Darrell Bock answers EVERY question on Luke's Gospel

Leading New Testament scholar Darrell Bock gives a rapid fire exploration of Luke and Acts. 

Bock, who is Senior Research Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, outlines what first drew him to Luke and answers questions including:

• Is Luke writing before or after Matthew and Mark?
• What kind of historian is Luke?
• How do you explain the difference between Luke’s genealogy and Matthew’s genealogy?
• How do we reconcile the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew? 
• What is Luke’s theology of atonement? 
• What is the kingdom of God in Luke?
• How does Luke use the Old Testament in ways that are different to the other Gospel writers?”
• Why is the Sermon on the Plain from Luke 6 different to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 to 7?”

Plus Luke’s distinctive emphasis on the world wide expansion of the gospel, the kingdom of God, the Holy Spirit, care for the poor and the creation of one new family from Jews and Gentiles. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:08

It is The Pastor's Heart and Dominic Steele on a fanboy moment for me today. We have Darryl Bok with us to answer every question on Luke. I think the Gospel of Luke is the gospel I've preached on most, and I am sure that the commentaries I've used most are this two-volume set by Daryl Bok. Daryl Bok is one of the world's leading scholars on Luke Acts and the historical Jesus. He's the senior research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He's in Australia lecturing

Welcome And Why Luke Matters

SPEAKER_00 0:39

in the American summer break, our winter season, and he's with us now. Daryl the pastor's heart. Let's start with your heart as a pastor and what drew you to Luke.

SPEAKER_01 0:52

Well, um, I drew, I was drawn to Luke because at some point in seminary I sat down and said, What books of the New Testament do I knew the least about? And Luke Acts came up. And as soon as I started to dive in, I realized Luke wrote more of the New Testament than anybody else. Most people think it's Paul. But by a nose, Luke has more of the New Testament than Paul does. And so I thought it's probably important to read someone who's written almost a third of the New Testament. Right.

SPEAKER_00 1:24

Well, 30 questions and a third of the New Testament. Um, let's start with who was Theophilus?

SPEAKER_01 1:30

I think Theophilus may have been a Godfearer. I think he has Gentile background, but has exposure to the Hebrew scripture because Luke writes in such a way that assumes a lot of knowledge of the of what we call the Old Testament. And so I think he is someone searching for um peace in a community that has undergone a revolutionary change as Jews and Gentiles have come together in one body. In the

Theophilus And God’s New People

SPEAKER_01 1:58

first century, that would have been a revolutionary combination because Jews and Gentiles did not get along. And so he's asking, Am I in the right place? Has God done the right thing? Have I made the right move? And uh Luke acts his design to uh reinforce his understanding that what is happening in the church with Jews and Gentiles coming together is something that's part of God's design. How does it change my reading of Luke, depending on my view of who Theophilus was? Well, you have some people who think it's just a symbolic name for a God, for someone who loves God and not a person at all. But I think it's significant because it's in the middle of this of really this revolutionary thing that God is doing in salvation, which is something we don't think about. We think about the individual getting saved. But at a corporate level, God is bringing together a strange people and making them family. And so that is a big corporate move that is being made that actually is the basis for being able to think about Shalom, not just with God, but with one another. And so the structure of what the church is is very much at stake in what Luke is talking about. Is Luke writing before or after the fall of Jerusalem? I think he's writing before the fall of Jerusalem. I think if he had written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Jesus having predicted that the fall was going to take place, some notation of that fulfillment would have been noted in the way in which Luke writes. Um although I'll say this: even if it's written afterwards, it's not that big a deal because the quality of Luke's work is related to the quality of the tradition that he's using and not the date when it's written. Is uh

Dating Luke And Source Questions

SPEAKER_01 3:37

is Luke writing before or after Matthew and Mark? Um that's a good question. I think he's after Mark. That I think that's almost for sure. Whether Matthew precedes him or or not is up for grabs, because Matthew and Luke probably didn't use one another, in my view. And so as a result, it's hard to know what the exact order is between Matthew and Luke. What kind of historian is he? Is he an ancient historian? He's a classic ancient historian who has good ancient historian credentials. Why does that matter? Well, it matters because the story that he's telling is pretty important. And so uh if he isn't credible, then that's a problem for the material that he's writing about. If he's credible, then you have to take seriously the events that he's describing. How do we explain the difference between Luke's genealogy and Matthew's genealogy? Oh, that's a great question. Uh,

