A Blind Man at Jericho—Luke 18:35-43

(Image courtesy of http://www.bible-history.com/)

Today's text can be found here: Luke 18:35-43

Beggars were normally found at places where many people had to pass: at entrances to temples, at gateways to walled cities. Jericho was a walled city. There were two routes for travelers between Galilee and Jerusalem. One followed the spine of the central north-south mountain range and passed through Samaria. Jesus had taken this route before, and had had both positive and negative reception by the Samaritans. On this trip, however, he took the easterly route down the Jordan valley to Jericho and then up the slopes westward to Jerusalem. Today's passage and tomorrow's deal with incidents at Jericho.

The blind beggar's name, given to us by Mark, was Bar-Timaeus, which in Aramaic means "son of Timaeus". Although the RSV omits the name, considering it to be merely the Aramaic words, then translated by Mark as "son of Timaeus" in the following gloss, research into naming practices among Palestinian Jews in Jesus' day has shown that it was fairly common for a man to have his patronym ("son of X") as his usual name. Mark was therefore really giving us the name by which the beggar was called, and then (in Greek translation) identifying him as Timaeus ' son. In Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern societies today the common practice is the opposite: a father often is called by the name of his eldest son: Abu Tariq "father of Tariq".

Richard Bauckham, in his book Jesus and the Eye-witnesses (2006), has made a good case that named individuals in the gospel accounts occurring in only one recorded incident were most likely identified by name, because they had survived in the Christian community as living sources (eye-witnesses) of the event being described. It is therefore very probable that Bar-timaeus became a member of the earliest Christian community after the Resurrection, and that he was a primary source for this account.

Bar-timaeus was sitting by the roadside near the entrance to Jericho when he heard the hubbub of the crowd accompanying Jesus approach. Inquiring who this popular person was that was passing by, he was told it was Jesus of Nazareth. By this time, which was relatively late in his three-year public ministry, Jesus was well-known and had a largely popular and favorable reputation, foremost of which was his ability to heal any affliction.

Luke and Matthew agree on the wording of what Bar-timaeus called out to Jesus: "Jesus, son of David! Have mercy on me!" Mark only omits "son of David". Now, it is true that "son of David" might have royal, and messianic overtones, implying that Bar-timaeus believed Jesus was the promised Davidic King and Messiah. But on analogy with the rules governing the use of the "father of Tariq" type name in Middle Eastern society today, only those who are relatives or on intimate terms with the person (or who wish to be) use this form of address. It is possible that Bar-timaeus called Jesus bar David because he wanted Jesus to view him as an intimate friend or relative, and thus "have mercy" on him. Of course, this parallel may not go very far, since David was Jesus' remote ancestor, not his real parent. But in support of the theory, it is interesting that, after bystanders sought to silence Bar-timaeus, he cried out more insistently and desperately "Son of David! Have mercy on me!" omitting the name Jesus entirely. His appeal was based on what "Son of David" meant to him. By addressing Jesus this way, he hoped desperately to receive his mercy.

In any event, the actual gospel text does not say that Bar-timaeus directly requested healing, only "mercy". Since in the Greek of Jesus' day gifts to beggars were called "mercy" (ἐλεημοσύνη), his request could have been answered with a small gift of money. But in Jesus' vocabulary "mercy" meant much more. It meant healing—both of body and of soul.

Jesus stopped and commanded his disciples to bring Bar-timaeus to him. When the beggar arrived, Jesus asked him "What do you want me to do for you?" and open-ended offer of "mercy". Ask little, receive little. Ask much, receive much! Understanding this, Bar-timaeus asked much of Jesus: "Let me receive my sight." Jesus' answered, "Receive your sight. Your faith has made you well."

The miracle was instantaneous: immediately the man could see. And immediately also he began to "follow" Jesus, that is, he became a disciple. This fits the understanding mentioned above that Bar-timaeus is named in this story (only in Mark, however), because he had become a believer and continued in the early Church as a living source for this story.

In fact, although the blind were among the classes exempt according to Jewish law (M. Hag. i 1) from the obligation to travel to Jerusalem for the major festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles), now that this man's sight was restored he was obligated to go. And since Jesus and his entourage were at this point on their way to Jerusalem for Passover, it is likely that the previously blind beggar actually joined their party and thus quite literally "followed" (or "accompanied"; Greek ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ) Jesus!

