer belongs in the time of the earthly Jesus (the "Son of Man") but in the time when the Christ exalted to God is knowable to all in his work through the Spirit.14 The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin to the extent that and as long as people deny the revelation of the Spirit in the utterances of the Spirit and Spirit-effected miracles of the early church or disown the Lord proclaimed in them (d. the strict saying in 12:8-9). The variously interpreted sayingl~ can be understood in the Lukan version (as opposed to Mark 3:28-30) only on the basis of the post-Easter situation of the early church as shaped by the Holy Spirit. It is an indication that for Luke the time of the Spirit does not begin until the gift of the Spirit that comes from the Father (24:49; Acts 1:8). The following saying about the support of the Spirit before judgment (12:12) presupposes the persecution situation of the early church, which in Acts is repeatedly described before Jewish and Gentile courts (d. 4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32; 7:51-53; 13:9-11; 18:9-10; chaps. 24, 26). In the Lukan interpretation, the saying at Jesus' death, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," following Ps. 31:5, is the last word of Jesus, which replaces the cry of godforsakenness. It is not the Holy Spirit that Jesus turns over to his Father but his human spirit, the expression of his person, which is wholly bound to God and secure in him. The Lukan presentation of Jesus' anointment and his mission in the Holy Spirit is carried through logically. Only in him is the fullness of the Spirit present, which makes possible his messianic teaching and doing. The disciples are granted, it is true, a share in the work of Jesus but not in the gift of the Spirit. It is rather a promise for the time when the resurrected and exalted One leaves the earth and from heaven continues and mightily develops his work in the Spirit. We must consider this drawing of Jesus as bearer of the Spirit a fundamental feature of the Lukan picture of Jesus.

2. The Prodaimer of the Gospel of Grace In the Nazareth pericope, after the reading of the scripture, Jesus proclaims: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (4:21), and the reaction of his listeners was amazement at the "gracious words that came from his mouth" (4:22). The "gracious words"

139

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

(d. Acts 14:3; 20:32) are not "charming words" but the promises of salvation sounded in vv. 18-19, which in a combination of Isaiah quotations (61:1-2; 58:6) are regarded as fulfilled. This announced salvation is fulfilled "today" in the person of Jesus and presses into the ears of the hearers in such a way that a reaction is provoked. What is disturbing is the "change of mood": at first the hearers seem to marvel at the "gracious words"; then comes a rejection because they think they recognize Jesus as Joseph's son. J. Jeremias avoids this change of mood in his notable interpretation: Jesus consciously broke off the quotation from Isa. 61:1-2 before the conclusion, "and the day of vengeance of our God," in order to emphasize only Jesus' work of salvation. The listeners are indignant about this and protest unanimously against his speaking only of the year of God's grace and shortening the scripture. l6 Yet it is doubtful whether one can understand emartyroun (''bore witness to") in other than a positive sense ("spoke well of" -NRSV), as the other occurrences in Luke suggest. l7 The offense is occasioned by the origins of Jesus, whom the Jews do not credit with such a knowledge of scripture and interpretation of the grace of God. Now, whether the reaction of the hearers is based on an initial agreement or on a rejection because of a message of salvation offensive to them, the "gracious words" are in any case central to the scene. In Jesus and in his word, the God who brings mercy and salvation is present. Similar to the sending in the Holy Spirit, this is a programmatic explanation that is reinforced by the continuing presentation of Jesus' words and deeds. Under this aspect everything Jesus says and does acquires its deeper meaning, and everything in Jesus' activity is reduced, so to speak, to a common denominator. It is like an "eschatological cry of jubilation of Jesus,"lS which also echoes in Luke 7:22-23 and perhaps, as Jeremias believes, even announces the beginning of the perfection of the world. To the question of the Baptist whether Jesus is the "one who is to come," Jesus answers with similar words from the book of Isaiah (7:22), but now with the indication that John's envoys have seen and heard what Jesus announced in 4:18: the blind see (d. 7:21), the lame walk (d. 5:17-26), lepers are cleansed (d. 5:12-16), the deaf hear, and the dead are raised (d. 7:11-17); above all, however, the gospel is proclaimed to the poor. This is a reference back to the Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49), in the beatitudes of which the poor are promised the kingdom of God

140

LUKE

(6:20). The turning point brought by God is also placed before the eyes of the hungry, the weeping, and the persecuted. The theme of grace echoes more than once in the Sermon on the Plain, even if in a hidden way. "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?" The term grace, usually translated in this context as "thank(s)" or "credit," is mentioned three times (6:32,33,34). Certainly we think at first of human behavior, but behind this passage is the idea of God, who breaks through the connection of doing good in order to receive good in return, loving in order to be loved in return, lending in order to receive everything back again. God is gracious (chrestos) toward those who are not, toward the acharistoi ("ungrateful," 6:35). These are linguistic echoes of the "grace of God" proclaimed by JeSUS. 19 The abundant, benevolent goodness of God is portrayed in the saying added by Luke: "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put in your lap" (6:38). Above all, however, the goodness of God is revealed in his mercy: "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (6:36). The pardoning of guilt, the forgoing of the deserved statement of condemnation is the grace of God, which Jesus proclaims to his hearers. In the context of Jesus' programmatic speech, which seeks to lead the disciples to doing what is good and willed by God, these sentences appear only as motivations, but they reveal the nature of God, who now, in the inbreaking kingdom of God, reveals in Jesus' word his love that exceeds all human attitudes and expectations. Grace (charis) is a favorite Lukan word that in accordance with the Greek meaning assumes various colorings, often in the sense of "favor, good will"; but the "grace of God" is even more: forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:43, cf. 13:38-39), message of salvation ("word of his grace," 14:3; cf. 20:24, 32). "We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (15:11). In terms of content this understanding is revealed more precisely through what Jesus can say of God's behavior and confirmed by his own behavior. Nowhere is the gospel of grace expressed more clearly than in the parable of the prodigal son, which one should call, rather, the parable of the exceedingly kind father (Luke 15:11-32). This story found in the middle of Luke's Gospel shows God as the kind and all-forgiving Father who, spontaneously and without condition, receives again the son who has gone astray, reinstates his full

141

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

rights of sonship, and substantiates his own action: "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!" (15:24, d. 32). With God there is great joy over the finding of the lost, as is also made vivid in the other two parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin (15:3-10). This joy of God's reflects Jesus' message of joy. The "year of the Lord's favor" (4:19) is a time of liberation and joy. The proclaiming angel already says to the shepherds in the fields: "I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord" (2:10). The joy announced here is fulfilled in the appearance of Jesus, who realizes God's will to salvation. All grace comes from God; all honor belongs to him, and from him comes peace among human beings (2:14). But bringing this peace of God to humankind is the task of the Savior sent by God. This includes, first, the forgiveness of sins, which is already proclaimed by John the Baptist (1:77) and practiced by Jesus in his earthly activity. The paralytic is first assured by Jesus: "Your sins are forgiven you" (5:20). In this story, which is already rooted in early tradition and links bodily healing with the forgiveness of sins,2o we can recognize the importance of the remission of sins for the salvation of human beings. The separation from God must be overcome through the forgiveness of sins before bodily healing can restore one's integrity as a human person. In the name of God, Jesus promises people the forgiveness of sins that comes from God. Luke devotes still more peri copes to this theme. A perfect example is Jesus' meeting with the penitent prostitute, who washes his feet with her tears and anoints them with oil (7:36-50). The Pharisee, who is indignant over the touching of Jesus by the sinful woman, is given a lesson: by the great love that this woman shows, one perceives how much she was wounded by her sins, but also how much she is transformed by the love given her by God in Christ. The love that she shows Jesus is her grateful answer to the gladdening experience of forgiven guilt. The situation probably had a prior history in which Jesus' forgiveness and loving acceptance of the woman was told. 21 Everything that the woman does happens out of gratitude for his deliverance from her shameful situation. Jesus justifies his allowing the woman her testimonies of love, the washing of his feet with her tears, and the anointment. The parable of the two debtors (7:41-42) is supposed to open the Pharisee's eyes to the woman's great love, which

142

LUKE

she shows to Jesus because of the forgiveness she has received. The parable does not fit well in the story because it presents the exhibited love as a consequence of the forgiveness, whereas according to the story itself the love is the basis of the forgiveness (v. 47a).22 Is her love thus the reason that God forgives her guilt, or is it this experienced forgiveness that ignites her love? This tension in the story probably originates from Luke's wish to present Jesus as the forgiver of sins, for in vv. 49-50, which were added by Luke, in the comments of the meal participants someone asks who this is who also forgives sins, and Jesus confirms that the woman's faith (in Jesus) saved her. The tension or "kink" in the story is described by H. Schiirmann: "In vs. 36-46, 47b, especially in the parable of vs. 41-42, Jesus makes his behavior in regard to the 'known' sinner understandable by pointing to the forgiveness of God and the reversal that results. This is and remains the basic meaning of the story. In v. 47a, by contrast, God has forgiven on the basis of the sinner's loving penitence presently shown in the dining room."23 One can also understand it, however, in the sense that the pardon granted by God impels the woman to a testimony of Jove for Jesus, who has promised her this forgiveness by God. Jesus reinforces her love and on that basis once again pledges her the forgiveness of her sins. She is dismissed in peace, as the healed woman who had hemorrhages experiences peace and the salvation of God (8:48 par. Mark/Matthew). Thus the grace of God that comes to humankind in the work of Jesus encompasses bodily healing and spiritual encouragement. For the paralytic the two are connected with each other. The inner healing, the restoration of personal dignity through grace and the forgiveness of sins, is also presented, along with the pericope of the loving sinful woman, in the story of Jesus' meeting with the chief tax collector Zacchaeus (19:1-10), which comes from Luke's special material. The despised tax collector experiences the joy of having Jesus enter his house; it is a gracious visitation by the one sent by God (d. 1:68--69, 78; 7:16; Acts 15:14). In this prophet God himself visits his people (Luke 7:16). No different is Jesus' meeting with the chief tax collector, to whom Jesus explains: "Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham" (19:9). The closing word (v. 10), which Luke adds, takes up the idea of the saving of the lost (d. 15:6, 10,24,32). With the penitent sinful woman and the chief tax collector Zac-

143

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

chaeus, however, the obligation to reciprocal love and rehabilitation resulting from the grace of God is also clear. The rich chief tax collector gives half of his possessions to the poor and pays back his frauds fourfold (19:8). It is his answer to visitation by God shared with him, which reintegrates him into the people of Abraham. The picture of the benevolent Jesus granting healing and salvation includes his requirement of gratitude and appropriate deeds (see also 17:11-19). At the end of Jesus' enumerated deeds of salvation we read: "And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me" (7:23). Jesus also warns against misusing the experienced grace of God (d. 8:11-15), a warning that is directed toward the later church. The Lukan Jesus draws consequences from this for dealing with earthly possessions (d. 12:16-21; 16:19-21), the renouncing of riches, and the sharing of earthly possessions with the poor (11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22). One more thing must be mentioned in the proclamation of salvation by the Lukan Jesus: the inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation announced by Jesus. Here Luke could begin with the sayings of Jesus that already appear in the Markan and Matthean traditions (d. Mark 7:27-29; 13:10; Matt. 8:10-11). But Luke has reinforced the vision of the conversion of non-Jews already recognizable in Matthew (d. Matt. 2:1-12; 4:15; 28:19). In the childhood stories, the salvation of the nations is linked with the deliverance of Israel. In Jesus the old man Simeon has seen the salvation of God, which he has "prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles" (1:31-32). This is a reference to the prophecy of the servant of God (Isa. 42:6; 49:6, 9), who is a light to the nations. Israel's preeminence is prpserved, but God's light extends beyond Israel to the nations. 24 In the saying about the people who come from east and west (Luke: and from north and south) and eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29), the confrontation with unbelieving Israel is greater. The Jews who reject Jesus will see themselves excluded from table fellowship with the patriarchs (Luke: and the prophets, 13:28), but the Gentiles will be included. Luke adds the wandering saying: the last-for him the called Gentiles-will be the first, and the first, the Jews, will be the last (13:30). Into the Baptist's proclamation is inserted: "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (3:6; d. Isa. 40:5). Also the tracing of Jesus' genealogy back to Adam (3:38) reveals a universalist tendency: Jesus is the Redeemer of humankind. In the

144

LUKE

Nazareth pericope Jesus calls the attention of the Jews denying him to the pagan widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian (4:25-27), whom God offers care and healing. Present at the Lukan sermon on the mount are many people not only from all Judea and Jerusalem but also from the coastal region ofTyre and Sidon (6:17; cf. Mark 3:8), whereas Matthew does not name these Gentile regions (Matt. 4:25). In the abundant catch of fish (5: 1-11) Luke is probably also thinking of Gentiles among the people that Peter will catch. With the sending out of the seventy (or seventy-two) disciples (Luke 10:1), in distinction to the sending of the twelve to Israel (9:1-6), Luke opens a universal dimension, although Luke 10 also takes place entirely in the Palestinian, Jewish Christian milieu. But the number (seventy or seventy-two) might refer to the list of peoples in Genesis 10: "In the sending out the universal mission to the nations is modeled";25 it is an advance presentation of the future mission, which is also supported by the saying on diScipleship and the idea of the proclaiming the basileia. A further preview of the Gentile mission is found in the parable of the great dinner, for the second sending out of the servant to the people on the roads (14:23) gives this view. After the calling of the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame, who are close to Luke's heart (14:21), comes the solicitation of those at a distance and those who have left home, which Luke tendentiously brings in regarding the mission among the Gentiles. Finally, we can also presume an allusion to the Gentiles in the saying of the parable of the wicked tenants that the lord will give the vineyard to others (20:16), but Luke did not emphasize or interpret this already present saying (Mark 12:9) as Matthew did. On the whole, Luke did not disturb the memory of the mission of Jesus limited to Israel but only extended the view to the calling of the Gentiles where it seemed to him possible. Only the resurrected One says to the disciples that the proclamation in Jesus' name goes to all nations; they should repent for the forgiveness of sins (24:47). This program is then developed in the Acts of the Apostles in the missionary activity of the early church.

3. The Savior, Messiah, and Lord Presented to the Jews and Greeks If one would like to find a comprehensive characterization of Jesus that expresses his sal vific significance, then for Luke the angel's mes-

145

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

sage in 2:11 is an obvious possibility: "To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord." The articleless soter ("Savior") is to be understood in a decisive, titular sense. 26 The added predicates christos kyrios also are without article and are nonetheless coined expressions. The designation (ho) soter is used four times in the Lukan double volume (Luke 1:47; 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23), once for God (Luke 1:47), three times for Jesus. According to Acts 5:31 God exalted the crucified One to his right hand as "Leader" and "Savior" in order to give Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins. According to Acts 13:23 God sent Jesus to Israel as Savior from David's race, as he promised. In the Jewish context the Savior is seen as the promised offshoot of David who is to redeem his people; he thereby takes over the salvific function of Yahweh, on whom the godly place their hope (1:47, 69-70, 71, 74). This picture of the Savior Jesus fits into the angel's message exactly. The Savior expected from God is born "this day" here in Bethlehem, the city of David. Yet the title Savior is striking, for it does not occur in the other synoptists, and only in the late scriptures, especially the pastoral letters, does it become prominent, in reference both to God (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) and to Jesus Christ (Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:10). But the Hellenist Luke, profoundly familiar with the Septuagint, chose this title to capture in words the fundamental and comprehensive announcement of the bringer of salvation. God is named as Savior (sOter) relatively often in the Septuagint, though mostly in personal prayer (limy Savior").27 But Isa. 45:15, "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, 0 God of Israel, the Savior," is a fundamental assertion that in the context stands out even more (d. 45:21-22, 24). In 1 Macc. 4:30 God is praised as the Savior of Israel. Also in Philo, God is often placed in the semantic field of saving. 28 Now, when Luke calls the newborn child soter, behind this may be the idea that God proves his saving power in the newborn child. Through the shepherds the people of Israel ("all the people") are addressed; in Jesus Christ, God is the Savior of Israel. Yet the abundant occurrence of the soter title in the Greco-Roman world must also be considered. Gods, rulers, philosophers, statesmen, and even phYSicians are called "savior."29 Thus with this title Luke probably also wants to take advantage of this widespread linguistic usage. Even Emperor Augustus is called sOter and theos,30 and since the Christmas story might set the weak child born in the city of

146

LUKE

David over against the mighty ruler of the Roman Empire, the term Savior also accentuates as the true Savior the son of David who surpasses the emperor. Then, however, he is presented as "the Messiah, the Lord." Messiah (christos) takes up the Jewish idea of the "anointed One," the coming king of salvation. The "Savior" is incorporated into Jewish salvation-historical thinking and protected from accommodation to the cult of the emperor. For Jesus is the Christ foretold in the scripture (Acts 18:28), and this has become the leading title for the person, way, and destiny of Jesus. The "anointed One of the Lord" or the "anointed One of God" (d. Luke 2:26; 9:20) is quite simply Jesus. 31 One must therefore assume that the "Savior" has connections with both Jewish tradition and Hellenistic conceptions. 32 When "who is the Messiah, the Lord" is added, this is meaningful to both Jews and Gentiles. A redactional addendum is not to be assumed because a pre-Lukan statement on the "Savior" cannot be detected}3 Rather, we may assume that the principle background was Isa. 9:6-7: "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us ... " and that Luke replaced the following predications of the child with "the Messiah, the Lord."34 Lord and Messiah are linked together in 2:36, and Lord again emphasizes ruler status in Jewish and Hellenistic contexts. For both potential groups of readers the angel's announcement becomes quite understandable. "For Jewish readers ho christos was unambiguous in the Bethlehem complex; for the Greek, ho kyrios fulfilled the same role."35 In seeking the full semantic content of this threefold predication, we will first compare Savior here with the other occurrences in the Lukan work. In Acts 5:31 the title is used together with Leader, and this Leader is called "Author of life" in 3:15 [archegon; d. KJV: "Prince / Prince of life" - Trans.l. In both passages the context is Jesus' crucifixion and death. "And you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead" (3:15), and this very one who was once hung on the cross was exalted by God "at his right hand as Leader and Savior" (5:31). An exact analysis of 3:15 shows that Jesus is introduced to his Jewish hearers as messianic Leader. With Jesus' resurrection the messianic age of salvation has dawned. The hearers live in "these days" (v. 24) of the end time and are referred to the expectation of the Parousia of the leader Christ. 36 In 5:31 the idea is added that the Leader and Savior Jesus is to give Israel the remission

147

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

of sins. In this function of awakening penitence and granting the forgiveness of sins, the "Savior" becomes the liberator from slavery and the distress of human life. The forgiveness of sins is the beginning of the way to life with God, and Jesus has opened up this way. In the speech in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16-41) the whole salvation history of Israel through Jesus is presented, and then it states that from David's posterity God, as he promised, has brought (or in another reading: raised) to Israel a Savior Jesus (v. 23). Here too the motif of the leader of salvation is to be seen: Jesus moves beyond death to the resurrection (vv. 27-30) and is now proclaimed as the mediator of the forgiveness of sins (vv. 38--39). It is the same idea that Matthew attaches to the name of Jesus: he will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). Thus the redemption event is presupposed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus; the perspective is post-Easter, even eschatological (d. Acts 3:19-21). But in Luke 2:11 the future Savior is already emphasized in the present; the birth of Jesus comes "today." "What the early apostolic kerygma saw realized in proclamation with the coming of Jesus ... is now meditated back and dated back into the event of his birth."37 The title Christ (Messiah), which comes out of the Jewish tradition, is for Luke closely connected with the royal status God bestows upon him. God made him his anointed One and his ambassador (d. 4:18). Jesus is the Lord's Messiah (2:26), in Peter's confession, the "Messiah of God" (9:20). In him all the strength and power of God is present and at work. Healings occur in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:6; 4:10; 9:34; 16:18). It is even more important that for the early church the power of God and his anointed One is also visible in external activity. In the prayer of thanksgiving for the release of Peter and John, Ps. 2: 1-2 is quoted: "The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah" (Acts 4:26), but God wrecks all their plans. Hence the church prays: " ... stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus" (4:30). The Gospel already anticipates this powerful work of the Messiah of God. In his earthly life, however, Jesus and his divine claim to power confront unbelieving Jewish leaders. They accuse him before Pilate of perverting the people, keeping them from paying taxes to the emperor, and claiming to be Christ the king (Luke 23:2). This fOCUSing

148

LUKE

of the Messiah title on the "King of the Jews" (23:37, 38) is part of the Lukan tendency to juxtapose Jesus' kingdom, which comes from God (19:38), with the political kingdom, on account of which he is condemned to death.3~ The Messiah of God whom Peter confesses (9:20) falls between the grinding stones of hateful enemies and political powers. In the mocking by the Jewish leaders (23:35) Luke uses the expression, "the Messiah of God, his chosen one," and then "the Messiah" again in the mockery by one of those also crucified (23:39). The one anointed by God is rejected by human opponents. This sharp juxtaposition gives us a look into the deeper understanding of Messiah in Luke: he comes from God and is provided by God with higher status, even if this leads to rejection and resistance. Although Jesus is seen as the expected king of salvation, another idea dominates the Lukan presentation: the suffering and dying Messiah. Here the teaching of the Emmaus disciples is characteristic: "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" (24:26). This "necessity" for Luke is grounded in the scripture: "Thus it is written that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day" (24:46). Which scripture passage he has in mind remains uncertain, but the statement is in harmony with the old formula of faith in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.39 From the early apostolic kerygma Luke adopted the idea of the suffering Messiah, for which there is no precedent in Judaism. It is the Christian Messiah that Luke proclaims: the one who moves through suffering and death to the resurrection and exaltation to God. Thus Luke adopts the early church tradition and theology of the "Son of Man" and integrates it into his picture of the Messiah. In response to the council member's question whether he is the Messiah, Jesus answers in a way similar to the account in Mark, with a view of the Son of Man who will be seated at the right hand of the power of God (22:69), without mentioning his coming in the clouds of heaven (cf. 21:27). The Messiah is the exalted Son of Man, even now, and he is also the Son of God (22:30). With this the two leading predicates Son of God and Son of Man are adopted into Luke's picture of the Messiah. That the Messiah must suffer is also further emphasized in the Acts of the Apostles (3:18; 17:3; 26:23), yet always with the added testimony to his resurrection. The Christ title summarizes the Christ proclamation of the early church; therefore, in the angel's proclamation, "the Messiah, the Lord," we must also hear the resonating tones

149

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

of the dying and rising Christ. The emphasis, however, lies on the salvation brought by this Messiah, on the forgiveness of sins, and on the peace of God thereby given (2:14). Is the Messiah also connected with the Parousia? For this there is a characteristic assertion in Acts 3:20-21: " ... so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration." The passage stands in the context of a challenge to repentance given to Israel, and this is in the post-Easter situation in which Israel has already rejected its Messiah, who had to suffer (v. 18). Since the Jews acted "in ignorance," they are now again offered an opportunity for repentance. They too can still be freed from all sins in order to participate in the "times of refreshing," the final age of salvation. God will then send them the foreordained Messiah, who has been taken up into heaven but will return in the end. Thus the Messiah Jesus is still expected as the one who is to come for the salvation of Israel if Israel will still turn to faith in this Messiah foreordained for it. This singular manner of expression has led to various interpretations of the Christo logy revealed here. It has been suggested that here an original Elijah expectation has been transferred to Christ. 4o It has even been thought that one can perceive the oldest and most primitive Christology, in which Jesus is only the Messiah designate who is appointed in advance and installed only in the end (at the Parousia).41 The text, however, does not say that the Messiah will not be installed in his messianic function until the end, but rather that he is presented to the Jews only as the Messiah intended for them for repentance and forgiveness of sins, who as such is already there. He is not standing in the waiting room; rather, the waiting Jews are challenged to open themselves to the Messiah who stands ready in the present and will one day come. 42 Thus Jesus is claimed as the Messiah for all phases of his journey. Already at his birth he is the Messiah (2:11; d. 1:35). In his earthly life he performs his messianic deeds (4:21, 41; 7:20-23) and is confessed by Peter as the Messiah of God (9:20). As the Messiah he goes his way to death, which leads to the resurrection (24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23), and God made the resurrected One Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36); he is proclaimed as such (8:5; 9:22; 18:5, 28) and effects healings and miracles. As the one who is glorified and who judges, he will

150

LUKE

come again one day (3:20-21; d. 1:11). Thus, when the apostles unceasingly teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah (5:42), the whole journey of Jesus Christ is included, and in this view the name Jesus Christ becomes the expression of his salvation-bringing activity (2:38; 4:10, 12; 8: 12; 10:36,48; 15:26; 16:18). The "Messiah" (Christ) is assumed and incorporated into the name of Jesus and completely fused with it. The third expression, the Lord, again has connections with Judaism and with the Hellenistic world. The connection with Judaism, where Yahweh is often called Lord, is the stronger one. Even if one can no longer assert that through the LXX translation "the Lord" (ho kyrios) replaced the name Yalrweh,43 the frequent designation of God as Lord is striking even in the Lukan writings. In the context of the Christmas story alone there are statements that speak of God as Lord. The angel of the Lord comes to the shepherds; the glory of the Lord shone around them (2:9). After the appearance the shepherds say: "Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing ... which the Lord has made known to us" (2:15). Hence the designation of the newborn child as Lord is striking. Among the twenty-eight places where kyrios is used in the childhood stories, the term clearly refers to Jesus only in 2:11 and 1:43 (Mary, "the mother of my Lord") and perhaps also in 1:76: John "will go before the Lord to prepare his ways." This is frequently interpreted to mean God, the Lord whom John precedes and prepares the way for, yet in Luke's sense, John can also be called here the forerunner of Jesus. 44 The saying about the newborn Savior, who is Messiah and Lord, stands, however, in the broader perspective of Jesus' appearance, and if we look at the whole Gospel, the kyrios designation of Jesus is quite prominent throughout. In addition to the addressing of Jesus as "Lord," which could also be a term of politeness, Jesus is often introduced in the narrative context as "the Lord."45 The Easter message says: "The Lord has risen indeed" (24:34). Above all, from the resurrection of Jesus it is concluded, following Ps. 110:1: God has made him Lord and (in this very way) Messiah, the salvationbringing Redeemer (Acts 2:36). Thus Lord is, on the whole, a designation of majesty, which is also seen in contrast to earthly lords. At one point the emperor, the imperial majesty (Sebastos), to whom Paul appeals, is called "Lord" (Acts 25:25-26). It is confirmed that the Kyrios in the angel's message

151

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

is also in this context and has a special resonance for Hellenist readers. "The Lord" is not only the co-occupant on the throne of God (cf. Luke 20:42-43) but also the one against whom the kings of earth and the rulers rise up in vain (d. Acts 4:26) and before whom the emperor's grandeur pales. Furthermore, we must emphasize that Jesus Christ the Lord, despite his divine status, remains subordinate to God the Lord. In Luke's theocentric view, Jesus receives his throne from God the Lord (Luke 1:32), remains the "Lord's Messiah" (2:26), and is installed by God in his position as messianic ruler (Acts 2:34, 36). God remains the real Lord and God (Luke 1:68; 4:8,12; Acts 2:39; 3:22). As close as Jesus is to God the Father, the latter still remains the "Lord of heaven and earth," and Jesus the one to whom all things are handed over by his Father (Luke 10:21). Jesus' authority comes from heaven (d. 20:3-9), and the lordship that Jesus will exercise is conferred on him by his Father (22:29). Thus, if the Christ proclamation is summarized in the announcement in the shepherds' field, the question is whether there are still other expressions of it. In harmony with the Markan-Matthean tradition, Son of God is adopted as a characteristic understanding of Jesus and given a deeper basis in the proclamation to Mary (1 :32, 35). Otherwise Luke follows the remaining testimonies from the Synoptic tradition: at Jesus' baptism (3:22), at the temptation (4:3, 9), in the utterances of the possessed (4:42; 8:28), at the transfiguration (9:35), in the cry of jubilation (10:22), and in the procedure before the council (22:70). The confession to the Son of God is further echoed in Acts (thus in the uncertain passage 8:37; also in 9:20). Unique is the substantiation of Jesus' resurrection with the saying from Ps. 2:7 in Acts 13:33: "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." Does this not equate the initiation of divine sonship with the resurrection of Jesus? How does this initiation agree with the divine sonship of Jesus that already existed on earth? Yet if we read the passage in connection with the speech to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch, we see that the Psalm quotation understands Jesus' resurrection as a soteriological event that confirms Jesus' work of salvation through the resurrection. 46 The quotation refers to the outcome of Jesus' journey, which releases all the gifts of salvation that were promised to David (13:34): forgiveness of sins and justification by God (13:38-39). The resurrection of Jesus is the place where Jesus' divine sonship is revealed in

152

LUKE

its saving power. In this sense the passage is a continuation of the angel's announcement in Luke 1:32-33 and a christological assertion comparable with Rom. 1:3-4. According to the latter formula, after resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ was declared the "Son of God with power" according to the Holy Spirit. For Luke there is no contradiction in saying that Jesus was already Messiah on earth and yet was made Lord and Messiah only through the resurrection; the same is true in speaking of the Son of God. A further Messiah title is the "servant of God." The term related to Israel in Luke 1:54 and David in 1:69 (also Acts 4:25) is transferred to Jesus in Acts (3:13, 26; 4:27,30). Although a recalling of the suffering and atoning servant of God in Isaiah 53 certainly cannot be demonstrated (Acts 3:13 refers to the glorified servant of God according to Isa. 53:12), the idea of the servant of God songs probably stands in the background. 47 It is an old, perhaps liturgically used Christ designation, which is applied here to the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14), to the Moses-like prophet (3:22-23), and to the holy servant Jesus, whom God anointed (4:27, 30). Luke adopted such predications occurring in the early church and used them in his Christ proclamation. Yet because of the connection with God, the lowly servant of God is raised up as a majestic figure, and he becomes the Christ who overcomes his enemies. With this ancient expression Luke encompasses Jesus' whole salvation-historical journey.48 Also the "Holy One" and the "Righteous One" (Acts 3:14) could be older Christ designations. Already on the lips of the demon, Jesus is the "Holy One of Israel" (Luke 4:34), and in John 6:69 the "Holy One of God" stands for the Messiah. The coming of the "Righteous One" is traced back to Old Testament prophecy (Acts 7:52; 22:14). Luke draws on the treasury of Old Testament-Christian Messiah designations and lets them be heard when opportunity arises. On the whole, Luke is strongest in the messianic expectation developed on the basis of the Old Testament, with all the aspects that can be thereby gained. He grasped the wealth of christological confessions of the early church and incorporated them into his Christo logy, which is based on the history of salvation. Luke oriented his picture of the Messiah not only on the earthly appearance of Jesus, like Mark, and not only in interaction with Jewish conceptions, like Matthew, but also in the broad perspective of the Jewish-Hellenistic environment as it presented itself in the ongoing era of early Christianity.

153

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

From many sources he assembled for the third generation after Christ a picture of the Messiah that could also light the church's way in to the future.

4. The Exalted Lord Who Went to God through Death and Resurrection Luke's tracing of Jesus' journey in sequential phases corresponds to his view of salvation history. The various stages are his earthly activity, which leads to Jerusalem, the city of God; his death on the cross; his resurrection and ascension; and his installation at God's right hand (his "exaltation"). From there and from then on, he becomes the guide for his church, which he leads in the Holy Spirit to the attainment of the goal of salvation for all believers, until he comes again at the end as Judge and Finisher. This journey of Jesus, which for his earthly activity is described in the Gospel, is reflected in the speeches of Acts. 49 We can begin with them to survey the history of salvation from the end, as it were: from the work of the exalted Lord. In Peter's Pentecost sermon we read: "You who are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know-this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death" (Acts 2:22-24). The powerful activity of Jesus the Nazorean, with signs and wonders, is thus presupposed and preserved, but this time of attestation by God is set over against the shameful death on the cross, which God again turns around through the resurrection of Jesus. This is the general outline of Jesus' journey, which can now be surveyed after his resurrection. Yet the scope of Jesus' earthly activity, which is already known to the hearers of the Pentecost sermon ("as you yourselves know"), is developed in the Gospel presentation, and thus we can draw on the Gospel for details. Yet in the Gospel there are already frequent previews of Jesus' suffering and death,SO as well as his resurrection and glorification. 51 In both works Jesus' way, begun by John the Baptist (Luke 3:1-20; Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24), is uniformly described as a path to the cross and resurrection. Yet the work of the Christ exalted to God first becomes prominent in the

154

LUKE

speeches of Acts. The transformation of the earthly Jesus into the exalted Christ is the aim of the Gospel presentation (Luke 24:46-48) and the starting point of Acts (1 :4-8). For Luke this transformation takes place in Jesus' ascension (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11), so that in Jesus' return to the Father we find the turning point in Jesus' career. For the Lukan \\lork the "ascension" of Jesus is an important means of presentation in expressing the continuity of Jesus' life as well as the difference of his effectiveness. 52 Hence we do not want to examine all the salvation-historical phases but only to consider more closely what was important to Luke: the way through suffering and death to glorification (Luke 24:26).

a. The journey to Jerusalem Here Luke writes programmatically right from the beginning: "When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem" (9:51). Does the "taking up" announce Jesus' death or his ascension? According to the same expression in Acts 1:2, 11, 22, we must think of the ascension, yet with the presupposition of his death, for Jesus' journey to Jerusalem leads first to his death (Luke 13:33; 18:31-33), and only then does the resurrection come into view. Thus the "days" (plural!) of his being taken up include death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. These are the crucial days according to God's plan of salvation. Jesus recognized this divine "must" (9:22; 17:25) and made God's will his own. Until then Jesus "must" be on his way (poreuesthai) and bring his work to a close: casting out demons and healing sick people (13:33).53 Here Jerusalem is emphasized as the goal of Jesus' wandering. "Resolutely" he turned his face in that direction, and the travel report describes the approach to the city of God. Approximately in the middle of the travel report Luke calls attention again to the journey to Jerusalem, from town to town and village to village (13:22). Jesus rejects the request of the Pharisees, whether intended benevolently or maliciously, that he leave the territory of Herod Antipas (13:31-33); without wavering, he goes his way toward Jerusalem. Then follows more information about his wandering toward Jerusalem "through the region between Samaria and Galilee" (literally, through the middle of Samaria and Galilee; 17:11)-only a vague allusion to the route because of the evangelist's lack of geographical knowledge. 54

155

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Finally we must consider the end of the travel report. The Lukan insertion into the Markan presentation of the journey up to Jerusalem-the "great parenthesis" ---extends, literarily speaking, only to 18:14. The expansion of the travel report to 19:27 (to the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem) is based on further travel notes (18:31, 35; 19:1,11), but it does not entirely fulfill Luke's narrative intention. For he obviously wants not to end the journey with the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (19:28) but to reach the goal with Jesus' activity in Jerusalem and in the temple, that is, at least at 19:48 or 20:1. The approach to Jerusalem (17:11; 18:31, 35; 19:1, 11,28,37-41) moves on to the cleansing of the temple (19:45) and Jesus' teaching in the temple (19:47) in his activity in the holy city and thus marks the goal of the whole journey. This has consequences for Lukan theology. The temple in Jerusalem, the shrine of the people of God, is the place where Jesus fulfills the commission given to him by God, but also where he meets the stiffest resistance from the unbelieving Jewish leaders. Already in the childhood stories, the temple is seen as the place where God reveals himself (1 :9-22), where prophetically endowed people announce the Messiah (2:25-38), where the twelve-year-old Jesus sits among the teachers and explains to his parents: "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (2:41-50). Even in the last days of his activity Jesus was in the temple daily, teaching (21:37; 22:53). The temple is a holy place, but through the behavior of the temple authorities the house of prayer has become a den of robbers, and Jesus drives out the traders from the temple district (19:45-46). He announces the destruction of the temple (21:5-6; d. Acts 6:14). These sayings are handed down by Matthew and Mark; a peculiarity of Luke is that the curtain of the temple is torn before Jesus' death (23:45); this is surely understood as a sign of disaster, whereas in Matthew and Mark the tearing of the temple curtain may point to other symbolic traits (opening for a new worship of God, the salvation of all people).55 The old temple has lost its significance, but for Luke, thinking of the Christian church, a new temple has come into being: the disciples, to whom the resurrected Lord appeared, return to Jerusalem after Jesus' ascension and are then constantly in the shrine praising God (24:53). This is at the same time a transition to the practice of the young church of gathering again and again in the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1), es-

156

LUKE

pecially in Solomon's Portico (3:11; 5:12). In the temple the apostles proclaim the gospel (15:20) and teach the people (5:42). Yet they do not participate in the cult sacrifice but hold their own festal meal in remembrance of Jesus (the "breaking of the bread," 2:42). In the Jewish shrine there arises, as it were, a new communion of prayer and worship. The continuity with the old temple is preserved and yet in faith in Jesus Christ something new is initiated. As Jesus' journey up to Jerusalem leads ever closer to the holy city and reaches its goal in the temple, so the new community goes out from Jerusalem and maintains the connection with the temple, yet in a new way that is characterized by the proclamation of the gospel. Then in Stephen's speech the significance of the temple is completely depreciated (Acts 7:47-50). The whole journey to Jerusalem is a presentation directed kerygmatically toward the new community of salvation, which also in the individual peri copes repeatedly turns its attention to the wandering people of God.

b. Passion and resurrection Jesus' death on the cross, which has been fixed according to the will of God (Luke 9:22), is starkly juxtaposed in the Lukan work with the resurrection accomplished by God. Through the hands of the godless, the Jews have slain Jesus and offered him on the cross, but God freed him from the pains of death and resurrected him (Acts 2:24,31-32; 3:15, 26; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; 17:3). This event is reinforced by Jesus' prediction (Luke 24:6-8) and attested by various scriptural quotations. First, the Pentecost sermon of Peter draws on Psalm 16 LXX (Acts 2:25-28,31), a scriptural reference probably discovered by Luke: "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption." When this psalm predicts that God will not let his Holy One experience corruption, this cannot refer to David, because he died and was buried. Therefore, in accordance with Nathan's promise (2 Sam. 7:12-13), the psalm is related to the promised Davidic Messiah. Through a new scriptural saying, this prediction of the ongoing life of the one who died (2:28) is immediately connected with the announcement of the exaltation of Jesus and his installation at God's right hand. Cited for this purpose is Ps. 110:1, which is especially important for the early church (2:34). When the early church addresses Jesus as the "Lord," it follows that God has made him Lord and Messiah (2:36). Jesus' glorification is not

157

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

completed with the resurrection; he still must be installed in his heavenly position of power (cf. the following section). A further scriptural proof is attached to the promise of a prophet like Moses (3:22-26). It is true that the resurrection of Jesus is not directly "proved" here, for the "raising up" of the prophet (3:22) means his being sent by God (3:26), but since in the meantime heaven has received this prophet (3:21), the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus are nonetheless presupposed. The eschatological prophet is none other than the crucified and resurrected Jesus (cf. also 7:37). Also in other places this prophet typology gives considerable character to Luke's Christology.56 Finally, we find notable argumentation resting on the scripture in the speech in Pisidian Antioch (13:33-35). In addition to the proof from Psalm 16 (13:35-37) already familiar from the Pentecost speech, we have here surprisingly another reference to Ps. 2:7: "You are my Son; today I have begotten you" (13:33), and a recalling of the saying in Isa. 55:3: "1 will give you the holy promises [ta hosiaJ made to David" (13:34). One must see the inner relationship of the three scriptural quotations, Ps. 2:7; Isa. 55:3; and Ps. 16:10. The promise of God (13:32) is fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, whom God thereby appoints as his Son in order to fulfill the covenantal promises given to David. The actual "proof" for the resurrection of Jesus rests, as in 2:25-28, on Ps. 16:10. In order to emphaSize the salvific significance of this event, however, the other scriptural texts are also cited. "We are standing here at the beginning of all resurrection theology, which by its origin is nothing other than reflection on the New Testament fulfillment in light of the Old Testament promise."S? The quotations from Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 55:3 seek to place before the addressed hearers the function of Jesus, the resurrected One, as God's central salvation-historical instrument for achieving full salvation. 58 The topic in Isa. 55:3 is the covenant with David; the quotation in Acts 13:34 puts the emphasis on the promises of salvation given by God, which remain reliable and are fulfilled in that God did not let his Holy One experience corruption (l3:35). Because Jesus is not subject to transitoriness and corruptibility, he can also convey divine life to those who follow him. He becomes the" Author of life" (3:15). The good side of life is often mentioned: "the whole message about this life" (5:20); "repentance that leads to life" (11:18); "as many as had

158

LUKE

been destined for eternal life" became believers (13:48). These may have been the holy promises made to David. 59 The turning from death to resurrection and life, which is achieved through God's will and power, is extremely important to Luke. Again and again in this regard he relies on the testimony of those who have seen the resurrected One and eaten with him (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:40-42; 13:31-32). The journey to Jerusalem thus becomes the crucial turning point in Jesus' salvational-historical career. Jerusalem is the place where prophets are killed and also where Jesus dies this kind of death (Luke 13:33, 34), but Jerusalem is also the city in which God resurrects his Messiah. This is underlined by the fact that in Luke all appearances of the resurrected One occur in or near Jerusalem. Luke knows of no return to Galilee; here he consciously deviates from Matthew. The focus is not on Galilee as the home of the gospel but on Jerusalem as the place where Jesus' way continues and the new community of salvation gathers. The Mount of Olives near Jerusalem is also the place of Jesus' ascension. Still other tendencies permeate the Lukan passion story: the sparing of the Romans, declarations of innocence for Jesus (Luke 23:4, 14-15, 22). The Gentile centurion confesses under the cross: "Certainly this man was righteous" (23:47) and thereby reinforces Jesus' innocence. Jesus is the martyr who is mocked (23:35, 36-37), but he promises the penitent criminal entry into paradise (23:43) and prays for his enemies (23:34).60 Even into his last hours he turns God's ideas into reality and gives himself entirely into the hands of his Father (23:46). Jesus is surrounded by a great crowd of people (23:27) and teaches the weeping daughters of Jerusalem (23:28-31), but all those known to him stand by him, especially the women. In this way Luke gives a preview of the Christian community that gathers after Easter (23:49). Jesus' edifying traits of piety and strength in suffering become a model for later Christians and the first martyr (Stephen: Acts 7:54-60; the apostles: 5:40-41). All of this fits into the picture of the Jesus who works in public, who is merciful, and yet who resolutely represents God's concern, and it is incorporated into the post-Easter view. [n retrospect Jesus' passion seems to be the necessary consequence of the increasingly acute situation and the confirmation of the prophecy repeatedly given by Jesus of the obstinacy of Israel and his own resulting fate. On the whole, the Lukan passion story is quite similar to a report

159

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

of a martyrdom. "Yet Jesus is more than a model. He has gone his way in advance and prepared and opened up this way for the disciples."61 If we remain with the image of the way, the way of the suffering Jesus who bears the cross and finally bleeds on the cross is the most striking and also the one that points the way for the church. As the Messiah had to suffer and thus enter into his glory (Luke 24:26), so also must his followers enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions (Acts 14:22). c. Ascension and installation at God's right hand

A special view of Luke's is the transition from Jesus' resurrection to the heavenly enthronement. For forty days after the resurrection Jesus appeared to the apostles and spoke with them about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). Thus the instructions of the earthly Jesus continue after the resurrection. These days after the resurrection are a time of waiting for the promised Holy Spirit, who finally descends on the disciples on Pentecost, fifty days after the resurrection (2:1-4). This "in between time" after the resurrection and before the ascension and outpouring of the Spirit can be explained only by Luke's periodizing salvation-historical thinking. The interim is important to him to demonstrate the continuity of the Jesus period with the church. It is a continuity in the schema of space-namely, in Jerusalem-and a continuity in the schema of time: the forty days.62 Finally, the "witnesses" are bearers of the continuity.63 At the boundary of the time of Jesus and the time of the church stands the ascension of Jesus, which has long caused difficulties in understanding. Why does Luke tell this event in the form of a rapture, whose content, however, is a salvation-historical event that is of greater significance and comprehendible only in faith? This return of Jesus to his Father, which at the same time opens the age of the church with the corning of the Spirit, is the actual boundary between salvation-historical periods. Why does the Gospel close with Jesus' ascension and the Acts of the Apostles begin with the same event now reported in more detail? Luke adopted the form of a rapture from Old Testament and Jewish texts (ascension of Enoch, of Elijah, of Ezra and Baruch, of Moses) but also from ascensions in Greco-Roman antiquity.64 It is an expression of the "exaltation" of Jesus as the ruling Messiah and throne companion of God. The previously occurring appearances of Jesus to

160

LUKE

the apostles end the period of his earthly perceptibility, but Jesus' ascension does not have only the sense of describing one last appearance of the resurrected One. For it is also supposed to point to the return of Jesus in the Parousia, the final salvation-historical event that is the ultimate aim of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation (Acts 1:11; 3:19-21; 10:42; 17:31).05 Because of the delay in the imminent expectation, the Parousia is not at the center of Lukan thinking, but the journey of Jesus Christ cannot be imagined without it. The return of Jesus from heaven, which is announced at the ascension and will occur "in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (1:11), is not only a traditional motif but also essential for the proclamation of Christ, as the parables of the Parousia in the Gospel of Luke also show. Thus the ascension becomes an antitype of the Parousia, an anticipation of the latter event. First, however, the ascension must be seen in its significance for the disciples remaining on earth and for the church, which must go its way in this time and complete its missionary tasks. The Lord who was taken up into heaven is not far from the church and is still linked with it through the outpouring of the Spirit. Exalted to the right hand of God, Christ receives the promised Spirit and pours the Spirit over the believers (Acts 2:33). The ascension is supposed to form the boundary of Jesus' work and at the same time mark the transition into a new way of working. Yet how are Jesus' resurrection and ascension related to the exaltation to God's right hand? Is the resurrection of Jesus as release from the bonds of death to be separated from the heavenly enthronement? Some exegetes hold that one must distinguish the resuscitation of Jesus, through which he enters a new life, from his installment in power with God. 66 This is contradicted by M. R-J. Buss in regard to Acts 13:33.67 Actually, the resurrection of Jesus, which according to Jewish thinking is a proof of God's power and according to Ps. 110:1 a transfer of God's power to his anointed One (Acts 2:34-35), must be understood as Jesus' already sharing in the sovereign power of God and thus as an expression of his exaltation. When we read that God exalted the resurrected One to (or: by) his right hand (Acts 2:33), we must understand both as one single act: in this way Jesus is made Lord and Messiah (2:36). The promise given to the ancestors has been fulfilled by God for us, the children, when he resurrected Jesus (13:32-33). When Ps. 2:7 is now quoted for this (v. 33), we must understand this quotation according to its Old Testament

161

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

context as empowerment of the Son in his messianic lordship. On the other hand, Luke seems to distinguish between the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, as becomes clear in the ascension (Acts 1:9-10). How is this tension to be explained? The resurrection achieves the fundamental raising of Jesus from the human into the divine realm and thus also accomplishes the installation in his lordship. His entrance into lordship, however, occurs in two steps, as it were: in the resurrection as liberation from the bonds of death and in the exaltation to the exercising of his lordship (d. 5:31). In the appearances of the resurrected One, the one raised from the dead becomes visible and can even give the disciples instruction about their way on earth (1:3); in the final appearance, namely, at the ascension of Jesus, the disciples experience his distance and yet his abiding presence in the lordship exercised through the Spirit until his coming again. Thus for Lukan thinking the ascension of Jesus has a definite salvation-historical place. Only Luke brings it to bear in this way, and this may have various reasons: a connecting of the earthly activity of Jesus with that of the resurrected One, a filling of the time of waiting for the Holy Spirit, which at the same time tempers an exaggerated imminent expectation (d. Acts 1:7), an accommodation to the widespread rapture stories that make vivid Jesus' distance from the disciples and his abiding nearness to them. In the salvation-historical process the transition of the crucified and resurrected One to his abiding heavenly lordship and mediation of salvation becomes graphic in a concrete and yet symbolic event.