Luke As Credible Ancient Historian

SPEAKER_01 4:31

most people try and make a distinction between one being Mary's genealogy and the other being Joseph's genealogy. That's the most popular explanation. I actually don't think it works. I think they're both dealing with uh descent from Joseph, believe it or not, even though there's a virgin birth. But that's because Jesus' legal status is going to be related to the father. And uh and he has basically been adopted by Joseph, so he's in that line. Uh, I think he's a son of David for sure. Um, and that could well come through Mary as well. Uh, but I think uh both genealogies, one deals with what we call the biological line, the other the legal line. And the reason I say that is there's a curse of Jechaniah in the Old Testament that prevents him, in one sense, from being part of the genealogy. He's in one of the genealogies and he's not in the other.

SPEAKER_00 5:25

Let's go to a couple of the questions that have been uh sent into us um on Facebook. And David Juniper has asked, uh, was Zacchaeus converted, or was he speaking of his regular practice when he repaid fourfold and gave to the poor?

SPEAKER_01 5:39

Well, I think he was in the midst of a conversion, would be the way to say it. In other words, he he had encountered Jesus, Jesus, Jesus' teaching had challenged him, he embraced the challenge. So I think he's probably a believer on the edge of being a believer when Jesus goes to stay

Listener Questions On Key Passages

SPEAKER_01 5:55

with him. And his willingness to uh pay back fourfold, which is the maximum penalty of the law for defrauding someone, shows the character of his heart and the impact of Jesus on his heart.

SPEAKER_00 6:05

What about um Luke's understanding? Well, your understanding of Luke 17, 3. Is repentance necessary to forgive someone? And um Jonathan, Jonathan Chaintria has uh added to the end of his question, good luck.

SPEAKER_01 6:25

I would say um I would say that we're supposed to be generous and quick to forgive. Uh there's a wonderful parable later on in uh in well, it's in Matthew, it's not in Luke, in which there's the story of the man who was forgiven this mammoth debt. I call it Bill Gates debt. I mean, it was millions and millions and millions of dollars after pleading with the owner. And then he goes out and someone has a little debt that he doesn't forgive. And God, at the end of the parable, Jesus says through the parable, the Father will treat you the way that this person was treated for not being forgiving. So I think our inclination is to move towards forgiveness and to be open towards forgiving. As to whether it's a requirement or not that someone else do it, um, it certainly helps. Um uh whether it's you know an absolute requirement or whether we're supposed to be inherently gracious to open the door to move towards repentance, which is what that would can do, uh, I think is up for grabs and can be uh reflected on.

SPEAKER_00 7:32

Now, Ian Powell has sent in this question, former senior pastor of St. Matthew's Waniasser in Canberra. Uh, what is Luke's excuse for using such difficult Greek vocabulary literate.

SPEAKER_01 7:47

I mean, he was he was a doctor, and so he's in the upper echelons of the society. There's probably only 10 to 15 percent of the people that were literate at the kind of level that Luke is operating at. So, in one sense, he's a cultural elite, and so that is going to reflect the character of his Greek. He and it it's often said that Luke and Hebrews are the most difficult Greek in the New Testament. That's certainly been my experience. Yeah. And no one knows who wrote Hebrews, so so so Luke gets the blame. Yeah. And you don't think it was Luke who wrote Hebrews?

SPEAKER_00 8:22

No, I don't think it was Luke who wrote Hebrews. Um how do we reconcile uh Luke's birth narrative with Matthew's birth narrative?

SPEAKER_01 8:31

Well, you got two perspectives. Uh, one is the birth narrative told very much through the eyes of Joseph, that's Matthew. And Luke's birth narrative is told very much through the eyes of Mary, that's Luke. Um Matthew is concerned with the way in which the gospel has impacted uh uh Jewish, the Jewish community. And so that's been a relationship of conflict. Uh, Luke is very concerned with how the outreach has struck Gentiles, and uh that's a very positive message because Gentiles have now been brought in into an opportunity to participate in blessing that they lacked previously. So that's a positive message. So I think their concerns trigger the differences between them. And those I tell my students on a regular basis difference does not equal contradiction. Sometimes difference is complementary, and that's what you have going on between Matthew and Luke.

SPEAKER_00 9:22

What is the basic structure of Luke's gospel? I'm thinking particularly the travel narrative, but just give us an overview of structure.