There is a sense in which you and I, once we believe and become disciples of Jesus, become living sources for what the Resurrected, Living Jesus has done to make us spiritually whole. Others who see how our lives have changed for the better can also testify to this. But it is we ourselves who are the primary sources. Sometimes it is not only the Scripture that God uses to lead a seeking person to take the step of becoming a disciple. Sometimes God also uses the testimony of one of us, telling how we were, and how we came to believe, and how Jesus changed us. I'm sure Bar-timaeus never grew tired of telling his story. I know I never lose the deep sense of gratitude to Jesus for how he reached out to me as a confused freshman at Princeton University in 1956. I pray only that my life and yours will match well with the stories we can tell. Bar-timaeus never went blind again; he continued to see. The change was permanent and plain for all to see. The drastic changes in our lives should also be permanent and plain for all to see.

What's Missing?—Luke 18:18-23

(Image courtesy of http://www.biblehelp.org/)

Please read today's text here: Luke 18:18-23

In the paragraph headings of most Bibles and commentaries this incident is entitled "The Rich Young Ruler". If you are just reading it in Luke's gospel, you may wonder why this title. All three gospels indicate that he was rich. But Mark's gospel as well as Luke's gives no indication of his age. And the phrase "I have observed these rules since I was a youth" in v. 21 gives the impression that he was no longer a youth. Furthermore, Luke alone of the three gospels calls him a "ruler" (Greek arkhōn), a responsible religious and political position in Jewish society that was normally achieved only in maturity.

Yet Matthew, who omits the above-quoted statement "since I was a youth", calls him a "young man" (Greek neaniskos, 19:20); and there is no good reason for him to have perverted the historical tradition here. We therefore have a situation in which a precocious young man had already achieved somewhat exalted and respected status as a "ruler". That he did so, not just because he was wealthy, but because of his religious devotion and hard work, is reflected both by his apparently honest answers to Jesus about keeping the commandments, and by the remarkable statement—only preserved in Mark—that after he had honestly testified to his keeping five of the Ten Commandments, Jesus looked at him and "loved him" (Mark 10:21). To my way of thinking, this was more than just the love that Jesus had for everyone.

The standard New Testament Greek lexicon (BDAG, p. 140) gives the following possibilities for an arkhōn in a Jewish setting:

a. of Jewish leaders … of the high priest Ac 23:5 (Ex 22:27). Of those in charge of a synagogue Mt 9:18, 23; cp. ἄ. τῆς συναγωγῆς Lk 8:41; Ac 14:2 D. Of members of the Sanhedrin Lk 18:18; 23:13, 35; 24:20; ἄ. τ. Ἰουδαίων (cp. Epict. 3, 7, 30 κριτὴς τῶν Ἑλλήνων) J 3:1; cp. 7:26, 48; 12:42; Ac 3:17; 4:5, 8 (ἄρχοντες καὶ πρεσβύτεροι as 1 Macc 1:26); 13:27; 14:5. τὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τ. Φαρισαίων a member of the Sanhedrin who was a Pharisee Lk 14:1. Of a judge 12:58.

That's a pretty impressive array of possible offices that this youngish man may have held! The young man's zeal for God led him to approach Jesus, whose good reputation he knew, in order to find what he had no assurance up til now that he knew how to achieve: "Good teacher, what can I do to inherit eternal life?" Matthew omits the word "good" and records a slightly different response of Jesus to the implications of that word. But both Mark and Luke retain it in the address. What did the young man mean by "good teacher"? First of all, it was obviously a compliment and an innocent remark. Jesus was well-known as a teacher. And all but his harshest critics viewed him as both "good" in the sense of kind and merciful, and in the sense of pious or God-fearing. By addressing Jesus as "good teacher" this man—even if he was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish council), as we saw above is a possible implication of his title arkhōn—was associating himself with those who admired and supported Jesus.

The young man wanted to know how to "inherit eternal life". The word "inherit" in a First Century Jewish mouth had nothing to do with inheriting wealth by virtue of lineage. This man had all the wealth he could want, and he had impeccable Jewish lineage. Instead, the word "inherit" in this context meant to gain entrance into God's eternal Kingdom. This was what Jesus' public ministry had been announcing. He had been calling the nation to repentance and proclaiming that God's Kingdom was available to be entered. At an earlier point in Jesus' public minhistry he had told another Jewish nobleman, a member of the Sanhedrin named Nicodemus: “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5). Being "born again" or "born of the Spirit" meant a new beginning to life: a drastic turn-about, changing from a self-guided and self-motivated life concentrating on personal fulfillment and enjoyment to a God-guided and God-motivated life of service to others and putting God's Word above all other forms of wisdom and guidance. Such a turn-about is not accomplished by human will power, but by inviting Jesus into one's heart and life—to use the Gospel of John's term, by "receiving" Jesus. A person so transformed by God, would surely look to others as if he had started his life over as a newborn baby. And when that transformation happens, Jesus said, then and only then does a person become a "child of God" in much more than just the sense of being a part of the human family ultimately created by God. And as a child of God, as St. Paul once pointed out (Romans 8:17), he or she becomes an heir of God. In that sense the term "inherit" eternal life approximates its literal meaning.