5. The Guide to Salvation What is important for Luke in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus is the birth of salvation for all who believe in him. In Peter's Pentecost sermon, in which the outpouring of the Spirit over all flesh is attested according to Joel 2:28-32 (3:1-5 in Heb.), we read at the end: "Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). According to Ps. 16:11 (LXX) God shows his Christ the way to life, namely, through the resurrection (Acts 2:28). This is true, however, not only for Christ himself but also for those who join him and follow him, for whoever repents and is baptized will receive the forgiveness of sins through the gift of the Holy Spirit and be saved from this "corrupt generation" (2:38-40). God has exalted Jesus to his right hand as the Author of life, the Leader and Savior, in order to

162

LUKE

give Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins (5:31). Jesus' way to God becomes a guide to salvation for all who believe in him. This salvific significance of Jesus' way leading to God is the dominant idea for Luke. 68 Luke, the "theologian of the way," sees Jesus' way turning into the proclamation of the "way of salvation" for all who associate themselves with him. This expression, which occurs in the cry of the maid in Philippi who had a spirit of divination (Acts 16:17), is characteristic of Lukan theology. It confirms the predication of Jesus as the Leader (archegos) \-\Tho goes ahead of his people in order to lead them to the goal of salvation. It is a "christological schema of the way" that pursues Jesus' way into his resurrection and exaltation and sets the goal for his disciples and the whole church. 69 God also gave to the Gentiles "repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). Paul and Barnabas explain to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles" (13:46), and then v. 48 reads: "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers." Salvation, which is established in Jesus Christ alone (4:12), is fulfilled in eternal life.

a. The proclamation of salvation The way of Jesus, which leads to the resurrection and life with God, is made known to humankind through the proclamation of the apostles. What they proclaim is the word of God 7o or the word of the Lord,?l both being used interchangeably in the manuscripts. The word of God sounds in the preaching of salvation of the "Lord" Jesus. The saving way of Jesus Christ is fixed in the word-event and brought home to the hearers. The "word of salvation" was "sent" to the Israelites to heal them and free them from destruction (Acts 13:26; cf. Ps. 107:20; Wisd. Sol. 16:12). This one who is sent is Jesus Christ, the word of God realized, who through his word brings salvation. Through the proclamation to the Gentiles he is to become salvation to the ends of the earth (13:47; cf. Isa. 49:6). The apostolic proclamation of salvation is the channel through which the redemption taking place in the crucified and resurrected Jesus flows and is transmitted to the people.

163

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

One may wonder why the reconciliation through the blood of Jesus, the vicarious death of Jesus for all people emphasized in Paul, is not more prominent in Luke. It almost seems that in Luke the death of Jesus has no significance for salvation.72 Only at the Last Supper does one hear in the saying over the cup the idea of Jesus' blood poured out "for you": "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20); also, the parting speech at Miletus says that God obtained the church of God with the blood of his Own (namely, his Son; Acts 20:28).73 Otherwise references to the atoning death of Jesus are missing; the characteristic expression that the Son of Man came in order "to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45b) was not adopted by Luke (d. Luke 22:27). There are only echoes of the effective power and symbolism of Jesus' blood. If he holds, nevertheless, to the saying of the "new covenant in my blood," this attests to his ties with tradition but not only that: he can also connect the idea with his schema of the way. The death of Jesus, which occurs on his way to resurrection and glorification, also has a significance of its own for the salvation of all. The idea of the "new covenant of salvation" rests with the new community of salvation, which is founded through the breaking of bread and the common meal. Through the remembrance of the Last Supper the gifts of the resurrected Lord retain their communityfounding power. On the whole, however, this idea goes back behind the repentance demanded by the proclamation and the way of salvation thereby opened up. It is an individual conception of the "word of salvation," which must be adopted and adapted in the faith. b. Faith and repentance for the forgiveness of sins The first response to the missionary proclamation of the apostles is faith. Those who have heard the word of the gospel are called to faith (d. Acts 4:4; 15:7) and are to place themselves in the multitude of the saved (d. 13:48; 14:23). Faith is necessary to obtain forgiveness of sins and thus enter on the way of salvation (10:43). We hear an echo of Paul's justifying faith in 13:38-39: "By this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses." It is true that this does not allude to the vicarious atoning death of Jesus (d. Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21), but in the sense of the schema of the way, the righteousness of God comes from the resurrected Lord to the believers.

164

LUKE

His path through suffering and death to glorification (Luke 24:26) is presupposed, yet it is only from the glorified Christ that salvation flows to believers. They are accepted into the community of salvation of those bound to Jesus Christ. The growth of the community of faith in Jerusalem among the Jews and in Antioch as the birthplace of the Gentile Christian mission (Acts 11:19-21) is a success not only of the apostles' preaching but also, and more profoundly, of the Christ who has reached his goal or of the Holy Spirit going out from him (d. 9:31}.7-1 The way of Jesus continues in the church as the place of his salvific lordship. "Those who know Jesus in this salvationhistorical function and who convert shar~ in salvation as participation in the salvation history of God."75 Thus no "soteriological gap" results from the exclusion of Jesus' atoning death; rather, there is an ongoing salvific event that reveals its effects only in the church. For this, people are required to have faith in Jesus the Lord, who alone promises salvation (Acts 16:31; 26:18). In this presentation governed by the theology of the way, Christ must first be exalted to God's side in order from there to pour out the Spirit and thereby initiate the faith movement. Beside faith and closely connected with it, repentance (metanoia) is named as the first step toward salvation and given even more attention. Whereas in Mark repentance occurs in faith in the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15; d. 6:12), in Luke repentance gains its own significance. Jesus has come to call sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32; d. 15:7, 10). The evangelist looks at the moral makeup of people, and the conversion that he demands is the turning away from all sins. Therefore he also takes up the repentance preaching of John the Baptist (3:3; Acts 10:37; 13:24; 19:4), who had called for corresponding "fruits" that are worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). This ethical view of repentance is also recognizable in the speeches of Acts. The Jews are asked to repent and turn away from their sins, so that their sins may be wiped out (Acts 3: 19). The real sin is that they have killed the Author of life (3:15), but in order to move them to repentance Luke says that they acted out of ignorance, as did also their leaders (3:17). The same paraenetic stimulus is also given to the Gentiles in order to prepare them for a change of mind (17:30). For Luke there is no question that all people have sinned and are in need of repentance (d. Luke 13:3, 5). The repenting sinner is a shining figure around whom joy reigns in heaven (15:7, 10). What was

165

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

heard in Jesus' preaching on earth is refined with new power in the time after his resurrection. The Messiah who was exalted to the right hand of God wants to give "repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31), and God has also given the Gentiles the opportunity to repent in order to lead them to life with God (11:18; d. 17:30). This way is open to all, Jews and Greeks (20:21; 26:20). For this, faith in Jesus the Savior is required (20:21), for only out of this faith comes forgiveness of sins (2:38; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18). Repentance in this time of the proclamation of salvation is God's offer and grace, but it is also the will to accomplish corresponding deeds. One can define the introduced process of attaining salvation as follows: repentance is the condition for the forgiveness of sins, and this in tum is the presupposition for receiving salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19), which occurs in baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and in the gift of the Holy Spirit. 76

c. Baptism and the bestowing of the Spirit What is required of people in order to attain salvation is summarized as follows in Peter's sermon at Pentecost: "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Thus, here the forgiveness of sins is not simply linked with repentance; rather, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is also involved. How does Luke reach this formulation? It is clear that here he is referring to the early church's practice of a water rite to which sacramental effect is ascribed: being filled with the Holy Spirit. All who accepted Peter's message proclaiming the Christ were baptized (Acts 2:41). How this practice developed is not clarified by Luke, but it can be inferred from his baptismal texts. He contrasts Christian baptism, which conveys the Holy Spirit, with the baptism of John, who baptized only with water (Acts 1:5; 11:16; d. 19:4). This emphasis is already given in the story of Jesus' baptism, in which the Baptist says: "I baptize you with water .... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Luke 3:16). Now, the wellattested baptism of John has notable similarities with Christian baptism. (1) It occurs through immersion in the water of the Jordan, just as water is also the outward rite for Christian baptism (d. Acts 8:36, 38; 10:47). (2) It is given through a baptizer, be it John or a Christian missionary. (3) It is a one-time act with lasting effect. (4) Both baptisms are steps toward salvation: John's baptism of repentance is

166

LUKE

supposed to lead to the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3); baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, moreover, is supposed to convey the Holy Spirit. (5) John's baptism was supposed to gather the penitent from Israel in order to preserve the people from the judgment to come; Christian baptism gathers Israel into the holy people of the end time under the Leader Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus let himself be baptized by John in the midst of the people (Luke 3:21), so Jesus becomes, for all who are willing to be baptized, the central figure for the salvific event in baptism. For this there is the characteristic baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5). The people of God are formed under the majesty of Jesus Christ. Thus if we ask about the origin of Christian baptism, we can understand it only as starting with John's baptism and then being raised to the Christian level after Easter?? The first effect of Christian baptism is forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance (Luke 24:47). Ananias, who sought out Paul after his conversion before Damascus, said to Paul as commissioned by God: "Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away" (Acts 22:16). Through the water of baptism sins are "washed away," that is, eradicated. Distinguished from this first effect of baptism is the bestowing of the Holy Spirit, sometimes through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17-18; 9:17; 19:6).78 The pouring out of the Spirit is the actual salvific event through which the Old Testament promises are fulfilled (Acts 2:16-21). It is a baptism with the Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5,8), a gift of God (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:38; 8:15, 19-20; 10:45) given to those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. An additional gift of the Holy Spirit is ecstatic speech, through which he manifests himself (d. Acts 2:6; 10:44,46; 19:6). Yet another gift again is prophecy, which comes from the Spirit but is not directly connected with baptism.79 At Pentecost the saying from Joel that "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17) is fulfilled. The working of the Spirit, which already appears in the Old Testament and in Judaism, is seen in manifold ways in the early church. Agabus foretells through the Spirit that a great famine will come over the whole world (Acts 11:28), and the same prophet tells Paul in advance that the Jews in Jerusalem will bind him and hand him over to the Gentiles (21:11). The evangelist Philip has four prophetically gifted daughters (21:9). Prophetically gifted people are not only to be found in the early church, however; the spirit of

167

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

prophecy also permeates the whole church. Glossolalia and prophecy can be joined (19:6). Above all, one must interpret the instructions that are given to Paul on his missionary way as prophetic inspiration. Also, the missionaries sent out from the church of Antioch are selected by the Holy Spirit (13:2, 4). Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, unmasks the magician Elymas (13:9-10). The decision of the Apostolic Council is framed in these words: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden" (15:28). How else is one to explain this statement except to say that the Holy Spirit moved the gathered apostles and elders to their decision? The speech of James refers to the prophecy that God will rebuild the fallen dwelling of David (15:16-17 following Amos 9:11; d. Jer. 12:15-16). The prophecy is incorporated into the resolution of the Apostolic Council. The Holy Spirit guides all missionary work (d. Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6, 7) and determines Paul's way (10:22-23). It is the Spirit that is present in the whole church and guides its destinies. The guidance of the church through the Spirit is to be distinguished from the Spirit bestowed in baptism, but ultimately it is the same Spirit that is active in the church as gift of salvation, prophetic inspirer, and mission promoter. The gift of the Spirit conveyed to each individual through baptism (2:38) is included in the comprehensive fullness of the Spirit of the whole church. For Luke the church's being filled with and driven by the Spirit stands in the foreground. The time of the Spirit is the time of the church, in which all believers, but especially the preachers, share in the outpouring of the Spirit and are integrated into the gifting by the Spirit of the whole church. The attainment of salvation is possible only in the church and through the church, as shown by the special pericopes on Apollos, to whom Priscilla and Aquila explain the "Way of God" more accurately (18:24-28), and on the twelve disciples of John (19:1-17). Apollos and the twelve disciples of John lack knowledge of the Holy Spirit conveyed in Christian baptism, and only through this baptism given in the name of Jesus the Lord (19:5) can they become full members of the Christian church, which rejoices over the possession of the Spirit and the work of the Spirit. However one judges historically the figure of Apollos, who according to 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4-9 is recognized by Paul from the beginning as a full-fledged Christian and missionary, and however one

168

LUKE

tries to illuminate the prior history of John's disciples, who receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of Paul's hands (19:6), Luke's intention is clear: all these people who know only the baptism of John or have been baptized only with this baptism of repentance are to be incorporated into the church and thereby included in the realm of salvation that is represented by the church through its possession of the Spirit. Sll Luke ignored missing information in order to focus on the salvific significance of the church, which was close to his heart. The church in its unity, its apostolic leadership, its fullness of the Spirit, and its peace is the guarantor of the salvation that flows from the resurrected Lord to the believers (d. 4:32; 9:31; 20:28).

d. The communion with Christ the Lord experienced in the celebration of the meal Those who believe in Jesus the Lord as the guide to salvation not only submit themselves to him through baptism but also achieve a living communion with him, above all through the celebration of the Eucharist. The original cultic celebration connected with a fellowship meal is called the "breaking of bread" in Acts (2:42) or expressed with the verbal phrase "to break bread" (2:46; 20:7, 11). It refers to Jesus' Last Supper (Luke 22:19) and extends the initial rite, the breaking of bread, to the whole celebration with bread and wine. The connection of the breaking of bread with (full) meals in the houses, which is presupposed in Acts 2:46, requires the entire rite of the "Lord's Supper," as it is described in 1 Cor. 11:20-25, although the accents (joyous meal, remembrance of Jesus' death) are placed differently.8l The Jewish custom of the father of the house beginning a meal with the breaking of bread and the distribution of the bread with a blessing becomes, through Jesus' action at the Last Supper, a profoundly significant and reality-filled sign: the bread handed the disciples by Jesus is his body, which is given for the participants (Luke 22:19)-a reference to the atoning death of Jesus, which is expressed even more clearly in the statement over the cup. When the "breaking of bread" is chosen for the holy meal, this may be connected with the remembrance of the meals held by Jesus during his earthly activity (d. Luke 9:16; Mark 6:41; 8:6). These meals continue in the meeting of the resurrected One with his disciples (Luke 24:30, 41-43; d. also John 21:13) and finally find their lasting fulfillment in the church's breaking of bread. 82

169

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

With this the salvation promised to believers, the forgiveness of sins, bestowing of the Spirit, and presence in eternal life are opened up in a new, deeper dimension. Through the Eucharist they enter into a closer communion with the resurrected Lord, who also joins them together among themselves in a brotherly-sisterly communion. Paul presented even more clearly this communion (koinonia) with Christ and with each other {1 Cor. 10:14-17); yet even in the reports in Acts on early Christian community life the basic outline is recognizable. Those who have accepted the gospel and received baptism "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42). In this summary description of community life essential elements of the Christian realization of existence are emphaSized. The devotion to the "apostles' teaching" shows the foundation of faith: the apostles reproduce "the teaching about the Lord" (Acts 13:12) and thereby vouch for the reliability of everything that is handed down regarding Jesus Christ (d. Luke 1:2-4). "Communion" is an expression for the living fellowship realized by the first Christians, which is manifested in the common sharing of goods (d. 2:44-45; 4:32). The "breaking of bread" means the table fellowship celebrated in the community with the inclusion of the Eucharist (d. 2:46). The "prayers" are the prayers of praise, thanksgiving, and petition practiced in the temple (2:46-47; 3:1, 11; 5:12) and in the community gatherings (d. 1:14; 4:24-31; 6:4; 12:5). In all of this Christ is present: in the word of the apostles, in the fellowship of love, in the breaking of bread, and in common prayer. The description of community life in Acts 2:42 also sketches an attractive picture of the Hellenistic church. For the sharing of goods is ideally typical of Hellenistic thinking,83 and the commonality of possessions, which was practiced among friends in Hellenism (d. 4:32 with the Greek saying, "For friends everything is community property"), was an incentive for Gentile Christian readers. The common meals with the Eucharist can remind us of the Greek symposia. 84 The blessings that flow out from Christ the Lord are concretely revealed in the individual things of community life, powerfully supported by the healings and other signs that occurred through the hands of the apostles {1:43; 4:30; 5:12, 15-16}. The salvation of Christ effected in the Holy Spirit is, so to speak, called down from heaven to earth and becomes effective in the community of believers. The fellowship

170

LUKE

with Christ the Lord, which has its strongest expression in the breaking of bread, in the celebration of the Eucharist, also leads to a brotherly-sisterly fellowship that connects all believers and stimulates the sharing of possessions, hospitality (10:6, 18; 16:15; 21:16), and diaconal works (caring for the widows, 6:1-3). In all of this the word and example of Jesus lights the way, as attested by the originally secular saying that Luke designates as a saying of Jesus: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (20:35). The picture that Luke sketches of Christ, who from heaven leads his church, corresponds to his picture of the earthly Jesus: "He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil" (10:38), except that now everything is put in a post-Easter perspective.

6. The Lord Who Is Coming Again We have determined that while the Parousia, the coming again of the Jesus transported to God, does not stand at the center of Lukan thinking-because of the delay in the imminent expectation-it is also not to be dismissed from Jesus' way (see p. 161 above). In the wake of the Lukan schema of the way we must now ask more precisely what significance the Parousia has for Lukan Christology and for the church's understanding of salvation. Since H. Conzelmann the view has spread that for Luke the expectation of the Parousia has no essential significance but in the present-day church is diminished, if not replaced, by the work of the Spirit and is still maintained, for paraenetic reasons, only as the teaching of the last things. 85 Another variation of the devaluation of the Parousia is the idea that the place of future salvation is taken by the other-worldliness of salvation. 86 We want first to inquire (a) into the meaning of the Parousia for Lukan theology, then (b) into the delay in the Parousia clearly recognizable in Luke and its consequences for Lukan eschatology, and finally (c) into the relationship of church and Parousia in Luke. a. The meaning of the Parousia for Lukan theology If one pursues the way of Jesus as the mediator of salvation for those who believe in him, one will have to draw on the anticipations of the Parousia not only in Acts 87 but also in the Gospel of Luke. Here in the great eschatological speech we find a clear prospect of the Parousia. Then the Son of Man will be seen coming with great power and glory on a cloud-yet only when the "times of the Gentiles" are

171

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

fulfilled (21:24) and the "signs" appear in the moon and stars, and the people on earth are confused over the roaring of the sea and the waves and faint from fear (21:25-27). This description holds to the presentation of Mark (13:24-26), apart from the fact that in Luke the coming event is placed in the future by the "times of the Gentiles" even more definitely than in Mark ("after that suffering," 13:24). But Luke adds a significant sentence: "But when these things [namely, the cosmic signs] begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (21:28). In this way the Parousia of the Son of Man acquires a salvific relevance: the believers will then experience the completion of salvation, the ultimate redemption, which was already promised to them through baptism and the receiving of the Spirit (2:38). This "redemption" (apolytrosis), which Luke mentions only here, lies in the semantic field of "saving," the leading and most frequent expression for the attainment of salvation; applied to Jesus Christ, he is the "Savior" (soter, Luke 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23). The Leader and Savior exalted to God's right hand will visibly return at the end of the ages to complete his work of redemption. For Luke the focus is not on the period between the present time and the final events-which is the obvious view of the Lukan eschatological speech and the one most discussed by scholars (see section b)-but rather on the expected ultimate redemption, as indicated by the emphasis in 21:28 (see also 21:36). It is the same expectation that is heard in Paul: "We are expecting a Savior [sotera], the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:20). He will save us from the coming wrathful judgment (1 Thess. 1:10), because God did not intend us for wrathful judgment but for the attainment of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ (5:9). Thus Luke adopts an early, perhaps even pre-Pauline formula and adds it to his view of the Redeemer Jesus Christ. The following parable of the fig tree in Luke (21:29-31) likewise points to the completion of salvation, but Luke makes it clear: "When you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near" (v. 31).88 The teachings of the resurrected One on the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) give a glimpse of the Parousia, in which the kingdom of God appears in its perfection. The expectation of the coming kingdom of God is assured through passages like Luke 9:27; 13:29; 14:15; 22:16; and others. The coming time of salvation is characterized in Acts 3:20 by "times of refreshing" that are brought by the Messiah Jesus. If all this stands in the eschatolog-

172

LUKE

ical perspective, there can be no doubt that for Luke the Parousia has a salvific significance leading up to the consummation. H'! Most of what is said about the Parousia in Luke is in the parables. The Lukan parables of the Parousia are in part adopted from the sayings tradition, Q: the parable of the thief (12:39-40), of the house manager (12:41-46), of the watchful slaves (12:35-38), of the ten minas (19:12-27), the double parable of the flood and the rain of fire (17:26-30); in part from Mark: the parable of the sprouting fig tree (21:29-33); and in part from the Lukan special material: the parable of the unjust judge (18:1-8) and perhaps also the parables of the rich fool (12:16-21) and the dishonest manager (16:1-9).90 What is striking in these parables is the pervasive paraenetic tendency. Readiness for the coming of the Lord is demanded (12:40), as well as responsibility for earthly duties (12:42-43; 19:15-23), watchfulness (12:37), and intelligence in the management of earthly goods (16:1-9). Especially clear is the call-drawn from the announcement of the Parousia-for distancing oneself from earthly attitudes, from sleep and drunkenness, and the call for watchfulness and prayer in the Lukan closing of the great parable speech (21:34-36): "Be on guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of this life, and that day catch you unexpectedly, like a trap .... Be alert at all times, praying that you may have the strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of Man." The evangelist holds to the coming of the Son of Man and also to salvation from the confusion of the end time (21:28), but all emphasis lies on the eschatological attitude that is then to be preserved, namely, through unworldliness and devotion to God, who guides the end event. Eschatological virtues are clarified, but the Parousia is not reduced to earthly conditions. It takes the people who pursue their earthly affairs and transfers them rather unexpectedly and precipitously into a new situation, which they have to survive. Thus is it described in the "crisis parable" of the Noah and Lot generations (17:26-29). The sudden appearance of the Son of Man surprises people and allows only the one care to come up: how they can save their lives (17:33). The entire "little apocalypse" of 17:22-37 is directed toward this crisis situation. 91 The warning against overlooking this critical situation is also unmistakable in the saying on the signs of the time (12:54-57) and the following appeal for reconciliation with one's opponent before

173

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

going to court {12:58-59).92 The Parousia stands entirely under the sign of this demanding presence. The apocalyptic description adopted from tradition is not a realistic historiographical presentation but a presentational means of calling attention to the inbreaking of the day of the Son of Man {17:30-31) into the present world situation as a challenging event. It has also been observed that a certain individualization of the cosmic-universal eschatology has occurred in the Lukan special material. 93 In the parable of the rich fool {12:16-21), which may have originally had an eschatological-universal dimension, the man is confronted with his mortal destiny in wisdom language. Something similar is presupposed in the parable of the dishonest manager {16:1-8): the crisis situation, originally the time before the end of the world,94 is related entirely to the man's personal fate. With both parables Luke, in accordance with his pervasive intention of demanding dissociation from riches, draws the conclusion that one should be rich toward God (12:21) and make friends with dishonest wealth (16:9). The focus is on the death of the individual, when God demands one's life (12:20) or when wealth "is gone" (16:9). Individual eschatology is also emphasized in the story of the rich man and poor Lazarus {16:19-31) and in the scene with the converted criminal (23:42-43). The rich man who enjoyed life is carried into the world below (Sheo!), and poor Lazarus into the bosom of Abraham. There is no indication of their eschatological destiny. The request of the crucified criminal to Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom-or, with the reading ell te basileia, comes with his kingdom, that is, when he appears with his kingdom-is answered by Jesus with a promise for his personal destiny: today he will be with Jesus in paradise. Today shifts the expectation into the present; paradise is the place that receives the souls of the deceased righteous. Also notable is the formulation in 21:19 in comparison with the view of the end in Mark 13:13b ("The one who endures to the end will be saved"). Luke avoids the "end" and says instead: "By your endurance you will gain your souls." "The endurance that Jesus demands of the disciples is a persistence until his death."95 Thus one can say that Luke has in part already shifted the meeting with the returning Lord into the death situation of the individual. Nonetheless, he holds to the cosmic-universal eschatology, to the eschatological Parousia of the Lord (see also 12:30-31, 36). For

174

LUKE

him this is not only a concession to tradition but also a consequence of his conception of salvation history.% He sees Jesus placed in the history of the people of God; for him Jesus is the radical turning point in the age of salvation (16:16). When-since the time of John the Baptist-the "good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed," this includes for Luke the proclamation of the perfected kingdom that becomes reality with the Parousia of the Son of Man (d. 9:27; 11:2; 14:15; 22:16,28,30). Did he hold to the idea of the coming kingdom only for paraenetic reasons, in order to spur Christians on to watchful preparedness and employment of all powers? That is doubtless his urgent concern, but it is also connected with "individual eschatology," with the death of the individual in mind. Here it can be brought in even more strongly and more effectively. If Luke, nonetheless, does not forgo the prospect of the coming kingdom, the reason is that in addition to the claim of the individual he does not lose Sight of the process of history, which Jesus' coming makes a salvation history. After Jesus, history takes place through the working of the Spirit in the church, yet the church is not yet the kingdom of God but only leads to it. The individual experiences the end in personal death, and that is an incentive to consider life in its transitoriness and to take leave of ties with earthly goods. Every individual, however, is also put into the course of history, whose end is to be expected sooner or later. The two lines of individual and collective-cosmic eschatology run unconnected beside each other and yet each has something to say to Christians. Luke is not thinking of an interim state. Existentially, the prospect of the end of one's own life speaks more strongly to us today; the coming of the Lord in resurrection and judgment seems off in the distance and yet remains the last guiding principle that provides background and a standard for the death of the individual.

b. The delay o/the Parousia in Luke's view It is not surprising that with the passage of considerable time (after A.D. 80) Luke deals with the problem that the imminently expected coming of God's kingdom or of the Son of Man (d. Mark 1:15; 9:1; 13:30; Matt. 10:23; Luke 10:18; 11:20; 13:28) has not occurred. As is hardly questioned today, Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God comprises both the present, the kingdom of God with him and in him, and the future still to come. When what Jesus announces

175

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

with many promising images (of the eschatological meal, the harvest, the yield of fruit) is fulfilled, then the future aeon, the perfected kingdom of God, will be there, and Jesus' attention is focused on it. The kingdom of God that breaks in dynamically in Jesus (Luke 11:20; parables of watching) is a reality that is knowable only in a preliminary way but will find its true fulfillment in the eagerly expected kingdom of God. It is an essentially eschatological message that Jesus proclaims. Thus Christians waiting and praying for the coming of the kingdom of God (11 :2; 18:7) must be struck all the harder by the delay of the Parousia, which calls their hope into question. How did Luke see and seek to overcome this situation? Luke perceived the delay of the Parousia as a serious problem. He tried to deal with it by eliminating, weakening, or reinterpreting statements about the imminent appearance of the kingdom of God. He passes over the fundamental summary of Jesus' preaching in Mark 1:15: liThe time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near." This saying is taken up in the proclamation of the disciples sent out by Jesus in Luke 10:9, 11, but in a significant context. It is said positively by the nearness of the kingdom of God lito you" (10:9; d. 11:20) and negatively by the threat of judgment for those rejecting it (10:11). liThe kingdom is present as sermon ... ; its future appearance is not thereby abolished."9i It is not a statement about the immediate nearness of the kingdom of God but an indication of the present dynamic power of God's kingdom. The sentence in the Markan apocalypse (13: 10), And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations," is omitted by Luke. Why does he do that although it must run counter to his missionary ideas? Probably because for him the persecution and witness of the disciples still belongs not in the immediate prehistory of the Parousia but in the course of present secular time. For this is unmistakable: Luke separates the persecutions, hatred, and enmity of people (21:12-19) and above all the destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24) from the actual end event and transposes all of this into the still prevailing and ongoing secular age. The anticipatory signs of the Parousia in Mark are robbed of their function of indicating the end (Mark 13:8: "beginning of the birthpangs"). Only with the cosmic events do we have the beginning of the event of the Parousia, by which the disciples are certain that their redemption is drawing near (Luke 21:26-28). When all threatening phenomena are included in ongoing secular time, the Parousia II

176

LUKE

moves into the distance or even into an indefinite future. Verse 21:8 expressly rejects the appearance of deceivers who not only represent themselves as the expected Lord but also say: "The time is near." The time of the Parousia Christ has not yet come. Nor are wars and insurrections signs of the end: "These things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately" (21:9), as Luke emphasizes. Instead of "The one who endures to the end will be saved" (Mark 13:13b), Luke says: "By your endurance you will gain your souls" (21 :19). The idea of the end of the world is eliminated; even the destruction of Jerusalem is not a sign of the Parousia. When the city is surrounded by armies, one will know that its desolation (eremosis) is near (21:20). Before the Parousia the "times of the Gentiles" must be fulfilled (21:24). Thus the Lukan talk of the Parousia is placed in the time experienced by the church and opens the prospect of the Parousia only when it is introduced by cosmic upheavals. The time of the Parousia is left open. The parable of the fig tree (21:29-31) makes the nearness of the kingdom of God vivid through the visible signs of the inbreaking Parousia. The added word of assurance, "This generation will not pass away until all things have taken place" (21:32), is difficult to interpret. For the idea that the current generation will experience the coming of the kingdom can have at most the same metaphOrical understanding of the "seeing" of the kingdom as in 9:27. Or must one take "all things" in a broader sense: the "salvation event as a whole brought through the sending, death, and resurrection of Jesus"?98 "This generation" is also controversial. We can accept as certain only that Luke does not want to reverse the previously indicated delay of the Parousia. The uncertainty of the time of the Parousia is also expressed in the following exhortation (21:34-36). Dissipation, drunkenness, and everyday worries will surround people, but that day can suddenly surprise them (d. 17:26-30). Thus the basic requirement is a constant state of preparedness, to be always ready for the inbreaking of the Parousia. As lightning lights up the sky from one end to the other, so will it be with the Son of Man on his day. In the little apocalypse there is again an element of delay: "First he [the Son of Man) must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation" (17:25). Even the little apocalypse seeks to soften the imminent expectation still perceivable in the sayings source. 99

177

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Also in Luke 9:27 a modification is discernible as compared to Mark. When Mark 9:1 says that some among those standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power, Luke says only, "before they see the kingdom of God" (9:27). This "seeing of the kingdom of God" can also be understood in a figurative, not eschatologically fixed sense, yet hardly with the subsequently recounted transfiguration of the Lord but rather in the appearance of the resurrected One and the process of evangelization thereby initiated. too A rejection of a present expectation of the kingdom of God is found in 19:11 in the introduction to the parable of the entrusted monies: "As they were listening to this, he went on to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately." Then follows the story of the nobleman who traveled to a distant country to acquire royal status (perhaps originally a parable of a pretender to the throne). Important for the question of the delay of the Parousia is the circumstance that the man travels to a distant country and does not return until after some time. In Luke the parable of the throne candidate becomes the reason why the lord-whose installation as king the citizens of the country wanted to prevent-will upon his return hold a strict reckoning with the men to whom he entrusted a mina. The element of delay is essential in the course of the story. Also in the parable of the watchful slaves (12:35-38) the delay is more strongly emphaSized (v. 38) than in the Markan demand for watchfulness (Mark 13:35). The same perspective is found in the parable of the thief (Luke 12:39-40) and the parable of the slave entrusted with supervision (12:42-46). The unfaithful slave is tempted to his evil behavior by the thought, "My master is delayed in coming" (12:45). All these parables are Parousia parables, which at the outset contain a possibility of delay and a moment of crisis. lOt Luke adopted them from tradition and inserted them into his view that one should at all times be ready for the arrival of the Lord. Thus, if there is no doubt about Luke's tendency to shift the Parousia to a distant point in time, we must ask what motives caused him to do this. The first to be named here is the movement of history, which is prominent in the continuing history of the church. The evangelizing church, of which Luke is a part, requires a longer time, even if he allows for a quick and sudden arrival of the Parousia. In

178

LUKE

this way he wants to evoke a constant state of preparedness, and this is the second reason. The delay of the Parousia harbors the danger of dulling one's attention and preparedness, and Luke wants to guard against this danger with his paraenetic exhortations. They are topical precisely because of the delay in the Parousia. A third reason is the salvific fate of the individual. The turning from cosmic to individual eschatology is occasioned by the delay of the Parousia. Even if this attention to the situation of the individual, who in his or her death confronts the end of life and responsibility before God, is not to be understood directly as the result of the delay in the Parousia, this change must nonetheless be presumed to be the result, the theological consequence, of the delayed Parousia. A fourtiz reason is confidence in the effectiveness of the Spirit in the church. Because the Spirit guides the history of the church, one can turn the arrival of the Parousia, even at a later time, over to the rule of the Holy Spirit. "The Spirit as the power given by God not only makes possible the witnessing function of the apostles but also allows the church the possibility of excluding the time question from the theme of the Parousia."102 c. The relationship of church and Parousia in Luke

Accordingly, everything indicates that Luke gave his conception of the Parousia a new appearance based on his salvation-historical starting point, the time of the church. In closing this part of the chapter, I would like to illuminate further the relationship of church and Parousia. For Luke the formation of the church after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is of urgent interest. He describes the church's coming into being in the gathering of the apostles, certain women, and Jesus' brothers after Jesus' return home to the Father (Acts 1:12-14) and in the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (chap. 2). From the temporal perspective the Parousia is held back (1:6-7) and yet basically maintained as the return of the Lord (1:11). Thus the church is shown its way through the activity of the Spirit. From this we can make the following points in the relationship of church and Parousia: 1. The church is oriented toward the Parousia. Because Jesus is the Lord of the church and will return one day, the church cannot take its eyes from this event at the end of history. But it

179

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

moves into the background through the presence of the Spirit, whose outpouring is already occurring "in the last days" (Acts 2:17). These "last days" are not yet the coming aeon, not yet the kingdom of God that is expected. I03 2. The Jewish Christian part of the church is again called to repentance through the announcement of the Parousia (d. Acts 3:19-21). The intervening assumption of Jesus into heaven does not block the view of his eschatological mission; on the contrary, this expectation reinforces the impetus to accept the Messiah sent first to the Jews and to tum away from one's sins (3:26). 3. For the Gentile Christians the coming of the eschatological Judge becomes a powerful admonition to accept the Savior identified by resurrection from the dead (d. Acts 17:30-31). Through him God proclaims to "all people everywhere" that they should repent in order to escape the coming judgment. The resurrection of Jesus also reveals the prospect of the coming resurrection of all people, when they will be subject to the universal judgment of Jesus Christ (d. 17:38; also 24:15, 21; 26:6-8). Paul does not abandon this demand in his Areopagus speech, in spite of limited success (17:34). What Paul substantiates in detail in 1 Corinthians 15 is the conviction of the whole church. 4. The church goes on its earthly pilgrimage, its growing and evolving, toward the coming Lord, yet with calmness and confidence because it possesses the Spirit, which assures it of its inheritance with all who are sanctified (d. 20:32). Thus even the delay of the Parousia cannot shake the church. Crucial is the beginning of the salvation event in the resurrection of the crucified One and in the outpouring of the Spirit; everything elsethe history of the church-goes its way, predetermined by God, which in the end leads to the return of Christ. 104 If Lukan eschatology acquires a new appearance through the beginning of salvation in Jesus Christ, through the communication of salvation in the present by the church, through the outpouring of the Spirit, and through the delay of the eschatological coming of Christ, then we must ask about the status of eschatology in Lukan theology. With J. Ernst we can state that eschatology in Luke has "received a

180

LUKE

different status through emphatic subordination to the Christ event. Eschatology is no longer identical with the kingdom of God preached and prophetically announced by Jesus; it is rather a function of the reality of Christ stretching on the one hand between present and future and on the other between earth and heaven."105 From the standpoint of the Lukan picture of Christ, the prospect of the Parousia also gains importance: the resurrected Lord exalted to God will one day come, in spite of his noticeable delay in the age of the church, in order to bring to final fulfillment the work of salvation begun by him.

II

INDIVIDUAL FEATURES 1. Jesus' Humanity J. Fitzmyer, at the end of his long and well-considered discussion of Lukan theology, takes a look at the "portrait of Jesus" and writes about it: "The Lukan portrait has not only incorporated the essential christo logical teaching but has also made use of deft strokes to depict a person who is at once very human, dramatic, and at times even romantic."l06 We must look closer at this human picture that Luke sketches of Jesus, in spite of its strong connection with the one sent by God, the Leader of salvation coming from God, the Son of God who is close to God.

a. Jesus the human being In the childhood stories Luke makes a few observations that let Jesus be seen not only as the Son of God conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:35) but also as a growing human child. After the temple visit of Jesus' parents, during which the old man Simeon praises the Lord's Messiah and the prophetess Anna comes and speaks about the child to all who are waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem, we read: "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him" (2:39-40). The weak child lying in a manger became stronger, like any growing child, but the wisdom and favor of God given him is emphasized. After the stay of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple,

181

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

which was incomprehensible to the parents, the Gospel again says: "Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them .... And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor" (2:51-52). Thus the humanity of Jesus is connected with the wisdom and favor experienced from God; he was obedient to his parents. Jesus' closeness to people is evident especially in the many healing stories, to which Luke adds the healing of the crippled woman (13:10-17) and of the man with dropsy (14:1-6). It is notable, however, that Luke offers no feelings of pity and compassion. He passes over Jesus' pity for the leper in Mark 1:41 and the cry for pity by the father of the possessed boy in Mark 9:22 as well as Jesus' compassion for the crowd in Mark 6:34. Luke describes only the healings as such, yet in such numbers and with so much involvement that one can recognize in them his compassion for the sick and suffering (see below, section b). Only for the widow grieving over her dead son does Jesus have pity, a special sign of his humanity, above all with regard to women (Luke 7:13). This attention of Jesus to women comes through so strongly that one must see it as a special feature of the Lukan picture of Jesus (see below, section 3). In the parables of the good Samaritan (10:33) and the prodigal son (15:20) the motif of pity appears. In both cases Jesus stands compassionately in the background. In the parable of the good Samaritan Luke lets us see Jesus in the distance as the person related to the story. Of course, one must not connect the compassionate Samaritan directly with Jesus as the actually intended helper, as a type or symbolic figure, as has often happened in the history of interpretation,107 but Jesus' attention to the downtrodden (d. 4:18) inspired the portrayal of the Samaritan. In the parable of the prodigal son it is God himself who has compassion for the one coming home and thus makes graphic Jesus' love for sinners. If in the healings Jesus' human feelings remain unmentioned, the reason is that these stories are supposed to emphasize Jesus' salvific activity, which was attacked by opponents. Jesus' humanity is not leveled into a humanitarian attitude but is subject to the dominant idea of God's help and strength, which comes to humankind in Jesus. In looking back on Jesus' earthly work Acts 10:38 says: "He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." The work of Jesus-described as that of a Hellenistic "divine person," so

182

LUKE

that he becomes a "benefactor" of human beingsl08 and frees them from all oppression-is to be traced back to God's being with him. Since his baptism Jesus is anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, and that sets him apart from all other people, but this vesting serves only the doing of good and healing among the people. In this way both the divine status of Jesus and his humanity are equally expressed. Jesus' devotion to people is to be understood only on the basis of his divine vocation. The humanity of Jesus rooted in God also comes to expression in the Lukan ancestry of Jesus (3:23-38). Luke presents Jesus' genealogy at the time when Jesus begins his public appearance after his baptism by John. He was about thirty years old and was considered Joseph's son. He is thereby included in the succession of Jewish tribes, who are traced back to Adam and to God. The one who is thus assumed into the human family has his ultimate origin in God, who makes him the one who returns from the Jordan full of the Holy Spirit and begins his work among people. The universal history of humankind, which begins with Adam (cf. Acts 17:26), leads to Jesus, but only in the sense that it is inaugurated and sustained by God. Jesus' ancestral table of seventy-seven generations (although the number seven is only to be inferred) seeks to indicate the salvation-historical line that comes to Jesus. He was thought to be Joseph's son but was in reality the Son of God, as he was announced in the angel's message (Luke 1:35) and identified by God himself at Jesus' baptism (3:21-22). Jesus' humanity is surpassed by his divine sonship and thus not considered in isolation. This is true of Jesus' whole appearance and activity. Nonetheless, Jesus' humane quality, his friendly dealings with people, stands out above his humanity. We can pursue that in all the healing stories and in Jesus' interaction with people. Jesus was not afraid to touch the leper (5:13) or to let himself be touched by the woman with hemorrhages, who was regarded as unclean (8:44-48). He protects the disciples who, because of hunger, pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath (6:1-5), heals the man with the withered hand on a Sabbath (6:6-11), and in the name of God becomes the defender of human rights. Likewise he shames the leader of the synagogue who is indignant over the Sabbath healing of the woman bound by Satan for eighteen years (13:10-17) and is undeterred by the objections of the teachers of the law and Pharisees who do not want to allow him to heal the man with dropsy on the Sabbath (14:1-6). These

183

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Sabbath healings, which Luke adopts from tradition and further expands, are proof of Jesus' behavior in obligation only to God and of his salvific will as opposed to human precepts and Jewish objections. 109 He lets the woman wash his feet and describes her loving actions to the observing Pharisee Simon (7:44-46). Here we may note that Jesus also accepts invitations from a Pharisee (7:36; 14:1) and in general does not disdain food and drink (7:34). He makes himself totally independent of the judgment of people. To the leader of the synagogue, Jairus, at the death of his daughter, Jesus offers confidence and courage (8:50-52), and to the man who implores him on behalf of his heavily burdened (demon-possessed) boy, he gives back his healed son (9:42). Jesus sets the disciples straight when they want to bring God's punishment down on the inhospitable Samaritans and forgoes any reception in that Samaritan village (9:52-56). He does not bother the unknown exorcist, whom the disciples wanted to stop, saying: "For whoever is not against you is for you" (9:49-50). All these traits of tolerance and generosity are prominent in his human picture. Luke also describes human situations in his parables, such as in the parables of the importunate friend (11:~) and of the farmer and his slave (17:7-10), in the talk about humility and hospitality (14:7-14) and the parable of the great dinner (14:15--24), and in the parables of the dishonest manager (16:1-8), the unjust judge (18:1-6), and the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14). Jesus is a shrewd observer of human weakness and behavior. All these parables, however, fall within the perspective of the behavior required by Jesus' message and ultimately of the message of the kingdom of God. l1O The earthly-human milieu is to be grasped everywhere; Luke draws on it for his intention, especially for his option for the poor, connected with an uncompromising critique of the rich. All statements point "beyond themselves to the larger context of Jesus' kingdom of God proclamation."111 An example of Jesus' human warmth and yet also his consciousness of divine mission is preserved in the pericope of the chief tax collector Zacchaeus (19:1-10). Because of his phYSical smallness the man has climbed up a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus. Jesus looks up at him and says: "Zacchaeus, hurry and corne down for I must stay at your house today." It is a gracious visitation, which Zacchaeus accepts as such, while Jesus' companions comment: "He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner." Zacchaeus is moved by

184

LUKE

this to donate a large part of his wealth. Jesus' human gestures transformed the man, and Jesus accepts him as a "son of Abraham" again into the fellowship of God's people. Like the dinner with the tax collector (5:27-30), this is a testimony of Jesus' love for sinners, and it confirms that Jesus is a "friend of tax collectors and sinners" (7:34). Jesus' attention to poor and simple people, who have proved their love of God and their readiness to sacrifice, is revealed in the little pericope of the widow's offering (21:1-4). God's standards are different from those of humans. The scene also belongs to Jesus' parables of the kingdom and to his critique of the leading people (d. 20:47). Jesus' humane nature is also seen in his road to suffering. The prayer on the Mount of Olives is shaped by Luke in his own way. At first it seems as if Luke wants to admonish and strengthen the church, through Jesus' surrender to the will of God, to pray and accept God's decision regarding suffering, as Jesus himself did. He is the great model for the destiny laid upon all believers "through many persecutions [toJ enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). But after the prayer in which Jesus submits himself to the will of the Father and is strengthened by an angel from heaven (Luke 22:43), we read, surprisingly: "In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground" (22:44). Thus Jesus has mortal anguish (agonia), which envelops him entirely and seizes him physically. Jesus' not universally attested sweating of blood seems not to fit well with his previously attested steadfastness, and yet it is an expression of his suffering as a martyr. Jesus is also a human being who descends into the depths of agony. What Heb. 5:7 describes-tears, prayer, and supplication for preservation from death-has also found its way into the Lukan picture of Jesus. The Lukan Gethsemane scene anticipates Jesus' struggle with death, which seems to be overcome in his death, for there Jesus, full of confidence, places his spirit in the hands of the Father (23:46). The readiness to suffer, attested under great anxiety, is maintained as victorious power in the subsequent passion story. Jesus is the imperturbable Messiah and Son of God (22:67-70) and yet remains the suffering human being who through his suffering unto death remains close to humankind. Closeness to human beings-and understanding for the disciples' despairing post-Easter situation caused by Jesus' death on the crossis prominent in the story of the two Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:13-27).