SPEAKER_01 9:28

It's actually structured uh geographically. Um, you start off at the temple, you end up with Jesus ministering in Galilee, he undertakes the journey to Jerusalem that you've alluded to in chapters 9 to 19. He ends up in Jerusalem, it continues in Acts. They start in Jerusalem, they end up uh being in Judea and Samaria, and then they go to the ends of the earth. So

The Geography That Shapes Luke Acts

SPEAKER_01 9:52

by the end of the book, uh, well, by at the beginning of Luke, you're in Jerusalem and all the activity related to the gospel is in Jerusalem. By the end of Acts, you've reached Rome, which is the capital of the Roman Empire and the capital of the larger Gentile world, to show that the emphasis in what God is doing is move from one location to the other to show the expansion of the gospel.

SPEAKER_00 10:12

If geographically was your word for the structure of Luke, would you use the same word for Matthew and Mark?

SPEAKER_01 10:19

Not quite in the same way. I mean, they all have journeys to Jerusalem in the middle of Jesus' ministry, but they aren't as uh, I think, consciously structured to make this point uh probably shown most vividly by Acts 27, this long sea journey. Yes, he said, what is this long sea journey doing in a program? All right. And what it's showing is God very much protected Paul as he took the gospel to Rome. And so, and so it's making this movement outward towards the Gentile world. So this is a huge concern that Luke has to show gospel is intended for all the world.

SPEAKER_00 10:58

Um now on atonement, uh, Victor Branson has sent in this message. He says, Why did Luke remove statements about the atonement given that they were in Mark? Um I mean, there's a premise of the question there.

SPEAKER_01 11:14

There is a premise of the question here. Luke is actually far more interested in who we're connected to as a part of the kingdom than how it takes place. He leaves the how to other writers, Mark included, uh, Paul in particular.

Atonement Focus And Kingdom Of God

SPEAKER_01 11:28

And so he's that the forgiveness of sins is offered is important, but it's who's doing the offering that's important to Luke. This is the one who sits at the right hand of God. This is the Son of God, this is the one through whom God is executing his plan with the gift of the Spirit and of life to the people who respond. And that's what he's interested in. I tell people that's actually interesting because all the gospel messages in Acts don't mention the atonement at all. The only two places where it's explicitly mentioned are at the Last Supper in Luke and in the speech to the Ephesian elders in Miletus. Those are the only two places where it's explicitly mentioned, which tells you that what Luke is interested in is the person appreciating who it is they have the relationship with and not so much how they got it.

SPEAKER_00 12:19

So if somebody says to you Luke doesn't have a theology of atonement, what would you say?

SPEAKER_01 12:24

He does have a theology of atonement because he has it in the Last Supper with the importance of what it is that Jesus is doing. He's offering his blood and body for the sake of those that he is purchasing and he's inaugurating the new covenant as a result. And he says basically the same thing, the elders of Miletus, that the Son of God had purchased uh the redemption that is found in the church.

SPEAKER_00 12:48

Um kingdom of God is really important for Luke. What is the kingdom of God?

SPEAKER_01 12:55

Well, it's the program of God, it's the rule of God. It is God reestablishing why it is he created us and the relationship that he has with us. It is the place where the Son of God manifests himself, where a new life is given, uh, where the opportunity to show the rule of God eventually that will be consummated and brought with the judgment, with the righteous being vindicated when Christ comes back. So it's an already not yet entity. It's something that's already in place with benefits being distributed to those who respond to Jesus now, with the capability of walking with God, being restored to the potential that we had when God made us in his image in Genesis 1 and 2, and then uh with the hope of the redemption of the righteous ultimately. I tell people the gospel doesn't start in Genesis 3, it starts in Genesis 1. And the idea that we're made in the image of God and we're made to collaborate with one another in such a way that the creation hums, that's how we were made, and the gospel is designed to restore that. And the kingdom of God is the place where that restoration happens.

SPEAKER_00 13:55

Let's go to Christian Morrison. He said, Um, after decades, we'll put it up, after decades studying Luke, what aspect of Jesus has surprised you or changed you personally the most?

SPEAKER_01 14:08

Oh, I think the corporate emphasis uh of what Luke is doing and talking about. I tell people we don't think enough corporately in the church. Everything's individualized in terms of how we think about our walk and faith. But I'm connected to other people through salvation, other people who are believers. I am supposed

Corporate Salvation And Reaching ‘Nones’

SPEAKER_01 14:26

to understand the corporate nature of sin that exists in the world, that uh is the fact that of what fallenness produces, it doesn't just produce individual sin, it produces corporate sin and a broken world, uh, which Jesus is trying to move us to reverse.