Jesus sees two aspects of the question that need his comment. First, in the strict sense of the word no-one is "good" but God. We are all sinners. Was Jesus therefore claiming that he was not God? In view of his other plain claims in the gospels, this is unlikely. Perhaps he was hinting to the questioner that by his own word "good" he was admitting that the teacher he was addressing was much more than he at first thought.

Another possibility, which need not eliminate the first as well, is that Jesus was again pointing back to the Old Testament revelation as the authoritative words of the One "Good Teacher" who had revealed them to Moses and the Prophets. In other words, he might have been saying what Abraham said to the rich man in Hades about his brothers needing a new warning: "They already have Moses and the Prophets. Let them receive warning and instruction from them". This second possible motivation for Jesus' words "there is only One who is 'good'", is supported by what he adds: "You already know the commandments" (v. 20). Jesus wants to know how this man reads Moses and the Prophets. Does he see how far short he has fallen of what they require? Does he see why he needs God's forgiveness? Does he see why there must be a Suffering, Dying and Rising Messiah?

Jesus quoted only five of the ten commandments. And some interpreters think the omission of "You shall not covet" was why this wealthy and proud man could claim to have obeyed them all since he was a boy. But however that may be, Jesus referred him to this standard of life, and the man claimed he had mastered these and needed something more. His very presence here indicated that his previous life of keeping the ten commandments, as he saw them, left him wondering (according to Matthew's version): "What am I still missing?" This sense of something missing together with his apparent honesty and sincerity was what elicited Jesus' looking upon him and loving him. Would he be able to accept what Jesus was about to tell him was still missing? Our Lord was able to read people's minds, so perhaps he already knew. But he was still "fishing for people" and would not refuse to make the offer. Here was the "kicker" again:

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Like all achiever types today, this man was addicted to what he had achieved. He could not give it up. It had taken him too long and too much effort to gain what he had—of wealth and the position in society it granted to him, and even the religious status it conveyed. He could simply not give it up in order to become a poor itinerant follower of Jesus. So with downcast and disappointed face, he slowly turned away and went home. What a sad scene that was. Jesus loved that man, and all the zeal and fervor he had shown in order to make what he had made out of his life. But he was unwilling to simply give it all up in order to start all over with Jesus.

Does Jesus require this of every disciple? In the literal sense, no. Just read the gospel accounts of the calling of other disciples. A few had to leave their businesses, like Peter and Andrew who left their father and servants in the fishing boats. But many others were not asked to do this.

But in the non-literal sense Jesus requires this of us all. We may not be required to literally sell all that we have, but we must renounce the prior claim of all things other than obeying and following our Savior. When business or social obligations—and sometimes even family obligations—threaten to compete with the terms of our discipleship, we must always put Jesus first. And we must always be on the alert for things in our lives that we sense have become "indispensable". That's a good sign that they have become competitors to Jesus—"idols", if you will.

The Rich Man and Lazarus—Luke 16:19-31

(Image courtesy of http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/)

Please read today's text here: Luke 16:19-31 In yesterday's posting Luke recorded how Jesus affirmed the authority of the "Law and the Prophets", a standard way in his day of referring to what we call the Old Testament. He further stated that the Law and the Prophets led up to the ministry of John the Baptizer and the climax, when the Good News of the Kingdom of God would be proclaimed. In this way Jesus was saying what the Apostle Paul later said using a different imagery. Paul wrote that "For us (Jews) the law [i.e., the Old Testament] was (like) a tutor to lead us to the Messiah" (Galatians 3:24-25).

In today's passage which immediately follows, the link is the role of the law of Moses and the Prophets (v. 29-31). In this case too, the Law and the Prophets function not as legal and ethical authorities alone, but rather as witnesses pointing to the one way to avoid Hell (here called "Hades") and ensure an afterlife in Heaven (here called Abraham's lap/bosom). That one way is not actually mentioned until the end of the story proper ("believe" or "be convinced"), but it is implicit when viewed alongside the preceding passage about the Law and the Prophets leading to the Gospel of the Kingdom, meaning the message Jesus proclaimed. But now let us get to the story itself, which again is one of many that are unique to the Gospel of Luke.

The two main characters in the story are an unnamed rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus. The fact that the beggar is given a name prompted many scholars to assume that there was a real incident behind this story. But this leaves unexplained the anonymity of the rich man. Furthermore, it ignores what we now know: that Lazarus (a form of the name Eleazar) was one of the most common names borne by Palestinian Jewish men and boys in Jesus' day (see Tal Ilan's indispensable study of Jewish names in this period). To name a character in a story "Lazarus" was like calling a man in a story today "John Doe". This combines nicely with the anonymity of the rich man, to whom in fact later Christian tradition supplied the name "Dives", which also is not really a name, but the Latin adjective "rich". What we have here, then, is really Daddy Warbucks and John Doe!