185

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

The narrator begins with the sadness of the two walkers, within whom, however, a little hope is germinating because of the report of the women. The conversation along the way with the unknown stranger and walking companion alleviates the skepticism and reveals the meaning of the whole event as the salvific will of God: "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" (24:26). It is a Lukan summary of Christology, a description of the "way of Christ" on the basis of the biblical promises. ll2 The resurrected One also still bears human traits that, however, are included in the Lukan picture of Christ. The second part with the arrival in Emmaus and the scene at table opens new perspectives. The meal, in which Christ is recognized "in the breaking of the bread," is a continuation of the meals of the earthly Jesus with tax collectors (5:29-32), with Pharisees (7:36-47), with the crowd of people (9:12-17), but above all with the disciples in the Last Supper of Jesus (22:14-20). This special eating event, at which Jesus offers bread and wine to the disciples as his body and blood that is shed for them and commissions them to do this in remembrance of him (22:19), forms the bridge for the eucharistic celebration of the church, which in this way likewise practices the "breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7-11). Thus the meal with the Emmaus disciples is placed in the postEaster perspective of the church and yet in an earthly-human sense is inserted into the encounter of Jesus with the two disciples. The church that read this story was supposed to recognize that the Kyrios gives himself in the present in the meal that the church celebrates in remembrance of its Lord.l13 The story, which probably connects with a local tradition (the name "Cleopas," the place "Emmaus," the walk from Jerusalem to this place), is set on a broad christological-theological horizon (the opening of the eyes to the scripturally attested way of the Messiah in 24:31-32) and yet placed in a humanly comprehensible situation. We see here if anywhere the art of the storyteller Luke, joining what is human with background theological motifs.

b. Jesus the doctor In no other Gospel is the semantic field of healing as well developed as in Luke. 1l4 Although therapeuein originally meant "serve, be serviceable," in the New Testament the verb is mostly used synonymously as "heal, make healthy," and this is also true in Luke.I 15 Je-

186

LUKE

sus is understood as a doctor who heals bodily afflictions as well as spiritual depressions and makes the whole person "well" in the sense of the Hebrew shalom. The many healings that Jesus accomplishes result from the power given him by God. This power impels him to heal (iastimi, 5:17), and as soon as a paralytic is brought before him, he both pronounces the man's sins forgiven and restores his body (5:18-26). It is an exemplary act in which Jesus removes the contention of the scribes and Pharisees that only God can forgive sins. Luke emphasizes that the people glorify God and say: "We have seen strange things today" (5:26). Thus Jesus' healing miracles are not regarded as comprehensible, everyday events, as it were, as in the amazing wonder cures in Epidauros, but are recognized in their uniqueness. Jesus heals all who need healing (9:11). The proclamation of the kingdom of God is also connected with such healings (ibid.). This is an indication that the healings of Jesus occur within the context of the inbreaking kingdom of God. In response to the inquiry from the disciples of John the Baptist, Luke first begins with the many healings and exorcisms accomplished "just then" (7:21) and then offers the mixed quotation from Isaiah, coming from the sayings source, about the blind who see again, the lame who walk, the lepers and the deaf, the dead who are raised, and at the end, with emphasis: "The poor have good news brought to them" (7:22-23). Even when Jesus' compassion for the sick and needy is not expressly named, it can still be recognized in some healings. The woman suffering from hemorrhages (8:42-48), who with trembling admits to touching Jesus, is addressed by him lovingly as "daughter," and he takes the stain of impurity from her. To the synagogue leader Jairus-whom the other people ridicule because Jesus says that the girl is not dead but sleeping (a symbolic expression}-Jesus gives courage and confidence (8:49-56), as well as to the father of the boy with a demon (9:37-43). Jesus not only frees the blind man of Jericho from his blindness when he begs for mercy but also accepts him as a disciple who follows him on his way (18:35-43). This man on the street loudly imploring the "Son of David" becomes in his faith the type of the disciple who is determined to follow Jesus to Jerusalem on his way of death. These stories are adopted from the Synoptic tradition and little changed by Luke. In addition, the special material provides the healing of the crippled woman (13:10-17) and the man with dropsy

187

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

(14:1-6), which are presented by Luke because of the Sabbath healings and in defense of Jesus' philanthropic attitude. "When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing" (13:17). One may doubt these Sabbath healings, as well as the healing of lepers (especially the ten lepers in 17:11-19),116 but we cannot doubt that Luke knew Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath.ll7 Luke has shaped Jesus' healing successes redactionally and made them serviceable to his kerygmatic intentions, but the picture of the Jesus who persistently heals the sick is important to Luke. Jesus' compassion for the oppressed and socially disqualified is to be seen as the motivation for his healing activity in connection with his basileia proclamation (d. 4:18; 7:21-22). In comparison with the charismatic miracle workers, who are strongly represented in the Greco-Roman period and as a phenomenon of that time also had an effect on the Synoptic tradition,l18 Jesus stands out as a unique figure through his extraordinary healings, which occur in expectation of the eschatological and now already dynamically inbreaking kingdom of God. "While the Epidauran priests seem to assure that miracles happen around us every day, the miracle appears here as something totally improbable, 'We have never seen anything like this!' (Mark 2:12). The miracle is not the object of an expectation and hope connected with ongoing institutions but a paradoxical event that contradicts all experience."119 It is true that the person most often compared with Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana, a nomadic preacher and magician, describes miracle stories similar to those in the Gospels,12o but in an external way that shows interest only in the process itself. With Jesus everything is oriented toward the salvific will emanating from God and the devotion of Jesus to human beings. Contemporary views that also manifested themselVEs in healing gestures (laying on of hands, touching, spital, and oil) are undeniable, but the crucial point is always the commanding word of Jesus that invokes God's power and restores the sick person. Jesus orders the demon of illness that dominates a man: "Be silent, and come out of him!" (Luke 4:35). Jesus frees the especially plagued, mentally disturbed Gerasene demoniac from his many demons. In the end Jesus sends the healed man back home and asks him to tell everyone "how much God has done for you" (8:39). Jesus, the "Son of the Most High God," as the violent man addresses him (8:28), overcomes the power of evil and orders the un-

188

LUKE

clean spirit to corne out of the man (8:29). The exorcisms, which demonstrate Jesus' battle with corrupt forces and make clear the superiority of the Messiah and Son of God, are first to be distinguished from the healings that illustrate Jesus' helping and healing power. But for Luke they nonetheless fall under the same aspect of "healing" (Luke 6:18; 7:21; 8:2; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 10:38). The possessed are also "healed"; these are merely two sides of Jesus' healing work. To the twelve disciples Jesus also gives the power and authority to drive out demons and cure diseases (Luke 9:1). This healing power bestowed by Jesus is to assure the dawn of the kingdom of God in a larger area (9:2, 6). For Luke the picture is expanded through the sending out of the seventy-two disciples (10:1). It is a more broadly executed presentation of the sending out of the twelve, and it already anticipates the early Christian period. The sayings source probably has in mind the early Christian nomadic prophets who went out in poverty and need in order to carry the gospel as quickly as possible into the Jewish villages. 121 After Easter this charismatic involvement, borne by a high ethos, was developed even further. It was a large movement that also took various forms and after Easter was even more differentiated. 122 What is striking about the early period is the connection between preaching and healing the sick. The emissaries are to heal the sick and say to the people: "The kingdom of God has corne near to you" (10:9). Related to the addressees ("has corne near to you"), this is the continuation of Jesus' proclamation and activity (d. 4:40; 6:18; 9:6). For those who reject it, the preaching of the kingdom of God becomes judgment (9:5; 10:10-·11). After Easter the healing of the sick continues in the early church; the power of Jesus continues to work in this time of the Spirit as a confirmation, as it were, of the missionary preaching.123 The healings, which take place in the name of Jesus (Acts 3:6; 4:30) through the power of the Holy Spirit (d. 8:18; 9:17), are "signs" that Jesus, the "servant" of God, is still with the church and encourages it in the bold proclamation of the word of God (4:30). The healings, described in the style and world view of antiquity (d. 5:15; 19:11-12), cannot, at least in the summary overviews, be understood literally. They show on the whole, however, the conviction of the early church that the healings are manifestations of the effective power of the proclamation of salvation. Jesus the doctor becomes the guiding image for the whole development of early Christianity, and this had

189

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

great import for the social involvement of Christians in the period of the early church. 124 Christian preaching not only set "the real Jesus over against the imaginary Asc1epius but also definitely and consciously shaped itself as the religion of healing, as the medicine of the soul and the body, and it also saw as one of its most important duties the active care of the physically sick."125 The view has also been expressed that Luke, "the beloved physician" (Col. 4:14), is the author of the Gospel of Luke, for the Gospel reflects the medical vocation of the writer. This is based on certain medical expressions such as the "high fever" that had come upon Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38), the leprosy with which the leper imploring Jesus was "covered" (5:12), the expression for "paralyzed" (5:18,24), the stopping of the flow of blood in the woman suffering from hemorrhages (8:44), as well as on the fact that the harsh criticism of the "many" physicians, from whom this woman had endured much without getting better but rather growing worse (Mark (5:26), is considerably weakened by Luke (8:43). And the illness of the leader on the island of Malta seems to be well observed medically in Acts 28:8. But these arguments for Luke the "physician" are hardly convincing, since the alleged medical vocabulary has also been demonstrated as the language of educated people of that period. 126 That Luke, the companion of Paul (cf. also Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11), was a physician is only mentioned incidentally in Col. 4:14. The emphasis that "Luke" places on the healings can also be understood without this hypothesis, especially since we do not know the author of the two volumes by name. For him the "doctor" is Jesus, who heals all the sick with power bestowed by God and also bestows his healing power on the developing church. These healings reinforce the picture of the humane quality of Jesus, which Luke reveals in his portrait of Jesus.

2. Jesus' Efforts for the Poor and Suffering Luke has been called the "social evangelist," a thoroughly justified designation from today's standpoint. Yet if one understands this as change and improvement in social conditions, Jesus did not appear as a social reformer. As Luke sees it, Jesus called the poor blessed (Luke 6:20) and hurled his "woes" against the rich (6:24) but did not undertake to change the social structures in contemporary Judaism.127 It is a prophetic call, an appeal to the propertied to share

190

LUKE

their wealth and give "alms" (11:41; 12:33), yet in a comprehensive sense: one must forgo all one's possessions (14:33), sell everything one has, and distribute the money to the poor (18:22). This appeal is directed to those who want to enter into the group of Jesus' close disciples. One cannot be a disciple of Jesus if one does not renounce one's property and give up familial connections "for the sake of the kingdom of God" (d. 18:28-30). Beyond this circle of Jesus' followers, however, his call applies to all people who are blessed with earthly goods. It is true that the beatitude of the poor and the woe to the rich are directed toward Jesus' disciples (6:20a), but it concerns all hearers of Jesus' preaching (d. 6:27). The demand-coming from Luke's special material-not to invite to a meal one's relatives and rich neighbors but "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (14:12-13) is an appeal directed toward all, especially those with property. The indirect criticism of the rich in the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus likewise applies beyond the close circle of disciples to all people. The saying about the treasure that one is to gather not on earth but in heaven (12:33-34), adopted from the sayings source (Matt. 6:19-21) but focusing more sharply on the giving of possessions to the poor (Luke 12:33a), like the saying, "You cannot serve God and wealth" (Matt. 6:24 = Luke 16:13), is found in a sermon of Jesus directed toward a larger public. However one judges the detailed instructions to the disciples in comparison with the general kingdom of God preaching, the complete renunciation of property cannot be only for a smaller circle of Jesus' followers. 128 According to Luke one must base the renunciation of possessions, the warning against wealth, the castigation of "dishonest wealth" (Luke 16:9), and the threat of exclusion from the kingdom of God (18:25) on the preaching of Jesus, which is valid for all, and understand his admonitions to the disciples (14:33; 16:9) as detailed requirements for those who follow him. In Luke, to be sure, Jesus usually turns to his "disciples" (mathetai) with his radical demands, but they represent the prototype and model of the Christian church; the directives that apply to them echo in the church. Thus we read in a saying typically addressed to the church: "Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (12:32), and in the next verse: "Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out." The circle of Jesus' disciples becomes a sign for Israel and the later church.J29 In the following para-

191

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

ble of the faithful or unfaithful slave, a question from Peter is inserted: "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for everyone?" (12:41). Here it is a question of the expectation of the coming Lord, which puts a special responsibility for the church on the leader. The care for the well-being of the church is emphasized, but a special renunciation of possessions is not demanded. l30 a. The poor

In order to grasp Luke's intention in regard to the preaching of Jesus, we must first clarify who is to be understood as the "poor" (ptochoi). This term, which occurs ten times in Luke, always means for him the materially poor, the destitute. The beatitude of the poor in Luke 6:20 means, through the opposition to the "rich" (6:24), a bitter poverty that brings hunger and tears with it. The subsequent beatitudes clarify the picture of the "poor." In Matthew the beatitude is placed on a religious horizon (the poor in spirit): the poor who submit themselves entirely to God and set their hope on him alone. They are in a series with those who mourn, who will be comforted; with the meek, those who use no violence and will inherit the "land," the promised kingdom; and with those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt. 5:3--6). Here we also hear a corresponding admonition to a life entrusted to God, to a canon of virtues headed by mercy, peacemaking, and enduring persecution for the sake of righteousness. Luke retained the idea of earthly, material need in accordance with Jesus' preaching and joined it with the eschatological idea that the poor will be given the kingdom of heaven. This is even more clearly prominent in the beatitude of the hungering and weeping, who "now" hunger and weep but will then be filled and will laugh. The coming aeon, the time of salvation brought in by God, raises the lot of the oppressed poor and wretched on earth and changes it into a gratifying life with God. This proclamation of salvation to the "poor" is joined with release of the captives, Sight for the blind, and freedom for the oppressed and indeed put in first place (4:22). It is repeated in the answer to John the Baptist, here after Jesus' healing deeds and prominently in last place (7:22). In connection with the already completed healings one must think of the earthly poor and needy. But a turning point for the poor occurring on earth already in the present is not assured; Jesus stops with a "proclamation," a pledge of salvation. The reversal of earthly condi-

192

LUKE

tions in the future kingdom of God is already mentioned in the Magnificat: "He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty" (1:53). The beatitudes and woes are likewise attuned to the great eschatological turning point, and in the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus it is individually illustrated in regard to the change after the death of the individual (16:19-25). This sounds revolutionary and like a reversal of life as previously experienced. But ideas of revenge and triumph over the rich and mighty by those previously sitting in the shadow remain in the distance. The focus is only on God, who acts justly and has compassion for the wretched. God brings about the turning point that is already decided in his plan of salvation, the establishment of the kingdom of God. Luke does not succumb to an antipathy toward property owners, the rich, and rulers, but he strongly calls them to repentance. The degree to which Luke remains bound to Jesus' preaching is also shown in the talk about the dinner to which one is not supposed to invite relatives and rich neighbors but the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, who cannot repay an invitation to dinner (14:12-14). When we consider that these people, like the lepers, were excluded from the national community, then the "poor" likewise become outsiders and even foreign bodies in the national entity.131 The arrangement of the dinner for the poor and outcast is in harmony with the love of enemy, in which one is not to have one's eye on receiving thanks from people (6:32-34). It is like a beatitude: those who do not strive for repayment through human beings will be repaid by God at the resurrection of the righteous (14:14). For an understanding of the "poor" we must note the closeness to the sick and suffering. They fall in the same series with "the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (14:13,21), who were especially affected by poverty and were dependent on begging. The people, who could not help themselves, were dependent on welfare, which in Jesus' time, through many precepts from the Old Testament, gave the poor help and a share in the harvest, but it was not yet as well organized as in rabbinical Judaism. 132 Yet the weak public welfare was balanced by private acts of love, the "giving of alms." This resulted in some unpleasant phenomena: arrogance, hypocrisy, and showing off. Jesus adopted and reinforced the call to give alms (12:33). The chief tax collector Zacchaeus, who wants to give half of his possessions to the poor (19:8), follows this call. The narrow legalism of the Pharisees,

193

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

who keep the outside of the cup and dish clean but within are full of greed and wickedness, is castigated by Jesus. "So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you" (11:41). The example of the poor widow, who sacrifices her meager living, is not missed by Luke (21:1-4; cf. Mark 12:41-44). "Poverty" for Luke is an oppressive condition that is supposed to be overcome by those better situated. Jesus himself belongs to the poor, and through his healings he gives an indication of how one can help the downtrodden and needy. Poverty leads to the boundary of death, as one must assume in regard to the lepers, but Jesus heals the man who was "covered with leprosy" (5:12). Poor Lazarus, who lies covered with sores at the door of the rich man, lives on the threshold of death (16:20-21). But after his death he is carried away to father Abraham in paradise. More than the other evangelists, Luke promoted an "option for the poor." For him they were the chosen of God (see the beatitude!), who will receive a share in the coming kingdom. Through their juxtaposition with the rich they are lifted up into the light and experience the special love of God (16:22). Thus Luke becomes the pioneer of a preferential treatment for the poor that is to be observed in early Christianity, especially in the Letter of James (2:1-13). "Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom ... ?" Games 2:5}. b. The rich Luke devotes himself to the topic of wealth intensively and almost more than to poverty, although the two are mutually related. From Luke's special material come the woes against the rich (6:24), the parable of the rich fool (12:16-21), the speech on dinner hospitality (14:12-14), the rich man and poor Lazarus (16:19-31), and the chief tax collector Zacchaeus (19:2-10). How are the rich described? Material well-being is presupposed above all in real property but also in merchandise and trade; yet apart from the parable of the rich fool, the rich are not described in detail. Large property owners, wholesalers, and tax leaseholders, in addition to the royal court and high-priestly circles, belonged to the propertied class of the population. l33 Luke, however, does not ask about the origin of possessions but looks rather at the attitude produced by wealth. For him there is no question that wealth leads to

194

LUKE

greed (12:15; d. 16:14) and to being absorbed in earthly cares and enjoyments of life (8:14; 12:19; 16:19; 21:34). Wealth leads to a demanding mentality; the rich want to be important, to be praised and honored (d. 14:7-10). The woes also say: "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets" (6:26). The stress lies "less on wealth (v. 24) and the related satisfactory outcome (v. 25a) ... than on the self-assured, superior laughing (v. 25b) and especially the general Hattery (v. 26)."134 The dangers of wealth for the salvation of human beings are manifold: an opulent lifestyle (12:19), neglect of the poor (16:20-21), desire for honor (14:7-8), and arrogance (d. 14:16-20). Ultimately, it is forgetting about God and rejecting the call of Jesus (18:22-23). Wealth is so harmful that the rich will not enter into the kingdom of God, for "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" (18:25). Luke takes such sayings from the tradition lying before him but expands them with supplementary material. Did Luke hold possessions and wealth as such to be bad and contrary to God? Such an understanding seems to be suggested by the talk of "unrighteous mammon" (16:9, 11, literally [NRSV: "dishonest wealth"]). The originally Aramaic loanword basically designates wealth in a neutral sense but often acquires a derogatory, negative connotation, which is reinforced by the addition of "unrighteous." This attribute does not have to indicate the reprehensibility of possessions as such but the acquisition of wealth, which is often marked by violence and theft, bribery and injustice. 135 In the context of 16:9-13, following the parable of the dishonest manager, we find the admonition to make friends by means of "dishonest wealth" (d. 1 Enoch 63:10; CD 6:15; 8:5). Luke has in mind acceptance with God 136 and-according to everything else that we read in his Gospel-the giving of wealth to the poor. But Luke broadens the teaching drawn from the parable to still other sayings about dealing with earthly goods. He speaks of the faithfulness that all must have in the administration of property entrusted to them. The pointed emphasis on "faithful in a very little" in order also to be found "faithful in much" may open up the horizon of the church, in which the conscientious handling of entrusted funds is emphasized. 137 Unrighteous mammon is contrasted with "true riches" (v. 11) and "what belongs to another" with what one

]95

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

has acquired from God on one's own (v. 12). The entire series of sayings in vv. 9-13 is a little compendium for handling money and property. Now it is no longer a question of selling all that one has but only of faithful administration. "Wavering between total criticism ('unrighteous mammon') and pragmatic agreement ('faithful administration') now means the watchword: inner distance from the unalterable."138 The closing saying, "You cannot serve God and wealth" (16:13), seeks to do justice to both aspects but reinforces the total renunciation of possessions. This pragmatic view is confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles. It would be ideal if all community members sold their possessions and gave to each person as much as he or she needed; all should have everything in common (Acts 2:44-45). But in addition to the deception of Ananias and Sapphira, who delivered only a part of the proceeds from their property and lied to Peter (5:1-11), the deed of Joseph Barnabas, who sold a field and laid the money at the apostles' feet, is proudly mentioned (4:36). Apparently this was by no means automatic and deserved special mention as exemplary behavior. In spite of his radicalism, Luke remains a pragmatist who wants to educate the community on the proper way to deal with money and property. With Luke we can distinguish between a moderate position, which recommends intelligent dealings with possessions and a radical position that demands the total giving up of one's possessions. 139 The proper view of wealth comes from looking to God: one must become rich toward God (12:21) and gather treasures in heaven (12:33-34). Earthly treasures are not true riches, which are gained by renouncing possessions for the benefit of the poor. Thus the portrayal of the poor and the estimation of wealth ultimately again serve the "option for the poor."

c. The church If one wants to understand the accents that Luke places on the poverty question and the matter of wealth, one must also take a look at the church for which he was writing in his time. Was it a poor or a rich church? If it was a poor, socially marginalized church, one would have to regard the announcement of a reversal of earthly conditions as the great consolation granted to the poor church (d. Luke 16:25). Regarded in terms of social history, however, the communi-

196

LUKE

ties that Luke addresses cannot be placed in the milieu of poverty. According to Acts the newly founded churches also included wellto-do Christians such as Tabitha in Joppa (9:36), the dealer in purple cloth named Lydia (16:11-15), and the centurion Cornelius in Caesarea (10:1-2). From Thessalonica we hear that Paul was joined there by a large number of God-fearing Greeks, including not a small number of women from prominent circles (17:4). The church in Antioch, according to its ability, sent the believers in Judea something for their support (11:29-30). From the letters of Paul we learn that in the Hellenistic churches there were also prominent and rich people who supported the apostles, as did the church in Philippi (Phil. 4:10-20). The picture of the church in Corinth is typical of the situation in a commercial and trade center, and in it there was a broad level of people who were poor, little educated, and lowly born (d. 1 Cor. 1:26-28), but it also contained people of position and influence, such as the synagogue leader Crispus, Aquila and Priscilla, Gaius, Stephen, and Phoebe, who through their houses made considerable contributions to accommodations, worship, and church life. 140 Tensions between the propertied and the poor, probably slaves, surface at the celebration of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-22). We may presuppose that Luke had knowledge of such community conditions. But how did he react to them? Luke held fast to the poverty ideal, the commonality of goods, but he also had something special to say to the rich: they must be prepared to support the poor and to give alms. It is notable that he points again and again to this giving away of earthly goods (Luke 11:41; 12:33; 18:22; 19:8; Acts 4:34-35; 4:37). The benevolence, the "almsgiving," of the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:2, 4, 31) and Tabitha (9:36) are emphasized as praiseworthy. The chief tax collector Zacchaeus, who gives half of his wealth to the poor (Luke 19:8), is a model for the later church. If one considers the conditions in the early Christian churches, one cannot avoid recognizing that in his social message Luke is addressing rich and prominent Christians and even becomes the "evangelist of the rich."141 In fact, this makes the two tension-filled series of statements on the radical renunciation of possessions and intelligent dealings with earthly goods easier to understand. In spite of his harsh words against the rich he also gives them a chance: through benevolence and support of the poor and through acts of love within the church, they can find their place in the church

197

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

and share in the coming kingdom of GOd. 142 It is not necessary for them to sell all their possessions; it is enough if they support the needy in the church and give to all according to need (Acts 2:45; 4:35). The example of the chief tax collector Zacchaeus, who gave half of his possessions to the poor, was a guiding principle. Luke does not overlook the social tensions in the churches. The widows of the Hellenists, the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, were neglected at the daily distribution of food to widows and placed at a disadvantage in comparison with the widows of the "Hebrews," the local, Hebrew-speaking Jewish Christians (Acts 6:1). Therefore the gathering of disciples appointed seven men to correct these inequities. Also the collection of the church of Antioch for the church of Jerusalem, which was threatened with hunger (11:27-30), is for Luke an example of how social need among the churches can be overcome. The predominantly Gentile Christian church of Antioch remembered its mother church through a collection, which Barnabas and Paul delivered. This mission was so important to Luke that he emphasizes it by itself, although the whole course of events with the prediction of Agabus and the journey to Jerusalem is not historically understandable. 143 In a way similar to the question of faith after the circumcision of the Gentiles (Acts 15) Luke also seeks a balance in the social question. He was conscious of the difficulties of translating the message of Jesus into the concrete life of this world. He remains mindful of Jesus' radical demands and seeks to realize them as well as possible in the reality of the churches existing in his day. As the head of the church, however, Jesus remains the one who brings salvation to the poor and wretched. This is the way Luke speaks to those with possessions and shows them a way to improve the lot of the poor. In difficult economic conditions he wants to assure the poor a home in the churches. He holds the rich to their duty but does not overburden them. It is an example of how Jesus' radical demands should be examined in a new situation and realized in the spirit of Jesus. With his option for the poor and the admonition to the rich, the "social" evangelist has taken a position with regard to the call of Jesus and the necessities of his time.

3. Jesus' Devotion to Women In no other Gospel are women as prominent as in the Gospel of Luke. Does that reflect only the fact that in Luke's special material more than a few women are named and Jesus' meetings with them de198

LUKE

scribed? If such stories were available to Luke in the tradition at hand, it still cannot be coincidental that he includes them in his presentation. In the forward movement of Jesus' story the women play a not inconsiderable role even if one thinks only of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem. At an early point Luke reports that Jesus went from town to town and village to village and proclaimed the good news of the kingdom. "The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities," and then Luke mentions three women by name and "many others," who served him and the disciples with what they possessed, that is, provided their food (8:1-3). These women accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem and the cross, and they watched everything (23:49). They were witnesses to his work and at the open grave were the first to experience the resurrection of the crucified One (24:1-6). The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee accompanied him to the burial and saw how the body was laid in the grave (23:55). Because they had thus watched his death and burial, they must have been all the more surprised by the angel's message of his resurrection. They were asked: "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen" (24:5). Then attention is directed to the time when Jesus was with the women in Galilee and spoke to them about his cross and his resurrection (24:6-7). This kind of narration, which differs from the presentations of Mark (16:1-8) and Matthew (28:1-8), is instructive for the role of women in the Lukan conception. It is different from the other Synoptic Gospels not only in that these women had followed Jesus from Galilee (23:49) but also in that Jesus, while still in Galilee, had already predicted his death and his resurrection (24:6-8). Through this accompaniment of Jesus during his earthly work, the witnessing of the death and burial, and the word shared with them about his resurrection, they take their place alongside Jesus' disciples. In this way they represent the proclamation of Jesus-the earthly and the crucified and resurrected Jesus-and fulfill the criterion that is set for the candidates for the office of apostle in the special apostolic election (d. Acts 1:21-22). In fact, they become a key link for the apostles in the transmission of the resurrection message to the eleven and the other disciples (Luke 24:9). Therefore they are also named individually ("Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James") together with the other women (24:10). Thus it is not surprising that after the list of apostles in Acts 1:13 in the crowd of

199

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

those awaiting the descent of the Holy Spirit, there are also women (1:14). For Luke women have a historical and kerygmatic significance that affects the whole church because they were bound closely to the history of Jesus in the young church. They are fully integrated into the growing church and already take over important tasks from the beginning. Hence it is with justification that in today's feminist movement the role of women is being more vigorously examined, set apart from androcentric tendencies and false judgments, and recognized on an equal basis with that of men. l44 This gives prominent significance to Luke, whom one could also call the evangelist of women. The rich material that he offers for the topic "Jesus and women" is by itself an outstanding resource for feminist concerns. Moreover, Luke develops a picture of Jesus that illuminates his devotion to women in a new way. In what follows, our primary interest will be focused on the question, How does Luke clarify, modify, and change the picture of Jesus previously available in the tradition through his portrayal of women and their encounters with Jesus?

a. Women in the Lukan tradition First we must look at the women in the stories of Jesus' childhood. Here we meet Mary, the mother of Jesus, and her relative, the elderly Elizabeth. During Mary's visit with her older relative the salvationhistorical role planned for them is clearly revealed (1:39-56). Prophetically Elizabeth exclaims: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (1 :42). Then we also hear from the prophetess Anna, who like Elizabeth is prophetically gifted and, along with the old man Simeon, announces the redemption of Jerusalem (2:36-38). Elizabeth and Anna prepare for the arrival of the Redeemer. The person and role of Mary, however, is quite unique. She is the favored one and has received the child from the Holy Spirit, according to her fiat (1:26-38), and she is greeted by Elizabeth as the mother of the Messiah (1:42-43). She recites the Magnificat, praising the ways of God (1:46-55), and after the birth of Jesus preserves in her heart everything that happened at the manger (2:19), as well as what she experienced at the temple visit of the twelve-year-old Jesus (2:51). The lofty portrayal of Mary is determined by salvation history and Christology, and it distinguishes her from all other women in the Gospel. It is not possible here to do justice to Mary's prominent position

200

LUKE

in the childhood stories, her merits as mother of the Messiah, and, related to this, her human greatness.1.Js The scope goes beyond the topic of "Jesus and women" but is a testimonial to Luke's high estimation of women, which reaches its zenith in Mary. In the Gospel itself Mary steps noticeably into the background. Nowhere is the mother of Jesus mentioned by name; only once does she appear together with his brothers in an attempt to see and speak to Jesus when he is at work among the people (8:19-21). This peri cope adopted from the Synoptic tradition relativizes blood kinship in favor of the spiritual family, which is constituted in the hearing of the word of God. Yet it seems that Luke includes Jesus' mother and his brothers in the positive view of the men and women hearers of the word. 146 Thus it is also not surprising that Luke passes on a beatitude of the mother of Jesus (11:27-28), which likewise begins with physical motherhood and leads to a beatitude of those who hear and obey the word of God. This tradition, found only in Luke, of a woman who raises her voice in the crowd in order to praise the mother of Jesus, and her son through her, continues the picture of Mary drawn in the childhood stories (d. the praise by Elizabeth in 1:42) and is a further testimony to the high estimation of Mary as the mother of the Messiah. 147 Since the exceptional position of Mary, nevertheless, does not focus comprehensively on the Lukan view of women but in an eminent way surpasses it, we want to skip over Mary and concentrate rather on Jesus' meetings with women recounted in the remainder of the Gospel. The Lukan special material includes the following pericopes: the widow of Zarephath, 4:25-26 the widow of Nain, 7:11-17 the anointing sinful woman, 7:36-50 the women accompanying Jesus, 8:1-3 Martha and Mary, 10:38-42 the beatitude by a woman of the people, 11 :27-28 the healing of a crippled woman on the Sabbath, 13:10-17 the parable of the lost coin, 15:8-10 the parable of the widow and the unjust judge, 18:1-5 the lamenting women on the way to the cross, 23:27-31 To these, however, we must also add the pericopes and allusions to women that come from the pre-Lukan tradition:

201

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, 4:38-39; d. Mark 1:30-31; Matt. 8:14-15 the healing of the woman with hemorrhages and the raising of the daughter of Jairus, 8:40-56; d. Mark 5:21--43; Matt. 9:18-26 the queen of the South, 11:31; d. Matt. 12:42 the parable of the yeast, 13:20-21; d. Matt. 13:33 We want to stay with Luke's special material. The widow of Zarephath (4:25-26), along with Naaman the Syrian (4:27), is offered in the sermon in Nazareth as an example of how God has showered people outside Israel with good deeds. Here is a challenge for the listening Jewish men and women who do not accept Jesus' prophetic message. Notable is the paired citing of a woman and a man, which can often be observed elsewhere: in the double parable of the mustard seed and the yeast, in the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, in the equal status of the penitent Ninevites and the queen of the South, who comes from some distance. This queen, desirous of the wisdom of Solomon, is mentioned by Luke before the people of Nineveh (11:31), although placing the latter after the threatening saying about the Son of Man (v. 30) would have been more logical. This queen of the South, who comes from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, is important to the evangelist because the topic here is wisdom, which also characterizes the picture of Jesus (2:40, 52; 7:35; 11:49; 21:15).148 The widow of Nain, upon whom Jesus has pity, belongs to the healing stories that describe Jesus as physician and helper and also include the crippled woman, whom Jesus frees from her suffering of eighteen years and protects as a "daughter of Abraham" (13:10-17). The raising of the dead surpasses this Sabbath healing because Jesus is praised here as a great prophet: "God has looked favorably on his people!" (7:16). The fact that this graceful visitation of God occurs for the sake of the grieving mother and widow, to whom Jesus gives back her son, reveals Jesus' devotion to women. This series is continued with Jesus' meeting with the sinful woman (7:36-50) and the women accompanying him (8:1-3). Jesus' compassion in the story of the anointing sinful woman increases to pity for a socially ostracized woman. Worse than the pain of sickness and death is the spiritual need of a woman who is despised because of her sins and excluded from human society. Jesus sees how in such a woman a deep love and gratitude can develop toward Jesus, who considers her in her

202

LUKE

situation, accepts her fully as a human being, and absolvps her of her sins. As a favored one she stands beside the paralytic (5:17-26), but in her case the spiritual roots of her need and her love are revealed. 149 This sinful woman throws a spotlight on the situation of women in the Judaism of her time and on the liberation that Jesus brought to them. Jesus frees himself completely from the differing judgment of men and women and regards people only in their situation before God. The love that she shows toward Jesus is the only standard by which even a despised prostitute can be measured. When Luke omits the story of the anointing of Jesus in Bethany, which he probably knew from Mark (14:3-9), and offers instead this other version of the loving sinful woman, it is to be assumed, in spite of all traditionhistorical problems, 150 that he also liked this story because it shines a light on Jesus' love for sinners and women. Mark also brings into his Gospel the woman who anoints his head in Simon's house on the evening before his passion, because it will be told everywhere "in remembrance of her." But Luke recognizes the woman anointing Jesus' feet for her humanity and dedication to Jesus. For Luke she is a sign of the respect and love that one must show toward every woman. The topic of women is then continued in 8:1-3. Already in the beginning we could see, looking back from Easter, what these women who accompanied and supported Jesus meant for Jesus' way. It is emphasized that these women were healed of evil spirits and illnesses, for example, Mary Magdalene, out of whom seven demons came. She was an especially plagued, physically and spiritually tormented woman, who then with Johanna and the mother of James was the first to learn the news of Jesus' resurrection (24:10). The mentioning of women by name is an indication that Luke especially sympathized with the suffering of women. Out of pain and need grows a deeper love for the one who liberates and heals them. The ability of women to know the feelings of injustice and suffering becomes apparent in the scene on the way to the cross, where women around Jesus lament and wail (23:27-31). Full of pain, they observe Jesus' way of suffering, beat their breasts, and weep. In contrast with Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry the cross, they are the ones who comprehend the event better: the King of Israel (23:37-38) is being driven to death. But only Jesus' answer reveals the judgment to come over Jerusalem, which will be especially oppressive for women. They appear to be the ones who will be especially affected by and will painfully experience God's punishing 203

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

judgment, as was already predicted to Mary in the prophecy of Simeon (2:34-35). They, in addition to the women who accompany Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem (23:49), are the representatives of the voice of the people who feel Jesus' destiny deeply. lSI A woman, however, can also attest to the joy of God's good news. The parable of the lost (and recovered) coin (15:8-10), along with the parable of the lost sheep, takes up the basic theme of the saving of the lost and places it on the horizon of God's joy over a repenting sinner (15:10). What is presented in more detail in the parable of the prodigal son (d. 15:24, 32) already breaks forth in the joy of the woman over the recovered coin. In any case, Luke understood the parable in this sense and thereby raised a monument to the joyful acceptance of the gospel by women. The episodically told visit of Jesus in the house of Martha and Mary must also be seen in this context (10:38-42). The emphasis is all on listening to Jesus' words (v. 39). With this Mary chose the good part, the better part compared to her busy sister (v. 42). As much as the history of interpretation has been occupied with the two types of women and has seen the higher value in the contemplative life rather than the active,IS2 this interpretation may, nonetheless, have missed the actual intention of the statement. It is not active doing, earthly activity and reflective meditation that stand opposed, but occupation with everyday things and hearing the gospel. This scene during Jesus' wandering is placed after the blessing of Jesus' disciples (10:23-24) in an instruction about being disciples, which deals sequentially with the doing of love, the hearing of the gospel, and prayer. To gain etemallife one must love God and neighbor, and indeed in the same active way as the merciful Samaritan did with the man beaten by robbers (10:25-32). A second basic requirement of Christian life is the hearing of Jesus' words, as Mary did during Jesus' visit. Finally, a third is necessary: prayer that in total trust in God gains the power to be Jesus' disciple (11:1-13). The fact that here Luke is arranging thematically his material taken from tradition is seen in the connection of the chief commandment with the parable of the merciful Samaritan and in the gathering of prayer texts. Even the intervening scene with Martha and Mary deals with a theme of disciple instruction that is placed between loving action and prayer: hearing and reflecting on the words of Jesus. It is an answer to the distinction of the disciples that they are seeing what many prophets

204

LUKE

and kings wanted to see and did not see, and wanted to hear and did not hear (10:23-24). For this reason Luke drew the two sisters Martha and Mary from an otherwise unknown tradition. He appreciated the sensitivity of women for the discipleship of Jesus and placed their listening to Jesus' word over their readiness to serve Jesus (d. 8:3). Mary thus becomes the type of the true disciple of Jesus. We can also get here a feel for the feminine ability to ponder and fathom more deeply the thoughts of God, as attested by Mary, the mother of Jesus (2:19, 51).153

The parable of the widow and the godless judge (18:1-5) presents the widow, who presses the judge so that he will grant her justice, only as an illustration of the idea that one is to pray continually and never let up (18:1). Nevertheless, the hopeless complaint before the godless judge becomes successful through the persistence of the widow, who repeatedly besieges the judge. If we note the portrayal of this widow and how it comes across even stronger in the judge's monologue (18:5), she leaves at first an impression that is different from the other women in the Gospel: she is stormy, perhaps even violent. But concealed behind this portrayal is the need of women left alone, of the poor and wretched, to whom the evangelist especially devotes himself in accordance with the preaching of Jesus. In their oppression women can and should cry out to God, who will hear them. In this way this widow fits in again in the series of women who through Jesus find mercy with GOd. l54 Thus the image of women that we find in the Gospel of Luke is quite varied. This raises the question of what estimation of women lies behind it.

b. The estimation of women that results from Luke's presentation Without doubt, we must distinguish between the tradition adopted by Luke and his own assessment. The overview of the material reworked by Luke (see above, section 1) reveals that the evangelist always linked the presentation of the material with a judgment of women, their nature, and their salvation-historical role. The image of women in Luke's mind can be outlined as follows: Women as human beings For Luke women are full-fledged human beings. It is true that he does not present the discussion of divorce in which an appeal is made (1)

205

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

to the creation of man and woman (Mark 10:6; Matt. 19:4), yet he strengthens the prohibition of divorce (16:18), specifically, with the idea that a man may not leave his wife and a woman left by her husband may not marry. Thus Jesus places himself protectively in front of women in marriage, from which we must conclude that in marriage the wife is the husband's partner with equal rights. Jesus' recognition of the human dignity of women is expressed more strongly than elsewhere in the healing stories. Jesus addresses the woman with hemorrhages as "daughter" (8:48; Mark 5:34; Matt. 9:22), and he calls the crippled woman a daughter of Abraham (13:16). If one considers what significance is given to the male descendants of Abraham (d. 1:55), this express inclusion of the woman in the progeny of the patriarch is notable. She belongs to the people of God just as much as the chief tax collector Zacchaeus, whom Jesus calls a "son of Abraham" (19:9). Jesus heals all, men and women without exception, sometimes especially women (8:2). In his meetings with women their human qualities become evident, not only in their support of Jesus' disciples, who are dependent on help (8:3), but also in their spiritual participation in Jesus' destiny (23:27), in their accompanying Jesus to the cross (23:49), and in their presence at Jesus' burial (23:55). Sensitively, Luke describes the behavior of the penitent sinful woman who with human warmth shows love toward Jesus, while the pharisee Simon violates human obligations (7:4446). In the parable of the lost coin there is a woman who in her joy over her find calls her friends and neighbors together and lets them share her joy. Above all, we must also think here of the Virgin Mary, who upon the news that her relative Elizabeth has conceived a son in her old age immediately sets out to visit her and be with her during her pregnancy (1:39-56). The women are portrayed throughout in their humanity; even Martha, who is placed behind her sister Mary, is attractive in the frankness with which she presents her grievance to Jesus (10:40). The widow who besieges the unjust judge (18:1-5) is taken straight out of life, with a hint of humor.

(2) Women in their equality with men We have already observed the effort of the evangelist to have women appear beside men: the prophetess Anna beside Simeon, the widow of Zarephath beside Naaman the Syrian, the queen of the South beside the Ninevites, the woman looking for her lost coin be-

206

LUKE

side the shepherd looking for the lost sheep. Also to be included here are the healing of Peter's mother-in-law beside the healing of the leper (4:38-39 and 5:12-16) and the lamenting women beside Simon of Cyrene (23:26-27). Above all, one must see that the women are called into the same discipleship of Jesus as his disciples, as far as this was possible under the social conditions of the time. In 8:1-2 we read: "The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities." Such a closeness to women was unthinkable in the Judaism of that time, but Jesus accepts them into his following. It is true that the women could not proclaim the kingdom of God as the disciples did (9:2), but they were present during the proclamation of Jesus and his disciples and supported Jesus in this activity. Thus Jesus raised women above an androcentric view and placed them on the same level as men. He masterfully breaks through the barriers of contemporary Jewish society: we have only to think of his intervention for the sinful woman, who invaded a dinner for men, or the women whom he received into his following. Jesus unites in himself traits that also do justice to the "feminine." He is the "integrated" man, who does not establish "masculinity" as the highest form of humanity.1SS

(3) Women in their salvation-historical role The significance of women for the history of salvation comes through strongest in the childhood stories. The Magnificat, which is recited by Mary, describes the revolution that begins with the selection of Mary as mother of the Messiah. When God looks upon the lowliness of his handmaid, it will be known in the future that he has scattered those who are full of pride in their hearts. He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up the lowly (1:48-52). An eschatological turning point is reached as Jesus announces it in the beatitudes and woes (6:20-26). Mary is the real symbol for this revolutionary reversal that is decreed in God's plan of salvation. Elizabeth, who praises Mary as the one blessed among all women (1:42), is also included in this view. Her son John, through his preaching of repentance, prepares the way of God realized in Jesus (cf. 1:13-17,68-79; 3:3-6). The prophetess Anna likewise predicts the redemption of Israel (2:38). The radical change in salvation history that is achieved with the coming of the Messiah, this turning

207

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

toward salvation, is reflected in the prophetic words of the women in the childhood stories. An echo comes in the shout of praise from a woman of the people (11:27-28). A salvation-historical role is certainly given also to the women accompanying Jesus on his way from Galilee to Jerusalem. For they make vivid the way of Jesus, which is characterized by the cross and resurrection, and through their message to the apostles about the resurrection of Jesus (24:10) they lead into the central event of salvation. When the apostles did not believe them and thought it to be the idle tale of women (24:11), this is a concession to the contemporary androcentric attitude, which considered the testimony of women invalid. In the dialogue of the Emmaus disciples with Jesus, however, we learn that these women caused great excitement among the disciples (24:22). The women at least gave an impetus to reflection on the resurrection of Jesus. In the period after Easter we then find them in the circle of those forming the church of Christ (Acts 1:14). Now they are full members of the believers in Jesus Christ, and one may assume that their testimony was recognized. c. The women in the Acts of the Apostles

Also a part of the picture that Luke-stimulated by Jesus' attitude toward women-painted of the female sex is his presentation of the life and mission of the early church in the Acts of the Apostles. There Luke establishes and expands an image of women that he had already formed by looking back over the work of Jesus. One can also ask whether the role of women in early Christian community life and in missions did not influence the Lukan picture of Jesus. Yet here we can detect at best faint traces, for example, women serving Jesus and his disciples (Luke 8:3) or the healing miracles involving women. On the whole, Luke remainE true to his sources. The picture of women in the Acts of the Apostles is determined by still more factors than the remembrance of Jesus. 156 Luke's experiences from the life of the first Christians and from the mission field confirmed and expanded the image of women as it is found in his Gospel. Women continue to experience the salvific and healing powers of Christ. In the summary report on the work of the apostles we read that great numbers of men and women were led in faith to the Lord and all the sick were healed (5:14-16). We hear individual ex-

208

LUKE

amples of the healing of the paralyzed Aeneas in Lydda (9:32-35) and the resurrection of Tabitha in Joppa (9:36-42). Again a man and a woman are named one after the other, and the woman experiences an even greater miracle. The active cooperative work of the women in the work of the community and in missions is expressed more than once: for example, through Lydia, the dealer in purple cloth in Philippi (16:11-15), and through Priscilla in Athens and Ephesus (18:2,18-19,26). The married couple Priscilla and Aquila are active in the Pauline mission (d. Rom. 16:3) and accompany the apostle from Athens to Ephesus (Acts 18:19-20). Also in Mary, the mother of John Mark, who makes her house available for the gathering of the believers (12:12), we see how women supported the apostle. House churches formed around many women, as the greetings list in Romans reveals. This active role of women was known to Luke and shaped his image of women. Women had to tolerate the same persecutions as the disciples of the Lord (8:3; 9:2; 22:4). Luke turns special attention to the pious, "God-fearing" women-that is, proselytes from Judaism-who joined Paul (13:50; 17:4,12,34 [DamarisJ). On the journey to Rome "wives and children" gathered in Tyre to say farewell to Paul and his companions (21:5-6). The common prayer on the beach shows the church with women and children as the family of God, in which the apostle is exalted. In Caesarea, in the house of the evangelist Philip, Paul meets Philip's four prophetically gifted daughters (21:8-9), who possess the same gift of prophecy as Agabus (21:10-11). This fulfilled what was already said during the Pentecost event: "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (2:17). All along the way Luke makes no distinction between the women in the young Christian churches and the men working there, and he recognizes their role in the missionary work of Paul. 157 For Luke this confirms the equality of women in the work of Jesus as well as the formation of a new community of salvation in which the old prejudices are overcome. The women take over not only tasks of charity but also ministries of teaching and preaching. They care for the upbuilding and life of the churches, especially through the "house churches." Thus Luke proves to be the "evangelist of women," who, within the framework of what was possible at the time, prepared the way for today's women's movement.