SPEAKER_00 14:43

Now I'll just go to part two of his question. He says, if that's too personal, who is Jesus the man? And I mean, I guess at that point we're pushing into some of your work in the historical Jesus. That's right.

SPEAKER_01 14:53

Well, I mean, Jesus the man, I mean, he's uh he's I tease people about this because when we go to share Christ with other people, I say, you're actually in the business of creating categories people don't have. Here's what I mean. If you talk to a religious nun, that's N-O-N-E-S, which is one-third of the population in Australia, it's also close to one-third of the population in the U.S. It's almost 50% of the population in New Zealand. It's uh so this is a uh a big category. In fact, in the next census, I fully expect the number of religious nuns to bypass the number of self-professed Christians in Australia. I mean, the numbers are going that direction. Yeah. So you go to Share Christ, um, and your argument is, well, he's the God man. He is the he is the creator God incarnate. And you ask yourself, how many human beings that have ever walked the earth could credibly even try and make the claim that they occupy that space? One. Then I asked Google, because Google's the closest thing to omniscience we have in the world today, how many human beings have walked on the face of the earth in the history of humanity? And they gave me a number, 119 billion. Now I have no idea where that number came from. They didn't give me footnotes to tell me how they added it up, but let's just say they're close. One person out of 119 billion, that's our Jesus. And most people don't have that category. So the question becomes: how do you engage with people about who Jesus is as the God man and share with people who don't have that category? And I tell people, you don't do it simply by making an intellectual case, you do it relationally. You do it in such a way that you live and interact in such a way that people go, you know what, I don't have that category, but the way you live and the way you see the world has gotten my attention. And if you actually listen to the testimony of people who've come to faith who did not grow up in a Christian home, inevitably somewhere it is, I met this person or I got connected to this group, and they were different, and it made me curious. And that was the start.

SPEAKER_00 16:57

Next question. This is from uh David Juniper. And he says, the presence of the poor is the clearest evidence that Israel had failed to uphold its covenant responsibilities. The absence of the poor in the Jerusalem congregation marked them out as true covenant partners. True? False.

SPEAKER_01 17:13

Um well, uh, I don't understand the second sentence. The absence of the poor in the Jerusalem congregation marked them out as true covenant partners. It would be the presence of the poor. You when James writes about the way people are treated when they come into the synagogue, which he is, which is his way of talking about the church, he's expecting the poor to be there alongside the rich. And he's assuming that people shouldn't be treated with favoritism between the poor and the rich in the community. So I I think the premise that there I think the premise that there weren't poor in Israel, there were, but more importantly, there weren't poor in the early Church of the Jerusalem Assembly, which I think is what that last sentence means, uh, is actually not correct.

SPEAKER_00 18:00

Aaron Ross Powell I thought he was when I read it, I thought he was getting at the idea that in Acts 2, where they're all sharing their material goods with each other, um there was a a kind of unevenness in in poverty.

SPEAKER_01 18:12

Uh well, no, actually what it means that the reason they're sharing with one another is because there are some people who have legitimate needs.

SPEAKER_00 18:19

That makes sense.

SPEAKER_01 18:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 18:21

So yeah.

SPEAKER_01 18:22

So that means there's some poor in their mix and they're taking care of them.

SPEAKER_00 18:25

Let's go to the crucifixion. And um, are there contradictions in the crucifixion narratives? And if so, how do you reconcile them?

SPEAKER_01 18:33

No, not that I'm aware of. I mean, not anything that I would call an outright contradiction. Bart Ehrman is famous for saying that the spirit of Jesus going into the crucifixion is very different in Mark versus Luke. In Mark, he cries out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He feels abandoned. In Luke, he says, Into your hands I commit my spirit, which is a

Cross Accounts And Last Supper Timing

SPEAKER_01 18:56

very trusting approach. He says, That can't be the same Jesus. And then I say, Bart, you needed to take the gospels and lay them next to one another, like you do in a synopsis. Because what you see is in Mark, there's a second cry that Jesus makes from the cross. And when you lay out the Lucan account, at that very point where Jesus cries out a second time is where this remark of trust is. So what you have is the same kind of move that you see out of Gethsemane versus facing the cross. God, if you can take this away from me, please do, but not my will, but your will be done. So he goes to the cross, he bears the sin. That's the my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But in the end, he trusts that as he is dying, that he is commending his spirit to God because he's trusting God to raise him from the dead. And so those are not contradictions. Again, they're complementary to one another. Difference does not equal contradiction. Sometimes difference is a complimentary relationship.

