Luke: third lecture – the passion
“Father, into your hands . . .
Luke’s passion
• In general Luke (like Matthew) follows
Mark’s narrative and chronology in
passion narrative.
• But with additions that make it some sense
a different narrative, or a least a narrative
with a new focus.
• Some of these indicate Luke’s theme of
reconciliation, forgiveness.
• But others want to mitigate the
responsibility of Rome over Jesus’ death.
• And – above all -- different words of Jesus
at his death.
Some details added by Luke to the
passion narrative
• Jesus’ prayer for Peter, just before the prediction
of his betrayal: 22: 31-34.
• The disciples sleeping “because of grief” during
Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane: 22:
45.
• Jesus to Judas: “would you betray the son of
man with a kiss?”: 22:48.
• Jesus heals the man whose ear is cut off: 22:
51. “No more of this!”
• Jesus turns and looks at Peter after Peter’s
thrice-repeated denial.
More Lucan details: Pilate and
Jesus
• Specifically political charges laid against Jesus:
“perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to
Caesar, calling himself messiah, a king”: 23: 2.
• Pilate’s judgment of innocence: 23: 4.
• And more political charges: 23: 5.
• Pilate tries to avoid jurisdiction: Jesus sent to Herod:
23:6-12.
• Pilate’s formal judgment of Jesus’ innocence: 23: 13-16.
• Repeated at 23: 22. “no ground for the sentence of
death.”
• No mockery by the Roman soldiers (purple robe, crown
of thorns, reed for scepter, taunting).
• Pilate finally allows Jesus’ execution – but against his
judgment of innocence.
Luke’s report of Jesus’ words on
cross:
• Forgiveness of the Roman soldiers: 23: 34. “Father,
forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
• The good thief and the bad thief: 23: 39-43. “Truly, I tell
you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
• Above all: No despair on cross: “My God, my God, why
have you forsaken me” not spoken in Luke.
• Instead, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”
• Luke shocked by the words of despair?
• And the centurion swears to Jesus’ innocence -- not to
his being Son of God.
• Why innocence instead of Son of God?
Luke’s version of the resurrection
• Entering the tomb, the women find two
men in dazzling apparel.
• And unlike Mark’s narrative, the women do
tell the disciples.
• Apparently a larger number of women,
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the
mother of James “and the other women
with them.”
• Peter goes to the tomb and also finds it
empty.
Disciples on the way to Emmaus
• Only Luke tells this resurrection-appearance
story.
• One of the two is named: Cleopas.
• “Intertextuality” is one of the points of the story –
the interpretation of the events just narrated in
terms of Hebrew Scriptures.
• Recognition in the blessing and breaking of
bread.
• Eyes opened in response to this, and hearts
“burning” in response to interpretive work of
relating events to Scriptural texts.
• And they return to Jerusalem “that same hour.”
• And tell how “he had been made known to them
in the breaking of the bread.”
Carravaggio: the supper at
Emmaus
Luke’s emphasis on the physicality
of risen Jesus:
• 24: 39: “Touch me and see . . .” He’s flesh and blood.
• And he’s hungry! Grilled fish.
• Only Luke emphasizes the physical bodiliness of the
risen Jesus.
• And opens their minds to understand the scriptures – as
in Emmaus episode. 24:46
• And the necessity of staying in Jerusalem
• Return to Jerusalem – “beginning from Jerusalem”:
24:47,
• Disciples “continually in the temple blessing God.”
Two final questions on Luke
• Why does this gentile writer, as it is
generally assumed, insist on Jerusalem,
the Temple, the background in the Hebrew
Scriptures, and the essential Jewishness
of Jesus?
• What in the late first century prompts this
textual need for a deep historical sense of
the connectedness of Jesus to Israel?