Month: <span>November 2019</span>

I suggest that in Luke 15-16, Jesus weaves teachings related to money with ideas of salvation history. Luke 15-16 is divided into seven labeled units in the ESV. These units are composed of twelve paragraph divisions. The NA28 Greek text breaks Luke 15-16 into eleven paragraph units. The flow of Luke 15 differs radically from that of Luke 16. Luke begins chapter 15 by establishing the setting for the parables of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7), lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and lost son (Luke 15:11-32) that follow. Jesus’ parables, Luke notes, are Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and scribes who are complaining that Jesus welcomes tax collectors and sinners (Luke 15:1-2).

On the surface, it is more difficult to identify cohesive elements in Luke 16. The chapter begins with Jesus’ Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1-13). The fact that Jesus would commend deception proves difficult enough for some interpreters. Couple this with the interpretive difficulty of trying to follow the flow of thought Luke wishes for his readers to trace between the parables in chapter 15 and the teachings to come in the remainder of Luke 16. Following the Parable of the Dishonest Manager, Luke notes that Jesus turns again to the Pharisees and chastises them for their love of money (Luke 16:14-15). Jesus’ statements regarding the Law and the Prophets being valid until John (Luke 16:16-17) and prohibition of divorce in Luke 16:18 seem like random sayings. The ESV labels Luke 16:14-17, “The Law and the Kingdom of God” and Luke 16:18, “Divorce and Remarriage.” The fact that the ESV gives a heading to one verse of Scripture underscores what seems a collection of haphazard Jesus-sayings in Luke 16:14-18. Luke 16 concludes with the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:9-31).

In the table below, references to money are italicized and terms of salvation history presented in a standard font. Together, these two themes serve as cohesive elements for understanding not only Luke 16 but how it is an extension of the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son in Luke 15. Luke 15-16 is a cohesive unit of Jesus’ teachings against the Pharisees–who love their wealth and status in salvation history more than the kingdom of God inaugurated in Jesus’ presence among them.

At ETS this year, I enjoyed a paper titled “The Lukan Major Textual Variants included in the THGNT.” The presenter argued that the longer readings in Luke 22:43-44 and 23:34 accepted in the THGNT are justified in light of internal evidence. Though the external evidence for these readings is not as strong as for their omission, the presenter argued that the high degree of coherence between these longer readings and macro themes in Luke justify their inclusion in the THGNT.

The early witnesses for Luke 22:43-44, ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν. καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο· καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (Then an angel from heaven appeared to him, strengthening him. Being in anguish, he prayed more fervently, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground, CSB) are Sinaiticus and Bezea. In Siniaticus, the phrase was originally present, then removed by the second corrector, only to be replaced later so that the latter second corrector reading includes the phrase. likewise has the phrase. The early witness that do not have Luke 22:43-44 include Papyri 75, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. The presenter argued that the quantity of internal evidence favors including these verses as original to Luke’s Gospel. The reference to angels and messianic suffering in Luke 22:43-44 cohere with the emphasis on angels in infancy narratives of Luke. The reference to sweat turning to blood underscores Jesus’ suffering as He approaches the cross.

The presenter then turned to Luke 23:34 which begins with the sentence, ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν (Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing,” CSB). Sinaiticus plays a major role in external evidence with this variant as well. In Sinaiticus, the phrase beginning Luke 23:34 was originally present, then removed by the second corrector only to later be restored by the same. Among the other early witnesses, this sentence is represented in Alexandrinus, with the alteration that ειπεν is replaced by ελεγεν πατερ. Among the early witnesses, Papyri 75 and Vaticanus do not include this introductory sentence in Luke 23:34. Despite the stronger external evidence in favor of omitting the sentence, the presenter argued that it should be included in light of the internal coherence with the theme of forgiveness of sins emphasized throughout Luke.

For the presenter, the fact that these longer readings cohere with macro themes in Luke justifies including them—despite external evidence to the contrary. If internal evidence were the only basis of textual evaluation, the presenter’s argument would win the day. But in a text as long as a New Testament Gospel, interpreters can nearly always find points of contact between macro themes of said Gospel and a longer reading. In Luke, if there were a longer reading about Jerusalem, for instance, it would enjoy a high degree of coherence since Jerusalem is a macro theme in Luke. But external evidence would yet need to be considered, and, I suggest, given priority.

Last night I attended the annual Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) dinner at ETS. This was my third year attending. I think they have been doing these dinners on the night before ETS begins for six years or so. I have only been three times. I already think it is one of the most important events at ETS.

At the core of Evangelicalism is God’s word, His revelation of Himself to humanity in sentences. How we understand these words, how we interpret them, defines us. The cultural pressure to redefine not only marriage but manhood and womanhood has prompted some Evangelicals to change their readings of scriptural texts.

Enter Tom Schreiner’s address at the CBMW dinner last night. He argued first, and forcefully, that all Evangelicals need to speak their convictions in a manner worthy of Christ. The harsh social media interactions of the last several months were obviously on Schreiner’s mind. Nearly half of his address concerned the manner in which we speak with other Evangelicals and the culture regarding our interpretation of biblical texts.

The key biblical text Schreiner discussed was 1 Tim 2:12, Paul’s prohibition for women to speak in the gathered church. Schreiner noted texts where women in both Old and New Testaments spoke, even to men, but maintained that Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 forbids women to functionally serve in ministries that are reserved for elders. Ministries like preaching and general church oversight are restricted to qualified males, as Paul details in 1 Timothy 3. Schreiner argued against the moderate position that would allow a woman to preach occasionally, under the guidance of the elders. Why, Schreiner asked, could a church not, under the authority of the elders, allow a woman to preach every week? Schreiner argued that a moderating position—while attractive on the surface—would be chastised by feminist interpreters as just one more attempt to keep women from fully taking up roles traditionally understood as limited to qualified males. To the feminist, Schreiner noted, moderate positions are more offensive than maintaining complementarian convictions.

As the schedule of ETS is about to begin, I don’t have time to flesh out more of Schreiner’s comments. I wanted to get these thoughts out even in brief because of the importance of CBMW in Evangelicalism and in our churches. As a professor and as a pastor, I see how fluid convictions can be surrounding issues of manhood, womanhood, and marriage. Any organization that helps believers investigate God’s word for answers and maintain convictions in those answers regardless of cultural pressure, is worth our support.