SPEAKER_00 19:54

So what night was the last supper celebrated?

SPEAKER_01 19:57

I think the last supper was celebrated um on uh on well, the crucifixion was on a Friday. So um, so the the Last Supper was celebrated on a Thursday night. Um Well, let me explain why that's important. Some people say because it's three days and three nights in some of the predictions, and they're thinking 72 hours, that you can't have you can't have a Friday crucifixion and and then they push it back a day. But what you don't understand is in the ancient world, any part of a day counted as a whole of the entity. So we're in the year 2000, right? But we're in the 21st century. How'd that happen? Because any part of this year is the beginning of the 21st century. It counts as the 21st century as a whole, or part of the 21st century as a whole, even though we're in the year 2000.

SPEAKER_00 20:52

Uh, what is the relationship between Luke and Acts?

SPEAKER_01 20:56

Pretty tight. Yeah, uh, I tease people that Luke wasn't the first one. Uh Luke beat Hollywood to the idea that there's such a thing as a sequel. And so Acts is the sequel that extends the story of Jesus' life and ministry in the gospels into the story of how that emerged into the early church. And it has a particular take that's important because part of what Luke is showing is Christianity

Luke Acts Sequel And Mixed Audience

SPEAKER_01 21:22

became a separate thing from Judaism, not so much by design, but by force. In other words, the Jewish people for whom this message was originally offered in mass did not accept it. And we became separate, not because we're disconnected to the promise of Judaism and its hope, but because uh Judaism didn't recognize that and forced us to become distinct. And so we became a distinct entity in that process. But when the apostles went into the synagogues to preach, their message was simply um if you're a good Jew, you should become a Christian because. Because Jesus is your Messiah. Is Luke Jewish or Gentile? I think Luke is Gentile. But again, he has a thing for Godfearers. Every portrayal of a God fear in Luke Acts is positive except for the first mention. And so I think what you're seeing is someone who came to Christianity through Judaism. I think Theophilus may be in the same position, again, for the same kind of reasons. And so Luke is explicitly identified as a Gentile in Colossians. So we can see Luke is written to a Gentile audience? It's written to a mixed audience. It's actually designed to say to Jews and Gentiles, God has intended for you all to get along. And you see it in the miracle of the centurion's son, because in Matthew, the centurion and Jesus have a direct conversation with one another. There are no intermediaries. But in Luke, the same miracle is portrayed. And there are two sets of Jewish emissaries who speak on behalf of the centurion. The centurion and Jesus never actually meet face to face. So what's going on there? Because sometimes we say, well, that's a contradiction. No, it isn't. It is the idea of the Sheleyok. The Sheleyak is the idea of the sent one. When I send someone in my name, it's as good as my speaking to them. I tell people, we illustrate, we actually have this, we don't think about it. I'll use an American illustration. I hope it works. But when the press secretary speaks on behalf of the president and it has a little sign over his or her head saying in the White House, we aren't interested in what they're saying because of who they are. We're interested in what they're saying because of who they represent. And so that's the way the Shaliak principle works as well.

SPEAKER_00 23:42

I've been coaching one of my student ministers on a uh a talk that they're going to deliver in our church in a few weeks' time on the transfiguration in Luke. And we noted that the word transfiguration is not there in Luke, where it is there in Matthew and Mark. And um, what's the significance of that and how might I preach the transfiguration differently to in Luke to Matthew and Mark?

SPEAKER_01 24:07

I I think I think I think you have to be careful because um

Transfiguration Exodus And Covenant Words

SPEAKER_01 24:12

just because I don't have a word doesn't mean I don't have a concept. I do have the concept of a glorified Jesus that they see, which is what the transfiguration is. So I don't think the absence of the word is such a big deal. What is interesting about the Lucan version is that we're told what they were talking about. And what they were talking about was Jesus's exodus. That's the Greek word. And that exodus is his departure. And so the idea is Jesus is not only going to die, but he is going to be raised. There's a huge discussion among interpreters about whether it's just about his death, and that's what the exodus is, or if it's about what comes after the death. I think in Luke, you don't think about the death of Jesus without the vindication of Jesus. The two go together. So I think the exodus is about his departure going back to heaven.

SPEAKER_00 25:05

So if you were preaching the transfiguration passage in Luke, how would your emphasis fall differently to if you're preaching it in Matthew or Mark?