209

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

4. Jesus at Prayer Luke devotes much attention to prayer, to Jesus at prayer, and to the church at prayer. In remembrance of Jesus' words and behavior, prayer is an important concern for the whole early church. Is8 In Luke prayer is credited in such a special way to Jesus and later to the early church that one can perceive in it a special feature of the picture of Jesus. For Luke, Jesus is the one sent by God who prays at the milestones of his earthly career and in crucial situations and thereby gives the church both an example and an impetus for its prayer. From the traditional prayer texts Luke recognized this peculiarity of Jesus in speaking with his Father and placing everything in his hands, and Luke tinted his picture of Jesus accordingly. He becomes the outstanding teacher of prayer for the church, which he already sees modeled in the circle of disciples (cf. Luke 11:1). Thus in what follows we must examine the special statements of the evangelist on (1) Jesus at prayer, (2) the exemplary quality of Jesus' prayer for the early church, and (3) the corresponding image of the early church.

a. Prayer in the earthly work of Jesus In the following passages in Luke, in distinction to the Markan presentation, Jesus is introduced as one who prays: 3:21:

as Jesus was baptized and prayed, the heaven was opened 5:16: (after the healing of the leper) Jesus was in a deserted place and prayed 6:12: (before the calling of the apostles) he went out to the mountain to pray and spent the night in prayer 9:18: (before Peter's confession) when he prayed alone, the disciples came 9:28-29: (at the transfiguration) he went up a mountain to pray; while he was praying, it happened that ... 11:1 (before the Lord's Prayer) when he was praying in a certain place ... 22:32: "I have prayed for you [Peter1... " 23:34: then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them ..." 23:46: then Jesus cried with a loud voice: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"

210

LUKE

If one looks over these passages, it becomes clear that between his baptism and his death Jesus prayed again and again. These moments of prayer, however, are not arbitrarily inserted but are appropriate to important situations during Jesus' appearance and activity. They are times of decision (baptism) and turning points (passion) that determine Jesus' way. The baptism of Jesus, at which he sees the heaven open and the Holy Spirit descending on him like a dove (d. Mark 1:10; Matt. 3:16), becomes for Luke a place of prayer (3:21), so that Jesus not only experiences a vision (Mark) or is drawn into a divine event (Matthew) but participates in this event himself. Thus in close connection with his Father, Jesus' way of salvation is thereby opened. Jesus accomplishes his acts of healing in the power of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by prayer in a deserted place (d. 5:16).159 Then he calls the twelve apostles and prays again-this time all through the night (6:12). After Easter these contexts become a model for the church: before the selection of Matthias as apostle, all devoted themselves constantly to prayer (Acts 1:14). The apostolic selection, with the emphatic designation of the disciples as "apostles," is the bridge to the postEaster church (d. 1:21-26). The questioning of the disciples regarding who the people say that Jesus is follows Jesus' praying alone (Luke 9:18). Fortified by Jesus' prayer, Peter makes his confession of the Messiah, and Jesus then reveals his way of suffering and death (9:20-22). It is as if in praying Jesus wanted to strengthen his disciples for the revelation of the secret of his passion. In exactly the same way, the transfiguration on the mountain happens after Jesus' prayer (9:28). This revelation pointing to the resurrection of Jesus is able to surround the disciples, who are drawn into this event, with numinous fear (9:34), but through Jesus' prayer the whole process is to be understood as an extraordinary heavenly phenomenon that has a special quality of revelation for the three disciples. The Christophany on the mountain, which reveals Jesus in his glory, is supposed to support and strengthen the disciples (and the later church) in the face of the coming death of Jesus; Moses and Elijah speak with Jesus about the "exit" that he is to take in Jerusalem (9:31-32). During Jesus' prayer his face was changed, and his clothes became dazzling white (9:29). Already in Jesus' earthly life the three disciples become for a short time witnesses to his resurrection. The context of the pray-

211

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

ing Jesus before the transfiguration is similar to that of the suffering Jesus on the Mount of Olives, 160 except that here everything is placed in the light of the resurrection. The salvation-historical way from death to resurrection (24:26) is held together in Jesus' prayer, in a mirror image, as it were. The passion event can be overcome only in prayer. In spite of his surrender to the will of God (22:42), Jesus succumbs to the fear of death (agonia) and prays all the more earnestly (22:44). In this hour on the Mount of Olives all anxiety is suppressed and at the actually impending death anxiety can then no longer pull Jesus away from his confident closeness to the Father (23:46). Jesus does not pray alone but rather is devoted in his praying to the people around him. He prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail (22:31), and he prays for his crucifiers because they do not know what they are doing (23:34), if we may follow the poorly attested text (see below, section b). The women who lament and weep on the way to the cross (23:27) receive his warning words of comfort, and the criminal crucified with him, who converts, is given the assurance of being yet today with Jesus in paradise (23:43). All these special features in Jesus' passion can be traced back to the power of Jesus' prayer, which persists even in the hour of death. It is true that this is not expressly said, but the earlier portrayal of Jesus at prayer justifies this interpretation. Prayer makes him attentive to the stations along his way. Jesus, however, is presented as one who not only prays personally but also leads his church on the path of prayer. The contextual remarks that precede the Lord's Prayer in 11:1 broaden the view from the praying Jesus to the praying church. Jesus' disciples want to learn to pray, as John's disciples were taught by their master. It is true that we know nothing more about praying in the Baptist's community, but its fasting and praying are presupposed (d. 5:33). Luke is probably already looking at the group of John's disciples that formed after Jesus' departure (d. Acts 19:2-7); he places their practice of prayer over against the prayer of the Christian church, which it was taught by Jesus himself: the Lord's Prayer. The historical circumstances of the disciples' request are conceivable if the disciples of John already carried on a special kind of prayer at the time of Jesus, but the following reasons support the idea that Luke is looking beyond the present situation: (1) The prayer on the Mount of Olives also becomes an admonition to the disciples and the later church not

212

LUKE

to fall into temptation (Luke 22:40,46) and thus goes beyond the current situation. (2) The promise of the Holy Spirit that stands at the end of the whole teaching on prayer (11 :13) points to the time of the early church, when the Spirit is given to the believers. (3) The assurance of being heard (11:5-8) fits, to be sure, into Jesus' teaching on prayer, but in the parable of the widow and the unjust judge {18:1-8} it is transferred into the post-Easter situation of the church. Through the delay in the Parousia they could become insecure in their prayer: "And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them?" (18:7). The reference to the later time of the church is even clearer in 18:8: "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" 161 Luke adopted Jesus' prayer admonitions, interpreted them, and made them relevant for the church. The strengthening of faith (d. 17:5) requires prayer (22:32). Luke's thinking is based on the situation of the early church, and he puts Jesus' prayer admonitions into the church's situation (18:1; also 19:11). Regarding Jesus at prayer, one must still ask how this supplication to the Father is related to Jesus' divine sonship, which places him very close to God. Everything is handed over to Jesus by his Father, and Jesus possesses an intimate knowledge of God (10:22). But the Son remains subordinate to the Father and has no control over what the Father has planned. The Johannine problem of why the consubstantial Son prays at all, since he knows the will of the Father and is certain of the fulfillment of his requests Oohn 11:41-42; 12:27-28) is a long way from Luke. Jesus remains the human being who in jubilant joy thanks the Father (Luke 10:21) and can cry out in deepest anguish for deliverance (22:44). In prayer he finds strength to accept God's dispositions (9:18 in connection with 9:22) and to place himself in God's hands even in the hour of death (23:46). For him prayer becomes the revelation of the divine will and the main reason for his earthly career. b. Jesus' prayer as an example for the church When Luke places the praying Jesus before the eyes of his readers, he is pursuing certain intentions. For the later church we must see first that Jesus' prayer becomes the model for the disciples. This is especially clear in the martyrdom of Stephen. If Stephen has in mind Jesus' saying at the crucifixion, "Father, forgive them; for they

213

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34), his exclamation at his stoning, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60), becomes understandable as an emulation of Jesus' pardoning kindness toward his crucifiers. Since verse 23:34a is poorly attested, however, there is still uncertainty as to whether Jesus spoke thus at his crucifixion between the two criminals. 162 The death of Stephen is told in accordance with Jesus' exemplary dying. Not only the intercession for the murderers but also other sayings echo Jesus' words: Stephen's handing over his spirit into the hands of the Father (Acts 7:59; d. Luke 23:46) and also the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (7:56; d. Luke 22:69}.163 Jesus' martyrdom supports that of Stephen and makes its course comprehensible, as well as the loud shouting of the council members (7:56; d. Luke 23:23). The whole Stephen trial recalls the proceedings against Jesus: his provocative challenging of his opponents leads to a violent reaction, and his sovereign superiority to furious accusations and to execution, which takes place, however, in the light of Jesus' majesty. Jesus' praying also becomes the model for the later church in another respect. Jesus' prayer on the Mount of Olives is introduced by an address to the disciples: "Pray that you will not corne into the time of trial" (22:40). When Jesus then withdraws from them, kneels, and prays, they are to know by this how important this call to prayer is to him. In this hour before Jesus' arrest and passion they give in to a temptation that calls their faith and their discipleship into question. This testing is an unusual one and yet one that any disciple can encounter at any time. In this hour they share the temptation of Jesus, who surrenders himself to the Father's will. If this temptation grows into mortal anxiety while his sweat falls to earth like drops of blood (v. 44}-which is probably the original text, despite its absence in a considerable number of manuscripts-then this reveals a weakness of Jesus in the physical realm. The scene has a double structure: first Jesus' prayer for preservation in the face of death, then strengthening by an angel and renewed anguish, which evokes more earnest praying. This crescendo is intentional, first, in order to contrast Jesus with the sleeping disciples, but then also to give emphasis to the admonition, "Pray that you may not corne into the time of trial" (v. 46). Thus the scene on the Mount of Olives is framed by this admonition, and the praying Jesus demonstrates the kind of prayer that allows temp-

214

LUKE

tation to be overcome. It is notable that the concomitant admonition to watch, which is found in the other synoptists, is missing in Luke (yet d. 21:36). Everything is concentrated on prayer, and in such a way that the disciples can see in Jesus' praying how they are to pray: the greater the temptation, the more urgently they are to pray. This corresponds to other admonitions to prayer in Luke. God will grant justice without delay to his chosen ones "who cry to him day and night" (18:7-8). They are to pray always and not lose heart (18:1). Perpetual, repeatedly practiced prayer is based on the praying of the earthly Jesus, who is again and again immersed in prayer to his Father. It is a persistent praying that is certain of being heard. l64 Jesus' praying, however, is not only a model for the disciples and the later church; he also teaches the disciples a prayer with new content, the Lord's Prayer. It tells the church what it is to pray for. Jesus is the teacher of prayer for the future church. 165 The Lord's Prayer, as a prayer for the coming of the kingdom of God, is connected with the necessary requests in the present age and teaches the disciples ("Lord, teach us to pray") how and for what they are to pray in this age. Here it is of little importance whether the petition for the Spirit replaces or expands the petition for the kingdom, as attested by some text authorities. 166 In any case, the Lord's Prayer fits into the praying of the church in the interim between the beginning and the completion of the kingdom of God. Christians are to "be alert at all times, praying that you may have the strength ... to stand before the Son of Man" (21:36). Jesus' disciples can also pray for earthly things (d. 11:11-13), but more important is praying for the Holy Spirit, through whom Christians are given everything they can ask for in their need and distress. Ultimately, what is crucial is not the content of prayers but persistent prayer in general. For in prayer the Christian is assumed into communion with the heavenly Father, who knows what we need for our lives (12:30). Most important is our striving for the kingdom of God, for whose coming we pray in the Lord's Prayer. Even if the arrival of the Lord is delayed (12:38), constant prayer overcomes the time of waiting. Luke wants to establish the power of prayer in every situation.

c. Prayer in the post-Easter church Persistence in prayers is part of the picture of the ideal church in the summary of Acts 2:42 (d. also 1:14 and 2:46-47). Prayer and pray-

215

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

ing are mentioned in Acts about twenty-five times, not including deomai ("beg, ask"). The whole early church is a praying church. 167 More important to the apostles than serving at table is devoting oneself "to prayer and to serving the word" (6:4). Tasks that fall to the apostles and the church are accompanied by prayer: the appointment of the seven men to provide for widows (6:6), the mediation of the Spirit to believers in Samaria (8:18), the sending out of Barnabas and Saul into mission from Antioch (13:3), the appointment of elders in the churches (14:23), and the departure of Paul on his way to Jerusalem (20:36; 21:5). The church, which upon Peter's arrest is worried about the life of its leader, prays fervently for him (12:5, 12). Especially noteworthy is the prayer that the church raises to God with one voice after the freeing of Peter and John from imprisonment and interrogation before the council (4:23-31).168 It is a prayer of praise and petition. Praised is God, who created heaven, earth, and the sea (d. Ps. 146:6; Isa. 37:16) and made the words from Psalm 2 ("Why did the Gentiles rage ... ") true in this concrete situation. The allied enemies of Jesus and the church-Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles, and Jews-were unable to attain their goal; they could only carry out what God's hand and will had determined in advance. And yet their threats continue, and thus the prayer becomes a petition for the continued open proclamation of the word of God and for healings, miracles, and signs through the name of God's holy servant Jesus. It is a special situation in which the church speaks this prayer, a dangerous and yet salvation-historically significant situation. The prayer shaped by Luke meets a situation that is to be often repeated in the early church: the persecution of Stephen and the spread of the good news into broader areas unleashed by that persecution according to God's will and plan (8:1b, 3); the execution of James and arrest of Peter, which nonetheless led to the triumph over King Herod (chap. 12); the pursuing of Paul and the way in which he as the chosen instrument is led to bring Jesus' name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel (9:15). That is exactly what the church prayed for regarding the enemies allied against them (4:27). The Holy Spirit will continue to lead the church and strengthen it through growth (9:31). Certain parallels to the praying of Jesus can be recognized. The prayer at Jesus' baptism, which leads to the descent of the Holy Spirit, is like a preview of the prayer for the Holy Spirit whom Peter

216

LUKE

and John call down on the baptized believers in Samaria (8:15-17). Baptism and receiving the Spirit belong together (d. 2:38), yet in such a way that those who come into the Christian church through baptism in the name of Jesus are promised the Holy Spirit as a gift. When the Spirit has not yet descended, there is prayer for the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands. Prayer, as in 1:14; 10:31, 44, is preparation for receiving the Spirit. As Jesus prays before the selection of apostles, so also does the church when seven men are appointed to care for the poor (6:6), or when the church of Antioch sends Paul and Barnabas out for missions (13:3), or when elders are appointed in the individual churches (14:23). In the church the laying on of hands is added as an external rite; an external sign is needed. Jesus' prayer for his disciples is not the same as the church's prayer for missionaries and church leaders, but this prayer, which is fortified by fasting, holds to the model of Jesus. In need and oppression the church must have remembered Jesus' prayer on the Mount of Olives. There are no true parallels of Jesus' constant prayer, but there is a continuation of the stream of prayer that emanates from Jesus and continues in the church. Prayer maintains the memory of Jesus and becomes a new power in the life of the church. Yet there is a difference between the praying of Jesus, which occurs in personal dialogue with his Father, and praying in the church, which is always a community prayer. But we see the beginnings of this kind of prayer already in the Gospel. When Jesus teaches his disciples the Lord's Prayer, they are given the task of community prayer. It becomes a reality in the church after Easter, and this corresponds to the forward movement of the history of salvation, which after the time of Jesus moves on to the time of the church. What Jesus did on earth, healing and praying, resisting the powers of evil and surviving persecutions and suffering, is expanded in the early church, under the leadership of the Spirit, into an ever-flowing stream, which carries the salvation of Christ into the world. On the whole, Luke's picture of Jesus is shaped by Christology but also enriched with special features. It adopts traditions from the Gospel of Mark and the sayings source but through Luke's salvation-historical thinking becomes a special view in the transition from the time of Israel to the time of church. The Gentile Christian church comes into the inheritance of the old Israel, and that also conditions new perspectives for the picture of Jesus Christ (see above,

217

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

section I). Individual features come from the personal involvement of the evangelist (see section II) and create a picture that preserves a remembrance of Jesus in future Christian generations but also reveals the preference of the Hellenist Luke for the humanity of Jesus, his support of the poor and wretched, his devotion to women, and his deep piety.

218

5 John

One of the most mature fruits of reflection on Jesus Christ in early Christianity is Johannine Christology. There is no end to works that deal with it. l It has had a great history of influence, which began in the early church and has continued through every century.2 In John the historical Jesus is totally absorbed by the post-Easter viewpoint of faith. This is also the case, to be sure, in the Synoptic Gospels, yet the Johannine view of Christ begins with the incarnation of the divine Logos and dominates the whole appearance and activity of Jesus in the earthly realm. He descended from heaven and ascends to it again (John 3:13, 31; 6:62). Thus he is above all (3:31) and testifies to what he has seen and heard with his Father (3:32a). Although his superiority does not become fully evident until the exaltation and glorification in the cross and resurrection, the earthly Jesus nonetheless already speaks a language that only one who has entered the heavenly world can speak, and he performs signs whose deeper significance can be divined only in the light of his return to his Father and his glorification. Already in his earthly life Jesus reveals himself as the one into whose hands the Father "has placed all things" (3:35; 13:3), and his entire work is based on his coming from God and his closeness to God. Whereas the Synoptic Gospels offer, on the basis of Jesus' earthly appearance, a view of his salvific significance as a person, in the Gospel of John everything is revealed on the basis of his original being with God, his preexistence. 3 Thus one can speak of a "Christology from above" and a thereby determined "high" Christology that surpasses all the statements of the synoptists and moves on to his "divinity" (1:1; 10:34-38; 20:28).

219

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

I

APPROACHING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND ITS CHRISTOLOGY The basic presupposition is the faith of early Christendom in the resurrection of the crucified One, who now abides with God and through the Holy Spirit continues to lead his work of redemption. For John, however, Christ has always abided with God and is as close to him as possible. This shifts the view from the earthly, crucified and then resurrected One to the one who comes from God and works together with him in the world (5:19). Everything that he says and does is accomplished out of oneness with his Father. The Father is in him, and he is in the Father (10:38; 14:10-11). The words that Jesus speaks are not his words but those of the Father (3:34; 12:49-50; 14:10); the works that he performs were given to him by the Father (5:36; 14:11). Indeed, whoever sees him sees the Father (12:45; 14:9). He is the one who has life in the Father (5:26) and mediates life, just as the departing Jesus assures the disciples: "Because I live, you also will live" (14:19). In this way the work of the resurrected One is transposed into the present, and thus Jesus' words and symbolic deeds affect the reader directly. Jesus' whole life becomes a direct address to believers, who in this way meet the living Christ. It is a consistent picture of Christ that is related to the believer and that in faith goes beyond concrete events and applies them to the readers. Here, even less than in the Synoptic Gospels, one cannot inquire about historical events or get a glimpse of them, although the historical background is presupposed and accessible in some details. It is not simply faith speculations but faith interpretations supported by tradition that allow an unmistakable picture of Jesus Christ to emerge. In order to bring the uniqueness of Jesus Christ into view, the evangelist uses various categories of statement that were available to him at that time. The wealth of predications and Christ titles alone creates a broad panorama for Christian confession, which is summarized in striking sentences, as in the aim of the Gospel that these "signs" are written "so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). The confession to the Messiah who comes forth out of Israel and fulfills Jewish expectations is already sounded at the beginning of the Gospel in the words of Nathanael: "Rabbi,

220

JOHN

you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (1:49). At the high point of revelation through signs, at the resurrection of Lazarus, Martha confesses: "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world" (11 :27). In the confession accepted by the church and witnessing to its faith in Christ, the view of the Jesus of Nazareth who comes in history is combined with the conviction that he has a unique, God-given significance for humankind: "the Son of God, the one coming into the world." Those addressed in 20:31 are informed that they "through believing ... have life in his name." The person of salvation and the function of salvation are inseparably bound. Yet the Jewish category of "Messiah," the anointed One, the expected king of salvation, is not the only expression for the bringer of salvation. There are still other no less meaningful titles and concepts that are connected with the person of Jesus Christ. How these developed and how the Johannine Christology is articulated and developed in them will be examined in the following pages. A historical understanding of this expressive and many-faceted Christology is possible only if we consider the time of origin and the historical circumstances. To this question we must now turn.

1. The Historical Dimension Today's research rather unanimously holds the view that the Gospel of John in its present form came into being at the end of the first Christian century.4 It is, of course, possible and indeed probable that prior stages already existed earlier or were used by sources with earlier dates. Yet these literary-critical issues are evaluated with quite varying results and cannot be discussed here. The predominant and fundamental Christology, however, is to be assumed from the final form, which is separated by a considerable time interval from Jesus' appearance and his death on the cross. This, of course, does not exclude memories of his words and works among the people, the trial against him, and his passion, yet we must take into consideration from the beginning the fact that the Jesus tradition did not remain pure but in the post-Easter viewpoint was transformed and made transparent in its christological viewpoint. In the Synoptic Gospels, which came into being about twenty to thirty years earlier, we are standing closer to the words and deeds of the historical Jesus, although even in them the transforming and interpretive explanations had clearly begun to

221

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

emerge after Easter. It is indisputable that in this interpretive process the Fourth Gospel went even further, and thus we must consider the historical presuppositions of the interval, the intended circle of readers, and contemporary historical influences.

a. Where did the Gospel of John come into being? Since we have no direct information, we are dependent on the internal evidence in the Gospel. The location of Jesus' activity, the closeness to the Baptist's movement, the attention given to Jesus' work in Samaria (chap. 4), and the emphasis that is placed on his trips to Jerusalem and his activity there all permit certain conclusions regarding where the interest of the Gospel is aimed and from which geographical region John's Gospel comes. Yet these observations are burdened with further questions. For example, must we infer from the concentration on Jerusalem that the Gospel originated not far from there, or must we think that the evangelist had at his disposal only a good deal of information about Jesus' appearance in Jerusalem? If we consider the relations with the Baptist's movement recognizable in the Gospel-a movement that is to be placed rather in the Jordan region-as well as with the Samaritans, then an origin apart from Jerusalem is possible in a region into which the Johannine community had wandered at the time. The early form of the Johannine community is still a puzzle. s We cannot exclude the possibility that they then went on to Syria (Antioch) or Asia Minor (Ephesus). It has also been suggested that the Gospel of John found its first home in Egypt (Alexandria). These are all theories. Recently K. Wengst has proposed as the setting the domain of King Herod Agrippa II, the provinces of Gaulanitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis,6 for which Wengst seems to have good reasons; nonetheless, M. Hengel has taken strong exception to this idea. 7 The question arises: Where does the evangelist get the precise information about the acquaintanceship with the high priest (18:15-16), about the time and place of the trial before Pilate (18:28; 19:13-14), aboutthe death and burial ofJesus (19:31-35, 41--42)? Such information seems to go back to a participant in the events, an eyewitness to the execution of Jesus (19:35)-to the "disciple whom Jesus loved." He is the great authority who stands behind the Gospel (21:24: he wrote it) and whose testimony his students and friends accepted and maintained as their abiding possession (d. 21:23). From

222

JOHN

this "Johannine circle" come the Gospel and the Letters of John (see further in section C).8

b. To whom is the Gospel directed? It is clear that the Christian church is being addressed. When we read: " ... so that YOli may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (20:31), the reference is hardly to outsiders who are to be won for the faith through the Gospel writing. That could be suggested by the aorist pistellsete as ingressive aorist. But apart from the fact that the present-tense reading pisteusete is probably the original, 9 the question remains whether the missionary idea pushes the address to the community of faith into the background. On the whole the Johannine language is an "insider language," that is, a style developed for the understanding church in order to confirm and strengthen it in its faith. The addressees presupposed in 20:31 come not only from Judaism, as one could infer from the confession to the Messiah, but also from the non-Jewish world. The great Samaria chapter, in which Jesus first seeks to lead the Samaritan woman to the belief that he is the promised Messiah (4:25-26, 29), culminates in the confession of the residents of Sychar: "We have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world" (4:42). The Samaritans, who are regarded by the Jews as half Gentile, appear as representatives of the non-Jewish world. If Jesus is the "Savior of the world" -a sonorous title that emphasizes the universal significance of the person of Jesus-the boundaries of the Jewish way of thinking and Jewish religiosity (d. 4:21-24) have been crossed and a broad horizon for all humankind is opened. This is also revealed, however, in other passages in the symbolic, deictic language of the Gospe\. As the Jews presume without understanding and yet full of presentiment, in accordance with Johannine irony, Jesus will "go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks" (7:35). The same background is revealed in the scene with the Greeks who wish to see Jesus (12:20-22). They turn to Philip, who turns to Andrew-the two disciples who through their Greek names betray an affinity with the Greeks. The Greek world opens up for Jesus, and through his death, which becomes fruitful like a grain of wheat that falls into the earth (12:24), points to the successful evangelization of the Hellenistic world. lO On the basis of this perspective that includes non-Jewish hu-

223

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

mankind, one may expect the evangelist not only to consider in his Christology the Jewish dimension of the promises of salvation but also to include Hellenistic notions in his christological ideas. In fact, this becomes apparent in the Logos Christology of the prologue, at least in regard to Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom speculation. But still other common questions and longings appear, as in the constant questions about the whence and whither of the Redeemer, which implies the question of the meaning of human existence. This recalls the Gnostic formulation of the questions, Who are we? What did we become? Into what have we been cast? Where are we going? What will we be freed from? What is birth? Rebirth?l1 This is an existential formulation that is stimulated by Jesus' way, which precedes and includes the disciples (14:2~). In this way John comes close to Gnostic thinking, although important differences are not to be overlooked. Christians follow their Redeemer not in the way of Gnosticism, of remembering their heavenly origin and heavenly goal, a way that for the Gnostic includes knowledge of oneself, but in the way of faith in Jesus Christ, who through his death on the cross has prepared the way into the heavenly world (cf. 12:26; 13:36-37). It is a way of diSCipleship following the one sent by God, who is completing his earthly course (13:1; 19:30), a way that leads into the light but can be walked only in faith (d. 8:12). The curious mode of expression of the descent and ascent of the Son of Man (3:13; 6:62), which leads through the exaltation and glorification of the Son of Man (3:14; 8:28; 12:23,34; 13:31), also has much in common with the Gnostic mythos of descent of the soul into the earthly world and ascent into the heavenly world, although the uniqueness of the "Son of Man," who is equated with the earthly Jesus (9:35; 12:34), is detrimental to a mythic explanation. 12 We will go into this later; here we want only to show that the religious-historical question is not put to rest by Bultmann's firm thesis on the adoption and reinterpretation of the Gnostic mythos. 13 It cannot be left aside because of the view of Jesus, the "stranger" from the world of heaven,14 and it confirms the broad circle of recipients of John's Gospe\.

c. Who is the author or inspirer of the Gospel of John? Through John 21:24 we are referred to the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (21:20). It is he who has testified to these things and written them. This is a redactional comment that comes from a larger group:

224

JOHN

"We know that his testimony is true." This disciple loved by Jesuswho is first so called at the Last Supper (13:23-26), then stands under the cross (I 9:26-27), appears during the visit to the grave (20:2-10), and recognizes the resurrected Lord at an appearance of Jesus at the Sea of Tiberias (21:7, 20-23)-plays a key role in the question of authorship. It is possible that he was the disciple mentioned without name who, in addition to Andrew, came from the school of John the Baptist and at the latter's invitation followed Jesus (1:40); it is also probable that he was the disciple known to the high priest, who brought Peter into the courtyard of the high priest (18:15-16). Although the assumption that the "other disciple" with Simon Peter was the disciple whom Jesus loved (18:16) is not entirely certain, it cannot be doubted that at the time of this Gospel he was no longer alive. The rumor that he would not die until Jesus came (21:23) is a strong indication that we are dealing with a historical person who witnessed at least part of Jesus' life and his death (19:35) and lived to an advanced age. A purely symbolic interpretation of this anonymous, enigmatic figure of the disciple whom Jesus loved must be rejected, although he also has symbolic traits as the ideal type of disciple who was especially close to Jesus and recognized his nearness to God (13:23).15 In addition to Peter, who is in no way denigrated as the leading disciple in Jesus' group and the later leader of the church (21:15-17), he is the complete and total believer who immediately recognizes the resurrected One (20:8; 21:7). This disciple, who stands behind the Gospel as the great authority, was identified early on with John, the son of Zebedee and apostle; this tradition has persisted through every century. The early church tradition has been supported since the last quarter of the second century above all by the testimony of Irenaeus and his sources, the "presbyters," among whom Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 156) is named. We cannot go into the difficult tradition-historical questions here. 16 Today, however, there is a general conviction that either there was a confusion with the "presbyter John" named in Papias (Eusebius, Hist. Eeel. 3.39.3-4) or an obscuring of the tradition pointing to the presbyter John has occurred. According to the internal witness of the Gospel of John, it becomes less and less likely that the Galilean fisherman's son was the author of this Gospel. There is instead another, more probable theory, which [ have recently advocated in an excursus on the Gospel of JohnY According

225

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

to it, the beloved disciple was a man from Jerusalem who did not belong to the circle of the "twelve" but was present at the Last Supper. He may have earlier been a disciple of John, who then joined Jesus (d. 1:35,40), although this is not certain. The extent to which he was present for Jesus' earthly work cannot be determined. Not until the Last Supper does he rest by Jesus' side and is he introduced as a special confidant of Jesus (13:23-26). Although the other disciples, including Peter, fled after Jesus' arrest (d. 16:32), he remained in Jerusalem and experienced the crucifixion of Jesus. He stood under the cross, and to him Jesus entrusted his mother (19:26); Jesus also commended the disciple to his mother (19:27).1 8 He is also the one who witnessed the flowing of blood and water from the side of Jesus' body (19:35). The idea that he was a Jerusalemite who could experience this comes from his acquaintance with the high priest (18:15-16). Yet all this is not important to the evangelist; what really moves him is the unique nearness of the beloved disciple to Jesus and his reclining next to Jesus, which is mentioned again in the supplementary chapter (21:20). As Jesus' confidant he gains insight into Jesus' thoughts and is enabled to interpret Jesus' activity. The disciple whom Jesus loved is certainly not the author of the entire Gospel of John, for he would hardly have introduced himself with this pretentious self-designation. He was called thus by his circle of students and friends, who honored him as the bearer of the Jesus tradition and interpreter of the person and message of Jesus. If we include the Johannine letters, we must consider a "Johannine circle" or "school"19 that had at its disposal oral and perhaps also a few written sketches by the beloved disciple. It is to this circle that we owe the final redaction of the Gospel of John, whereas the core of the Gospel (up to 20:31) probably goes back to a Hellenistically educated theologian who adopted cnd presented the tradition of the beloved disciple. 2o In any case the Gospel of John offers us a picture of Jesus Christ that by nature is one of a kind and reveals a profound view of faith, a picture that melds historical traditions with the faith that Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). 2. The Gospel of John as a Gospel Writing Can one call this unusual work a "Gospel" at all and classify it in the same series with the preceding Gospel writings? The semantic group that has given these writings the name21 never appears in John. Is it

226

JOHN

justifiable to speak with Irenaeus of the "Gospel in four forms" or with Clement of Alexandria to place the Synoptic Gospels as "somatic" Gospels alongside the Fourth Gospel as the "pneumatic" one? Is what we find the same literary genre at all? We saw that "the gospel" was originally not a literary product but the message of salvation brought bv Jesus Christ and proclaimed by the early church in accordance with both the post-Easter situation and the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, the crucified and resurrected One, the Messiah and Lord exalted to the side of God. Jesus Christ, who proclaimed the good news of God (Mark 1:14), himself becomes, according to what the faith confesses of him, the "gospel of God" (d. 1 Thess. 2:2; Rom. 1:1). Origen writes in his commentary on John: "Accordingly, the gospel is talk that for believers contains the presence of a good thing or talk that proclaims that the expected good thing is there .... Each Gospel is a collection for the faithful of salvationsignificant messages that bring to salvation those who do not accept them in the wrong sense."22 In this sense one may also count the Gospel of John among the Gospels. The Gospel of John is a new type of Gospel writing. The Gospel of Mark also wants to have the hidden divinity in Jesus light up at least in "secret epiphanies" (M. Dibelius). The fourth evangelist has the divine glory present in Jesus dwell in the sarx and be visible only to believers (1:14; 2:11; 11:40). For believers there are visible signs, the great miracle works that Jesus performs and in which he reveals his provenance from God, his nearness to God, and his salvific significance for humankind. In this regard they are more than "secret epiphanies." But with all his independence John follows the arrangement of the Synoptic Gospels: a. The whole report is essentially comprised within the framework of the events that take place between the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (1:32ff.) and his resurrection (chap. 20). It is the same framework that is also summarized in the missionary speeches of Acts (10:37-41; 13:23-31) and is developed in the Gospel of Mark. The only thing that precedes this framework in the Gospel of John is the prologue (1:1-18), which gives the believing readers a preview of the provenance of Jesus from God and makes possible an understanding of his work on the basis of his divine origin. b. The "journey from Galilee to Jerusalem," which is not only historically attested for the story of Jesus but also internally significant

227

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

-and emphasized by each of the Synoptic Gospels in its own way with various accentuations (d. esp. Luke 9:51-19:48)-is also preserved in the Gospel of John. This cannot be obscured by either the Jerusalem festival calendar (d. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2, 14; 10:22; 11:55) or the fact that compared to the synoptists, the author of this Gospel gives the Galilean activity of Jesus a relatively small space. Nonetheless, the beginning (2:1-13; 4:46-54) and the high point (chap. 6) are given consideration. In the Gospel of John this geographical orientation also has deeper theological reasons. The significance of Jerusalem as the center of Judaism (d. chaps. 5, 7, 11-12) and the holy city of God protecting the temple (d. 2:13-22) is heavily underlined. The "beloved disciple," who probably came from Jerusalem, will have influenced the view of Jerusalem. At the same time, there is an obvious tendency to concentrate there the dispute with the leading representatives of Judaism. This must have been very important to Johannine Christianity in its interaction with the unbelieving Jews. c. In spite of the spiritual depth of the presentation, the Gospel of John also values certain external circumstances of Jesus' work. It knows some localities and places that are not known from the synoptists, such as the place of the baptism in Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28; 10:40), the village of Sychar in Samaria (4:5), the town of Ephraim (11:54), the porticoes by the pool in Bethzatha (or Bethesda, 5:2), the pool of Siloam (or Siloah, 9:7), the stone pavement Gabbatha (19:13). No other basis for these can be found other than that they come from the special "Johannine tradition."23 This tradition, which in part is in tension with the Synoptic tradition, is also revealed in the placing of the Last Supper and the trial before the Jewish Passover feast (18:28) and in the different course of events in the Jewish and Roman proceedings against Jesus. This opposition not only is traceable to theological motifs, such as the death of Jesus as the paschal Lamb (d. 19:31-32), but also rests on varying historical traditions. On the whole one is inclined today to give greater weight to this special information (18:28, 31; 19:1, 13-14,34,41-42).24 d. Yet historical credibility reaches its limits in the Jesus speeches of the Gospel of John. For even if there are some echoes of Synoptic sayings,2S these revelatory speeches are still completely "kerygmaticaUy" shaped, with an eye to Jesus' claim of being the "Son" who is sent by God and stands as close as possible to God. Jesus speaks as

228

JOHN

the divine revealer who reveals nothing other than himself. The "signs" that he performs show him as the bringer of salvation and life, and the words he speaks explain only this reality concealed as signs. Anyone who takes Jesus' simple, graphic way of speaking in the Synoptics, with its rich use of images and parables, and compares it with the profoundly theological speeches in the Gospel of John will feel transported into a different world. The language is enriched with key concepts (such as life, light, truth, generation out of God), characterized by meaningful formulas ("I am," "you in me and 1 in you," "abide in"), and marked by dualistic-sounding antithetical pairings (light and darkness, life and death, being from below and being from above, truth and falsehood). The speeches are filled with expressions with double meanings, which move from a literal sense into a metaphorical meaning (see, go away, be lifted up, living water, bread of We). There are puzzles and misunderstandings. 26 One must regard the Gospel of John as a Gospel writing that combines history and kerygma, historical reporting and believing interpretation. What is special is the christological view, which concentrates everything into one question: Who is the one speaking here and doing signs? The history of influence shows how persistently this testimony to Christ has influenced faith over the course of the centuries. The incarnation of the divine Logos becomes the test bed for true Christology, and his way through "exaltation" on the cross and "glorification" with the Father becomes the viewpoint for this Christ who becomes flesh and returns home to the FatherP The Gospel of John becomes the source and basis of theological insights and religious, mystical meditation.

3. The Structure of the Gospel of John Despite its establishment as Gospel writing (see above), the Gospel of John is formed differently from the Synoptic Gospels. If in the latter the life and work of Jesus are rather continuously described, the Gospel of John takes another tack. It is true that Jesus' way begins, as in the Synoptic Gospels, at John's baptismal location and Jesus' revelation in signs begins in Can a of Galilee (2:1-11; 4:46-54), but this activity is soon interrupted by Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, where he achieves the cleansing of the temple (2:13-22) and then also heals the lame man at the pool called Bethzatha (5:1-9). There is a constant back and forth between Galilee and JudealJerusalem.

229

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

a. Between Galilee and Jerusalem It is improbable that Jesus drove the traders out of the temple in Jerusalem very early (2:13-22). According to the Synoptic Gospels this event belongs in the last period before the passion of Jesus. 28 Thus one wonders why the evangelist moved this event forward. The main reason may be that he wanted to make visible at an early stage the confrontation with the leading, yet unbelieving "Jews" (2:18-20) in contrast to the believing disciples (2:11, 17,22). For from then on this confrontation permeates the Gospel and at the end of Jesus' public appearance is emphasized with a scriptural quotation (12:37-43). At the same time the cleansing of the temple is supposed to make graphic the overcoming of the Jewish cult by Jesus, his person, and his community. The Johannine church understands itself as the worshiping community in which the worship "in spirit and truth" (4:23-24) made possible by Jesus becomes reality. As the church became aware after Easter, Jesus is the new temple (2:21-22). After the dialogue with Nicodemus (3:1-12), which illuminates a leading Pharisee's lack of understanding of Jesus' self-revelation, Jesus remains in Judea, where he practices baptismal activity near John the Baptist (3:22-30), and then returns to Galilee via Samaria. The conversion of the Samaritans, who lived away from and in hostility to the Jews (4:9-10), is a positive signal for Jesus' acceptance outside of Judaism. In Galilee Jesus finds a greater response and acceptance (d. 4:45; 6:1-2; 7:1, 9). After the return from Judea via Samaria (4:3), the Galileans welcome him, even if only because they saw what he did at the Passover festival in Jerusalem (4:45; d. 2:23). The intervening remark, "Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in the prophet's own country" (4:44), which adopts a Synoptic tradition (Mark 6:4; Matt. 13:57; Luke 4:24), can refer in the Johannine understanding to Jerusalem /Judea (d. 4:3)29 but can also mean Galilee, which otherwise appears as the earthly home of Jesus (d. 1:45-46; 6:42; 7:3, 41, 52).30 It is certain that Jerusalem as the center of Judaism is a dangerous place for Jesus (11:54, 57). Galilee is, to be sure, safer (7:1) but also not the place where complete faith arises (d. 4:48; 6:42, 66). The geographical information, drawn in part from tradition, is placed in the perspective of faith or unfaith. Jesus' visits in Jerusalem serve only the revelation of the history of faith, which in Jerusalem finds thoroughly unfruitful soil (chaps. 5, 7, 9).