Only Daddy Warbucks in this case is also Ebenezer Scrooge, as we see as the story unfolds. The rich man not only has lots of everything, but he squanders it all on self-indulgence instead of using his wealth to help the poor and needy. He feasted sumptuously and wore the most expensive clothes (v. 19). At his very gate, where he could not possibly have been unaware of him, lay a beggar who was not only poor but injured or diseased, for he had sores (v. 21). The hungry man longed to eat even the scraps from the rich man's table, just like the Prodigal Son in the earlier story was glad in his poverty to eat the husks of the pigs he herded. The condition of this man was also like that of the injured man by the wayside in the story of the Good Samaritan. People passed by and saw him, but no one stopped to help him but the Samaritan. In this story the only ones to show him any pity were the dogs who licked his sores (v. 21)!

Finally, the beggar died, and was carried by angels to paradise. The rich man also eventually died. But in his Afterlife he found himself in Hell (called "Hades" in Greek), from where he was he could apparently see paradise, but only far off. What made his suffering in Hell all the more painful was the sight of Lazarus in paradise. In his teachings Jesus sometimes described those who died rejecting God's forgiveness as weeping and gnashing their teeth in frustration at a lost opportunity.

Now the tables were turned! Lazarus is enjoying paradise, just as the rich man banqueted in his home in full sight of the poor hungry Lazarus at the gate. And now it is he who must call out as a beggar for pity. The words he used, "have mercy on me" (v. 24), are the words Jewish beggars used as they lay on street corners. The rich man was now the beggar, and Lazarus was now a rich man!

But why did the rich man call out to Abraham, and not rather to Lazarus? Perhaps because he saw Abraham as "in charge" or because he knew he had neglected Lazarus during his lifetime and figured that now Lazarus would not in turn have any pity on him. But interestingly enough, the rich man doesn't ask for an angel to bring him water to cool his horrible thirst, but rather for Lazarus! Perhaps what he thirsts for more than water is Lazarus' forgiveness. And he figures that Abraham could command Lazarus to be merciful and to forgive the rich man.

In v. 25-26 Abraham gives two reasons why he cannot comply with the rich man's request. First, the reversal of states that the two now have experienced reflects what they did or did not do in their lifetimes. God must be just and fair. And secondly, it is not permitted for residents in Paradise and Hell to visit the other side.

Seeing his own state now as hopeless, the rich man for the first time in his life now shows concern for others, although they are still only his own close relatives. He has five brothers in his father's household (v. 27-28) whose manner of life he knows to be the same as his own was. He has good reason, therefore, to fear for their ultimate fate. They need to be warned! Although he suspects that he himself would never be permitted to go to them, he hopes that Lazarus would. Again, he doesn't ask for an angel, but for Lazarus. Abraham's answer is very revealing:

"There is no need for such extraordinary measures! Your brothers have the Scriptures—the Law and the Prophets! That is sufficient warning, as well as sufficient guidance for how to obtain Paradise." (my paraphrase)

Again, we are reminded of Jesus' words in the previous passage: the Old Testament Scriptures were to prepare Israel for the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Messiah who would proclaim that gospel. If anyone carefully read and understood the Old Testament, they would inevitably be led to the person of Jesus the Messiah.

But the rich man persisted to object. He too had had the Law and the Prophets, Yet that had not been enough! So in desperation he objected: No. But if someone were to go to them from the dead, then they would repent" (v. 30). This leads to the "kicker". Abraham's words are pregnant with meaning for Luke's readers who by this time know that Jesus rose from the dead, and his disciples testified to this to many Jews in Jerusalem, who still would not believe. Abraham therefore said: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (i.e., the Old Testament prophesies of the coming of the Messiah, fulfilled in Jesus), they will not believe, even if one should rise from the dead" (v. 31).

And did you notice? The condition for avoiding Hell in the Afterlife has changed in this last word from Abraham. That condition is now believing. Not simply being merciful or following the ethics of the Bible, but believing—precisely what Jesus' critics who heard these words refused to do.

But before we leave this story, I wish to caution you. This was a story Jesus told. We are not intended to use it to inform ourselves about the geography of Hell or of Heaven. Many of the details were designed by Jesus to allow him to get across his point. We must not expect that Heaven for us, were we to die today, would be sitting with Abraham, looking across a chasm at people suffering in Hell. Instead, the picture of "Heaven" that the rest of the New Testament gives is simply being in the presence of Jesus. Being with him will be all we ever wanted. To know that is to know enough. We can fill in the details when we get there!