230

JOHN

With the advance revelation of signs, the situation in Jerusalem becomes acute. After the resurrection of Lazarus the number of believers grows (11:45; 12:10-11), and at the same time the leaders, Pharisees and chief priests, are driven to impose a death sentence against Jesus (11:46-53). The whole affair becomes a dramatic presentation. The spatial and temporal expressions serve Johannine the010gy.3! Historical memories are combined with kerygmatic intentions. This is especially clear in Jesus' dialogue with the disciples on the way to Bethany (11:7-16). Although the Jews wanted to stone Jesus (11 :7), he goes there to raise Lazarus. Through this event the disciples are to believe, and Thomas, who comprehends the hazardous situation, says: "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (11:15-16). The appearances of the resurrected One take place in Jerusalem; only the last one, which is recounted in the supplementary chapter, takes place on the Sea ofTiberias (21:1-14). The original Gospel, which goes back to the disciple whom Jesus loved, concentrates the whole event of passion and resurrection in Jerusalem, but in this disciple's circle of students a remembrance of an appearance of Jesus in Galilee was preserved and offered a heavily symbolic narrative that was tailored to the church and referred back to the beginning period (Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, fishing on the Sea of Gennesaret). The bountiful catch of fish (Luke 5:4-7) is included and placed in the perspective of the apostolic, universal church. On the whole, the geographical information does not produce a clear picture. The "Galilean crisis," following the feeding miracle and Jesus' speech in the synagogue at Capernaum Oohn 6:66-67), is not a real turning point in Jesus' effectiveness but only shows that everywhere, not only in Judea but also in Galilee, there is great misunderstanding of his mission and self-revelation. The turning back of many disciples may reflect the situation of the Johannine community in regard to the dissidents of 1 John. For the structure of the Gospel of John, the unfaith of the Jews, which is always increasing, is the crucial motif, and the motivating theme is the controversy around Jesus that arises both in Galilee and in Jerusalem (7:14-30; 10:22-39).

b. The division into the public work of Jesus and the circle of "his own" John initiates a theologically conditioned new thrust in the structure of the Gospel through the distinguishing of the public work of

231

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Jesus from his association with the disciples, the circle of "his own." After the last revelatory speech before the people, which already stands under the sign of his imminent death, his "being lifted up," his fruitful dying for the people and even for non-Jews, and culminates in a final appeal for faith (12:20-36), John says decisively: "After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid from them" (12:36b). That is clearly a closing remark, which not only concerns the preceding scenes with the Greeks, Jesus' distress in the face of his coming "hour" (12:27-28), and the uncomprehending questions of the crowd about the "Son of Man" (12:34) but also contains a retrospective on the whole book of signs (d. 12:37). Therefore the final appeal for faith (12:35-36) seems to me to be in the right place. 32 This "hiding himself" of Jesus indicates the close of his public appearance, which in the previous chapters was repeatedly addressed and reflected upon (d. 7:3--5, 14,26; 10:24; 11:54). Jesus spoke to the world "openly" (18:20), but the "Jews" consistently did not believe him. Now the time of his revelatory speech before the people and the leaders has come to an end; it is the divine will that their heart is hardened, that they not see with their eyes and not understand with their hearts (12:40). This reflection on Jewish unfaith and the underlying decree of God justifies Jesus' withdrawal from the public. The people are again challenged to faith because Jesus still has only a short time among them as the light of the world (12:35), but the outcome of the Jesus story is already fixed. The light will soon shine no more; unfaith drives Jesus into death. Jesus' going away and hiding himself is an action that is a sign, a symbol in reality.33 In spite of this gloomy perspective, the cause of faith is not therefore lost. Even in the meditation on this obstinacy the evangelist does not close all doors (12:42). The light retains its separating but also saving power, as in the closing speech in 12:44-50. Then the evangelist returns to his historical presentation. We are transposed into the days before the Passover festival, the Passover of death (13:1), when the last evening meal of Jesus with his disciples takes place (13:2). From now until his arrest (18:1-11) Jesus is in the company of "his own," whom he loves very much (13:1), and his talk is limited esoterically to this circle of his disciples. This change from his public proclamation to dialogue with the disciples close to him is clearly marked and is basic to the structure of the Gospel. In contrast to the Gospel of Mark, where the private lectures to the disciples are

232

JOHN

scattered through the course of the narrative and follow parables and sayings (Mark 4:34; 6:31-32; 7:17-23; 8:17-21; 9:2, 28-29, 33-50), John presents the disciples' instruction continuously after Jesus' withdrawal from the people. For this purpose the Last Supper is chosen, because it presupposes Jesus' fellowship with his disciples in an intense way and directs attention toward the situation of the church. These are farewell talks that offer a review of Jesus' way thus far and open up his return to the Father as the hopeful beginning of understanding Jesus and his fellowship of disciples. The Gospel of Luke already contains a small collection of Jesus' farewell sayings (22:2438), yet it is not the comprehensive framework of farewell talks that we have in John 13-17. These are special, future-oriented sayings that Jesus has to say to "his own" in contrast to the unbelieving "world" (d. the Paraclete statements). This part is also enclosed in the Gospel report (d. 13:1,27-30; 18:1). This part of the Gospel begins with the foot washing by Jesus (13:4-5), which is interpreted in a profoundly symbolic way (13:8-10) and set as a model for the disciples (13:13-17). After the departure of the betrayer into the "night" (13:26-30) Jesus begins a high hymn to his glorification (13:31-32) and also announces that the disciples will look for him. For his absence he gives them the commandment of mutual love (13:33-35). The announcement of Peter's threefold denial is also brought into the historical framework (13:36-38). But then follows the actual farewell speech (chap. 14), which is shaped completely by Johannine theology. At the announcement of the Paraclete, whom Jesus promises to the disciples, the "world's" not knowing and not comprehending is again emphasized (14:17). The "world" cannot give peace (14:27), but Jesus leaves the disciples his peace and preserves their hearts from confusion and fear. The farewell speech closes with an exhortation to faith. The "signal to break up" (14:31b) is not followed up until 18:1, but it is perhaps also a signal to push forward to a new level of understanding. The further farewell speeches that come in between and the great prayer of Jesus to the Father (chaps. 15-17) have apparently been inserted out of the Johannine circle and deepen the ideas of the farewell speech of chapter 14. They contribute even more clearly to the development of a continuous section of internal, esoteric talk by Jesus in the circle of "his own," which is entirely set apart from the "world." The antithesis is intensified in part dualistically (15:18-27;

233

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

16:8-11, 33).34 The post-Easter proclamation of the Johannine church is included in Jesus' farewell speech. His speech to "his own" is expanded to a revelatory speech for the church over against the world. There are theological reasons for this division into Jesus' public speeches and work and his revelations for the internal circle of disciples and the later church. The things in the self-revelation that meet with resistance and rejection in Judaism become understandable in the life of the church and its conflict with the world. The two parts are related and complement each other. For the plan and structure of the Gospel the transition from the time of Jesus to the time of the church is characteristic and significant. Basically, this procedure disrupts the flow of a historical presentation. c. Passion and resurrection

In chapter 18 the evangelist returns to the historical events. Now he recounts in order Jesus' arrest, his hearing before the high priest, his being handed over to Pilate, his trial before the Roman procurator, and his passion. Thus John moves again into a presentation of the historical kind, even if in a way that deviates noticeably from the Synoptic Gospels. Without occupying ourselves with individual divergences regarding the arrest with the help of a Roman cohort, the interrogation by Annas, the date of death, and the circumstances of the death and burial, here we shall only briefly go into special features that come from Johannine Christology. The arrest of Jesus (18:1-11) is itself shaped by the Johannine picture of Christ. Jesus knows everything that is happening to him and sovereignly meets the arresting group. The "I am he" with which he acknowledges himself to be Jesus of Nazareth is more than an identification formula. This "I am he" is heard three times (18:5, 6, 8), and its majestic sound, which assumes Jesus' divine self-predication, causes the pursuers to step back and fall to the ground. Jesus reacts to Peter's swinging of the sword with a reference to the will of the Father: "Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (18:10-11). In response to his interrogation by the high priest about his disciples and his teaching Jesus answers that he has taught publicly in the synagogue and the temple and said nothing in secret (18:20). This is first of all a confirmation of his public talks before the world and recalls his majestic self-revelation in the earlier chapters. Moreover, the reference to those who heard it (18:21) is probably a challenge to hold

234

JOHN

to the Christian proclaimers who from the beginning were close to him and can witness to him (15:27; d. 1 John 1:2} ..15 The Johannine Jesus joins together with "his own" (d. also 18:8-9). Also majestic is Jesus' answer to the attendant who struck him (18:23). The hearings before Pilate are so formed that the majesty and dignity of Jesus become more and more clearly prominent. Accused as "King of the Jews," Jesus confesses to his royalty yet interprets it not as a worldly one belonging to this world but as the power bestowed upon him to testify to the truth of God in the world (18:36-37). As the revealer who comes from heaven he stands above all (3:31-32). The royalty of Jesus, given in the title on the cross (19:19), is reflected in its broad significance, which permeates the world (cf.19:20) but is understandable only out of Jesus' origin in God. His "kingdom" encompasses every person "who belongs to the truth" and listens to his voice. It is the kingdom of God realized in Jesus, and it contrasts with the power claimed by the state and its representatives (d. 19:10-11).36 Jesus' royalty is perfected on the cross, outwardly in deepest humiliation and impotence, yet seen more deeply in the power bestowed upon him to draw everyone to himself (12:32) and to bring salvation (d. 19:34). "They will look on the one whom they have pierced" (19:37). This royalty of Jesus is based on his unfathomable connection with God. When the Jewish accusers vehemently shout, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate refuses because he can find no guilt in Jesus {19:6}. But when they substantiate Jesus' worthiness of death with the fact that he claims to be the Son of God, Pilate is more afraid than ever. It is a numinous awe, a shudder, that seizes him and causes him to ask Jesus: "Where are you from?" (19:8-9). Jesus does not answer him, but it soon becomes clear to the Roman prefect that Jesus possesses a power that comes "from above" (19:11). The attempt to free Jesus fails because of the outcry of the Jews and their threat to notify the emperor. Finally Pilate sits on the judge's bench (19:13}37 and sentences Jesus to death on the cross as a political rebel. The crucifixion of Jesus is told according to available traditions (crucifixion between two criminals, division of the clothing, the vinegar drink), yet again in an underlying symbolic way. The title on the cross reveals the world-encompassing royalty of Jest1;s, since it is written in the three languages of the time, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (19:20), and Pilate resists changing the title in favor of the Jewish

235

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

conception (19:21-22). Jesus' tunic, woven seamlessly in one piece (19:24) probably becomes the symbol of the indestructible unity of the church, which is based on the dying and resurrected Lord (cf. 2:21). The drinking of the vinegar (19:28-29) is understood not only as fulfillment of the scripture but also as the final act through which Jesus completes his work and goes to his Father (cf. his foreknowledge in 13:1; 18:4). His saying upon departing, "It is finished," and the giving up of his spirit (19:30) form a conclusion to Jesus' whole earthly activity (cf. 4:34; 17:4). The report of Jesus' dying is shaped on the basis of Johannine Christo logy, and the special tradition of the outpouring of blood and water from the body (19:34-35) is probably also to be understood symbolically. The burial of Jesus (19:38-42) again shows features that underline Jesus' status (the large quantity of spices and fragrant substances, the as yet unused grave in a garden). On the whole, the Johannine passion story is a paradigm of the evangelist's viewpoint, which adopts certain historical traditions, includes these in a christologically symbolic interpretation, and develops therein his picture of Christ. The same can be said for chapter 20, the resurrection chapter. We do not need to go into the traditions that John adopts and reworks here. The people who playa role-Mary Magdalene, Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved, the twelve disciples, Thomas-are in part adopted from the Synoptic tradition but in part also grow out of the Johannine tradition. The structure is intentional: the two disciples at the grave, Mary Magdalene, the twelve disciples, and finally Thomas, with whom the confession of the resurrected One reaches a climax ("My Lord and my God," 20:28). For Johannine theology the statement to Mary Magdalene is instructive: "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father" (20:17a). The ascension of Jesus (the "Son of MaI1.") to God is already addressed in 3:13; 6:62; Jesus' going away and his return to the Father are mentioned even more often (7:33; 8:21-22; 13:3, 33; 14:4-5, 28; 16:5, 10, 28). But nowhere is this expressly connected with his resurrection. We can only infer it from 2:22; 10:18; 12:16. In the meeting of the resurrected One with Mary Magdalene, Jesus has not yet "ascended," not yet attained glorification (cf. 7:39), but he is ascending to his Father (20:17c). In my view, this tension is related to the commission to Mary to go to Jesus' brothers and tell them that all things are now to be fulfilled that he promised them: the sending of the Spirit (14:16-17; cf. 20:22), the

236

JOHN

hearing of prayer {14:13; 15:16; 16:23), the doing of greater works (14:12), the experiencing of God's love (14:23)-in short, everything that is the fruit of Jesus' completed work.-~8 The resurrection of Jesus is a transitory event between the earthly existence of Jesus and his heavenly-transcendent presence. Although the presentation is outwardly naive, the appearances of the resurrected One are the selfrevelations of the heavenly exalted Lord, who no longer belongs to this world. This is also certain for the evangelist. The bodily, corporeal appearance before Mary requires an explanation that balances Jesus' return to the Father with the appearance of the resurrected One. John follows the historical tradition and has the passion of Jesus culminate in the resurrection event. In the structure of the Gospel of John this reveals a line that leads from Jesus' baptism through his work in Galilee and Judea to the beginning of the trial, his death, and his resurrection. As varied as Jesus' public works are, above all through his repeated trips to Judea and Jerusalem, John still remains true to its basic historical features.

d. The time framework It is unclear whether John marked certain weeks in Jesus' career and interpreted them symbolically: first a week from Jesus' baptism to the wedding at Cana (1:29-2:1), a passion week (12:1-19:14), and finally a resurrection week (20:1-26).39 The initial week of Jesus' work is hardly to be juxtaposed with the week of creation as the week of the new creation, as has been suggested. 4o The passion week is rather vague but depends on the Johannine chronology, and the resurrection week becomes recognizable as such through the positioning of the appearance to Thomas. 41 Yet Jesus' way from the place of baptism in Bethany beyond the Jordan, with the calling of the first disciples, through Jesus' appearance in Galilee and then in Judea and Jerusalem, to the entrance into Jerusalem and the following passion week also becomes clear in a temporal framework, for the individual stations are marked again and again by an "after this" (2:12; 3:22; 4:43; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; 11:7). Within this framework we see a festival calendar that occasions Jesus' repeated appearance in Jerusalem: a first Passover festival (2:13, 23), a second Passover festival during which Jesus remains in Galilee (6:4), and after that the festival of Booths (7:2, 14,37), the festival of the Dedication (10:22), and the Passover of death (11:55; 12:1, 12; 13:1; 19:14). The only unclear item is the one

237

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

in 5:1 called the "festival of the Jews," for which we can most likely presume the festival of Pentecost.42 The calendar serves Jesus' going up to Jerusalem, which dramatically increases Jesus' conflict with the unbelieving Jewish leaders. If at the festival of Booths (chap. 7) various reactions are visible in the people and the leaders, the disagreement is already considerably harsher at the festival of Dedication (10:22-39) and becomes irreconcilable rejection and persecution at the last Passover (11:57; 12:9-10). The temporal schema, like the spatial one, is motivated by the evangelist's christological concern. This explains the positioning of the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus' work and the increasing aggressiveness of the Jews in the course of Jesus' temple visits. In the temporal framework one can perceive a dramatic presentational intent. How much a christo logical purpose underlies the temporal perspective can be seen by reflecting on the "hour" of Jesus,43 which stands in a curious dialectic: the "hour" is on the one hand given in Jesus' presence (4:20; 5:25) and on the other hand has "not yet come" (7:30; 8:20). Here it is a question of Jesus' hour of death and glorification. Jesus' enemies cannot arrest him during his work among the people, because according to God's determination his hour of death has not yet come-and yet Jesus' time, which in 11:9 is still related to the twelve hours in the day, moves toward that decisive "hour" when the Son of Man will be glorified, namely, through his death, which becomes the fruitful gathering of those who believe in him (12:23-24). Jesus' being "lifted up" on the cross draws all people to himself (12:32). The dark event, which is initiated by Judas's betrayal, leads to the Son of Man's being glorified and God's being glorified in him (13:31). God will bring about this glorification" at once" (13:32). Jesus' saying at the wedding in Cana that his hour has not yet come probably already anticipates this hour of glorification (2:4).44 The "signs" of Jesus are designed to reveal his glory (2:11; 11:4,40), but as much as this glory is already revealed in the signs (d. 1:14), only the hour of death determined by the Father brings the full revelation of Jesus' glory. It is at first a depressing event, as seen in Jesus' confusion before his passion, the Johannine "Mount of Olives hour" (12:27). But even in this hour of anxiety he receives from the Father the assurance that the Father has glorified him and will further glorify him (12:28). This hour of extreme human distress has, in the spirit of Johannine theology, been turned by the Father into an

238

JOHN

hour of protection and glorification. 45 In the Last Supper room Jesus "knows" that his hour has come (13:1), and in his prayer to the Father he asks in this certainty that the Father glorify him (17:1). Thus the whole temporal course of events culminates in Jesus' "hour," which is meaningful only theologically, and in it the highest significance of his earthly work is reached. The temporal data are carried over into Jesus' trial, his passion, and his resurrection. To this extent John is bound to the historical event but goes beyond it through theological retlection on Jesus' "houL" One can hardly say that John wanted thus to set up and connect the "two stages of Jesus' work of salvation."4b Also the earthly work of Jesus, which reveals his glory in "signs," is seen from the standpoint of the glorified Christ; only as the one glorified after death can he accomplish works that on earth assume a significance as signs. His incarnation enables the "seeing of his glory" (1:14), but only because in the meantime the incarnate One has entered the glory of the Father. For John the earthly Jesus' work and his ongoing work in the Holy Spirit have become a unified whole. With the revelation in signs another advance is to be observed. The wedding at Cana is only the "first of his signs" (2:11). Jesus performs a second sign, the distant healing of the son of the royal official, when he returns from Judea to Galilee (4:54). This is followed by still further signs done for the sick (6:2). If one assumes a switching of chapters 5 and 6,47 then the working of signs in Galilee follows the great feeding, which occurs at the Sea of Galilee (6:4-15) and provides the impetus for a great revelation speech (6:26-59). In the present arrangement it is interrupted by the healing of the lame man at the pool called Bethzatha in Jerusalem (5:1-9), which also leads to a great revelation speech (5:10-47). What connects these signs is the idea that Jesus gives life or through the great feeding proves himself as the "bread of heaven," which brings life again to a world that has fallen prey to death. Thus no intensification can be perceived, and only through the revelation speeches is there progress vis-a-vis the two Cana miracles. What the signs are supposed to reveal is broadly developed in these two speeches. The last two great miracles, the healing of the man born blind (chap. 9) and the resurrection of Lazarus (chap. 11), are marked as the culmination of Jesus' work with signs. They reveal in a unique way the meaning of Jesus as the light and life of the

239

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

world, just as the Logos was presented and praised in the prologue as the life that was the light of all people (1:4) and as the true light that enlightens everyone (1 :9). Both are summarized by his statement in 8:12: "Whoever follows me wiII never walk in darkness but will have the light of life." Jesus' function as light is then presented symbolically in the healing of the blind man: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world" (9:5). "1 came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind" (9:39). The decisive power of Jesus' activity becomes evident. Light and life are the definitive expressions for the salvific significance of Jesus. The resurrection of the dead then makes Jesus' life-giving power graphic. Again there is a double effect: whoever accepts Jesus' revelation as "resurrection and life," as Martha did (11:25-27), is led in faith to life; whoever denies and opposes it, as the high priests and Pharisees did (11:47-53), is walking the way of death. The two great miracles are consciously placed at the end of the revelation in signs and lead to the climax of the drama that the evangelist sees in the "story" of Jesus. Whether the" signs" are based on a semeia source is a disputed question. Some things support it, such as the counting of the first two "signs" and the looking back in 12:37-38 and 20:30--31. But the counting of the "signs" and what they include are not clear (what about walking on the water?). Rather, one must reckon with the adoption and revision of certain "sign" narratives by the evangelist or in the final redaction. Tradition and redaction, historical reality and symbolic interpretation cannot be clearly separated. But the temporal framework, which ends Jesus' work with the arrest and passion, not only limits the "book of signs" but also effects an arrangement that leads more and more to the passion and eventually to the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. At the close of the book in 20:30--31 there is an appeal, not without reason, to the "signs" that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples. 48 On the whole the spatial and temporal information is, of course, placed in the historical framework of Jesus' appearance but at the same time made serviceable to Johannine Christology.

4. The Johannine Picture of Christ in Comparison with the Synoptic Gospels Those who approach the Gospel of John on the basis of the Synoptic Gospels and have a picture of Jesus Christ in mind will be astonished

240

JOHN

in many ways. There are tensions between the Synoptic and the Johannine pictures of Christ.-I'l With the synoptists we have the warm, compassionate devotion of Jesus to the people. The characteristic semantic fields of "mercy" and "pity" are found in all three synoptists but are missing entirely in John. It is true that in this Gospel too attention has been called to certain human traits of Jesus. Exhausted from his journey, Jesus asks the Samaritan woman for a drink of water (4:7). Yet the dialogue immediately shifts to another level, the water of life, and we hear nothing of the carrying out of his request. Lazarus is Jesus' friend, and "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus" (11:5). But Jesus does not hasten right away to Bethany to heal the sick man; he waits two more days, with the result that Lazarus dies and Jesus can perform an even greater miracle (11:11-15). At the grave Jesus is deeply moved by Mary and the Jews, who were weeping (11:33). Jesus also weeps by the grave, and thus the Jews say: "See how he loved him!" (11:35-36). Yet this may be Johannine irony; Jesus' emotion relates rather to the unfaith of the Jews or to the power of death. In the Johannine Gethsemane scene (11 :27-33) Jesus is at first shaken because of the death threatening him, but he catches himself immediately with the thought that the Father will glorify his Son. These, however, are weak reminiscences of Jesus' humaneness and sensitivity, which never really come through but are overshadowed by the certainty of his superiority and divine power. A "loving, suffering philanthropy that is ready for self-sacrifice" seems to me hardly recognizable. 50 The healings, the great feeding, the walk on water, and the resurrection from the dead become "signs" that point symbolically to the person of Jesus and to the life brought by him. This results in a more profound picture of Jesus, which is consistent with the Christology of the Logos that comes from God yet is the incarnate Logos. The difference becomes clearer when we look at "faith" according to the synoptists and in John. In the healing stories of the synoptists it is the confidence of faith that leads to healing, a confidence that is prominent throughout the Old Testament as an attitude of faith. Jesus does not ask for faith in his Messiahship but faith that what is humanly impossible is realizable through the power of God (d. Mark 9:23). John, however, is different. Here it is faith in Jesus that is crucial. Faith means affirming Jesus' self-revelation and joining oneself to this sole mediator of salvation. 51 It is true that the disciples remain

241

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

closed to Jesus' full revelation as the way to the Father until in the Last Supper room (14:4-10), but Jesus presses for this faith, even if only because of his works (14:11-12). The disciples' deficient faith is shown especially in the hour of departure, yet in Jesus' great prayer to the Father, the faith of the disciples in Jesus is not called into question (17:6-8). They are brought into the confession of the church. Faith in the Gospel of John is essentially soteriologically determined. The salvific significance of faith consists in the fact that it conveys eternal, divine life. The healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethzatha raises the question of who Jesus is (5:12), and in what follows Jesus reveals himself as the Son who works very closely with his Father to raise the dead and give them life (5:19-21). Also with the man born blind all interest is on the question of who it is who sends him to the pool of Siloam and makes him well. The light in the eyes, which Jesus gives back to the man, becomes a symbol for Jesus, the light of the world (9:5), a light that gives eternal life (d. 8:12). The resurrection of Lazarus culminates in the revelation of Jesus as "the resurrection and the life" (11:25-26). The faith toward which the Johannine Jesus is pressing is a christo logical, confessional faith. Again and again we hear of such confessions, beginning with Nathanael (1:49) and moving through the Samaritans (4:42), Peter and the disciples (6:69), the healed man born blind (9:37-38), Martha (11:27), and the disciples in the Last Supper room (16:30) to Thomas after Jesus' resurrection (20:28). Through the mouths of believers, the confessions capture the whole christological faith and bring it to bear in the story of Jesus. This christological, soteriological faith of recognition is somewhat different from the Synoptic faith, which remains more closely tied to the experience of the Jesus at work on earth. The concealment and revelation of Jesus' secret are also presented differently. In the Gospel of Mark Jesus' appearance is surrounded by a veil of secrecy. Nowhere does Jesus witness to himself openly as the Messiah and Son of God until the solemn interrogation by the high priest makes his answer unavoidable in this hour of truth (14:62). The disciples' lack of understanding (Mark 6:51; 8:17-18) shows how incomprehensible Jesus' mighty work was even to his closest companions. The theme of keeping the secret (the "messianic secret") pervades the whole Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of John gives an entirely different impression. Here Jesus' intention is to re-

242

JOHN

veal himself as the Messiah and Son of God (20:31). In his speeches Jesus presents himself through the majestic "1 am" formula as the divine bringer of life, and he expresses an enormous self-consciousness, which even encompasses his preexistence (8:58). This claim of Jesus is made not only to the disciples but also to the unbelieving Jews, in whom he meets with strong opposition (6:42; 8:16,25,51,53; 10:33). The confessions are-with the exception of Thomas's confession-transposed into Jesus' earthly life, even though they reflect the post-Easter faith of the church. What the Synoptic Jesus allows to be suspected under the veil of secrecy is openly revealed in John through his christological viewpoint. Still other shifts are to be found in the revelatory speeches in the Gospel of John, such as the shift from the expectation of the kingdom of God to the assurance of the present divine life. The idea of entering the kingdom of God is adopted (3:3, 5) but interpreted in such a way that one must understand by it the entering of the heavenly sphere. The temporal view of the synoptists is turned into an otherworldly, vertical perspective. The divine life is by nature an abiding one; hence the view can also be directed toward the future (4:14; 6:27; 12:25), but with the presupposition of the present character of the divine life. It lasts beyond the death of the body (11:25), but through him who is "the resurrection and the life" it is already present in the believer. There are also indications in Johannine Christology that many concepts in the synoptists were adopted and further developed, such as the one sent by God, who comes into this world in order to heal and save human beings; the "Son of God," who in John is simply the "Son" who is close to the Father; and the "Son of Man," who is changed from the one expected in the future to the one now present (1 :51; 9:35-38), from the crucified and resurrected One to the exalted and glorified One (3:14; 8:28; 12:23, 32; 13:31-32). The Synoptic proclamation of John the Baptist is taken up and interpreted in a new way.52 All this shows that Johannine Christology is not ethereal but is developed independently under the premise of the incarnate Logos. In contact with Synoptic Christology, the result is a new and special picture of Christ, which does not remain without its tensions and yet holds fast to the fundamental Christ confession of the early church. The special features must still be investigated individually (see below, section II).

243

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

5. A Hermeneutical Approach to the Johannine Picture of Christ If the real task of hermeneutics is to explain texts in terms of their

time of origin, contemporary circumstances, and purpose and at the same time to translate them into today's frame of reference, so that they have something to say to the people of our time,53 then this gives rise to great difficulties in the case of the Gospel of John. Merely the reconstruction of the historical meets with many disturbing questions, and it is even more difficult to make the lofty Johannine Christology accessible to doubters and skeptics. The historical dimension named above in section 1 is variously judged and prevents a clear view of who wrote this work for whom with what purpose and under what circumstances. But even if we share the view developed above, understanding in our time is not easy: a. An important principle of recent hermeneutics consists in the idea that there are no presuppositionless judgments. Certain prior decisions and understandings always playa role. "Those who want to understand the text are always fulfilling a plan. They project a meaning of the whole as soon as an initial meaning appears in the text. Such a meaning in tum reveals itself only because one reads the text with certain expectations regarding a particular meaning. The understanding of what is there consists in the working out of such a preconception, which, however, is constantly being revised according to what results from further penetration into the meaning." 54 Conceived prejudgments are conditions for understanding. The revision of false prejudgments happens in the critical research process when hypotheses are dismantled through text analysis and rejected. The thoroughly hypothesis-rich proposals on the Gospel of John, its origin and nature, its purpose and history, should be discussed again and again and corrected ever anew in a process of approaching historical truth. A further recognition is important for hermeneutical understanding. There is "a movement of understanding that is always from the whole to the part and back to the whole. The task is that of broadening in concentric circles the unity of the understood meaning. The agreement of all details with the whole is the criterion for the correctness of the understanding. The lack of such agreement means a failure to understand."55 More specifically, with regard to the Gospel of John, one must show whether the preexistence Christology with

244

JOHN

the fundamental statement, "And the Word became flesh" (1:14), is an indispensable presupposition of Johannine Christology, supports it, and enables it to be understood. 56 b. One must begin with the unity of Johannine Christology and seek to integrate into it the various categories of statement. This can happen in various ways. One can begin, for example, with the concept of the one who is sent: the Son sent by the Father into the world is the revealer and bringer of life. One can also hold as a crucial interpretative category the Son of Man who descends from heaven, returns there again, and thereby leads human beings to God. Or one can see the confession that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, which originally came from the Jewish realm, developing into a universal statement about the bringer of salvation. Yet in spite of persistent tensions, we cannot do without the unity of Johannine Christology. For at the center stands the figure of Jesus Christ, who guarantees the meaningfulness of the Gospel of John. If we cannot succeed in bringing the various narrative explanations, the divers titles and kinds of statements together in a unified whole, then the whole Gospel falls apart. If one distinguishes only the various Christologies-the one who is sent, the Son, the eschatological Moses-like prophet, the Son of Man, and so on-the view woven into an overall presentation becomes unexplainable and enigmatic. A notable unified overall view is developed by W. Loader: the Father sends and authorizes the Son, who knows the Father, comes from the Father, makes the Father known, brings light and life and truth, returns to the Father, is exalted and glorified, and ascends; who sends the disciples and sends the Spirit in order to make possible a greater understanding, and equips them for mission in order to build up the community of faith. 57 Somewhat problematic is the expansion of Christology into the ongoing work of Christ in the church, but since the Paraclete represents the Christ who lives on in the church, this interpretation of Christology is not unjustified. The resulting tensions-for example, between the Christ returning home to the Father and the Paraclete coming to the church, between the Christ completing his work of redemption Oohn 19:30} and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (1 :29) and releases the stream of life (19:34), or between the incarnate Logos (1 :14) and the Son of Man offering his flesh and blood (6:53-56}-must be integrated into the overall Christology. The present eschatology must be

245

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

balanced with that of the future. The final redaction melted the various christological initiatives into a unity. c. A special question is whether one is to understand the Gospel of John christologically or theologically. Is it so focused on Christology that through it one looks at God, the Creator and moving force of human history, or must one begin with God and his love for the world (3:16), who through the sending of the Son brought something new into the world-love, light, and life-and in his Son is leading the world to perfection? Theology and Christology are so close to each other and interrelated that this is a false alternative. "The centre of Christian faith is thus, for John, a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ. The formal character of the Johannine claim about Jesus as the one sent from God, which comes to expression in so many variants in the gospel, has the effect of throwing all the weight on theology in the strict sense."S8 Here one must apply the hermeneutical principle of setting up no false alternatives. Can one see the "world" either only in a negative sense, representing the realm of what is sinister, evil, hostile to God or also in a positive sense, affirmed by God and experiencing his love? There are Johannine texts for both.s9 The Johannine "dualism" finds its limits in the understanding of God. The same is true for the position on Judaism, which can appear as the domain of Satan (8:44) but also as the source of salvation (4:22).60 We encounter such a contradictory-sounding way of speaking everywhere, and in the view of the evangelist this only expresses the two sides of his judgment, which comes from historical experience. The coming of the Son of God into the world makes both possible. His coming can mean salvation or no salvation, deliverance through the love of God revealed in him or sinking into unfaith, guilt, and the judgment of death (3:17-19). Through the sending of the Son the human world is faced with a decision: faith and unfaith determine its fate. But the God-willed preference for salvation cannot be overlooked. 61 Yet with this the dualistic sounding way of speaking is again worked into the Johannine Christology that is relevant for salvation. d. The Gospel of John uses many images, symbols, and metaphors, which must be made understandable in their meaning. Mostly there are symbolic words directly interpretable with regard to Jesus in a sense that is filled with reality, such as life, light,62 bread of heaven, living bread, source of living water, shepherd, door, way, vine. What

246

JOHN

joins them all together is the idea of the life that Jesus gives. With metaphorical speech such as "being born from above" (3:3),63 being "lifted up" on the cross (3:14), drinking living water (4:14), food that endures (6:27), angels ascending and descending (1:51), ascension into heaven (6:62), light of the world (8:12; 9:6; 11:9), and becoming blind (9:39; 12:40), attention is always directed toward the figure of Jesus, the revealer and bringer of life from God. To this extent everything is Christocentric and at the same time theocentric. Jesus presents himself with divine, majestic speech: "I am he" (8:24, 28, 58; 13:19), often linked with symbolic words. 64 This symbolic, metaphorical mode of expression leads to the recognition of the unity of the Christology, \\'hich revolves around the salvific significance of the incarnate Logos who appeared on earth. All symbolic words must be investigated with regard to their tradition-historical origin and their Johannine sense. Not until the various christological modes of expression are illuminated (see below, section II) can we draw conclusions for Johannine Christo logy. e. Helpful for the specifically Johannine view is a comparison with the First Letter of John, in which variant conceptions of the Christ who came in the flesh and by water and blood are rejected (1 John 4:2-3; 5:6-8). When the true teaching of Christ the Son of God (2:23; 4:15; 5:5) is established, the ongoing work of the incarnate One, who is alive and meets with the church, can be revealed as the "word of life."6s How much the letter builds on the Christology developed in the prologue is seen in the comparison of the opening of the letter with the prologue of the Gospel. 66 In this way the Christology of the Gospel finds its reinforcement and confirmation in the continuation of the disputes around it. The criteria for testing them (4:1) are knowable. The Gospel and the letter converge on a unified view of Christology. From the Christology attested in the Johannine writings-on the basis of the individual texts, which can also be made to agreecomes a cogent hermeneutical approach. II INDIVIDUAL ASSERTIONS OF JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY

The picture John draws of Jesus Christ is completely determined by his faith in this complete and unique man, the monogenes who has

247

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

brought us information about God (1:18), the "Father's only Son" (1:14c). He has committed himself to this "only Son of God" (3:16, 18) because he believes that through him eternal life is to be gainedP That is the briefest and most pregnant expression for Jesus Christ in John's faith-viewpoint. But this only Son of God can be seen in his relationship to God, to the world, and to humankind under various relationships and aspects. Johannine Christology is rich in Christ predicates and expressions, each of which has its own meaning.

1. The One Who Is Sent Perhaps the most fundamental and comprehensive assertion about Jesus Christ is that he is the one sent by the Father into the world. According to J. Becker, Johannine Christology is essentially a "theology of sending." Similarly, other authors trace the variety of statements back to the concept of sending. 68 "The Father who sent me" is a favorite formula of John's (5:37; 6:44; 8:16 [variant reading I, 18; 12:49; 14:24), which connects being sent with the "Father" as the sender. 69 But even without the express naming of the Father, there is frequent mention of the sending by God (d. 3:12, 34; 6:29; 8:42) or by the Father, depending on the particular context. This going out from the "Father" is to be noted, because the union of Jesus with the Father (10:28, 30; 14:10) presents the problem of how this being equated with the Father can be made to agree with being commissioned by him. Jesus' obligation to the Father's commission and the union of the Son with the Father stand in a certain tension, since the sending by God the Father (17:3,8, 18,21,23,25) at the same time makes the indissoluble union of God and Christ visible (17:10, 21, 23).70 The functional union of the Son with the Father is expressed in 5: 19: the Son can do nothing on his own if he does not see the Father do it, for what the Father does, the Son does likewise. But the union formulas, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (14:10-11,20; d. 17:21, 23) and "The Father and I are one" (10:30), seem to go beyond this working together and point to an original union of essence between the Father and the Son. The Father is present in the Son without being identical with him. J. D. G. Dunn speaks of "some kind of identity of being,"71 although in its context the sentence "The Father and I are one" (10:30) is based only on the power bestowed on Jesus to protect his sheep, the people given to him (10:29). By his works one is supposed to know and understand that the Father is in him and he

248

JOHN

in the Father (10:38). Because Jesus is thus in communion with his Father, his opponents can do nothing to him (10:39). The Christologies of the one who is sent and of the Son are related to each other in a dialectical tension. The two Greek verbs for "send," namely, pistCIICill (used twentyfive times) and apostelleill (used seventeen times), hardly have a distinction in meaning. 72 In still other expressions such as "come," "come from," "be in the world" (8:42) the idea of sending is implicit. 73 Where does this view come from? The derivation from the Gnostic redeemer mythos was influential, but on the basis of more precise investigations it may be abandoned. The so-called Gnostic redeemer mvthos is a construction from various texts of Iranian and Mandaean origin as well as later Gnostic writings. Yet they produce a unified picture of neither the "redeemer," the primal human being and prototype, nor of his way from heaven to the earth and back into the heavenly world (the pleri5ma).'~ For recent researchers, therefore, the derivation of the sending idea from Gnosticism is very questionable.7 5 Old Testament-Jewish roots are sought instead. The most significant effort here is the work of J.-A. BOhner, Der Gesandte und sein We8 im 4. Emll8elium (see n. 1). BOhner seeks to trace the Johannine viewpoint back to the descending and ascending messenger of God in the Jewish religion and to the Jewish "doctrine of representation," as it is called in the Schaliach Institute. According to him, the Christology of the one who is sent goes back "in terms of content to the profane, juristic understanding of sending and representation."76 One may doubt the connection with speculations about heavenly angelic beings, especially in Jewish mysticism, who ascend and descend (d. John 1:51; 3:13), and the legal idea of representation in rabbinism can be explained by the contemporary situation of disputes with unbelieving Jews. But on the whole, derivation from Jewish premises, the sending of prophets, the Enoch literature, and Jewish mysticism are far more convincing than origination with the Gnostic mythos?? We do not want to pursue further the difficult question of the origin of the Johannine Christology of the one who is sent but rather, on the basis of the Johannine statements, to discuss in more detail the understanding of the one sent by God. A persistent statement is the sending of God's Son illto the world. In the Johannine circle this means that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son. For

249

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

"God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (3:16-17). It is a cosmic sending into the human world in order to save all human beings (d. 4:42). The radius of the sending extends over the people Israel and the Samaritans. Not only does the Moses-like eschatological prophet appear among his people (Deut. 18:15, 18), but he is the one who "is to come into the world" (6:14). Jesus says "to the world" what he has heard from his Father (8:26). The Father sent the one he sanctified "into the world" (10:36). Beside the grave of Lazarus, Martha confesses Jesus as the "Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world" (11:27). The Jewish Messiah confession is placed into the broader perspective of the Son of God coming into the world. Jesus came into the world in order to testify to the "truth" (18:37), and as the Father sent Jesus into the world, so also Jesus sent the disciples into the world (17:18). Jesus speaks comprehensively of going out from the Father and coming into the world; now he leaves the world again and goes to the Father (16:28). The cosmic breadth of the sending of Jesus is laid out in Johannine theology. There is a chasm between the world created by God, in which the Logos was life and light for humankind, and the present world. The true light, which enlightens everyone, came into the world (1:9), but although the Logos was in the world and the world was created through him, the world did not know him. "He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him" (1:10-11),78 Johannine dualism-which sets "this" world below, over against the world of God, from which the revealer has come (8:23; 3:31)-forms the framework for the sending of the Son of God. Jesus has come as light into the dark cosmos of death in order to remove human beings from this darkness (12:46). He is the light of life, which shines in this world (8:12; 9:5) in order to lead people into God's sphere of light and life. Cosmology, Christology, and soteriology are interrelated. The sending of the Old Testament messengers of God, the prophets, is directed toward the people of God, Israel. It is true that the servant of God chosen by God will also be a light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; 51:4), yet only if they accept the instruction of God going out from Zion and stream to the mountain of the Lord (d. Isa. 2:1-5; Micah 4:1-3). The pilgrimage of the nations to Zion is somewhat different from the light of life shining in the Logos for the whole world. The Messiah, the Son of God, is the Lamb that takes

250

JOHN

away the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). The one coming from heaven is the true bread of life that gives life to the world (John 6:32-33); whoever eats of this bread will live in eternity (6:51b). Thus the situation of Israel, to whom Moses gave the commandments and promises of God and his gift of salvation, is far surpassed. The fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died (6:49, 58a). Jesus is the true bearer of life and mediator of life, who through his word saves those who believe in him from the realm of death (5:25-26). This gives him a unique task, to which he, as the one who has come into the world, testifies through his words and deeds (d. 5:36-47; 10:25). He can make this self-testimony only because he knows where he has come from and where he is going (8:14). He expresses it in the "I am" statements, which include his preexistence (8:58) and his going to the Father (8:28; 14:28). The salvation that the one sent by God mediates to human beings is designated throughout as (etemal) life. 79 He has come so that they may have life and have it abundantly (10:10). In ever-new images and symbols this life streaming from God and his love is made available to believers: a spring of living water (4:14; 7:37-·38), bread that does not spoil but endures for eternal life (6:27, 33-35), light that drives away the darkness of death (8:12; 12:46), resurrection of the dead (11:25-26), way (14:6), vine (15:1-8). But metaphorical expressions, such as becoming children of God (1:12), being born from above (3:3), and being filled with the Spirit (7:39; 14:16), are promises that are revealed by the one sent by God and actually fulfilled after the resurrection (20:22). Through his gift of life the one sent by God already brings a turning point in the present (5:25); through him and in him a new possibility of life is revealed and an approach to God opened (14:6-7). In this John fits into the society of his time, which was filled with the longing for life. so The life coming from God presented the answer to the question of human existence and meaning. Those who love their "life" (psyche), their natural, earthly existence in this world, will lose it; but those who "hate" it, have a low regard for it, will preserve it for cternallife (12:25). This divine life must become the goal of all human endeavor. The christological-soteriological design that underlies the sending statements can be recognized especially in the kerygmatic passages in 3:31-36 and 12:44-50. Jesus Christ is the one coming "from above," who is over all. He is sent from the world of God, in which there is

251

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

abundance of life and light, in order to lead humankind there also: those to whom he is sent and who are entrusted and "given" to him. From heaven he brings his knowledge of salvation and testifies to what he has seen and heard (3:32). Those who accept this testimony confirm and certify that God is truthful. The reception of the revelation from the Father is described according to human analogy (seeing and hearing). Filled with the Spirit himself (d. 1:33), Jesus is supposed to pass on to humankind the Spirit-filled words of life (6:63, 68). He is the agent authorized by God, to whom God has given all things into his hands. "All things" means the broad power of salvation, which is bestowed upon the Son "over all people" (d. 17:2; 13:3), which, however, first presupposes the conveying of the knowledge of revelation. For John this is no mythical speech or speculation but a reality that is related to experience and which is shown in the fact that he has in mind the rejection of this spokesman for God by people-particularly the Jews-who have heard his revelation. He attests to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony (3:32). This judgment stemming from the depressing experience of his work on earth sounds exaggerated, but it is soon corrected in what follows. There are, nonetheless, people who accept this testimony (3:33). This is the community of believers, who appear as the group listening to and obeying God in the middle of the general decadence on "earth" and in the world (d. 1:12-13; 10:14, 27). They are the "children of God," whom the one who is sent gathers from the dispersion (11:52), those who belong to him (17:6, 9). Thus the one who is sent comes into a divided world; he comes as a "stranger" from another world but nevertheless finds his own. The same dualistically colored words are found in the closing speech after Jesus' withdrawal from the public (12:44-50). Jesus shouts it again to the world: "Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me" (12:44-45). He is not only the commissioned agent of God but the embodiment of God himself. He is thus one with and in agreement with his Father that anyone who does not accept his words incurs judgment (12:48). His speech as messenger of God has the power to separate (d. 3:17-19). It is a unanimous, almost monotonous speech, which is repeated again and again but on the lips of the one who is sent can sound no different, for "what I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me" (12:50).

252

JOHN

We can connect the concept of the one who is sent with still other kinds of statements that come from special categories of Jewish expectation. This is true, namely, of the "Messiah," the "King of salvation," the eschatological "prophet," and the "Son of Man." Not all these special forms of expression are characterized by talk of the sending. Thus send and being sellt are lacking in the Son of Man sayings. With the eschatological prophet the idea is implied by the addition "who is to come into the world" (6:14). With Messiah, which is translated in Greek with Christos (1:41), it is presupposed that he is expected. Andrew testifies to his brother Peter that they have "found" him. In Jesus, Nathanael recogniz.es and confesses the Son of God, the "King of Israel" (1 :49). This King of Israel is greeted on entrance into Jerusalem as the one who "comes in the name of the Lord" (12:13). The "one who comes" (1:15, 27), possibly an old name for the Messiah (d. Matt. 11:3/Luke 7:19-20), occurs in the context of the messianic expectation. The Samaritan woman says: "1 know that Messiah is coming" (4:25). Many people in Jerusalem consider whether Jesus could be the Messiah, but they have doubts: "When the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from" (7:27). Others come to faith, because they are convinced: "When the Messiah comes, will he do more signs than this man has done?" (7:31). Still others object: "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?" (7:41). The "coming" does not have to include being sent by God, but it may (d. 7:28; 8:42). The concept of the one who is sent is a broad circle of ideas, which may incorporate within itself other ways of speaking. But the one sent by God into the world to save humanldnd can serve as a guideline to which further statements are added.

2. The Son Who Is Close to His Father The one sent by God into the world receives a special coloration in that he is the Son sent by the Father. He is not just any person, even a prophet, but rather stands in a relationship to God that is reserved for him. One can say of John the Baptist that he appears as a man sent from God (1:6). As much as his being sent by God is acknowledged (d. 5:33-35), it is not a sending that achieves the dignity accorded the Son sent by the Father. For the Son, John was a witness who through his testimony was supposed to lead people to the divine revealer and giver of life. In the expression the Father who sent me the Father gains a special, undeniable power of assertion.

253

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

The absolute term the Son is a designation for the figure of the Redeemer and in the Gospels is almost exclusively reserved for the Gospel of John (except for Matt. 11:27 /Luke 10:22; Mark 13:32/Matt. 24:36; Matt. 28:19). We will have to distinguish this absolute talk of "the Son" from the frequent expression the Son afGod. B1 The Son is not simply a title for Christ but stands out above other predicates in that the unique relationship to God the Father is addressed. In these texts the Father is also used absolutely (about eighteen times), especially in the formula, "the Father who sent me" (5:37; 6:44; 8:16, 18; 12:49; 14:24, 26). The relationship of the Son to the Father provides a rich bond that binds the Father and Son together: a. John often asserts a "giving" by the Father, which gifts and enriches the Son. The Father has given the Son the Father's words (17:8), his "name" (17:11, 12), his "glory" (17:22,24), the works (5:36), the (whole) work (17:4). He has placed all things in his hands (4:34; 13:3), has granted him "to have life in himself" (5:26), and has given him authority to execute judgment (5:22, 27a) and authority over all people (17:2). He has also given the believers to him (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:2,6,9,24; 18:9). The greatest christological-soteriological concentration is achieved in the statement that the Father "gave" to the world Jesus himself (3:16) as the true bread from heaven (6:32), which carries within itself and mediates God's life. For John the Father is simply the one who gives, the one who grants out of love, who in the "giving" makes known his salvific will. His greatest and allencompassing gift to humankind in need of redemption is his Son. This gift of God continues in the gift of the Spirit by the Son (14:16), who thereby continues his work of salvation. What Jesus is able to give people-living water (4:10, 14), food that endures (6:27), the bread of life (6:33), peace (14:27), and glory (17:22)-is all already based on the giving of the Father. The Son gives only what he receives from the Father, and the Father gives "all things" to the Son (3:35) so that he can pass them on to the believers. b. The Father loves the Son (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23), as the Son also loves the Father (14:31). The love of the Father is revealed in that he shows the Son everything that he himself does (5:20), and the love of the Son becomes evident in that he fulfills the commission of his Father (14:31b; d. 10:18). The bond of love embraces Father and Son not as feeling but in mutual devotion in activity. There is a cooperation in Jesus' activity, a true working together (5:17, 19, 20) of such a

254

JOHN

nature that the Son can do nothing of himself but only speaks and does what he has seen, heard, and learned from the Father (d. 8:28, 38,40; 12:50; 15:15). The Son submits himself totally to the will of the Father (8:29; 14:31) and seeks only the Father's honor (8:50; d. 7:18), and the Father does not leave him alone in the face of human hostility but is "with" him (8:29; 16:32), honors him, and glorifies him (8:54; 13:31-32; 17:1-5). For Jesus' sake the Father accepts believers into his love (14:21, 23; 16:26-27) and grants them the hearing of prayer in Jesus' name (14:13; 15:16; 16:23--24). c. The Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father (10:15). This "knowing" expresses the familiarity and closeness of the Son and the Father. It lies along the Old Testament-Jewish line of the election and the self-revelation of Yahweh vis-a.-vis his people (d. Isa. 41:20; 43:10; 45:3; Hos. 13:4; etc.). As Yahweh knows and recognizes his people, they are also to know him as the only Savior. But this "knowledge" coming from God and the corresponding knowledge of the Savior by the people (d. Jer. 31:34) does not attain that mutual knowledge that is presupposed for the relationship between Father and Son in John 10:15. This knowledge is presented as the model and prototype of the fellowship of Jesus with his "sheep." Jesus knows his own, and his own know him (d. 10:3--4,27). With regard to his sheep Jesus uses argumentation from his unique closeness to his Father. The wording of the passage rests on Jesus' cry of rejoicing in Matt. 11:27 fLuke 10:22. Here too the Father knows the Son, and the Son the Father. Only through the introduction, All things have been handed over to me by my Father," is a different perspective given: a transference of power to the Son. This motif comes from the apocalyptic tradition of the Son of Man, or of wisdom. 82 In terms of the history of tradition, John 10:15 hardly goes back directly to the cry of rejoicing in Matthew and Luke but represents a later stage from the same circle of ideas. B3 In the Gospel of John the knowing and loving familiarity of the Son with the Father is based on the fact that already in his preexistence the Son has been forever close to the Father (1:14; 17:5, 24). The preexistence shapes the Father-Son relationship, which is maintained in the earthly life of Jesus. d. The Father is present in the words and works of Jesus. The oneness of the Son with the Father is so great that Jesus' words are those of the Father (12:50), and his works those of the Father, who works 1/

255

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

through him (14:10). It is true that the Father and Son are still distinguished (14:8), but the Father shows himself so much in the Son that anyone who sees the Son sees the Father (14:9). The oneness formula, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21), maintains both the distinction and the union. The Father, whom no human being can see (1:18; 5:37; 6:46), is "seeable" and can be directly experienced in the Son. Through his word, his works, his entire person, the Son reveals the Father in so complete a way that for those who see in faith, God is no longer the distant and incomprehensible One. Because the Son "is close to the Father'S heart," he participates in the divinity of God (cf. the reading Theos in 1:18), becomes the image of God in the world, the express word of God for humankind, the liberating truth that witnesses to God's reality and salvific power (18:37). The sentences on the oneness of the Son with the Father border on a total merger and yet preserve the distinction of the Son sent into the world. e. The Father is greater than the Son (14:28), a surprising sentence after the statements on the oneness of the Son with the Father, but it must be seen within the context of the sending of the Son into the world. Elsewhere Jesus is called greater than Jacob (4:12) and Abraham (8:53); he can reveal greater things (1:50), do greater works than those before him (5:20), yet only because the Father shows them to him. The Father is greater than all who try to snatch his sheep from him (10:29). The Son's being greater is based on the Father's being greater. The Father will prove himself as "greater" in the glorification of the Son, which will at the same time give the disciples the fruitfulness of their work (cf. 15:8). Therefore the disciples are to rejoice that Jesus is going to the Father (14:28b).lt is good for them that Jesus is going away (16:7). Their joy is to be fulfilled in participation in Jesus' glory (cf. 15:11). Thus the priority of the Father is preserved, yet not through a greater fullness of being or sovereign power but through the inauguration of what he does for the Son and the people close to him. Everything comes from the Father, the sending into the world (3:16-17), every commission for the Son, and all love that he gives to the Son and for his sake also to the believers (16:27). Now, when the Father glorifies the Son at the end of his way, the disciples are also to be included in this glorification. In this work of perfection the greatness of the Father is also revealed. The glorification of the Son

256

JOHN

of Man can also be considered a mutual glorifying of Father and Son {13:31-32},84 yet the glorification of the one lifted up on the cross comes from God: the Son of Man is glorified, and God will soon glorify him, namely, at his exaltation on the cross {13:32b-c}. The glorification of the Son is also to be seen in 14:28: going to the Father occurs through exaltation and glorification. Thus the tension between Jesus' oneness and identity with the Father and the statement that the Father is greater than Jesus is resolved. It is the same tension as that between Jesus' authority to lay down his life and to take it up again, on the one hand, and his obedient submission to the will of the Father, on the other (10:18). Ultimately, this tension is built into incarnational Christology. The relationship of Father and Son is illuminated concisely and impressively in Jesus' great prayer to the Father (chap. 17}.85 The Son lifts his eyes to heaven now in the hour in which he is to be lifted up and glorified. The Son asks the Father for glorification so that the Son may also glorify the Father (17:1). The Son is to give eternal life to all who are given to him (17:2). Eternal life consists, as a clarifying gloss explains, in knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent (17:3). The request for glorification of the Son is based on the "work" that the Son has finished on earth for the Father (17:4). The Father has already glorified the Son on earth and is supposed to glorify him further by leading him in the hour of death into the glory of heaven (d. 12:28). This is the reattainment of the glory that the Son already had before the foundation of the world (17:5). The glory that the Son possessed at that time can only be the full communion of being and love into which the people who belong to Jesus are also to be accepted after Jesus' return to the Father (d. 17:24). This bringing people home into full communion with God is the real theme of Jesus' prayer to the Father. In what follows Jesus details how he won and preserved his own in the world (17:6-11a). He revealed to them the name of God; they accepted the words that the Father gave him. Everything came from the Father, and the disciples recognized that Jesus comes from the Father and is sent by him. The Father gave the disciples to Jesus; they are the Father's property, and if they now belong to Jesus, then this shows that the Father and Son share this possession. "All mine are yours, and yours are mine" (17:1O). If we note the form of address "Father," there are new approaches to the Son's request in v. lIb: "Holy Father, protect them in your

257

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

name that you have given me," and in vv. 24 and 25 where Jesus prays for the perfection of the faithful in communion with the Father. The intensifying prayer takes the oneness of Jesus with the Father as a standard. The Father is to preserve the disciples in his name, "so that they may be one, as we are one" (v. 11b). They are to be one, as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (v. 21)-one like Father and Son (v. 22). Thus the argument is based on this oneness of Father and Son, and the believers are included in this oneness (v. 23). From this we may conclude that this oneness and unique closeness of Father and Son is the crucial motif for Jesus' request to the Father.86 Nonetheless, one must also see that this motif is always connected with the idea of sending (vv. 8, 18, 21, 23). The oneness of Jesus with the Father, which is reflected in the oneness of the believers, is supposed to convince the world that Jesus is the one sent by God. Thus here too the divinity of Jesus is not exaggerated into identity with the Father. The Son sent into the world remains as the incarnate One close to the Father in like divinity and yet adopts a work that leads him out into the world: to gather his own (11:52), to preserve them from the evil one (17:12, 15), to sanctify them in the truth (17:17-19). For the Son this is possible because he lives in profound closeness to the Father and is also capable of leading those entrusted to him into communion with the Father. He will continue to make known to them the "name," the essence of God, his holiness and love, so that the love of God may be in them and he may be present in them in this love (17:26). Only through incarnational Christology do all these statements become comprehensible. The view here is directed toward the believing church, which in Jesus' prayer to the Father at the same time gains its self-understanding, experiences its confrontation with the unbelieving and hostile world, and reaches the certainty of having its home in God. Theology, Christo logy, and ecclesiology are interrelated, yet in such a way that the primacy of theology, the all-determining and all-moving activity of God, is maintained.

3. The Son of Man Who Came Down from Heaven and Ascends There Again 87 Thirteen passages mention the "Son of Man," which means none other than the Jesus now living on earth. These are characteristic statements, which produce a certain picture of the Son of Man:

258

JOHN

1:51

Upon the Son of Man the angels of God ascend and descend. 3:13 Only the Son of Man, who descended from heaven, has ascended into heaven. 88 3:14 The Son of Man must be lifted up according to the type (analogy) of the serpent in the wilderness. 5:27 The "Son" has the power to execute judgment because he is the "Son of Man." 6:27 The Son of Man will give the food that endures for eternal life. 6:53 One must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood in order to have life within oneself. 6:62 The Son of Man will ascend into heaven. 8:28 The Jews will lift up the Son of Man. 9:35-38 The healed man born blind believes in the Son of Man. 89 12:23 The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 12:34c The Son of Man must be lifted up (d. 12:32). 12:34d The people ask, Who is this Son of Man? 13:31-32 In the Son of Man, God is glorified, and God will glorify him. In looking over these passages, we must say first that they deal with the Son of Man on earth; his future coming is not addressed as it is in the Synoptic tradition. Nor do we hear about Jesus' eternal dwelling with the Father and his unrelinquishable oneness with the Father. These are assertions about the Christ who is present, who can be perceived as such (1:51; 9:35-38), and who follows a certain path on earth. One could at most hold that according to the perfect tense in 3:13a he is already in heaven. But the aorist in 3:13b (ho katabas) leads again to his historical coming, and the sentence, "No one has ascended into heaven," discourages the idea that anyone has ascended to heaven, as was actually the case with the Son of Man. This ascension is announced in 6:62 (d. also 20:17) and is established for the church looking back at the way of Jesus. A second predominant assertion concerns the lifting up (3:14; 8:28; 12:34c) and glorification of the Son of Man (12:23; 13:31-32). The two, being lifted up and being glorified, are closely connected but are distinguished with regard to the death on the cross and the resurrection

259

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

and return home to the Father. For John this is associated with Jesus' "hour," toward which Jesus' entire work moves. One cannot understand the Son of Man if one does not keep in mind his destiny in Jesus' "hour." A third assertion is equally clear. The Son of Man is a salvific figure. He must be lifted up on the cross, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life (3:14). He gives the food that endures to eternal life (6:27), his flesh and blood, with which he feeds the believers, so that they may have eternal life (6:53). The idea of his holding judgment emerges only marginally (5:27). In the figure of the Son of Man various ideas come together; it is a weaving of adopted and further developed concepts, which, however, have an essential meaning for the Johannine picture of Christ. Because of the curious mode of expression and its overall view, the statements about the Son of Man are much discussed, and there is a rich literature on this group of concepts (see n. 87), into which we cannot go further at this point. We want to attempt to examine important aspects and evaluate them for the picture of Christ.

a. Son and Son of Man

Son and Son of Man do not stand immediately beside each other. Upon Nathanael's confession of the Son of God (1:49) Jesus answers: "You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man" (1:51). The Son of God, the King of Israel, who is connected with the Son of Man in heaven, becomes experienceable in a way that surpasses the expectations of the Jewish Messiah. The sending of the Son of God into the world (3:16-18) is made more precise in that he is the Son of Man come down from heaven, who like Moses in the wilderness must be "lifted up" (on the cross, 3:13-14). The believers receive the gift of life from the Son but, more precisely, in such a way that they have life in the exalted Son of Man (3:15). He gives them the food that endures (6:27), which is only possible if the Son of Man has ascended to where he previously was (6:62). Not until the unbelieving Jews have lifted up the Son of Man (on the cross) will they recognize who he is (8:28). He is the Son who teaches what the Father has taught him (8:28b). The Father accompanies the Son of Man on his way and does not leave him alone in the hour of death (8:29). In Jesus' question to the man born blind the man-

260

JOHN

uscripts waver between "Son of God" and "Son of Man," but the better reading is "Son of Man," and there is a good reason for this. The healed man comprehended that Jesus healed him on the basis of his being close to God (9:31-33), but he does not know what Jesus' relationship to God is. He is still trapped in the Jewish idea that no sinner can bring about such an unusual healing, but how Jesus has attained such power escapes him. As the Pharisees drive him away and exclude him from the community of faith (9:34), Jesus becomes even more puzzling for him. In order to understand him the man would have to knmv that Jesus is the Son of Man rejected by the unbelieving Jews and yet exalted by God. Thus Jesus' question puts him to the test as to whether he believes in Jesus in spite of the Jews' rejection. When he confesses him as the Son of Man, he affirms him as the one sent by God, who comes from God and ascends again to him. The healing of the blind man opens his eyes to the unique role of Jesus, who came for a judgment in the world, so that those who do not see might see and those who do see might become blind (9:39). The Son of Man exercises a separating function among people. Those who do not comprehend his exaltation, achieved through the cross, and his glorification (12:34), do not come to faith; they remain in darkness (d. 12:35). On the cross the judgment of the world takes place and the "ruler of this world" is thrown out, yet the one who is lifted up will draw the believers to himself (12:31-32). The event of the cross reveals the way of the Son of Man and everything that grows out of it. Only through the idea of the Son of Man does the event of the cross become recognizable in its fruitful consequences (12:23-24): he must be "glorified" in order to bring fruit to many. In him God is glorified (13:31), and God glorifies him in himself soon after Jesus' "hour" (12:23; 13:32). Glorification can also be asserted of the Son (11:4; 17:1, 5). The Son is also seen as the one sent into the world, who then returns to the Father. He again attains the glory he had with the Father before the foundation of the world (17:5). Thus the way of the one who is sent is the same both in the conceptual circle of the Son and in that of the Son of Man; the end of this way is in each case glorification. But one thing is brought more sharply into view through the introduction of the Son of Man: the way leads through the exaltation on the cross into glory. The cross is the ladder on which Jesus climbs up to the glory of the Father.

261

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

b. Messiah and Son of Man The Son of Man is also connected with the Jewish idea of the Messiah, even if not closely. The Nathanael confession to the King of Israel (1 :49) is surpassed in that the believers will see the Son of Man who is in constant exchange with heaven (1:51). As in Jacob's vision at Bethel (Gen. 28:12) the angels climb up and down upon the Son of Man. This was not yet established in Jewish messianic belief, even if the passage was interpreted variously with regard to "Israel" in the Jewish Midrash-Iike interpretative tradition. 9o Perhaps the image of Jacob-Israel sleeping on earth is connected with the true picture of Israel in heaven. 91 In any case, the Son of Man, because of his communion with heaven established through the angels, is presented as the place par excellence of divine revelation. 92 If we note the title Son of Man, we are reminded of the announcement in Mark 14:62 in which Jesus answers the Messiah question: "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.' " Here the Son of Man is the one who will come one day, who will show himself as Judge over the Jewish leaders. If the evangelist John had this saying in mind, he could have reinterpreted it according to his present eschatology to refer to the present Son of Man, who is now already revealing himself to the disciples. Even now the disciples will "see" the Son of Man, not in his judicial might but in his signs, which point to deliverance and salvation. This is the high point of the Johannine understanding of the Messiah, as shown by its position at the end of the calling of the disciples. The faith in the Messiah already awakened in the disciples (1:41, 45, 49) is made more precise and interpreted in the Son of Man saying: the Messiah is the Son of Man who is linked with heaven while on earth, and thus the disciples experience heaven openly, and the one sent by God and coming from above is experienced in his glory. Among the people this messianic understanding of the Son of Man meets with misunderstanding and opposition. The healed man born blind is prepared for this by his reflection on the person of Jesus. But the crowd takes a position against Jesus in a discussion on the lifting up of the Son of Man: "We have heard from the law that the Messiah remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?" (12:34). John wants to ward off apologetically such an understanding of the Messiah and

262

JOHN

at the same time substantiate Jesus' true Messiahship.93 For him it is connected with the Son of Man, who must be lifted up on the cross. The Son of Man who comes from heaven and goes his way in the world through exaltation on the cross and into glory, is for the uncomprehending crowd a stranger, an emissary from another world. He is not understood because the Jewish messianic expectation depends on an appearance as David's descendant (7:41-42) and political liberator (d. 6:15). They argue over him, and their opinion about him is divided (d. 7:12; 7:40-43). The Jews do not comprehend his messianic secret, his origin in God (7:28-29). Because they do not understand the talk about the Son of Man, Jesus' Messiahship remains hidden from them. Thus there are many connecting links between faith in the Son of Man and in the Messiah. Yet the confession to the King of Israel approaches the Jewish faith in the Messiah. Upon entrance into Jerusalem Jesus is greeted: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord-the King of Israel!" (12:13). It is the same confession as that of Nathanael, which, as we saw, is surpassed by Jesus' revelation as the Son of Man (1:49-51). Jesus' praise as King of Israel on entering Jerusalem is not understood by the disciples; not until Jesus was glorified did they grasp the meaning of the scripture and this event (12:16). At the visit of the Greeks, Jesus speaks to Philip and Andrew: "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" (12:23). In Jesus' "hour," in which Jesus' death coincides with his glorification, the Son of Man is revealed. The triumphant "King of Israel," the Messiah, is still distinguished from the Son of Man. Each of these predicates has its own area of application. For the Son of Man being lifted up on the cross is the crucial viewpoint. In Jesus' trial the "King of the Jews" plays an important role (18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 14-15, 19). The "lifting up" of the Son of Man triggers a false understanding of the Messiah. It is a paradox: the misunderstanding of the Jewish Messiah brings out the true messianic understanding of the exalted Son of Man.

c. Exaltation and glorification 94 When we read that the Son of Man must be "lifted up" as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (3:14), this is first of all a typological interpretation of Num. 21:8-9 that transfers the viewing of the bronze serpent to the Christ lifted up on the pole of the cross. His

263

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

death on the cross-in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mark 14:41; Luke 22:53)-is at most externally the hour of darkness (John 13:30) and confusion (12:27), but in reality the hour of Jesus' transfer out of this world to the Father (13:1), the hour of glorification (12:23; 17:1). The impetus for this new interpretation of the "exaltation," which becomes the "glorification," could have been given to the evangelist by Isa. 52:13, which says of the servant of God: "He shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high." It is an extrapolation of scriptural theology by the theologian John, who adds the typology of the bronze serpent. But there is also a tradition-historical connection with Jesus' passion announcement in Mark 8:31, in that the "must" (dei) points to the underlying will of God. 95 In John the "must" of the passion becomes a God-determined way to the exaltation and glorification of the Son of Man. John turns the humility statement about the passion (cf. Phil. 2:8) into an exaltation statement. If the "exaltation" means the crucifixion, then in the Johannine view the latter acquires a theological background that already implies the "glorification." It is the concrete way in which Jesus, the Son of Man, returns to his father. The cross, the "exaltation," is asserted only of the Son of Man (3:14; 8:28; 12:34); the glorification, not only of him (12:23; 13:31-32) but also of the "Son" (11:4; 12:28; 17:1,5). The "Son of Man" is introduced where Jesus' "hour" announces both his death and his glorification (12:23; 17:1; cf. 7:30; 8:20). With the acceptance of the "hour" determined for him by the Father, Jesus enters into the passion (12:27-28; 13:1). But with this the glorification also begins and develops. The background of the "exaltation" of Jesus is also not to be overlooked in a second passage where it is the topic, namely, in 8:28. In contrast to the other passages, here the lifting up is actively asserted of the Jews. Since this does not nullify God's prerogative, however, we must interpret: God wanted human beings to participate in this exaltation of the Son of Man. When they carry out the crucifixion, they are fulfilling God's decree. For John "exaltation" is more than the outward act of the crucifixion. It is a christological assertion of majesty and a soteriological promise. When the Jews pursue the crucifixion of Jesus, they are not doing away with him but, on the contrary, are contributing to his glorification. They are helping the one exalted by them to fulfill his work of salvation. Then they will know who in truth Jesus is (ego eimi), who through his death on the cross

264

JOHN

fulfills the will of the Father. At the crucifixion of Jesus the (leading) Jews appear as the real actors in the executi(,\1. Pilate hands Jesus over to them "to be crucified"; then we read: "So they took Jesus" (19:16). Yet in reality it was Roman soldiers, as John knows (d. 19:23-24). But the burden of responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion falls on the Jews. The third passage in 12:32 speaks clearly of the event behind the curtain of the world stage. Now Jesus again speaks in the passive: " ... \vhen I am lifted up from the earth ... "; the response of the people in 12:34 (dei) shows that for the evangelist God is again standing in the background with his will. The judgment over the "ruler of this world" (12:31; d. 16:11) is executed by God. But the statement made about the exalted One concerns the salvation of human beings: the one lifted up "will draw all people to myself" (12:32). It is a vivid picture: the one on the cross lifted up "from the earth" draws everyone to himself, up to his "exalted" position. Unfaith does not comprehend the power of this apparently impotent one; therefore the people, who face Jesus with doubt and lack of understanding (12:34), are urgently exhorted to faith in one last appeal (12:35-36). The ambivalence of John's mode of expression becomes apparent in JeslIs' "hollr." It becomes Jesus' hour of death, which leads, nonetheless, to his glorification. It is true that this hour is never mentioned in direct connection with the exaltation on the cross, yet the cross makes the broader context of 12:32-33 clear. The theme of 12:23, that the hour has come "for the Son of Man to be glorified," is continued in 12:27. The "hour" expected here is none other than that of v. 23, and the llyn that represents it in v. 27 leads to the twofold llyn in v. 31. Jesus' "hour," which is not temporal but theological, contains a mixture of light and dark aspects. Jesus' "hour on the Mount of Olives" (12:27-28) is also drawn in and illuminated. Jesus' passion, as described by the synoptists, is not forgotten but surpassed and outshone by the glorification of Jesus by the Father. In other passages in which "Jesus' hour" is the topic there is the same ambivalence. It is the hour of death (7:30; 8:20) and at the same time the hour of glorification (13:31; 17:1). When the Jews are in the picture with their hostile attitude, Jesus' hour appears as the hour of death; they cannot lay hold of Jesus "because his hour had not yet come" (7:30; 8:20). Jesus, by contrast, always speaks of his hour as a glorious one,

265

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

which outwardly means the crucifixion but for him announces his glorification. Thus the language of the "lifting up" of the Son of Man, his "hour," and his "glorification" is consciously chosen. The "glorification" -which contains still other aspects: Jesus' revelation on earth through signs (2:11; 11:4,40), the fruitfulness of the disciples (15:8), the sending of the Spirit (d. 7:39; 16:14)-is the goal of Jesus' being lifted up. If in addition to the salvific effect of the glorification (17:1-2) the judgment is also mentioned (5:22,27; 12:31; 16:11), then this is the result of the Johannine "dualism of decision," which places the acceptance of salvation in faith beside rejection through unfaith. Those who do not recognize the Son who is going to the Father and the "righteousness" revealed therein (16:10) hand themselves over to the "ruler of this world" and are subject to the judgment of death (16:11). Judgment assumes cosmic dimensions. This too is placed in Jesus' "exaltation" (12:31). Since the salvi fie effect otherwise stands in the foreground, it is surprising that 5:27 says that God gave to him (the Son) the authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man. Here the Son of Man appears as the one who is primarily charged with the judgment, which otherwise is not the case. Here we probably have a penetration of the Synoptic view of the Son of Man holding judgment, and 5:27b-29 could have been added through the redaction of the Johannine circle.% d. The Son of Man as mediator of life Yet another group of Son of Man sayings must be considered, namely, those in chapter 6 on the bread of life that came down from heaven (6:27, 53, 62). At the beginning of the speech we read: "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternallife" (6:27). After the great feeding the people ask for a sign so that they can believe in the one sent by God (6:30). They are not satisfied with the previous signs; they remember the manna that their ancestors ate in the wilderness: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat" (6:31). Jesus sees through their inadequate faith (6:26) and challenges them to work for the food that endures to eternal life. Verse 27 is a revelatory saying that already anticipates the following talk of the bread of life. The promised food is characterized in three ways: (1) it is "enduring," that is, a lastingly effective food, so that there is no more hunger and thirst (6:35b); (2) it is a food that is in-

266

JOHN

tended and effective "for eternal life"; (3) it is given to them by the Son of Man. 97 Why is the "Son of Man" mentioned here? Because this selfdesignation of Jesus evokes the whole complex of ideas about the Son of Man who descends from heaven and ascends there again! As the Son of Man who has ascended again into heaven (6:62), Jesus is given a heavenly gift-in fact, he himself becomes this gift (6:33, 41, 42,51, 58). The saying on the Son of Man is connected with the descent from heaven, which causes Jewish listeners to object (6:41-42). There is a certain shifting of the image in the fact that Jesus will give an imperishable bread and then himself is this bread of life. Comparable is 4:14, where Jesus, under the image of stilling thirst, promises a gift of water, which in those who drink from it becomes a spring of water gushing up to eternal life. The giver becomes the gift. Water and bread are two symbols of life that both say the same thing and point to Jesus as the giver of life. Jesus calls himself the bread of life but in so doing also assumes the idea of stilling thirst: "Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" (6:35). The double image of hungering and thirsting recalls the gift of manna in the wilderness and the water from the rock. In addition to the bread that comes down from heaven and gives eternal life (6:33, 51) there is also the image of the spring from which flow rivers of living water (7:37-38). It is important to the evangelist that the promised food comes from heaven. "It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my [Jesus'] Father who gives you the true bread from heaven" (6:32). This bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven (6:33), and that is none other than the Son of Man, who already in 3:13 is characterized as the one who has descended from heaven. He is also the one who ascends again to heaven, where he was before (6:62). The work of the Son of Man now on earth is asserted of both the future (6:27) and the present (6:32 emphatically; 6:50). For the undecided Jews it becomes the promise; for believers, present fulfillment. Through the midrash on the bread of heaven 98 a revelatory speech develops that is structured as follows: (1) the true bread of heaven: the quotation of scripture and Jesus' interpretation (6:31-35); (2) the necessity of faith (6:36-40); (3) overcoming the offense of Jesus' earthly origin, because he is the Son of Man come down from heaven (6:41-43); (4) the necessity of faith awakened by

267

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

the Father (6:44-47); (5) renewed revelation of the bread of life that has come down from heaven and gives eternal life (6:48-51b); (6) the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of the Son of Man (6:51c-58); (7) overcoming the offense: the ascent of the Son of Man to where he was previously (6:60--65). The whole discussion takes place in a dialogue with skeptical and unbelieving Jews, who "complain" (6:41,43) or dispute among themselves (6:52). Many disciples of Jesus also take offense at the difficult teaching and complain (6:60--61). Only with the prospect of the ascent of the Son of Man (6:62) does the talk of the Son of Man become complete. Because of the connection of revelatory speech with the discussion that Jesus has with the Jews-that is, because it is embedded in a historical context (cf. 6:59)-the structure and meaning of the presentation is not very transparent and has led to various conceptions. 99 A special difficulty comes from the passage 6:52-58: whereas the topic earlier was the eating of the bread of life in faith, now we read of the flesh and blood of the Son of Man. In an unmistakable allusion to the Eucharist, a new level of understanding emerges. The previous appropriation of the bread of God in faith is transferred to the eating and drinking of the Eucharist. 1oo Is this a later addition of the Johannine redaction from the Johannine circle?101 However one judges this transition to a different level, attention is in any case focused again on the Son of Man. He is the one who brings eternal life through his flesh and blood in the Eucharist and gives the participants full communion with himself: those who eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood abide in him and he in them (6:56). Again the idea of sending is taken up: Jesus lives through the Father, and those who "eat" Jesus live through him (6:57). If this is said of the "Son of Man," then it is with the idea that only the Son of Man who has again ascended to heaven gives his flesh and blood to eat and to drink in a way that is different and transfigured or transformed by the Spirit (cf. 6:63). The futuristic announcement in 6:27 is fulfilled in the church's celebration of the Eucharist. The eating of the bread of life becomes, under the presupposition of faith, the holding of the eucharistic meal and the sacramental participation in the flesh and blood of the Son of Man. liThe bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51c) is a transition to the eucharistic section. This verse could also mean the metaphorical understanding of the appropriation of life in faith, 102 even though the formulation in v. 53 contains clear echoes of

268

JOHN

the words of institution of the celebration of the Lord's Supper and thus emphasizes the eucharistic understanding. The faithful acceptance of the bread of life speech is fundamental (d. 6:63b, 68); the sacramental gifts that presuppose this recall the bodily existence and death on the cross of Jesus, who lives on as the heavenly Son of Man and now abides with his church. They are more than a remembrance; they are the real mediation of the divine life. In the Eucharist the Son of Man, who attained life through death, is represented and becomes evident in his life-awakening power.

e. On the origin of the concept of the Son of Man The roots and beginnings of the idea of the Son of Man who descends and ascends are disputed. Following Bultmann, some have thought of the adoption and reinterpretation of the Gnostic mythos of the primal man-redeemer, yet there are considerable differences, above all in the redemption event. The Gnostic redeemer, whether the god "human being," Sophia, or other equivalents, comes down from the transcendental world as a representative of the humankind to be redeemed, gathers up the human souls, and leads them back through knowledge of themselves into the pleroma. The Johannine Christ also comes out of preexistence with the Father, but this preexistence is reserved for him and does not include all people. The crucial point is that he leads the people entrusted to him by the Father on the journey of faith and discipleship up into the heavenly world, on the concrete path of exaltation on the cross and of the glory bestowed upon him by the Father.103 Much more obvious sources of the idea of the redeemer who ascends into heaven are Jewish apocalypticism with its raptures and ascensions as well as Jewish mysticism with the Merkaba speculation and also Jewish-Hellenistic views of wisdom. 104 "Certain Jewish circles ... would conceive of one heavenly redeemer figure who descended and ascended with a redemptive function and who could be addressed or spoken of with many narnes--€.g., Word, Wisdom, Angel, Son, Man, High Priest. ... A myth of a heavenly redeemer who descended and ascended in the cause of his/her saving work existed in pre-Christian Judaism and alongside first- and second-century Christianity."lo5 The Johannine conception of the Son of Man could have two roots: the adoption of Synoptic Son of Man sayings about the coming Son of Man, which, however, are transposed into the Johannine present

269

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

eschatology (1:51; 3:14-15; 5:27; 8:28; 12:33-34), and the widespread mythos of a descending and again ascending redeemer. The roots have grown together in the Gospel of John and yield a unified picture of the redeemer who comes from heaven, gathers around himself those on earth who belong to him, and through his exaltation and glorification leads them into the heavenly world. F. J. Moloney expresses this as follows: "We have traced a community which uses this term [Son of Man] of Jesus: (1) to correct the identification of Jesus with the traditional Jewish Messiah, (2) to insist on the unique revelation of God in the man Jesus, and especially in the human event of the Cross, (3) to present Jesus in a language that would be familiar to late first-century syncretism, but with a content that betrayed nothing from early Christian tradition."l06 In any case, the Johannine Son of Man is a figure entirely shaped by Christian faith. He is the human being, not in a mythologically presented way, but the real historical Jesus of Nazareth, who alone, through the cross, is unique and unmistakable. He is the Messiah, not in an understanding reduced in a Jewish way, but the Savior of the world (4:42). He is the Son of God as the one sent by God, who goes out from God, comes down from above, and is close to his Father; he is God's agent in the world, who mediates divine life to people. He is the one glorified by God, who through the resurrection again attains the glory that he already had with the Father before the founding of the world and who lets believers participate in this glory. The reference to cross and resurrection, which is concentrated in Jesus' "hour," lifts the Son of Man out of all mythological ways of thinking and gives him his place in early Christian proclamation.

4. The Eschatological Prophet107 In addition to the Son sent by and close to the Father and the Son of Man, we also find in the Gospel of John another kind of expression: Jesus the eschatological prophet, a surprising and peculiar concept, which comes from Old Testament prophecy. It cannot be directly connected with the previously discussed categories of expression and yet is related to them. a. The scope of the concept of the eschatological prophet A clear and generally recognized reference to the prophecy of the Moses-like prophet mentioned in Deut. 18:15, 18-19 occurs in John

270

JOHN

6:14. After the feeding the people who have seen this sign say: "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world." In contrast to all kinds of "soothsayers and diviners," the people in the wilderness are promised a prophet who will step from among the brothers and sisters and proclaim the words that the Lord commands of him. The reaction of the people after the great feeding, which recalls Moses' giving of the manna, is understandable and yet astonishing. For when the people according to 6:30-31 demand a sign like the manna in the wilderness, they seem to have completely lost sight of the confession to a Moses-like prophet. If after the "sign" they had really recognized Jesus as the one promised by Moses, they could not have made the demand for a new sign. It seems to me that the confession of 6:14 is not a historical reminiscence by the meal participants but a judgment by the evangelist regarding the meaning of the great feeding. los For the evangelist the great sign results in the conclusion that Jesus is the promised prophet "like Moses" (Deut. 18:15), who "is to come into the world." This last expression is typically Johanninesee 11:27; also 1:9; 3:19, 31; 9:39; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37c. The prophet not only appears among his brothers and sisters but is sent into the world to reveal himself as the bringer of life for the world (6:33, SIc). Here we see a Johannine conception of the eschatological prophet who has appeared in Jesus. Still other passages show that this christological interpretation is firmly anchored in John's conceptual system. When John the Baptist denies that he is "the prophet" or an eschatological figure of salvation like Elijah (1 :21,25), this indirectly reinforces the idea that Jesus is this "prophet" or "Elijah." Among the Jerusalemites the view was expressed that Jesus "is really the prophet" (7:40), the same expression as in 6:14. Again, others said: "This is the Messiah" (7:41). In this way "the prophet" moves close to the "Messiah." The objection that the Messiah does not come from Galilee is taken up in the discussion of the Pharisees with Nicodemus in such a way that the prophetl09 is not to arise from Galilee (7:52). Thus the prophet becomes a special expression for the expected Messiah, which does not exclude prophet (without definite article) from also being used in a nonmessianic, lower classified understanding, as in the remark of the Samaritan woman: "1 see that you are a prophet" (4:19) or in the utterance of the healed man born blind about the man who healed him: "He is a prophet" (9:17). These two people, however, are on the way to faith

271

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

in the Messiah (4:25-26; 9:35-38), and to both Jesus reveals himself as such or as "Son of Man." The Jewish or Samaritan expectation llO of the eschatological bringer of salvation is fulfilled in Jesus. M.-E. Boismard has researched the Gospel of John for further allusions to the prophecy of Deut. 18:18-19 and come to the conclusion that this scriptural reference is a theme running through the whole Gospel. According to him there are implicit quotations in 12:48-50; 8:28-29; 14:10 in connection with 7:16b-17; 17:8; 19:17-18; 13:1; 14:1£f.; 9:26ff. lll One does not need to find all these alleged scriptural allusions convincing, yet the basic assertion of Deut. 18:18, "1 will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that 1 command," may stand behind the commission of the Father to Jesus to say his words (12:48-50), to do nothing on his own but only what the Father has taught him (8:28-29), along with expressions such as "nothing on my own." For the calling of the disciples in 1:35-51 Boismard assumes that the testimony of Philip to Nathanael, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law ... wrote" (1:45), makes specific reference to Deut. 18:18. 112 But John 1:45 also says, "and also the prophets," and thus Philip is probably pointing to the Messiah in general (d. 1:41). More convincing is John 5:45-47, where Moses is presented to the unbelieving Jews as their accuser before judgment: "For he wrote about me." According to Deut. 18:19 God will hold accountable anyone who does not heed the words of the prophet appointed by God. The prophecy of the eschatological prophet assumes a prominent place in the Gospel of John, even though one must not read too much into this. Should one connect the "signs" that Jesus performs with the signs that Moses performed in Egypt (Ex. 4:1-9)?113 Then the Moses-Christ typology would become even clearer, yet nothing else in the Gospel of John leClds one to infer the Egyptian signs. The only sign that is mentioned is the giving of the manna in the wilderness, and it is separated from Moses in the midrash of the bread from heaven: "It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven" (6:32). Moses is not in every respect the type for Christ but only as the eschatological prophet who proclaims to the people the word of God. In the narrative context, the connection with the king whom the people expect as the earthly political liberator is only an external one. After the great feeding the people come and want to take Jesus by

272

JOHN

force and make him king (6:15). Yet this is a misinterpretation of what they experienced in the wilderness. After the feeding of the great crowd of people, they draw the false conclusion that Jesus could deliver them from all earthly want and oppression. But Jesus withdraws from them; he escapes again to the mountain: he went by himself (6: I5b). Therefore it is questionable whether Jesus should be designated "prophet-king" in this scene. 114 That Moses was regarded in Judaism, as also in the rabbinic Haggadah and not least of all among the Samaritans, as prophet-king is beyond dispute. But whether this double function is accorded to the Johannine Christ remains uncertain, because the echoes as "King of the Jews" are in tension with the positive view of Jesus' royalty, which has other bases: he came into the world to testify to the truth (18:37); "My kingdom is not from this world" (18:36). In this context one can discern no allusion to the eschatological prophet. Jesus is the Messiah, the "King of Israel" (1:49; 12:13, 15). This Messiahship is a different circle of ideas from that of the eschatological prophet, even if the people are discussing the Messiah and "the prophet" (7:40-41,52). The two figures are distinguished and thus come from different ways of thinking. As already with the designations Son and Son of Man there are cross connections that result from the multifaceted Johannine Christology.

b. Grounds and backgrounds But why does John turn to the circle of ideas about the Moses-like eschatological prophet? Various reasons can be presumed. First, we must consider that the expectation of prophetic figures in Judaism during Jesus' time was great (d. Matt. 21:11, 46; Luke 24:19). But John claims to see in Jesus not just any prophet but the last prophet, the one who stands above all previous prophets. Available for this purpose was the prophecy of the eschatological prophet like Moses, a prophecy that also played a role elsewhere in early Christianity (d. Acts 3:22-23; 7:37-38). Second, this appeal to the sign of the great feeding suggested itself to the fourth evangelist. It is connected with Jesus' self-revelation as the bread of life come down from heaven. Therefore we read: '" And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (6:45). In this way the eschatological prophet, to whom the people are to listen (Deut. 18:15) and who speaks the word of God (18:18), comes into

273

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

view. Anticipating this revelatory speech, the evangelist may have brought in the confession of the prophet. Third, the discussion with John the Baptist or with the later disciples of John may have played a role. For the Baptist's sharp rejection of the idea that he is "the prophet" Oohn 1:21, 25), as well as his demotion to being a witness for Jesus (1:8, 15,30; 5:33-34), suggests discussions with John's disciples (3:25), who probably held John to be the Messiah, the last revealer and bringer of salvation.llS By contrast, Jesus is presented as the one already existing before John and dwelling since eternity with God, the one who after his incarnation on earth speaks the word of God (3:34). However one is to judge the talk of the prophet who is to come into the world, it is quite comprehendible as the interpretation of the evangelist.

c. The relationship to Moses If the Moses-like prophet is addressed in John 6:14, we must ask how Moses appears in general in the mirror of the Gospel of John. Two tension-filled perspectives are evident. On the one hand, Moses, as the one who wrote about Jesus in the scripture and testified about him (5:46-47), is in high esteem; on the other hand, Moses is decidedly rejected in favor of Jesus. Against the unbelieving Jews, who do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Moses becomes the accuser at the judgment before God (5:45). The Jews set their hope on him; he gave them the commandment of circumcision, although this, as is added immediately as a qualification, did not come from Moses but from the patriarchs (7:22). He gave them the law-for the Jews God's great gift of salvation-but none of them keeps it (7:19). From the law they conclude, as also happens in rabbinism, that a man can be circumcised even on the Sabbath (7:23), but their loyalty to the law clashes with Jesus, who healed a man's whole body on the Sabbath, namely, the lame man at the pool of Bethzatha (7:24; cf. 5:1-9). Thus Moses is considered the giver of the law appointed by God, and he is also recognized by Jesus. The encounter with the Jews does not exclude the possibility that he basically respects the authority of Moses. The positive reference to Moses goes even further: he becomes the Old Testament type who in his actions represents the salvific will of God. In the wilderness Moses lifted up the bronze serpent, which becomes the prototype of Jesus' exaltation on the cross (3:14). It is true that the role of Moses in the lifting up of the bronze

274

JOHN

serpent is not highlighted; the comparison is directed solely toward the "exaltation" of the serpent and the Son of Man. Yet we should not overlook the fact that Moses also plays a salvation-historical, typological role. All of these observations-the testimony of Moses through his writings, his significance as lawgiver, as the accuser of the Jews who appears in judgment, as the prototype of the coming Son of Man-give a positive picture of the figure of Moses. Nevertheless, there are also passages in which Moses is clearly distinguished from Jesus. A basic statement comes at the end of the Johannine prologue: 'The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17). Even if this is not to be taken as a stark opposition, as an antithesis, it still unmistakably emphasizes the superiority of Jesus Christ. 1l6 Moses is demoted even more clearly in the midrash on the bread from heaven: "It was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven" (6:32). This is all the more surprising in that Jesus was earlier called the Moses-like eschatological prophet. How are these various evaluations of Moses to be judged? In the dispute with the unbelieving Jews, the recognition of Moses is preserved from the Old Testament tradition also maintained by John, but only in order against this background to denounce all the more harshly the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. This harshness is explained by the contemporary disagreement of the Joharmine community with a Jewish orthodoxy dominated by Pharisees. In the dispute with the Pharisees over the healed man born blind, which gives a deep insight into the schism between the despised Johannine community and Judaism,117 the Pharisees say: "We are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from" (9:28-29). The Pharisees claim Moses as their authority and thereby block their view of Jesus, who comes from God. In this controversy there is only one alternative: Moses or Jesus Christ. But John claims Moses for the sending of Jesus as the eschatological prophet. If Moses or Jesus is the question, then the fourth evangelist gives a differentiated answer; Boismard attempts to trace the resulting tensions in the Moses picture back to different sources or documents that the evangelist used. IIB Thus in the oldest document (C) Jesus becomes the new Moses, the eschatological prophet like Moses, yet

275

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

"discreetly" presented. Then (in II A) in the context of the sign of the great feeding he is more clearly called the true prophet and connected with wisdom. The next document (II B) places heavier stress on Jesus, the word of God and the only begotten of the Father. The last document (Jean III), says Boismard, again gave more consideration to the themes that were inherited from Judaism; for example, "Salvation is from the Jews" was inserted in 4:22. This development designed around a particular literary-critical theory cannot be convincing. But the tensions in the relationship between Moses and Jesus that are found in the texts are recognized and cannot be glossed over. Yet it seems to me that with Moses, as with Son, Son of Man, and the incarnate Logos, John is influenced by various traditions, which do not give his picture of Moses a clear profile. The move away from the Jewish picture of Moses is based most fundamentally on the fact that Jesus is far more than Moses: the only begotten Son of God, the Logos, who has lived among human beings (1:14).

5. The Lamb of God Pointing to Jesus in particular after the baptism in the Jordan, John the Baptist calls him "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29). This testimony is for Israel, to whom the Baptist wants to make Jesus known (1:31). He is referring here to the baptism through which Jesus is identified as the one who will baptize with the Spirit (1:33) and as "Son of God" (1:34; v.l.: "God's chosen one"). We are concerned here not with the interpretation of the baptismal event, which is dependent on the Synoptic presentation and carries it further, but with the particular expression Lamb of God, which neither finds a source in the synoptists nor is better substantiated in the context. Yet the baptismal testimony is expanded christologicaIIy: "This is he of whom I Said, 'After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me' " (1:30). This statement, which includes the preexistence of Jesus, then leads to the testimony to Jesus as baptizer with the Spirit. Therefore one may assume that the reference to the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is not based on the baptismal scene but is an independent christological assertion. In connection with the baptism of Jesus, the meaning of which is revealed to John through a special revelation of God (1:33), the Baptist confesses to the preexistent Son of God and to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. What John expe-

276

JOHN

rienced at the baptism of Jesus and what it meant is not recounted until later. The immediate purpose of the baptismal revelation was to make Jesus known to the people of Israel as the Son of God or God's chosen one.lll) The preexistence of Jesus and the vicarious atonement as "Lamb of God" are surpassed by what can be gained from the view of Spirit descending upon Jesus. But they are so important to the evangelist that he places them at the beginning of the baptismal testimony. Of these two christological statements, the one on the preexistence of Jesus is already attested in the prologue as a witness of the Baptist (1:15). The evangelist refers back to this and lifts it up here in connection with Jesus' baptism. It has a special significance for his theology of the incarnation of the divine Logos (1:14). Hence, we want to discuss it in the next section (11.6) on the preexistent and incarnate Logos. The exclamation "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" is a wake-up call for Israel to join Jesus, which is soon followed by the Baptist saying to two of his disciples, as he looks at Jesus: "Look, here is the Lamb of God!" (1:36), and these two disciples then follow Jesus. The new time information, "the next day" (1:35), is supposed to connect this scene closely with the preceding testimony of the Baptist. The only difference from the exclamation about Jesus in 1:29 is the missing addition of "who takes away the sin of the world." If we consider the immediate statement about the two disciples who follow Jesus, the abbreviated mode of expression is not surprising. The terse reference of the Baptist takes up the interpretative declaration in 1:29. The demand of the two disciples is again an indication that the Baptist's testimony of the Lamb of God has a firm place in the narrative context. 120 Therefore one must evaluate the statement about the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world as an expression of Johannine Christology and try to locate it in the Johannine conceptual world. This is difficult, however, because the expression is encountered only in John 1:29, 36, and the derivation from Old Testament-Jewish premises is unclear and controversial.

a. The symbol of the Lamb of God Whereas a clear scriptural reference can be determined for the eschatological prophet, namely, Deut. 18:15, 18, this is not the case for

277

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

the "Lamb of God." Various possibilities have been named, but none of them is in itself fully convincing. 1. The most obvious is the idea of the suffering and atoning servant of God in Isa. 52:13-53:12, which is advocated especially by J. Jeremias. l2l We read of him that "he has borne our infirmities" (53:4), which is admittedly not quite the "taking away" of sins in John 1:29; see 1 John 3:5. One could understand the "taking away of sin," that is, the whole burden of sins, as taking upon oneself the punishment for sins, but this still does not amount to the Christian idea that Jesus vicariously nullifies human guilt. The image of the Lamb of God is somewhat different from the servant of God. Jeremias and other exegetes assume on the basis of the double meaning of "servant" (pais) and "Lamb" (talya in Aramaic) that the servant of God became the "Lamb of God." But how does one get from this possible double meaning in Aramaic to the unambiguous Greek translation "servant"? Instead of assuming a translation error, it is more obvious to assume theological grounds. A further point of contact with the song of the servant of God would be the comparison with the lamb that is led to slaughter and like a sheep before its shearer does not open his mouth (Isa. 53:7). Yet this is only a comparison and is different from the direct designation Lamb of God. One must imagine that the meaning of Jesus' death as vicarious atonement, which was without doubt present in early Christianity (Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; etc.) melted together with the image of the Iamb. This, however, would be a process that could be completed only on the basis of the conviction of the vicarious atoning death of Jesus in connection with the image of the lamb. The combination of "Lamb of God" and "taking away the burden of sin" comes, rather, from the fourth evangelist. 2. Another influential interpretation is that of the Paschal Lamb, about whom we read already in Paul, who says that our Paschal Lamb was sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7). Also in 1 Peter 1:19, in the context of an Exodus typology, Christ is compared with a lamb without defect or blemish. For John we can refer to the fact that he applies typologically to Jesus the Pascha precept that the lamb's legs shall not be broken and sees it fulfilled in him (19:36). Furthermore, according to the Johannine Christo logy Jesus' death fits into this typology, occurring on the day of preparation before the Pascha festival (d. 18:28; 19:31). Whether the Paschal Lamb was regarded as an atoning sacri-

278

JOHN

fice is uncertain but at least possible for the Pascha of the end time. 122 Other scholars doubt the Pascha typology because they think that it was developed only out of the Johannine chronology. Yet the placing of Jesus' death on the eve of the Pascha has good reasons of its own (esp. 18:28). The understanding of the "Lamb of God" as the Paschal Lamb is a possibility in the framework of the Gospel of John but still questionable because of the doubtful idea of atonement. 3. Since the sacrificial lamb played a role in the Jewish cult, the image of a slaughtered lamb in general has been suggested. In the temple a one-year-old lamb without blemish was offered daily, morning and evening (tamid sacrifice). Yet this repeated event does not correspond to the one-time death of Jesus that John's Gospel has in view (d. 19:37). The goat that was sent out into the wilderness on the day of atonement counted as a sin offering and was supposed to serve as atonement (Lev. 16:9-10), but Jesus is not the scapegoat who is sent to Azazel for the transgressions of the people. This is an abhorrent image for the setting aside of the sin and transgressions of the whole people, not a salvific event like that announced for the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The Lamb of God nullifies the guilt of sin of the whole world (d. 1 John 2:2). This universal atonement is a Christian conviction only on the basis of the vicarious atoning death of Jesus. It was God who in Christ reconciled the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). The scapegoat theory for the self-sacrifice of Jesus, who thereby directed upon himself the people's rage and ideas of revenge and invalidated them by taking upon himself violence and death, 123 is developed from psychological approaches and never gets beyond the status of theoretical interpretation. 4. Since the "binding of Isaac" (Genesis 22) and Abraham's willingness to offer his son as a sacrifice for God hold a prominent place in Jewish theology, one must consider whether Isaac, as the type for the beloved Son of God whom God does not spare, does not stand behind the Lamb of God. The demand is given to Abraham: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love ... and offer him ... as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you" (Gen. 22:2); all emphasis is on "your only son" (22:12, 16). God revealed Jesus as his "beloved" Son in the baptism scene (Mark 1:11/Matthew 3:17; d. the "only Son" in John 3:16, 18). And this only, beloved Son is now regarded as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. 124 The "binding of Isaac" was connected

279

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

in the Jewish Haggadah with both the atoning servant of God of Isaiah 53 and the paschal sacrifice. Thus there could be links here between the servant of God of Isaiah 53 and the Paschal Lamb. The expression Lamb of God could be connected with both concepts and have its point of origin in Abraham's sacrifice. Yet this does not explain the symbol of the lamb; the "ram" (krios) that Abraham sacrifices in place of Isaac (Gen. 22:13) does not help. According to Rom. 8:32 (God "did not withhold his own Son"), the sacrifice of the beloved son by Abraham provided a typological background for the interpretation of Jesus' atoning death (he "gave him up for all of us"). Thus such ideas were available but in John were at best indirectly influential in his symbol, the Lamb of God. 5. The designation of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" has also led to considering the "Lamb" in the Revelation to John-which was standing "as if it had been slaughtered" (Rev. 5:6, 12; 13:8) and in whose blood the confessors have washed their robes and made them white (7:14)-to be the visual motif to which the fourth evangelist turned in John 1:29, 36. 125 But the consistent expression for the Lamb in Revelation is not amnos but amnion, and it is a majestic figure, a synonym for the Messiah, yet a Messiah who is killed but receives life and power from God (Rev. 5:12-13).J26 Now the Lamb exercises his dominion, bringing salvation (7:17) and conquering the enemies of God (17:14). It is not a question of the atoning passion of the Lamb, even if there are indications: "By your blood you ransomed [people] for God" (5:9); those who have come out of the great ordeal "have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (7:14); the saved on Mount Zion follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They alone among all humankind have been redeemed "as first fruits for God and the Lamb" (14:4). It is improbable that from this came the idea of "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world." All these attempts at the derivation of the Johannine Lamb of God from Old Testament-Jewish antecedents shed some light on the ideas that could have influenced the evangelist. Nevertheless, they do not clarify the concrete symbol of the Lamb of God. This could have arisen only out of a Christian view of Jesus Christ. As with other christo logical predicates, the Christian level of understanding is the decisive indicator. The strongest indications can be gained from the servant of God in Isaiah 53 and the Pascha typology. These can also be connected with the sacrifice of Abraham, who did not

280

JOHN

spare his own son. The Lamb of the Revelation to John, who so often makes his free and victorious appearance, may likewise have affected the character of the image. Perhaps the Lamb of God already played a role in early Christian liturgy, as 1 Cor. 5:7-8 suggests for the Paschal Lamb, because the topic here is festival celebration. But Paul utilizes this for the "unleavened bread" and gives the Lamb less attention. The praising of the Lamb in Revelation has a liturgical sound. A liturgical Sitz in! Leben, however, remains only an assumption.127 We can assume that John, stimulated by the named Old Testament passages, created the symbolic expression himself.

b. The idea of atonement in the Gospel of John For the idea of atonement connected with the Lamb of God "who takes away the sin of the world" we must ask to what extent it is grounded in Johannine Christology. Otherwise the cross is not understood as the place of universal atonement but as the exaltation of the Son of Man, who thereby attains the glory of the Father. Is the idea of atonement not in general a foreign concept in Johannine soteriology? There are also indications, however, that Jesus' death was understood as a sacrifice for the people who were entrusted to him.128 1. Dying for the sheep. Jesus, the good shepherd, twice gives assurance that he gives his life "for the sheep" (10:11, IS). The idea of vicarious atonement does not have to be included in this hyper. Jesus' living sacrifice is the greatest demonstration of his care and concern for the sheep who belong to him (d. 1O:3--4). In the hour of danger he, in contrast to the hired hand, will risk his life for them and if necessary give it up. But there is no talk of his dying in place of the sheep; the true shepherd wants his sheep to have life and to give it to them "abundantly" (10:10). Jesus lays down his life voluntarily in order to take it up again (10:17-18). With this "authority" of Jesus we see another perspective on Jesus' death: it is the passageway to his resurrection. For the readers who are familiar with the idea of Jesus' atonement, the death of the shepherd for his sheep can also be connected with the concept of atonement, but it is not clearly expressed. 2. Other passages that are connected with the hyper formula. The advice of the high priest Caiaphas that it is better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed (11 :50) is explained by the evangelist with these words: "He did not say this on his own, but ... he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the na-

181.

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

tion, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God" (11:51-52). The high priest's advice is given out of earthly, political considerations. The death "for the people" (here laos) does not have to announce Jesus' atoning death, not even on the lips of the evangelist, who rather emphasizes the New Testament people of the covenant expanded to include the Gentiles. 129 The idea of atoning death for the people of God (not "the world") may be implied but does not have to be. Worthy of more serious consideration is 6:51c: "The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." If the saying were supposed to say only that the bread that comes from heaven gives life to the world (6:33), it would be, like the midrash on the bread of God, only a promise of Jesus' gift of life. But it follows the "flesh" of the Son of Man and adopts eucharistic tones. In this context" for the life of the world" can also have a deeper significance. According to Luke 22:19 Jesus passes the broken bread to the disciples with the words: "This is my body, which is given for you" (d. also 1 Cor. 11:24). Here the idea of atonement and substitution is sounded: Jesus gives himself so that they may find redemption through his death. It is even clearer in the formula on the blood: "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20), or according to Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." If this eucharistic reference is present in John 6:51c, Jesus' flesh is a means of atonement for the life of the world, which is won through Jesus' atoning death. Also the grain of wheat that falls into the earth and then brings much fruit (12:24) may indicate Jesus' death "for many." John adopted the idea of the giving of life for the people and applied it to the people belonging to Jesus (d. also 15:13). Jesus' death gives participation in the redemption event, as is symbolized by the footwashing scene (d. 13:6-8). The substitution for his own is addressed in the high-priestly prayer: "For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth" (17:19). If the disciples are to continue his work, they themselves must be sanctified, and for this, Jesus fulfills a mediating function. The connection with hyper hardly leaves a doubt that the evangelist is thinking of Jesus' giving himself in death. It is sacrifice terminology, as already found in the Septuagint (consecration of the sacrificial animals in Ex. 13:2; Deut. 15:19). The Christian view of Jesus as priest and sacrificial gift is developed

282

JOHN

in Heb. 9:13; 10:4-14; 13:12. Here too those purified by Jesus' blood are considered "sanctified" (2:11; 10:10, 14,29).130 The passages in the Letter to the Hebrews, of course, do not allow the conclusion of dependence on the Johannine texts but give evidence of the same background of ideas. The typology of the Paschal Lamb, which appears in John 19:36, can likewise imply vicarious atonement. When the people then look on the one whom they have pierced (19:37), it is presupposed that they were moved to this by Jesus' death as the Paschal Lamb. Jesus' death has the effect of a sacrificial gift for the people. If the "Lamb of God" refers to the Paschal Lamb, the idea of atonement is not to be excluded. In all of these texts the fourth evangelist betrays at least a knowledge of the atoning death of Jesus, although he gives no prominence to this idea. He presupposes it and uses it "incidentally, illustratively and confessionally."131 The view of the death on the cross culminates in the fact that Jesus has completed his work on earth (19:30) and returns to his Father. In this presentation Jesus does not die for the sins of the people. In the giving up of his spirit one can see the attainment of the glory that Jesus possessed with the Father and perhaps also the handing on of the Spirit to the disciples, who are to share in his glory. In the latter view, the saying, "I am thirsty" (19:28), would refer to Jesus' longing to impart the Spirit to his church, and this longing would be fulfilled in the moment of his departure (19:30).1 32 It is a symbolic theological interpretation that is possible in terms of Johannine symbolism but not certain. All along the line, Jesus' atoning death remains an idea adopted by the evangelist but never developed in more detail. To that extent, the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is a picturesque short formula that fits into the broader early Christian view. 6. The Preexistent and Incarnate Logos Prominent at the core of Johannine Christology is the statement: "And the Word [Logosl became flesh and lived among us" (1:14). The predicate, "the Logos," is found only in the prologue of the Gospel, but it is taken up in the First Letter of John with the "word of life" (1:1). In Rev. 19:13 the eschatological victor over powers hostile to God is called "The Word of God," but the Logos in the Gospel and in 1 John is directed toward Jesus' earthly time, when the Logos lived

283

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

among people and the witnesses to his life saw him with eyes, grasped him with hands, and could proclaim him as the "Logos of life." It is an assertion that transcends all previous Christ predicates about the Son, the Son of Man, the prophet, and the Lamb of God, and develops a view that is unique. Since the Logos no longer appears in the Gospel but the preexistence of Jesus is presupposed and the statement in John 1:14 appears as the summary of Johannine Christology, one may presume that the expression incorporated into the Logos hymn originated only in looking back over the whole Gospel-perhaps as "reading instructions" for the users of the Gospel writing.133 In order to see this Logos Christo logy more closely, we want to look at three aspects: the Logos idea, the preexistence, and the incarnation of the Logos. All three aspects are contained and combined with each other in the sentence in John 1:14: the Logos because of the lengthy discourse on the Logos in 1:1-4, 9-11; the preexistence, which is emphasized in 1:15; the incarnation as the starting point for earthly work of the preexistent Logos.

a. The Logos idea The numerous treatises on the Logos concept cannot be considered and evaluated here in the multiplicity of their conceptions and religious-historical roots.l34 This much may be ascertained: that the Logos idea has its main roots in the Jewish wisdom or word theology. Neither the logos concept of Greek philosophy (Heraclitus, the Stoics) nor mystical speculations like those appearing in the Mandaean literature, in the Odes of Solomon, and in the Coptic Gnostic writings of Nag Hammadi can be regarded as the native soil. Rather, it came from Jewish reflection on the word or wisdom of God and also from the Torah. According to the Old Testament the word of God has a creative power: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6); "0 God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your word" (Wisd. Sol. 9:1; cf. Ps. 147:15-18; 148:5; lsa. 48:3; 55:11; Sir. 42:15; 43:9-10). Precisely this is said of the Johannine Logos: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being" Gohn 1:3). No doubt this talk was inspired by the creation report in Genesis 1, especially by the phrase, in the beginning. Again and again we read that God spoke and then what he said happened. Yet we must also see how the Logos hymn

284

JOHN

goes beyond that: (1) the noun Word replaces the verb speak: (2) in distinction to the "word of the Lord" or "word of God" the topic is only the Logos; (3) in relation to God additional assertions are made about the Logos: he was with God, and he was God. If we consider this and the further statements, "In him was life, and the life was the light of all people" (1:4), pure word of God theology is not sufficient and must be supplemented with wisdom speculation. In the wisdom literature wisdom is described in a personifying way already in the creation as spectator and master worker (Prov. 8:27-30; Wisd. Sol. 9:9), as adviser (Wisd. Sol. 8:4), as artist (8:6), and indeed as creator (7:12; d. Provo 3:19; Sir. 24:3). Wisdom is not equated with God but understood as the God-fulfilling and moving power through which God created everything. Against this wisdom background the Logos becomes the creator of all things and also becomes the life and light of all people (John 1:4). Wisd. Sol. 9:1-2 says of God not only that he made all things through his word but also that he equipped human beings with his wisdom. Wisdom moves from generation to generation into holy souls and makes friends of God and prophets (7:27). She is an effective power in people that conveys to them spiritually divine life, "an unfailing treasure for mortals; those who get it obtain friendship with God" (7:14). Because wisdom teaches people right ways and all paths of virtue (Wisd. Sol. 8:7), she and the Torah, the divine law, become sister and brother. In 2 Apoc. Bar. 54:12-14 life and light, reason, wisdom, and law are closely connected. In Psalm 119 "the word of God" and "the law" appear synonymously side by side. In the book of Baruch wisdom, who "lived with humankind" (3:37), is interpreted as the law. She is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever. All who hold fast to her find life (4:1); the keeping of the commandments is similarly valued in Provo 8:32-36; Wisd. Sol. 6:18; Sir. 24:23-24. The movement from wisdom teaching to the teaching of the Torah is especially to be observed in rabbinism. Assertions similar to those made of the Logos in the prologue are made of the Torah; it assumes the salvific functions of the divine word.135 One cannot say, following John 1:17, that the Jewish Logos takes the place of the Torah, yet it assumes the salvation-bringing functions that were ascribed to the Torah in Judaism. A bridge between philosophical ideas and the biblical word of God and wisdom theology was built by the Jewish philosopher of

285

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

religion Philo of Alexandria (d. 45/50 A.D.) In his many tractates the pregnant expression the logos appears frequently. He is influenced philosophically above all by Plato and the Stoics, religiously by his ancestral faith. Philo is honestly attempting to connect the two. With his logos teaching he wants to bridge the gap between the purely spiritual God and the material world, but also to explain the working and indwelling of God in the soul. l36 Before the creation God in his spirit conceived the spiritual cosmos, which is his 10gos.137 God is the cause of everything that came into being; the logos, his instrument. 138 Divine attributes are accorded the logos: he is the "firstborn of God," the "image of God," "second God." He is involved in the work of salvation for humankind. The divine logos governs the soul of the wise; he dwells and walks in it as in a city; he refreshes the soul and blesses it like a divine cupbearer. 139 He is the mediator and teacher of the mystical union of God. 140 Thus we can compare the statements of the Johannine prologue with Philonian texts. 141 Yet these ideas do not reach the clarity and conciseness of the Johannine prologue, which understands the Logos as the divine person who became human in Jesus Christ. Philo and the evangelist both begin with the word of God or wisdom but develop the idea of the divine Logos in different ways: Philo, on the basis of the philosophical approaches of cosmology and anthropology; John, on the basis of his faith in Christ. John "found, under guidance of Hellenistic Jewish thought similar to that of Philo, an appropriate Greek expression."142 He is not directly dependent on Philo but is at home in the same Hellenistic-Jewish intellectual world. Word of God theology, wisdom speculation, and Torah interpretation contribute the most to the understanding of the Johannine Logos. But what probably developed in steps within Judaism is brought together in the Johannine prologue in a concise statement. The starting point is the creation, in which the Logos was involved as an active power, as mediator (dia!). Accordingly, the focus is on the world of people, for whom the Logos was life and light, like the wisdom that enlightens, enlivens, and blesses everything, but from whom people have incomprehensibly turned away. Finally comes the description of the all-surpassing incarnation of the Logos, who lived among human beings. This opened up for humankind at last the revelation of God and the way to life (1:18).

286

JOHN

b. The concept of preexistence Since the creation, the Johannine Logos has been the mediator of creation dwelling with God (1:1-3). He was already before John the Baptist and possesses real preexistence. This conviction also appears in other passages of the Gospel. The Son of Man returns to where he was before (6:62). Before Abraham was, the Johannine Christ was present. Summarizing the past and present, Christ assures: "Before Abraham was, I am" (8:58). In the prayer to the Father he speaks expressly of the glory that he had in the presence of the Father before the existence of the world (17:5, 24). There are additional passages in which his preexistence is presupposed. 143 His being sent or coming from the Father, saying what the Father has commissioned him to say, offering himself as the bread of life that came down from heaven, his appearance in the world-none of this is understandable if one does not comprehend this being "from above" (3:31-32; 8:23) as preexistent being with the Father. The idea of preexistence is essential to the Johannine Christology; the incarnation (1:14) is the preexistent Logos becoming flesh. Where does this concept of preexistence come from? Was it born only out of Johannine Christology, which attempts thereby to explain Jesus' knowledge of revelation that he brought with him from heaven, or does it have other sources? In terms of the history of religions, the attempt has been made to derive the idea of preexistence from Jewish premises or from the Gnostic mythos. In Judaism there have been some beginnings, such as the teaching of the preexistence of certain theological entities. It was said that certain things were there before the creation of the world: the Torah, repentance, the Can Eden, Gehenna, the throne of glory, the sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah. l44 Thus these are supposed to have been at home in the ideas of God, who had already laid out everything beforehand in his plan. Yet here it is a question rather of an ideal preexistence, which one assumed for the time before the creation of the world. A different line comes from eschatology: the goods of the coming world are prepared in advance. Thus 4 Ezra 8:52-53 says: "For you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted, the future world prepared, blessedness made ready ... " This means a preexistence of the future goods of salvation. Also belonging in this context is the preexistence of the leader of salvation or the "name of the Messiah." His

287

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

real preexistence is more clearly ascribed to the "Son of Man" in the picturesque speech of the Ethiopic Enoch. 145 The Gnostic idea of preexistence is shaped differently. In mythical language, origin and home in eternal, highest, purely spiritual being are ascribed to the human pneumatic core of being. All souls have this preexistence, and they return to their home when they have reattained self-knowledge, their essential or actual existence. Here it becomes clear that this Gnostic idea of preexistence is far from the Johannine concept, for there is for John no preexistence of all souls and no finding one's way back into the heavenly mode of being through self-knowledge. When the Gospel of Thomas says: "Jesus says: Blessed are those who were before" (log. 19), then that is only the adoption of the mythical idea of the soul's memory of its heavenly home, which it is striving for again. Thus the origin of the Johannine idea of preexistence must be sought in the Jewish realm. It is possible that the "Son of Man" played a role here (see section II.3 above), because he comes from heaven and ascends there again. Then the wisdom theology would have been linked with the Son of Man who comes from apocalyptic tradition. 146 In the Ethiopic book of Enoch the Son of Man is named before the lord of the spirits; he was chosen and hidden before him, before the world was created. "And the wisdom of the lord of the spirits revealed him to the saints and righteous ones" (48:1-7); in him dwells the spirit of truth (49:3). The Son of Man and wisdom are related to each other; both have preexistence and are connected in it. The idea of wisdom was probably transferred to the Son of Man. The texts from the wisdom literature represent an important source for the idea of preexistence. There a "wisdom mythos" is adopted that in personifying language gives to wisdom an eternal, already preworldly being with God and a role in creation.147 The hymn to wisdom in Sirach 24 is to be understood against the background of this mythos. Wisdom came forth from the mouth of the Most High and covered the earth like a mist (24:3). "Before the ages, in the beginning, he [God] created me, and for all the ages I shall not cease to be" (24:9). She is then identified with the law of the book of the covenant of the Most High God (24:23-27). Here it is a question, to be sure, of neither a real personification nor a real preexistence "outside of" God, yet it is also more than an "ideal" preexistence.

288

JOHN

God uses wisdom, or the Torah, as the instrument or building plan of his creation and sends her to earth in order to fill humankind with her fragrance and her fruits (24:13--19). Hence one can imagine the development process as follows. Out of wisdom speculation comes the idea of the preexistent wisdom coming to earth, and it is combined with the word of God and the Torah, and finally in the "Son of Man" it becomes a comprehensible figure, who abides with God and becomes the light of the nations and the hope of the depressed (1 EllOeiJ 48:4). "It is possible that the use of the Son of Man concept is to be seen in analogy with the use of the Logos concept in the prologue, whose insertion before the Gospel must have some kind of internal reason."148

c. The incarnation of the Logos With the statement" And the Word became flesh and lived among us" Oohn 1:14), John goes beyond the idea of a preexistent spiritual power who lives in the world among people and works in themwhether one calls it wisdom or Logos or divine law. For the firm expression "became flesh" leaves no doubt that he is thinking about a real human being of flesh and blood, about this human being Jesus Christ, who appeared in historical time among people and opened for them the fountain of the wisdom of God, the light of the Logos, the glory of the only Son of the Father. When the Logos is now expressly mentioned again and the connection with 1:1 is thereby established, there is a bridge from the creation statements through the work of the Logos in humankind to this event designated as the high point. After the many examples of "he was" (1:1,4,9, 10), the eventfulness of the incarnation of the divine Logos comes to expression through "he became" (egeneto). It is a different "becoming" from that of the works of creation 0:3, lOb). The fundamental statement cannot mean that the Logos turned into flesh, since the Logos is also still the subject of the following statement, "[he I lived among us," and he made his divine glory-in the flesh-visible to believers. Nor can it have the meaning that the Logos appeared in fleshly clothing, since this would not give sufficient consideration to the verb became. A change in the mode of being of the Logos is expressed: previously he was "with God" (1:1b); now he lives among people, in human form, in the full reality of the "flesh." The "becoming flesh" of the Logos indicates a turning point and opens for humankind the last possibil-

289

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

ity for salvation. "The Word became flesh ... and yet did not stop being what it was before," said Jerome. 149 Why does the Logos hymn speak of becoming "flesh" and not simply of becoming human? The absolute term flesh is not merely a circumlocution for human being (as in 17:2: all flesh = all people) but in Johannine thinking an expression for what is earthly and limited, frail and transitory (6:63), the typical, purely human way of being, so to speak, in distinction to everything heavenly divine, divinely spiritual. Here, however, the element of the flesh that is sinful, inclined toward sin, or imprisoned by sin (1 John 2:16) is not present. Christ in the flesh is for John not the representative of Adamite humanity as he is for Paul (cf. Rom. 8:3) but the salvific leader of earth-bound human beings into the heavenly world of life and glory. In the statement about the Logos "becoming flesh" there is a huge paradox, for previously the Logos was described in his spirituality and closeness to God. What he did in the creation was creative power; what he did for humankind was life and light. Now the prologue writer presents the Logos as a weak and frail human being who, nonetheless, has within him the powers of salvation. Weakness of the flesh and power of the Spirit are paradoxically connected. This train of thought is explained by the salvation-historical arrangement of the prologue. The Logos had found no acceptance in the world, although it was created by him and was his property. The people to whom he was supposed to bring life and light had rejected him. Now God grasps a final opportunity to remove people from the darkness of death and lead them into the glory of the divine world: he sends his Son in the form of flesh and has his Logos dwell among human beings. The Christian message is that in spite of his rejection by humankind (1:10-11), the Logos has made his dwelling (literally: tented, tabernacled) among people in a new and unique way. This "tenting" recalls the ongoing dwelling of God in Israel, first in the holy tabernacle: "The cloud covered the tent of meeting ... and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Ex. 40:34-35). The ark of the covenant was considered Yahweh's throne. The dwelling of God among his people is now transferred to the incarnate Logos. Yet the blessing of this divine presence is experienced only by believers, who through the testimony of those who have seen the glory of the incarnate One (1:14b) have shared the fullness of his grace. Thank-

290

JOHN

fully, the believing community confesses: "From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace" (1:16). One can consider whether the "flesh" is supposed to be a preview of Jesus' bloody death on the cross. In the bread-of-life speech Jesus assures that the bread that he will give "for the life of the world is my flesh" (6:51c). The "flesh" assumed by the Logos in the incarnation is the presupposition for the bloody death on the cross (d. 19:34). In the First Letter of John the confession is upheld, vis-a.-vis the dissidents, that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (4:2; see also 2 John 7). There seems to be a bridge from there to the death on the cross, which is at the center of the orthodox confession (d. 1 John 5:6). Those who confess Jesus Christ only as the one who has come by water (baptism) and not also by blood lack the full confession of Christ. The atoning death of Jesus is included (d. 2:2; 4:10). But the connecting of the flesh of the incarnate Logos with the giving of his flesh "for the life of the world" is not directly expressed. There are only hints that the body of the crucified One is the source of salvation (d. John 7:38; 19:34; 20:20, 25). In the flesh of the incarnate Logos believers see his glory, the glory of the Father's only begotten (1:14b-c). The interpretation of this verse in reference to the flesh bleeding on the cross remains uncertain. The flesh could also come from the christo logical confession tradition. 150 In the context of defending 1 John against christological heretics who probably advocated a gnosticizing Christology, an antidocetic tendency with the firm expression that the Logos became flesh is as good as certain.l5l If the author of the prologue were already looking back on the dispute in the Johannine community, he would use this expression to emphasize antithetically the coming in the flesh. Yet to what extent the dissidents were Gnostics or Docetists cannot be said with certainty.152 Even if one does not see the opposing front in a full-fledged Gnosticism, the strong stress on "coming in the flesh" remains a sign of the emphasis that the prologue's author places on the "flesh." An objection to other conceptions of the work of the Logos remains probable. TheologIcally, the paradoxical statement, "And the Word became flesh," is of great importance. In regard to Jesus Christ, both his divine o~lgin, his home in the heavenly-divine realm, and his humanearthly presence, his working among human beings and devotion to

291

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

them are apparent. He is the Son of Man who gives his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45) or, in Johannine terms, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). What is expressed in the Synoptic Gospels through majestic predicates (Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, etc.) and is described through the narrative presentation of his meeting with people, with the sick, sufferers, and sinners, attains a paradoxical summary in the Johannine short version of the Logos who became human. Whereas with the synoptists in the earthly life the secret of Jesus' divinity, his "messianic secret," becomes evident in an anticipatory and yet veiled way, in the Gospel of John it is a new beginning in which his divinity is derived from his preexistence. If his humanity is now stressed by his being in the "flesh," this represents the attempt to unite divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus. In this the church fathers have found a testimony to the "two natures" of Jesus, his being divine and his being human. But this philosophical conceptuality is foreign to John. In the formula of Chalcedon the two natures of Christ are joined in the person of Christ "without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation," and brought together in the "Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ."lS3 This is not a rational solution, but it can make us conscious of the paradox of the Johannine assertion. And yet the extremely pointed statement that the Logos became flesh also has a great advantage. It is the denial of all mythical thinking that spoke of the descent of a divine being and understood this coming to earth as a spiritual process that was to fulfill humankind with the knowledge of being. The incarnation of the Logos, to which there is nothing comparable in Gnosticism, "documents the courage to accept the consequence, which does not shy away from paradox, of developing further the now superseded conceptions under the impression of the Christ event. Incarnation of the Logos and walking on earth by the Son of Man both express a new fact by which redemption or rejection of a person is decided.l 54 On the basis of the paradox of this event certain tensions in the Johannine Christology are clarified. The Son of God is as close as possible to his Father and made equal to him, and yet he submits himself to the will of the Father and obeys him unto death. Because he is the Logos working with God from the beginning and in the nature

292

JOHN

of his being is himself God (1 :1), it can be said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him (14:10-11). Because he became "flesh," was sent by God into the world as a human being, his subordination to God can be comprehended from that standpoint. "The Father is greater" (14:28), and Jesus fulfills everything that the Father commands of him (14:31). Conversely, the bloody cross event is not regarded as the low point of Jesus' human way but as exaltation and glorification. A subordinational Christology is offset by the fact that Jesus is so much one with the Father that whatever the Father does, the Son does also (5:19). If one begins with the statements about the divine Logos, that is maintained in the earthly work of Jesus; if one begins with the incarnation of the Logos, then the whole harshness of Jesus' earthly existence is revealed in the cross event. This paradox is built into the incarnation of the divine Logos. The peculiar combination of exaltation and glorification in Jesus' "hour" is also based on the incarnation. It can be the hour of his death and yet becomes the hour of his glorification. In Jesus' trial and on his way to the cross, the majesty of the one who comes from above, from the heavenly world (d. 18:37; 19:9), becomes evident, and yet he is the one who stands as a wretched human being before Pilate (19:5) and whose side is pierced with a spear (19:34). The paradox goes so far that it is precisely from the dead body that the redeeming streams of "blood and water" flow (19:34), and the people will look on the one whom they have pierced (19:37). The resurrection of Jesus maintains the double aspect of the dead corpse and the glorified body. Jesus' body is laid in the grave; MaiY Magdalene seeks him and mourns him (20:13); but the one taken from her appears to her and reveals himself as the living one who is ascending again to the Father (20:16-17). Jesus' grave, the place of mourning and of shame, becomes the place of new glory (19:38-42). Everywhere the turning from the lowliness of the flesh to the glory of the resurrection stands out. Jesus' body, which still bears the traces of the crucifixion (20:20, 27), becomes the source of the Spirit (20:22; d. 7:39), which flows over the disciples. All these tensions-indeed, aporias-observable in Johannine Christology find their ultimate clarification in the incarnation of the Logos. It is the "bold synthesis of John" to tell of the preexistent Son on earth. ISS Based on this beginning, John has sketched his picture of

293

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Jesus Christ and carried it through logically. He begins not with the human being Jesus but with the divine Logos, which, however, becomes a person of flesh and blood. In this way he does justice to both claims, the divinity and humanity of Jesus. Finally we are led into the mystery of God, whom no one has ever seen and yet who is made known in the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart and appeared on earth (1:18).

294

6 The Gospel in Four Forms as Manifold and Yet Unified Testimony to Christ

W hen we review the picture of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels, we see that the evangelists have each sketched their own drawing according to the tradition available to them and according to their own intentions. When we examine their testimony of faith, however, we also discover a profound basis for unity. Two things are emphasized in this closing chapter: the picture of the historically appearing Jesus of Nazareth, varying according to time and circumstances as each evangelist presented it on the basis of his presuppositions, and the underlying image of faith, which was certain for the evangelists and which they wanted to work out and proclaim as well as they could. We have followed the individual evangelists and tried at least in an approximate way to make available each one's picture of Jesus Christ. There remains only the comparison between the Gospels, which are separated in terms of time as well as content and yet are harmonious on the more profound level of faith.

I

A VARIED PICTURE OF JESUS CHRIST

1. The Picture in the Gospels We began with Mark because he is the oldest evangelist, the creator of the genre "Gospe!," and can call on the support of the earliest tradition. We want to test this tradition; its extent and reliability are dis-

295

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

puted by scholars and have brought forth a confusing multiplicity of opinions on the "historical" Jesus (see chap. 1), but we have assumed and presupposed it to be a relatively reliable foundation. Important for us in chapter 2 was the evangelist's view of Jesus Christ, which develops around faith in the resurrected Lord. Even if this did not lead to unambiguous results, as the section on the "messianic secret" proves, a rather clear faith-picture seemed to emerge, which we sought to gain from the activity report on Jesus' appearances and works, his proclamation and teachings, his healings and exorcisms, his deeds of power and epiphanies, his confrontations and conflicts with opponents, his way of suffering and death, as well as through the status names and titles for Jesus used by Mark. For the other Gospels the task was different in that one must presuppose for them-at least for the Gospels of Matthew and Lukeknowledge of Mark's Gaspe\. The picture of Jesus Christ developed by Mark was already familiar to these evangelists, and one must ask rather how they adopted, further developed, or modified and adapted it. For Matthew (chap. 3) we began with the assumption that he wanted to tell the story of Jesus in a new and comprehensive way, with new and different perspectives, which resulted from his contact and disagreement with Judaism and also from the overriding interest that he had in the church of Jesus Christ as the realm of Jesus' ongoing work. Then we considered the picture of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew, which brought in new predicates, especially the "son of David," and which saw Jesus more strongly as the fulfiller of Old Testament promises and generally sought to present his person and his proclamation, especially the moral teachings, against the background of the Old Testament and Judaism. With the Gospel of Luke (chap. 4) the horizon broadened considerably, because here a Hellenistic-Jewish writer presented a work in two volumes, which in a salvation-historical view of the time of Jesus and beyond describes the beginning and growth of the church that resulted from the work and will of Jesus. In his Gospel Luke refers back to the time of Jesus and from a wealth of material offers further details about the appearance and activity of Jesus, which he presents in a fundamental view of faith. According to him, Jesus is the one sent by God in the power of the Holy Spirit, the proclaimer of the gospel of grace, the Savior, Messiah, and Lord, presented to the Jews and likewise to the Greeks, the exalted Lord who through

296

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

death and resurrection goes to Cod and who brings the Holy Spirit to the church. These are palpably new accents and a new view of Jesus as the guide to salvation. As a Hellenistic writer Luke received many stimuli from his surroundings and forml'd a picture of Jesus that is close to the thinking, feelings, and wants of the Creeks. He draws a warm picture of Jesus' humanity, his healing activity, his efforts for the poor and miserable, his devotion to women, as well as his prayer and piety. We could well ask whether all of this corresponds to the historical Jesus. But Luke offers sufficient evidence of this from the tradition available to him, and his picture of Jesus, nestled in the cultural world of his time, is to be taken seriously. Finally, we must again take a mighty step forward when we move to the Gospel of John. At first glance everything seems to be different here. For here we find concealed the Synoptic Jesus in many events such as healings, the great feeding, walking on water, and his interaction with unbelieving Jews. Yet from the beginning everything is raised to a higher plane and placed entirely in a viewpoint of faith that is convinced of Jesus' provenance from God and his return home to the Father. A comparison between Synoptic and Johannine Christology allows us to measure the considerable distance between the two pictures of Jesus Christ. Can we still speak at all here of a picture of Jesus of Nazareth? Yet the fourth evangelist decidedly holds fast to the human being Jesus who appeared historically on earth. For John he is the true and last one sent by God, the Son of Man who came down from heaven to earth, the eschatological prophet, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of humankind. He is the Son who is as close as possible to the Father, working with him and obedient to him, and he is all this precisely as a human being. The Logos abiding eternally with the Father became flesh, a human being in all frailty and need-a paradoxical statement if one considers the eternal essence, the divinity of the Logos. For the sake of the true and real humanity of Jesus, the Johannine Christ also belongs to the picture of Jesus Christ and is indeed the answer to the questions that are posed by the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The earthly provenance of Jesus of Nazareth is still maintained, but it is overshadowed by his provenance from heaven, and only the latter gives meaning and significance to his appearance and work on earth. Thus we can understand that this crucial view of faith gives the believing church the final answer to the questions, Who

297

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

was Jesus Christ? Who is he? With the Gospel of John the view of Jesus Christ-in spite of all the deletions in the earthly, historical realm-reaches its culmination. This faith-picture has prevailed in the tradition and theology of the church.

2. Matthew's Modification of the Markan Picture of Jesus Since in structure and presentation the Gospel of Matthew is relatively close to the Gospel of Mark, we will first look at some changes that are revealed by a comparison of Matthew and Mark. They have already become clear in the presentation of Matthew's Gospel (chap. 3) but will be briefly summarized here: a. In regard to Jesus' public appearance and activity we see that Matthew suppressed the secrecy motif in Mark. According to Mark, Jesus withdraws from the people-or at least attempts to-and repeatedly goes to an isolated place. Even at the beginning of his activity, when he was surrounded in Capernaum by many sick and possessed people, and he healed many, we read: "In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed," and when the disciples urged him to give in to the demands of the people, he said: "Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do" (1:35-38). Matthew does not offer this scene; only Luke adopts it from the Markan tradition (Luke 11:42-43). In general Matthew lays greater stress on the gathering crowds; Mark describes them also, to be sure (3:7-8), but he is at pains to keep Jesus hidden. When the healed leper told about his healing everywhere and Jesus could hardly show himself in a town, he "stayed out in the country" (1:45). When the disciples returned from their mission, Jesus said to them: "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while" (6:30). Matthew also presents this attempt to withdraw, but with him it looks like a flight when Jesus learns about the death of the Baptist (14:13). Thus the motive behind Jesus' withdrawal is different. According to both evangelists the next event is the great feeding. For Jesus' walking on water (Mark 6:45-52 I Matt. 14:22-33) different motives are ascribed. According to Mark the disciples understood nothing; their hearts were hardened. In Matthew, where Jesus saves Peter from his anxiety and climbs with him into the boat, everything ends

298

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

with the confession of the disciples: "Truly you are the Son of God." In Mark the "messianic secret" is implemented, while Matthew looks toward the later church, which is to reach full faith in Jesus. b. Mark has drawn Jesus as teacher, yet not until Matthew is Jesus described as the preacher on the mount, who confronts what "was said to those of ancient times" (Matt. 5:21-48) with the teaching of Jesus. For this he could draw on material from the "sayings source" (Q). Jesus does not ~\'ant to abolish the Jewish law but to fulfill it in a new way. Mark already goes beyond the "tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:3, 5), but the basic confrontation with the Jewish law comes in Matthew out of a view of the person of Jesus that distinguishes him more sharply from the Pharisees and scribes (Matthew 23) and also from the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:12). Jesus replaces the old people of God Israel with the new community of salvation, his church (16:18). He says to the previous leaders of the people: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom" (21:43). Jesus is brought into a salvation-historical view that sees the end of the old people of God and the rise of a new people of God who are under the demand and blessing of the kingdom of God. They are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (5:13-16). Out of the historical confrontation with Judaism, with its strict observance of the law, develops the view of the new community of salvation that Jesus is gathering around himself and upon whom he lays his nonoppressive yoke (11:30). Matthew sees this salvation-historical turning point realized in the sayings, teachings, and demands of Jesus. That is not yet the case with Mark. Matthew's ecclesiological way of seeing expanded the context of Jesus' message and made Jesus a herald of the kingdom of God that is starting to develop and prevail in the church. c. The childhood stories adopted by Matthew (chaps. 1 and 2) have implications for his picture of Jesus. The skeptical question about the son of David in Mark 12:35-37a, which seeks to establish Jesus' divine sonship, is adopted by Matthew (22:41-45), yet for him the son of David becomes the positively attested Messiah, to whom the three times fourteen generations of the genealogy point (1:17) and who is adopted into the Davidic lineage through Joseph (1:20). This means an expansion of the view of the son of David and Messiah also held by Mark (d. Mark 10:47-48; 11:10). In the narrative cycle of Matthew 2, Jesus is lifted up by the homage of the wise men as the newborn

299

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

king of the Jews (2:2), as divine child (2:11), and as Son of God (2:15). These are new traits, which for the king of the Jews are reinforced at the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (21:4-5). Matthew has placed Israel's King of salvation more solidly within Old Testament prophecy. Did the conviction of the virgin birth (1:22) also influence the evangelist's picture of Jesus? The historical problem of whether Jesus had brothers and sisters by Joseph, his legal father, which becomes acute in the Nazareth pericope (Mark 6:1-6/Matt. 13:53-58), does not seem to concern Matthew.] What does concern him in the quotation of Isa. 7:14, which is supposed to testify to the virginal conception by Mary, is giving the child the name "Emmanuel," meaning "God with us." The image "God with us" plays an important role in the appreciation of Jesus. Beyond death he is linked with the Christian church, continuing to talk and work in it. In corporate prayer he is in the midst of those who pray (18:20), and he will remain with the church until the end of the world (28:20). The perspective on the Jesus calling and instructing his disciples on earth is expanded to the Christ living on in the church. For Matthew this is already established in the birth of Jesus as "God with us." Yet his earthly destiny, his being pursued and persecuted, are indicated in the events after the birth (flight into Egypt, 2:13-15; massacre of the infants, 2:16-18). d. Beyond what is reported by Mark, the attacked and persecuted Jesus is profiled even more sharply by Matthew. 2 The parable of the wicked tenants (21:38-41), in consideration of the experiences of the prophets, becomes a preview of the fate of the beloved son, who is thrown "out of the vineyard and killed" by the tenants (21:39). Matthew has in mind the crucifixion of Jesus, which marks the end of his way of suffering. But Jesus' way of death is lighted by events that assure his victory over betrayal, enmity of the Jews, and the horror of death: the shameful end of Judas (27:3-10), the anxious dream of Pilate's wife (27:19), the acceptance of blood guilt by the people (27:25), and the events at Jesus' death (27:51-54). All of these are signs that emphasize the image of the majestic Jesus consciously going to his death. At his arrest Jesus says to the sword wielder from his own ranks: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?" (26:53-54). For Matthew everything is based on scripture,

300

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

and Jesus is aware of this. The Markan passion is more strongly formed in the image of the majestic Jesus overcoming all evil and darkness. Matthew sees Jesus' passion essentially in its significance for the founding of the church} e. The majestic picture of Jesus that Matthew has in mind finds its completion in the Easter stories. A radiant angel descends from heaven, rolls back the stone from the grave, and proclaims to the women that the crucified One has been raised (28:1-7). Then the resurrected One himself appears to the women, who grasp his feet and worship him (28:9-10). If for Mark the proclamation of the resurrection is sufficient, for Matthew the continued bodily existence of Jesus is important. For him the meeting with the disciples on the mountain in Galilee becomes the closing scene in which Jesus' divine authority is illuminated in bright light. As with the women, it is also said of the disciples that they worshiped him (28:17). If some still doubted when they saw Jesus, the doubt is apparently overcome by this revelation of authority.4 Jesus completes his work by continuing it through his disciples. This conscious reaching out into the perspective of the church also shifts the picture of Jesus: the resurrected One lives and exercises his authority. Not only has the narrative framework expanded: the picture of the earthly Jesus changes seamlessly into that of the Christ living on in the church. f. One can see yet another interpretation of the figure of Jesus that comes from the sayings source: an enrichment through wisdom ideas. In comparison with John the Baptist, Jesus is presented as the Son of Man whom the people fail to recognize. Since he eats and drinks, he has the reputation of a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. "Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds" (11:18-19). Jesus appeared in a different way from John the Baptist, who renounced the enjoyment of food and drink, but Jesus' friendship with tax collectors and sinners, which is announced through table fellowship, gives his teaching and work a deeper meaning. It is the revelation of the redeeming mercy of God, which is more than sacrifice and rites of atonement (cf. 9:13; 12:7). Through Jesus' deeds-above all his healings, according to 11:2-5-God has especially made known his philanthropic wisdom. Jesus is almost identified with wisdom, but the identification does not go as far as in the Johannine Logos hymn. Nevertheless, it is a step toward an understanding of the person of Jesus based on wisdom.

301

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

Still another passage that comes from the sayings source deepens the Matthean view of the person of Jesus: the so-called cry of jubilation (Matt. 11 :25-27). Jesus alone can reveal the Father, because only he, the Son, knows the Father, as the Father knows him and has handed all things over to him. This saying-which places over against "the wise and the intelligent" the revelation coming from God to "infants," that is, the wisdom of God-still remains in the conceptual arena of wisdom, which finds its justification through Jesus' deeds. Jesus draws to himself the disregarded little ones and infants and opens to them the hidden love and wisdom of God. The following "call of the savior," which is for all who are weary and carry heavy burdens, also fits into this perspective (11:28-30). He also takes up wisdom sayings: the invitation of wisdom to come to her (Prov. 8:1-21; 9:4-6; Sir. 24:19; 51:23), the promise of rest and peace (Sir. 51:24-27), the satisfaction of hunger and thirst (Prov. 9:5; Sir. 15:3). When such language is transferred to Jesus, the result is a picture of the healing and redeeming Jesus that, though not foreign to the Gospel of Mark, certainly goes beyond it. All these observations, which could be multiplied, reveal that it is true that Matthew accepted the Markan picture of Jesus but developed it further based on new ideas, the context of his time, the situation of the church, and his special proclamation intentions. The phenomenon of Jesus is considered beyond the historical context in its transhistorical radiance, its present relevance, and its application to the life and proclamation of the church.

3. The Lukan Picture of Jesus in Comparison with Mark and Matthew Luke has at his disposal a wealth of material on Jesus' activity, not only the Gospel of Mark but also the sayings source and additional, mainly oral traditions. From this he constructs a picture of Jesus that allows Jesus to appear as the companion of his disciples and of the later church. Among the individual changes in the picture of Jesus the following should be mentioned:

a. The equipping of Jesus with the Spirit By no other evangelist is the gifting with the Holy Spirit so clearly emphaSized as by Luke. Also with Mark and Matthew the descent of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism is described as "like a dove"; Luke adds:

302

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

"in bodily form" (3:22). In this way the reality of the Spirit is stressed. Following the baptism and temptation of Jesus, Luke reports on Jesus' return to Galilee and his first sermon in Nazareth. Jesus returns to Galilee "filled with the power of the Spirit" (1:14), and he begins his sermon in Nazareth with a quotation from the prophet Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" (4:18). Jesus is the one filled with the Spirit who promises the message of salvation to the poor, release to the captives, Sight to the blind. In the Holy Spirit he also raises his cry of jubilation (10:21). The progress beyond Mark and Matthew is shown in the following: First, Jesus is the only one equipped with the Spirit of God; he shares his authority with the disciples (10:19) but does not yet pass the Spirit on to them. Second, the Spirit determines Jesus' entire activity, including his death, when Jesus commends his spirit to the Father (23:46). The devil has to depart from him "until an opportune time" (4:13), namely, until his arrest and passion. Third, in this way Jesus is placed in a clearer light as the Messiah. In him the prophetic promise of the Messiah's possession of the Spirit is fulfilled (Isa. 11:2-4; 61:1-2; cf. Pss. Sol. 17:37; 18:7; 1 Enoch 49:3; 62:2). Fourth, the equipping of Jesus with the Spirit is continued in the pouring out of the Spirit on the church, and thus the church appears as a consequence of the Spirit bestowed on Jesus (cf. Acts 2:33).

b. The salvific leader for the disciples and later believers If Jesus is the only one in whom salvation is given to humankind (Acts 4: 12), then this fundamental conviction of the early church is described in a way that is different from Mark and Matthew; it is also through repentance and faith as in Mark 1:15, but it is still different. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus gives his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45/ Matt. 20:28), a passage that Luke, looking back at Jesus' service, presents differently (Luke 22:26-27): Jesus is the one serving in their midst. It is true that Luke maintains the vicarious atonement through Jesus' blood for Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:24), but otherwise he sketches the redemptive action in a different way. Jesus moves by way of suffering and death into the glory of God. Jesus' journey points the way to redemption. Nothing is more indicative of this than the designation of Jesus as "Author" (archegos) of life (Acts 3:15), as "Savior" after he was exalted by God to his right hand

303

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

(5:31). Only in Luke do we find this predicate, and its meaning is re-

vealed through the idea of salvation. All who accept Jesus as the crucified and resurrected One will be saved, beginning with the people Israel (5:31) but then also the Gentiles for whom Jesus is destined to be the light and universal Savior (Acts 13:47-48). It is a salvationhistorical view that begins with the mention of the people of Israel (13:16-23) and moves on to the view of Jesus, the crucified and resurrected One (13:26-34). In this history of the people of God, Jesus becomes the new way of salvation that effects the forgiveness of sins and makes one free in all things, and this the law of Moses could not do (13:38-39). The death of Jesus acquires a new value: it is the necessary passageway to his glory (Luke 24:26) and to the release of salvation for all who believe in him. The resurrection of Jesus is the source of redemption, the hope of attaining all the benefits of salvation (Acts 13:32-35), the promise of the coming time of salvation and of the final deliverer (3:20-21). In comparison with Mark and Matthew, this is an expanded view of Jesus and his work of salvation.

c. The Savior of the Jews and the Greeks The calling of non-Jews to participate in the kingdom of God is already indicated in Mark in several places: in the pericope of the Syrophoenician woman in 7:24-30, in the saying about the temple as a house of prayer for all nations in 11:17, and in the proclamation of the good news to all nations in 13:10. In Matthew the material is expanded by the Gentile centurion in Capernaum, which is a signal for the casting out of the original "heirs of the kingdom" and the calling of many who will come from east and west and eat with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven (8:5-13). If the earthly Jesus forbids the disciples to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans (10:5), then the resurrected One sends the disciples out to all nations (28:19). The servant of God will proclaim justice to the Gentiles; in his name they will hope (12:18, 21). The Judge of the world will make no distinction between people but will judge all according to the standard of active love (25:31). One wonders whether Luke can place still new accents on this picture of the world-encompassing Christ. And yet that seems to me to be the case. For Lukan salvation-historical thinking the Gentiles play an even stronger role in God's plan of salvation. On the one hand, the rulers and kings of earth exercise a sovereignty of power and terror

304

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

(d. Luke 22:25; Acts 4:25-28); on the other hand, the Gentiles are

called to become the people of God (Acts 15:14-17; 18:10). The Acts of the Apostles details how this calling of the Gentiles came about. For Luke the success with non-Jews in the sending out of the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10) becomes evident when this is indicated by the large number of missionaries and their joyful report on their mission. More important is the fact that Luke sets the child born in Bethlehem over against the mighty ruler of the empire, and the angel in the shepherds' field proclaims this child as Savior, Messiah, and Lord (2:11). Thus we saw that even in the language a horizon opens up that makes Jesus known as Savior to both Jews and Greeks (see chap. 4, section 1.3). One should observe in general the language of Luke, which is open to the Hellenistic world. A sentence such as Acts 10:38 is tailored to be received by Hellenism. Jesus is the benefactor of humankind and the physician; God was "with him" -this is the picture of Jesus in Luke's mind. The Jewish Messiah becomes the bringer of salvation sent to all people: "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" 00:34-35). This fundamental acceptance of people who seek God places a new accent that is not yet to be seen in Mark and Matthew.

d. The philanthropic helper and physician who includes fringe groups (sinners, the poor, women) in his work of redemption If one looks at the special features in the Lukan picture of Jesus (see chap. 4, section 11), certain kinds of behavior of the historical Jesus that already are recognizable in Mark and Matthew are more clearly prominent in Luke. This applies to Jesus' compassion for sinners, his healings, his intervention for the poor and disfranchised, and his behavior toward women. On the basis of traditions available to him, Luke illuminated the picture of the historical Jesus, even if he did not reproduce some of its features. His sharp rejection of the rich and propertied-as expressed in the woes of 6:24-26, in the etiquette talks 04:7-24), and in the exemplary narrative of the rich man and poor Lazarus (16:19-31)-his demand that the disciples give up all possessions (14:33), and other things reveal a special picture of Jesus that Luke could not escape. He knew of the indignation of the Pharisees and scribes over Jesus' habit of eating with tax collectors and sinners (5:30) and placed in this context his parable of the saving of

305

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

the lost (15:1-2). He also knew the offense that resulted from Jesus' healings on the Sabbath, and he considered it in the stories he gathered (d. 13:10-17; 14:1-6). From the tradition before him he knew of the accompaniment of Jesus by women to the cross and portrays the women as true followers and helpers of Jesus (8:1-3). Most of this is not verifiable for us. Nonetheless, we gain insight into the life and work of Jesus as Luke presents it. On the whole Jesus is thereby portrayed more in his humanity, in which, however, his divine calling is also illuminated. This is a personal view that Luke makes available to his Hellenistic readers, especially for the Christian Theophilus, to whom he dedicates his work. e. The Son who is close to the Father in prayer We have noted (section II.4) that in Luke, Jesus is presented again and again in prayer. He goes considerably beyond what Mark and Matthew tell about the praying of Jesus. One wonders what moved Luke to do this. Is Jesus' praying to be understood as an expression of his humanity? Is there an underlying Christo logy that seeks to indicate Jesus' independence from the Father and his subordination to God even with all his familiarity and closeness? In Luke's salvationhistorical thinking Jesus is the "Chosen" of God (Luke 9:35; 23:35), who after his baptism assumed and carried out the tasks given him by the Father. All works of salvation come from God, and only after the resurrection of Jesus did God make him Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36). Luke has in mind this picture of the Jesus who is entirely dependent on God, even during his time on earth. Based on this christological view we are to understand that before all decisions and in critical situations Jesus turns to the Father in prayer and pleads for clarity and strength. According to Luke's Gospel the relationship of Father and Son can be expressed in this fonnula: "God bound himself to Jesus through his Spirit, and Jesus binds himself to the Father through prayer."s This does not exclude an intimate mutual knowledge (d. 10:22), but it is bestowed upon the Son only so that he may reveal to people the will of the Father, and Jesus strives for this in prayer. This is a case that reveals Luke's procedure. From the picture of Jesus handed down to him he sets up new prayer situations that were not handed down to him. His picture of Jesus changes the story without calling into question the faith in the Messiah and Son of God

306

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

(d. 9:20; 22:67-70). The problem of Jesus' humanity and divinity does not come up for Luke, because for him Jesus' relatedness to God and closeness to God are encompassed in the human being Jesus. Even at the greatest distance from God, in the hour on the Mount of Olives and in the hour of death, he commits himself to the will of the Father (22:42), prays more ardently in mortal anguish (22:44), and in death prayerfully commends his Spirit into the hands of the Father (23:46). He remains a human being, a "righteous" man, who to the end submits himself to the wiII of the Father (d. 23:47).

4. The Transition to Johannine Christology We have already gone into the difference between Synoptic and Johannine Christo logy in chapter 5 (section 1.4). If one thinks of the considerable shift from a presentation by the synoptists beginning with the historical picture of Jesus to the christologically oriented presentation in John, which pushes into the symbolic realm, one could question whether it was at all John's intention to portray Jesus' appearance and activity, his passion and resurrection, in a continuous report. We saw, however, that the Gospel of John can nevertheless be understood as a Gospel writing (1.2). Yet this is based on another dimension: on the faith-picture of the incarnate Logos or the Son of God. A substantial change can be ascertained especially in the statements in John about the Son of Man (d. 11.3). The Son of Man who will come one day at the end of days becomes the Son of Man who has come down from heaven (3:13), is closely connected with heaven (1:51), and through the exaltation on the cross is glorified by God (12:23; 13:31-32). The specific Son of Man theology is a breaking away from the primarily future-oriented point of view into a present view that conforms with the incarnation of the Logos. Because the incarnate Logos fulfills his work of revelation and salvation on earth, all ideas of the future Son of Man must recede into the background. The resurrection of the Son of Man, which already had the synoptists' attention, becomes the turning point that changes the whole view of the Son of Man. Now the Son of Man is the one who already reveals himself in Jesus' earthly work in his divine power and attains full glory in his death. Jesus' divinity and humanity are united in this Son of Man, as is announced in the paradoxical sentence: "And the Word became flesh." The incarnate Logos is none other than the Son of Man as John draws him.

307

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

This Johannine Christology based on the mysterium of the incarnation of the Logos raises the question whether this picture of Jesus Christ can still be harmonized with the Synoptic Jesus, who steps forth in differing and new perspectives. In the following section we will go into this question about the unity of the witness to Christ in the Gospels.

II

THE UNIFIED FAITH-PICTURE OF JESUS CHRIST THAT UNDERLIES THE VARIOUS SKETCHES 1. The Conviction That Jesus Is the Messiah In all the Gospels Jesus' appearance among the Jewish people in a particular time is presupposed and described in detail. Prominent here is the conviction that he is the "anointed one," the Messiah promised by Old Testament prophets and expected for the tum of the ages or end time. In the scene at Caesarea Philippi we find expressed what is unmistakable in Mark (8:28-29). Jesus is not, as the people say, the resurrected John the Baptist (d. 6:14) or Elijah or one of the prophets; rather, he is "the Messiah." This confession of Peter's in the name of the twelve is adopted by all the other evangelists. The clarifications in Matthew (16:16: "the Son of God"), Luke (9:20: "the Messiah of God"), and John (6:69: "the Holy One of God") are only modifications or expansions based on the view of each evangelist. In Matthew this is based on the full christological faith of the early church; in Luke, on his view of the one commissioned by God; in John, on the view of the revealer and mediator of salvation who is close to God (d. 10:36). But all the Gospels maintain the faith that Jesus is the Oewish) Messiah. The conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus is also expressed in many other passages in the Gospels. In addition to Peter's confession, which was reserved for the disciples, comes Jesus' public answer to questioning by the high priest (Mark 14:61-62 par.). In Matthew, Jesus the Messiah, son of David, and king of salvation is supported by many scriptural fulfillments, and Jesus is placed in the salvation-historical line, the messianic expectation of Israel (1:16-17;

308

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

2:6; etc.}. In Luke the royal, sovereign status of the son of David is already announced to Mary by the angel (1:32-33), and Jesus is proclaimed as the Messiah on the shepherds' field (2:10-11). In John it is

noteworthy that the first disciples of Jesus learn early on that Jesus is the Messiah whom Moses and the prophets announced (1:41, 45). In spite of his view of the incarnate Logos, the fourth evangelist holds fast to the view that Jesus is the Messiah who comes from Nazareth and is attested by scripture. His origin in the insignificant place in Galilee cannot, despite the opinions of contemporary Jews and their leaders, obscure the fact that he is the Messiah (d. 7:26-27, 40-41, 52). It is even to be presumed that for John this lowly provenance of Jesus, which conceals his heavenly home, dramatizes the paradox of the Logos who has come in the flesh. Yet the Logos who appeared on earth still remains the historical human being Jesus of Nazareth, the expected Messiah of the Jews and also the Messiah of the Samaritans (4:25-26). In looking back on the earthly activity ofJesus and the working of signs in the presence of the disciples as presented in John's Gospel, the evangelist writes that there is still much that is not written in this book, but this is written "so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (20:31). The Messiahship of Jesus-which, to be sure, requires more precise definition-is the comprehensive framework for characterizing the person of Jesus. There is one special, very important feature in the picture of the Messiah to which all the evangelists hold: against all Jewish expectations, he is the Messiah who gives his life for the salvation of humankind. The Messiah Jesus' way of suffering and death is on the minds of all four evangelists, even if his death is variously interpreted in its significance for salvation. It is sufficient that it expresses the disposition of God (Mark/Matthew). It is a passageway to the glory bestowed by God (Luke), a glorification by God that is already becoming visible in the hour of death (John), a fruitful event for gathering the people of God (John 12:44). It is a Messiahship that cannot be demonstrated in contemporary Judaism and becomes prominent only in the early Christian kerygma: Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, was buried, and on the third day was raised in accordance with the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4). All the evangelists hold fast to this kerygma.

309

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

2. Faith in Jesus, the Son of God One thing is evident: all the evangelists endeavor through supplemental predicates to illuminate the Messiah Jesus better in his relationship to God, to the people of Israel, and to humankind. It is as if they did not want to isolate the Messiah and leave him without more precise definition. The preferred expansion is the statement that he is the Son of God. Mark emphaSizes at once in the title, if we follow the well-attested longer text, that this is "the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1). In the son of David dialogue about the Messiah he indicates that Jesus is more than the son of David and insinuates thereby for the Christian reader that he, as Son of God, is the Lord (12:35-37). For all the evangelists the baptism of Jesus is not only a "consecration of the Messiah" but the revelation of the Son of God. Matthew regards the Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, the Jesus "who is called the Messiah" (1:16), as the promised Emmanuel (1:23) through whom God is with his people. For Matthew, God has called his "Son" out of Egypt (2:15). The confession of the disciples in the boat, which represents the community of faith, reads: "Truly you are the Son of God" (14:33), and Peter's confession is expanded: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (16:16). The designation of Jesus as Messiah is not enough for him; the full confession of Christ includes Jesus' divine sonship. In Luke it is made clear by the announcement of the angel to Mary that the child will be called "the Son of the Most High" (1:32), "the Son of God" (1:35). At the hearing before the council the high priests and scribes are not satisfied with Jesus' answer that the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of God; they ask him expressly: "Are you, then, the Son of God?" and Jesus answers affirmatively (22:67-70). Especially instructive again is John. Nathanael, to whom Philip points out the Messiah promised in the scriptures (1:45), confesses according to the miraculous know ledge that becomes his through Jesus: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (1:49). He is thus the expected king of salvation but more than that, the Son of God, and this conception impresses itself first upon him. The same surpassing of the messianic expectation is found in Martha's confession: "You are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world" (11:27). The evangelist wants to bring in the whole Christ confession of the believing community. For this the category of Messiah is not enough; it is surpassed by confession to the

310

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

Son of God. The same addendum is found in the evangelist's summary: "the Messiah, the Son of God" (20:31). This is not surprising in the designation of Jesus as the Son who is close to the Father (see chap. 5, section 11.2), but it should be noted that John lets this favorite idea rest on the confession to the Messiah. In this way he holds to the Synoptic proclamation. Jesus' divine sonship, in addition to his Messiahship and closely connected with it, is the main bearing column of the early Christian confession of Christ. Now, 501/ of God is an analogous mode of expression adopted from the human realm, which cannot claim freedom from ambiguity. In the Old Testament the Son of God is also a designation for the people of Israel (Ex. 4:22-23; Jer. 31:9, 20; Hos. 11:1) or for the king (2 Sam. 7:12-14; Pss. 2:7; 110:3; 1 Chron. 17:13; 22:10). Also for Palestinian Judaism the title Son of God, especially in connection with wisdom speCUlations, was not completely foreign. 6 In the New Testament the designation of Jesus as "Son of God" was certainly made early on.7 Thus in the Gospel of John the full development of the Son Christology is reached, but the Synoptic statements about the Son of God tend, nonetheless, toward this development. The only beloved Son, who is sent by God in the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:6), is none other than the only begotten Son, whom God, out of love, sent and gave to the world Gohn 3:16). The Son, who knows the Father as the Father knows him (Matt. 11:27 fLuke 10:22), is none other than the Son in whose hands the Father has placed all things, so that he might communicate the word of God to humankind Gohn 3:34-35) and give them the full revelation (1:18). The Son, to whom God bears witness at the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus, is none other than the one to whom the Father witnesses in a unique way in the Gospel of John (5:37; 8:18; d. 1 John 5:9). Yet in the Gospel of John, Jesus is one who works closely with his Father (5:19), the one who reveals the Father in words and works (10:37-38; 14:10-11); he is, indeed, the Son so close to the Father that whoever sees him sees the Father (14:9). These are key statements that become understandable only in terms of Johannine Christology. But the fact that Jesus performs his healings and great miracles only through the power of God becomes clear enough even in the Synoptic Gospels. Even the possessed have to recognize him as the "Son of God" (Mark 3:11; 5:7). As in the Gospel of Mark the picture of Jesus is permeated with the idea of the divine sonship (see chap. 2, sec-

311

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

tion 11.1), so the "Son of God" proves to be a braided ribbon reaching from the earliest evangelist to the Johannine Christology of the "Son," in which the secret of the Son of God is fully revealed. In the understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, the streams of christological reflection flow together. Even if the confessional formula, "Jesus is the Son of God," is not unambiguous but can be combined with many concepts, the "unity of action" and "congruity" between God and the Son in the Gospel of John 8 are still the logical culmination of the homology of the Son. With the title Son of God, which also stands at the center of christological statements in Paul (Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 4:4; Rom. 1:3-4; 8:3, 32; etc.), the early church found a valid, abiding form for expressing the deepest essence of Jesus and his significance for us. "The 'Son of God' became a constant, unforgettable metaphor of Christian theology, and it asserts both the origin of Jesus in God's being, that is, his love for all creatures and his unique closeness to God, and his true humanity."9

3. Jesus the Bringer of Salvation A further common basic conviction of the evangelists is that Jesus is the healer and bringer of salvation. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus stands out as the phYSician who heals the sick and makes people healthy in body and soul. In Mark the healings occur many times in a form that is still close to the faith of the people through touching, bodily contacts, and spittle; Jesus' power flows over the people. There are, however, not only bodily healings but also spiritual restorations, through which people are again incorporated into the fellowship of the people of faith and released into the peace of God. They experience the creative power and goodness of God (7:37). They are torn from the demonic powers and set free from sin and guilt (2:6). The crucial point is the imperious word of Jesus: "I do choose. Be made clean!" (1:41). The healings also assume symbolic traits (d. 5:41; 7:35). The exorcisms and healings are open to a deeper interpretation. Even more in Matthew the topic is healings among the people, and they are understood as deeds of the Messiah (11:2-6). For Matthew this proves Jesus as the son of David and as the servant of God, who not only heals the sick but also lifts up those who are bent down (12:19-20). Jesus' healing activity is more strongly related to his person as the bringer of salvation, also to the non-Jews, and is placed in the context of his mission. Jesus in Luke is simply the physi-

312

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

cian (see chap. 4, section Il.l.b), who, however, not only heals diseases but also liberates people from their ostracism among the people and their guilt and redeems them from their misery. It is precisely to the "lost" that Jesus turns, and in this way God's joyful messenger announces to them the joy of God over everyone who turns to him (Luke 15; 19:10). Jesus is the Savior in a comprehensive sense, who promises release to the captives, sight to the blind, freedom to the oppressed, and proclaims the year of the Lord's favor (4:18-19). The circle of his redemptive work expands when we move forward from Mark through Matthew to Luke. If we go from here to the Gospel of John, the statements about God's salvation move into the realm of the fundamental. Linked with the announcement of the sending of the Son of God into the world are purpose clauses: "that whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (3:15; d. 3:16, 17; 6:40; 10:10; 12:36,46-47). What became clear in the paradigms of the synoptists becomes a theological statement: in his Son, God sent life and salvation. Yet also in the great Johannine signs the life-awakening power of Jesus becomes vivid and concrete: in the healing of the official's son (4:49-53) it is said three times that his son is alive; regarding the lame man of the pool called Bethzatha we read: "Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes" (5:21); with the great feeding in chap. 6 Jesus reveals himself as the bread of life; in the man born blind the works of God are to be revealed (9:4); in the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus reveals himself as the resurrection and the life (11:25). In word and work Jesus is the giver of life. The Synoptic Gospels prepare the soil for this comprehensive view of Jesus as the mediator of salvation. What Luke expresses in the Acts of the Apostles, "There is salvation in no one else" (4:12), is the common conviction of the early church. The view of Jesus the Messiah and Son of God grows stronger in the statements about his salvation and deliverance. Messiah, Son of God, and bringer of life are summarized in the closing saying of the (original) Gospel of John in a characteristic formulation: " ... so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). What John calls the life going out from Jesus C.!:\rist and mediated through him is the comprehensive salvation, the new creation of humankind (3:6-7), which the Synoptic Gospels

313

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

already see effected in the words and deeds of Jesus (cf. Mark 7:37; Luke 4:18-19; 7:22-23). In this way the Johannine Christology is the complete form of the message of redemption.

4. The Wholly Other, Who Witnesses among Human Beings to God and His Majesty When we consider the message of God implied in this proclamation of Christ, one thing becomes clear: the Son of God who appeared and worked on earth for the salvation of humankind reveals God in a way that for human beings is new, surprising, and challenging. The God whom he makes known is totally different from what people imagine and want to be true. It is this very God, in his grandeur, superiority over the world, and incomprehensibility to human beings, that Jesus proclaims. The religious message that Jesus Christ brought can be understood in its aspect of confrontation with earthly, human thinking as the pervasive concern of the Gospels. Whether Jesus steps forward among his people as the herald of the kingdom of God and challenger of the leading groups of the time (Mark/Matthew), whether he appears as critic of religious and social conditions and as the prophet demanding a new social order (Luke), or whether he, as the one sent from the heavenly world, finds no response in the earthly world (John), he is always the stranger, the one misunderstood in many ways, the messenger from God witnessing to a completely different kingdom, who lifts up as an urgent appeal the otherness of God and his claim on human beings closed up within themselves. This center of Jesus' religious message is recognizable in all the Jesus pictures and christological designs and is independent of the historically conditioned interests of the evangelists. Jesus' sharp answer to Peter, who wants to bring him away from his road to suffering, is like a short formula for Jesus' otherness: "For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things" (Mark 8:33/Matt. 16:23). The confrontation with human thinking is also expressed in many other passages: in the disciples' quarre1 over status (Mark 9:33-37 par.), in the unknown exorcist (Mark 9:38-41/Luke 9:49-50), in the striving of the sons of Zebedee for positions of honor in the kingdom of God (Mark 10:35-45/ Matt. 20:20-28; Luke 22:24-27), in a Samaritan village's refusal of hospitality (Luke 9:51-53), in the saving of the lost (Luke 15), in the attitude toward wealth (Mark 10:25-27 par.), in the parable of the work-

314

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

ers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16), and in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14). This going beyond all human behavior and endeavor is worked out superbly in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (chaps. 5-7) and in Luke's Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49). God and his will are always the standard. Jesus, with his demands and rules oriented toward God, certainly also seeks the understanding of his human listeners, but first the misunderstanding of the disciples in Mark and then even more the confrontation with the leading Jewish groups in Matthew show an inability to comprehend Jesus' divine proclamation. To this extent the messianic secret in Mark is an apt interpretation of Jesus appearance in public; his conflict with the Jewish leaders is the unavoidable collision that drives Jesus toward death (Matthew); and his devotion to the outcasts, the poor, and the oppressed is the profound reason for his persecution and his way of suffering (Luke). Jesus' variously described divergences from the Jewish image of the Messiah and the Hellenistic idea of the bringer of salvation can all be traced back to Jesus' way of thinking, for he finds his place not in temporally conditioned views but in the determination of his way by God. Everything moves toward the cross and resurrection through God. The extraordinary appearance of Jesus is based on the fact that he is God's representative and agent, who brings the otherness of God close to humankind; he is the man who goes against all human standards and therefore must go his ominous, fateful way. In John we reach the culmination of this view of the one who comes from God, announcing God's "truth," the revealer who confronts humankind with this truth. Because people do not understand or accept him, the view becomes necessarily dualistic. He is not from the earth but from heaven; he is above all (3:31), and no one accepts his testimony (3:32). The human beings are "from below" and he is "from above" (8:23). In spite of his words guaranteed by God and his works testifying to God, the people reject him and hate him (15:22-24). He is the misunderstood stranger (6:41--42), who causes offense with his words (6:61-62) and cannot convince with his astonishing deeds (10:32, 37-38) either. Only those who believe that God sent him understand him. In the middle of a darkened world that has turned away from God, he wants to protect them by binding them to the Father (17:9-11), and for this purpose he sends them the Holy Spirit (14:16-17). The revelation of the holy transcendent

315

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

God through the only Son of God appearing on earth for the salvation of blind humankind is the dominant theme of this Gospel {1:18; 3:16; 17:3). Thus, what is recognizable in the Synoptic Gospels as the main line of the proclamation and activity of Jesus is raised to a higher plane: Jesus Christ is the one sent by God who testifies to God's otherness, his redemptive will, and his unchangeable devotion to humankind; he is the Savior of the world. Only from the standpoint of God and his self-revelation in the incarnate Logos can one comprehend Jesus' appearance and the resistance he experienced. Because God is as the Johannine Christ reveals him, the drama of the history of Jesus is played out: misunderstanding and persecution even to the cross-no different from what the Synoptic Gospels also recount. Because God assumes into his glory the misunderstood Son of Man exalted on the cross, this drama ends with the resurrection of Jesus, again no different from the way the synoptists present it. Because here according to God's plan, which the synoptists already reveal, the salvation of humankind is guaranteed, the Johanrune Christ cannot speak or behave in any way other than the way he actually did. For this he was born and came into the world, for the sake of the being and will of God, which testify to us the liberating truth of God {18:37). John's picture of Christ, when one looks at his relationship to God, to humankind, and to the world turned away from God, is none other than that in the earlier Gospels. III THE EVANGELISTS' FAITH-PICTURE OF JESUS CHRIST IN RELATION TO THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH We saw at the beginning (chap. 1) that a reliable view of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth through scientific effort with historical-critical methods can be only inadequately achieved. We wanted instead, following the plan and intention of the evangelists, to discover the faith-picture of Jesus Christ designed by the evangelists and to bring it into view in its variety and yet deeper unity, a picture that has been accepted and pondered by Christendom through all the centuries. But the question cannot be avoided: Do we thereby achieve

316

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

better access to the person of Jesus than through rational scientific investigations? Is this picture emerging from faith not merely a construction, an illusion, a myth? Can it open up for us a deeper understanding of the person of Jesus, or do we not have to be satisfied with the limited, questionable picture of the historical Jesus? Do we not have to leave it to each person who reflects upon it to construct on the basis of our inadequate knowledge of the historical Jesus his or her own faith-picture, which can by all means also include the early Christian faith in the resurrection of the crucified One? Can the early Christian "kerygma" also be interpreted differently from the way the evangelists do it-certainly variously and yet in harmony? One must also ask whether the Christology of the New Testament, as it appears in the speeches in Acts and in Paul, John, and the other early Christian theologians, offers yet other possibilities for explanation of the phenomenon of the crucified, resurrected Christ abiding with God. The New Testament "Christologies" have likewise been examined carefully in their diversity and have brought to light a variety of approaches and structural lines. Undisputed, however, is the fact that these different Christologies have nonetheless ultimately gone back to the early Christian kerygma, as it is summarized in 1 Cor. 15:3-5. Compared with the Christologies developing in the early church, the four Gospels have an unmistakable advantage: they adopt the traditions of the historical Jesus and combine them with faith in the crucified, resurrected, and exalted Lord. The church fathers, in their speculations about Jesus Christ, always have to refer back to the Gospel presentations. The Gospels of Matthew 10 and Johnll in particular had a special effect and a recognizable history of influence. The four Gospels hold a prominent place in the development of Christology. Thus the question of the faith-picture of the evangelists is a logical one. If one asks about the historical basis, all the Gospels show that they depend on traditions of the historical Jesus that were gathered early, shaped narratively, and thereby also interpreted. All the evangelists are convinced that with their stories from the life of Jesus they are reproducing something true that happened (this is especially clear in Luke 1:1-4). Naturally, how they reproduce it varies a great deal. The Synoptic comparison and then also the comparison between the Synoptics and John reveal tensions and even contradictory information and aporias. The traditions have been dealt with

317

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

very differently. The efforts of scientific exegesis to examine these traditions and trace them back to what is historically credible is understandable and justified. Yet this draws us into a continual discussion of tradition and redaction history that never comes to rest. What can be achieved is a general view of the proclamation of Jesus, his gathering the disciples, his disagreements with Jewish opponents, and his way to the cross. Many an individual problem of the tradition can be clarified. Obvious expansions and modifications of Jesus' words and deeds can be credited to the account of the postEaster communities. These interpretations that go beyond the historically knowable had for the most part already become a part of the traditions available to the evangelists, and they incorporated the picture of Jesus appearing there; one need think only of the prehistories, the Easter stories, and also, in no small measure, individual stories from the life of Jesus. The faith-picture of the evangelists was influenced by many traditions, yet we must also see that it was not thereby overturned and abolished. The evangelists began with a certain position on the person of Jesus and within this framework sought to arrange the concrete traditions of the words and deeds of Jesus. This is demonstrated by a few examples. The surest thing that can be established from the proclamation of the historical Jesus is his message of the coming and already inbreaking kingdom of God. It is the guiding theme that determines his appearance, his proclamation, his claim on humankind, and his promise. In concentrated form Jesus' self-understanding is contained in this statement: "If it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you" (Luke 11:20/Matt. 12:28). Under dispute, however, is the question whether the kingdom of God is already completely present in the work of Jesus or is only beginning to come and will appear completely only at the end. Jesus' future-oriented viewpoint cannot be disputed. The relationship of present and future of the kingdom of God remains in question. This question is made more acute by the imminent expectation of Jesus that appears in the Jesus tradition. For many scholars, such as A. Schweitzer, J. Weiss, and other eschatologists, it is established that for Jesus the imminent expectation of the end was important and the diminishing of this expectation, which was not fulfilled, goes back to the early church. The tradition includes sayings of Jesus that offered the prospect of a definite time-still within the

318

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

living generation-for the end (Matt. 10:23; Mark 9:1 par.; 13:29-30 par.). In terms of the history of tradition one cannot deny the life situation of these sayings is the church. 12 How did the evangelists deal with this tradition? It did not shake them in their conviction of the truth of Jesus' sayings. They could combine these unfulfilled sayings of Jesus with their faith in the Lord. Yet Luke felt this problem acutely and attempted to solve it by an extension of the time to the church (cf. chap. 4, section 1.5). His answer prevailed: "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority" (Acts 1:7). The time of Jesus became the time of the church, the time of the Holy Spirit. Later the question of the imminent expectation no longer occupied the early church. It was certain of the ongoing presence of the Lord and left the question of Christ's coming again and the completion of the times to the will of God. What appears as an aporia in historical criticism is overcome by the view of the evangelists that the person of Jesus lives on in the Holy Spirit. Does this view, with its holding to the future kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus but without a certain date, not perhaps come closer to historical truth than do the critical reflections? Another example is the question of Jesus' miraculous healing. In many stories it is described in a way that often sounds primitive and magical, in accordance with the ideas of the time. The narrative structures (with a certain schema of form) are to be understood based on the period, but they maintain the uniqueness of Jesus' healing activity. In these miracle stories there is a historical intention to present Jesus' activity as something unusual. "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mark 2:12). "Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind" (John 9:32). The evangelists were convinced of the facticity of the healings, even if they exaggerated a great deal and much remains improbable. But the wealth of healing stories and their being embedded in current conditions allow no doubting of the basic conviction of Jesus' miraculous healings. In his critical overview of the miracle stories G. Theissen writes: "Without doubt Jesus performed miracles, healed the sick, and drove out demons. Yet the miracle stories reproduce these historical events in an exaggerated form .... As an apocalyptic miracle-charismatic, Jesus is singular in the history of religion."13 The conviction of Jesus' healing activity flowing out of

319

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

the authority of God and his healing solely through his imperative word stands behind all these stories. This is what the evangelists want to emphasize about the person of Jesus. One does not need to investigate all the individual stories in regard to their credibility in order to get this impression. The evangelists focus their attention on what is essential. A third example is Jesus' ethical instruction. In all the Synoptic Gospels he approaches people with far-reaching and even extreme demands. There are main emphases in his requirements of those who want to gain a share in the coming kingdom of God: the forgoing of wealth and power, compassion and love in the extreme in accordance with the love experienced from God, devotion to the poor and disfranchised, and diScipleship in suffering. It is an abundance of traditional material that the evangelists gathered. Jesus' sayings are filled out with concrete examples from his meetings with people and enriched with parables that Jesus told. This wealth of material on Jesus' ethical instruction has led to the fact that his moral involvement is not questioned but recognized as an essential trait of his person. Even theologians who look critically at the historical Jesus and what is told of him dare not question this (d. A. Schweitzer, R. Bultmann). If, however, we ask about the basic approach of these demands and their motivation, we find considerable differences. What is the role here of the Jewish law, upon which the whole Jewish moral teaching is built? Does the saying "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped" (Luke 16:17; d. Matt. 5:18) have unlimited validity? The tradition also includes harsh words about Jewish legal interpretation and praxis that give the appearance that Jesus is teaching a new law. Are there not many precepts of the Torah, such as those regarding divorce, swearing, and retribution, that Jesus abolishes? Does he not set aside the purity and Sabbath laws? It is not easy to find a unified approach to Jesus' interpretation of the law. R. Bultmann gives a basic answer according to which Jesus demands a radical obedience that implies a new understanding of existence. No external authority determines what the will of God is; rather, "it is left and entrusted to human beings themselves to see what is demanded of them. God's demands are understandable."14 As welcome as that will seem to the people of today striving for autonomy, questions of the material

320

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

ethic of values remain and do not allow us to set aside Jesus' concrete decisions. Critical individual research that gives attention to the life situation and the redaction of the evangelists cannot solve the problem of the law. 15 Those who want to appreciate the various answers to the question of the law and the moral instructions of Jesus must consider the views of the evangelists in their particular times and compare them with each other. That is beyond the scope and purpose of this work. A look at the individual evangelists can discover differences in their views of the ethic of Jesus: in Mark, for example, the confrontation between God's commandment and human statutes (Mark 7:6-13) and the double commandment of love of God and neighbor (12:28-34), which is also prominent in the other synoptists; in Matthew a decided and differentiated view of the Jewish law and its fulfillment (d. chap. 3, section 1l.3); in Luke the social demands for the poor, the wretched, and women (d. chap. 4, section II.2-3); in John the new commandment of brotherly (and sisterly) love, in order to remain in the love of Christ Gohn 13:34-35; 15:12-17). Each evangelist develops the moral message of Jesus on the basis of his own Christology. What is to be recognized in all the evangelists as fundamental agreement, however, is the authority of Jesus, which is based in God: " ... and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). All the evangelists agree in emphasizing the authority of Jesus; for them Jesus is the absolute revealer of the will of God. Thus it is true that the reproductions of the evangelists do not answer individual questions, but they direct our attention to what is essential in Jesus' moral preaching. The historical ground is presupposed but is superseded in the faith-view of the evangelists. As in the proclamation of the kingdom of God and in the miraculous healings of Jesus, the historical foundation is maintained and is reinforced through Jesus' sayings and speeches, through dialogues and disagreements, but it is not recognizable as the real concern. Everything is directed toward reception by the addressees, toward the immediate demands that emerge for those who believe in Jesus Christ. The evangelists did not put together their picture of Jesus from individual traditions; rather, they began with the overall picture of Jesus and incorporated the individual stories as illustrations of their faith. They did not want to create a mosaic but to offer a portrait of

321

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

the whole, in which Jesus' proclamation and teaching, his healings and miraculous deeds, his works in public and his instructions to the disciples flow together into a unified whole. It is no photograph of the historical Jesus but a painting that reveals something more and deeper about him than a faithful reproduction of his features. Such a painting is on the one hand unreal and yet on the other hand truer than any photograph. It reveals more of the will, the motives, and the inner driving powers that moved Jesus, and it offers a look into the personal mystery of Jesus, which, of course, cannot really be fathomed but only revealed as a mystery and grasped in faith. Thus arises an accurate picture of his person, which cannot be comprehended in any other way than in his relatedness to God and his closeness to God. The mystery of his person, which Mark underlines with his messianic secret but which is also illuminated in the other Gospels in Jesus' meetings with people, cannot be grasped through reduction to his human side, the outside of his appearance, as it were; it can be grasped only if one also includes the hidden interior of his person, his rootedness in God. It is precisely this that the evangelists, each in his own way, want to work out. They attempt to express Jesus' closeness to God through certain predicates, such as Son of God, Messiah in a comprehensive sense that goes beyond Jewish thinking, Son of Man, Moses-like prophet, king, and Lord. Without anchoring in God, the person of Jesus remains shadowy, unreal, and unexplainable. From Gospel to Gospel the mystery of the person of Jesus is revealed, until it reaches its culmination in John through the statements about the preexistent Son of God, who was with God, was himself God, and came into the world as a human being in order to reveal God in his essence, his truth, and his glory. The relationship of the pictures of Jesus in the Gospels to the historical Jesus can be defined approximately as follows: they presuppose the historical tradition and use it to bestow color and expressive power upon their paintings. They want, as it were, to clothe with flesh the mysterious Son of God who appeared on earth and yet to do this on the basis of assured tradition and in remembrance of his historical appearance and work. The historical dimension cannot be directly grasped but is still so experienceable that it does not produce dreams and fantasies. The view of faith is directed toward the past yet at the same time encompasses what is present and abiding and meaningful for humankind. It is like a view from a high

322

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

mountain into the valleys of people and into the infinite breadth of heaven.

IV OUTLOOK

We have to be thankful that we have the four Gospels, each of which from its own viewpoint brings us close to the person of Jesus. The "gospel in four forms" stretches over a lengthy period and testifies to the one gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, over the course of time. The particular temporal situation, the historical circumstances, the circle of addressees, and the special intentions for the addressed communities have led to new approaches in the reproduction of the history of Jesus. The four-Gospel canon, which becomes a testimony of the early history of the church, reaches into the beginning of the second century but also finds there its limit. What is told in the apocryphal gospels in the second, third, and fourth centuries cannot measure up to the four canonical Gospels. These apocryphal presentations are overlaid with legends and in part fantastic stories. For Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca. 202) there are only the four Gospels, no more and no fewer; they alone guarantee the apostolic tradition and are the standard documents for Jesus and his good news. They are filled with the same Spirit and become the four pillars upon which the good news is constructed. Yet the image of the four pillars is inadequate and vulnerable. It is a static model that leaves out of consideration the living flow of tradition and does not recognize how the four pillars support the building. One cannot, of course, simply add up the four Gospels; they must be compared with one another and as far as possible be brought into harmony. The four Gospels came into being in an ongoing process. The oldest Gospel, that according to Mark, is the foundation for the following synoptists as well as for the Gospel of John. Further traditions and interpretations expanded and in part changed the Gospel of Mark. Traditions from the sayings source (Q), Jewish Christian traditions, and more than a few individual stories were added. Thus the whole tradition of the Gospels is a river that receives new streams and enriches the picture of Jesus out of reflection on his person. The christo logical profundity culminates in the Gospel of John.

323

JESUS IN THE GOSPELS

In the second century in the Syrian area, the need arose to summarize the various Gospel presentations and bring the history of Jesus into a unified whole. After 170 A.D. the Syrian Tatian created a Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron (the Gospel combined "through four").16 The attempt of a summary view may have come from the idea of the one gospel, or good news, but did not do justice to the differentiated view in the four Gospels. This gave rise-much more strongly than with Irenaeus, who, incidentally, seems not to know the Diatessaron-to the impression of a solid building. The four canonical Gospels offer the most important and lasting elements of the Christ revelation and can perceive the person of Jesus in his historicality and suprahistorical significance. Instead of the static image of the four pillars, on which the good news of Jesus Christ is constructed, I would like to select another image, which emerges in another context in the Bible and can make vivid the flowing and dynamic element in the origin of the Gospels: the four streams in paradise, which flow out of the Garden of Eden and into a wide area, the whole known earth at that time (Gen. 2:10-14). It is an older, mythical-sounding text, which is inserted into the paradise story. The four streams, of which we can identify with certainty only the last two, the Tigris and the Euphrates, come out of the east and become a symbol for the worldwide stream of life that comes from God. The Revelation to John turns to this presentation pregnant with symbolism for the description of the perfected kingdom of God, the new Jerusalem: "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (22:1). Can this image not also be transferred to the four Gospels, which flow from the one river of revelation and of life, which has revealed itself in Jesus Christ? The one gospel reveals the mystery of the -iivine governance of the world, the breaking in of the kingdom of God, which will be completed at the end of days, and releases the river of divine life that brings humankind healing and salvation. One could interpret this even further according to the vision in the Revelation to John: "On either side of the river, is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations" (22:2). Thus the gospel develops and brings fruits that serve the healing of the nations. It is a river of life that tirelessly flows forth and must be proclaimed continually and ever anew in the whole

324

THE GOSPEL IN FOUR FORMS

world and among all nations (Mark 13:10; Matt. 28:19). It waters the withered earth and slakes the thirst of languishing humankind. The Gospel of John says that those who drink of the water that Jesus gives will never thirst again; "The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life" (John 4:14). What Paul says is no different: the gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Rom. 1:16).

325

Notes

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1

1. M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte: Die Grundlagen des Christustitels, FRLANT 151 (Gottingen, 1990), has made a penetrating examination of the origin of the Christ title. According to him the Christ designation does not come from the expectation of a rulerlike (royal) Messiah or a priestly Messiah, but rather, as attested by abundant material on the concept of anointment, he as the anointed One is the only one who is close to God, who without rival is bound to God, and who in his death offered himself for God and humankind. 2. Cf. E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: Die Geschichte von einem Lebenden, 3d ed. (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1975); H. Kessler, Sucht den Lebenden nie/lt bei den Toten: Die Auferstehung Jesu in biblischer, fundamentaltheologischer und systematischer Sicht (Dusseldorf, 1985), esp. 311-62: "Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte als Mitte und Paradigma des christlichen Glaubens." Kessler writes: "Whoever clings to the earthly, crucified, and exalted One finds wholeness and abundance of life" (356). The historical inquiry aims at the Jesus of the past and cannot make him present and alive. The crucified and exalted Lord is "also no lonely 'heavenly' Christ, but the living Christus praesens" (364). 3. A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-ForscJllmg, 6th ed. (Tubingen, 1951), 632 (ET, The Quest of the Historical Jesus [1910; repro New York, 1968). 4. W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den E,'angelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstiindnis des Markusevarlgeliums, 3d ed. (Gottingen, 1963). 5. R. Bultmann, GeschicJlte der sYl10ptiscJlen Tradition, 8th ed. (Gottingen, 1970),260-369 (ET, The History of the Sylloptic Traditioll, 2d ed. [Oxford, 1972)). 6. Idem, Jesus (Tubingen, 1951), 11 (ET, Jeslls and The Word [New York, 1934]). 7. Ibid., 14. 8. Ibid., 46. 9. E. Kasemann, "Das Problem des historischen Jesus," ZTK 51 (1954): 125-53. 10. Ibid., 139. 11. This problem greatly occupied research in the fifties and sixties. Cf.

326

NOTES

the anthology of H. Ristow and K. Matthiae, Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christlts (Berlin, 1960); also the literature given on pp. 2-5 of W. G. Ktimmel, Dreissig Jahre Jeslis-Forsc!lllllg (1950-1980) (Konigstein, Czech.Bonn, 1985). Since then, however, the discussion has moved forward. 12. 0. K. Kerteige, ed., Riickfrage llacil Jesus: Zur Methodik und Bedeutung der Frage nach dem historischt'1l Jeslls, QD 63 (1974) (fundamental contributions by F. Hahn, F. Lentzen-Deis, F. Mussner); Schillebeeckx, Jesus (n. 2), 70-88; R. Riesner, leslis als Lehrer: Eine UnterslIchlmg z/lm Ursprung der Evangelien-Uberlieferzmg, 2d ed. (Ttibingen, 1984), 87-95; J. Gnilka, Jesus von Nazaret: Botscllaft Il1ld Geschichte (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1990), 2~32. 13. Kummel, Jes/ls-Forschullg (n. 11). In the meantime, further research reports have appeared; d. TRu 53 (1988): 229--49; 54 (1989): 1-53; 55 (1990): 21--45;56(1991):27-53,391--420. 14. Ibid., 535. 15. Ibid., 540. 16. On the historical circumstances d. G. Bomkamm, Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart, 1956),24--47 (ET, Jesus of Nazareth [New York, 1975]); K. Schubert, "Die jtidischen Religionsparteien im Zeitalter Jesu," in idem, Der historische Jesus und der Christus unseres Glaubens (Vienna, 1962), 15-101; G. Baumbach, Jeslls l'on Nazareth im Licht der jiidischen Gruppenbildung (Berlin, 1971); J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 3d ed. (Gottingen, 1963) (ET, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [Philadelphia, 1975)); B. Reicke, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte: Die biblische Welt 500 P. bis 100 n. Chr. (Berlin, 1965); H. G. Kippenberg and G. A. Wewers, Textbuch zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen, 1979); Gnilka, Jesus von Nazaret (n. 12), 35-74. 17. M. Kahler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus, ed. E. Wolf (Munich, 1953),60-61 (abridged ET, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ [Philadelphia, 1988]). 18. l\;ormally the designation of Jesus as "Son of God" is discussed in the Christologies of the NT as a whole, without special consideration for Mark. A special view is developed by Ph. Vielhauer, "Erwagungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums," in E. Dinkier, ed., Zeit und Geschichte, Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann (Ttibingen, 1964), 155-69: apotheosis of the Son of God in baptism, presentation in the transfiguration, enthronement on the cross. This view is open to question. On the whole, d. the monograph of C. R. Kazmierski, Jesus the Son of God: A Study of the Markan Tradition and Its Redaction by the Evangelist, FzB 33 (Wtirzburg, 1979). 19. 0. G. Strecker, "Das Evangelium Jesu Christi," in idem, ed., Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie, FS H. Conzelmann, (Tiibingen, 1975), 503--48, here 535--37; G. Dautzenberg, "Die Zeit des Evangeliums. Mk 1,1-15 und die Konzeption des Markusevangeliums," BZ 21 (1977): 219-34; 22 (1978): 76-91; H. Frankemolle, Evangelium, Begriff und Gattung: Ein Forschungsbericht, SBB 15 (Stuttgart, 1988), 141--44. 20. Cf. Strecker, "Das Evangelium" (n. 19),517-23,524-31; P. Stuhlmacher, "Das paulinische Evangelium," in idem, ed., Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (Ttibingen, 1983), 157--82; H. Merklein, "Zum Verstandnis des paulinischen Be-

327

NOTES

griffs 'Evangelium'," in idem, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus (Tilbingen, 1987), 279-95; Frankemolle, Evangelium (n. 19), 130-36. 21. Cf. H. Frankem6lle, "Jesus als deuterojesajanischer Freudenbote? Zur Rezeption von Jes 52,7 und 61,1 im Neuen Testament, durch Jesus und in den Targumim," in H. Frankemolle and K. Kertelge, eds., Yom Urchristentum zu Jesus, FS]. Gnilka (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1989), 34-67. 22. Cf. Frankemolle, Evange/ium (n. 19), 204-14. 23. Ph.-L. Shuler, "The Genre(s) of the Gospels," in D. L. Dungen, ed., The Interrelations of the Gospels (Jerusalem Symposium) (Lou vain, 1990),459-83, has recently again attempted to demonstrate the relationship of the "Gospel" to Hellenistic biographies (encomia), but this is questionable; d. the response from P. Stuhlmacher, ibid., 484-94, with further bibliography. 24. Kahler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus (n. 17), 60. 25. Bultrnann, Jesus (n. 6), 15. 26. Cf. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge-New York, 1963); B. Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel (London, 1971); G. Schille, "Traditionsgut im vierten Evangelium," in Theol. Versuche 12 (1981): 77-89; B. Schwank, "Ortskenntnisse im vierten Evangelium?" in Erbe und Auftrag 47 (1981): 427-42. 27. Adv. haereses 3.11.8 (Harvey 2:46-50). 28. Ibid., 3.11.9 (Harvey 2:50-52) with attacks on Marcion, who shortened the Gospel, and on the Valentinians, who boast that they have more gospels and above all the "Gospel of Truth." NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

1. Since the work ofW. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis (see n. 4 above), this has been an extremely lively and varied discussion. Cf. the bibliographies in R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelillm, 3d ed. (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1984), 2:46-47,572-73. We will return to this topic at the end of the chapter. 2. Cf. G. Friedrich, TWNT 3:701-14; O. Merk, EWNT 2:711-20 (on Mark, pp.715-16). 3. It is true that the selection of the twelve by Jesus has often been questioned, but within the framework of the sending of Jesus to Israel it is also well grounded historically. This is true for Mark; d. J. Roloff, ApostolatVerkundigung-Kircile (Giitersloh, 1965), 138-52; C. Schmahl, Die Zwolfim Markusevangelillln, Trierer theologische Studien 30 (Trier, 1974); K. Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-lilm-Sein, das Verhiiltllis zwischell Jeslls WId den Zwolf Ilach Markus, AnBib 70 (Rome, 1975). 4. Cf. K. Kertelge, Die Wlinder /cSll im Markusemllgelium: Eille redactionsgescilichtliche Untersuclllmg, SANT 23 (Munich, 1970), 154-56; L. Schenke, Die Wundererziihlzmgen des MarkllsevallgeliltnlS, SBB (1974), 261-62; D.-A. Koch, Die Bedeutung der Wlllldererziihlzmgen fiir die Cilristologie des Markusevangeliums, BZNW 42 (Berlin-New York, 1975), 91-92: "Thus, according to Mark the mission of the church [d. Mark 13:1O!] is legitimated by Jesus himself,

328

NOTES

without setting it into motion himself." One must generally keep in mind this mission-theological aspect. 5. 0. G. Dalman, Die Wort!' It'sll, 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1930),272-80; E. Lohse, TWNT 6:962-66; R. Riesner, /