SPEAKER_01 25:13

I think the main difference would be I would talk about that Exodus term and what it means in the fact that we are anticipating Jesus' glory, okay, because on the other end of the death is going to be the glorification of Jesus, which means we're setting up the resurrection ascension that is so central. It's actually the pivot point in Luke Acts.

SPEAKER_00 25:31

How does Luke's use of the Old Testament um differ to the way that other gospel writers use the Old Testament?

SPEAKER_01 25:39

That's a great question. Um so think about it for a second. Um, if you think about the infancy material in Matthew, you get passages cited and say this happened in order that it might be fulfilled. You get you get the fulfillment formula with it. And you've got multiple cases of that taking place. The way the Old Testament shows up in Luke, it shows up in the language of the characters. Luke doesn't stop and say, this is written in order to be fulfilled. Okay. They're talking in Old Testament language to one another. They are commentating on what is happening as it's happening by doing so. And so that's probably the major way in which Luke's handling of the Old Testament differs from, say, particularly, particularly Matthew. Mark, Mark has a little bit of use of the of the Old Testament, but it's not to the same degree that Matthew and Luke have.

SPEAKER_00 26:28

Why does Luke articulate the Lord's Supper in the way that he does um uh differently to Matthew?

SPEAKER_01 26:37

Great question. I actually talk about this because this shows the nature of the way scripture works, and it also is another illustration that difference doesn't equal contradiction. Because if you pay attention to the four appearances of the language of the Last Supper, Mark and Matthew go together because they talk about the blood of the covenant, okay? But Luke and First Corinthians go together because they talk about the new covenant, the blood of the new covenant, the major difference between the two. What's going on there? Well, there are three covenants of promise in in the Hebrew scripture in the Old Testament. There's the Abrahamic promise about being the seed of David, there's the Davidic promise about there being a Davidic line through which blessing is going to come. And then there is the new covenant, which is the promise of forgiveness of sins in the writing of the law and the heart. Ezekiel has a variation of it that says, I'm going to wash you clean, I'm going to put my spirit within you. So that's those are the three covenants of promise. Well, Jesus is already the seed of Abraham, and he's already the seed of David. So those don't need any kind of inauguration, but his death inaugurates and triggers the ability to forgive sins. And so it's the only covenant left. So what has happened is that what I actually think Jesus probably referred to covenant. He didn't say new covenant. I think that's more likely to explain the direction of the change. But it's implicit because the covenant that he is referring to in Matthew and Mark is the new covenant. So Luke makes explicit what's implicit in Matthew and Mark. And then I tell people what Jesus said we get in Matthew and Mark, and what Jesus meant is explained most clearly in Luke and in 1 Corinthians.

SPEAKER_00 28:17

The parables in Luke. There's a whole lot of unique parables.

SPEAKER_01 28:21

50% of Jesus' parables are unique to Luke.

SPEAKER_00 28:23

Yeah. What's going on there?

SPEAKER_01 28:25

Oh, just a lot of teaching about variety of things related to the spiritual life and accountability to God, stewardship, um, things related to money, things related to forgiveness. There's a Luke has the broadest sweep of Jesus' teaching of any of the gospel writers, and he also is um the most interested in ethical issues of any of

Parables Ethics Spirit And Wealth

SPEAKER_01 28:48

the gospel writers, how we're supposed to live. And so um, so when you study Luke Acts, you're getting the delivery of really the heart of Jesus.

SPEAKER_00 28:56

What is Luke's doctrine of salvation?

SPEAKER_01 29:01

Um, his doctrine of salvation is that salvation comes by grace uh through faith, and as a result, you are transformed into someone who loves God and loves others.

SPEAKER_00 29:14

What's his teaching on the Holy Spirit?

SPEAKER_01 29:17

Teach on the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit is the means by which you can know that the new era has come and that Messiah has come because it is the sign of the new era that the people of God receive the Spirit of God from the Messiah of God as a result of salvation because they receive new life when they get the Spirit of God.

SPEAKER_00 29:35

Does Luke I mean, as he pushes into wealth, what do we learn from him there?

SPEAKER_01 29:40

Well, uh basically you're supposed to hold the resources that God gives you with loose hands. Yeah, the resources that God gives you are designed to help you serve others. And so you're supposed to hold those resources with loose hands.

SPEAKER_00 29:53

And final question Sermon on the Plain and Sermon on the Mount, why are they different? Sermon on the Plain, Luke 6, Matthew 6.

SPEAKER_01 30:01

So basically what you have is 29 verses out of about 107 in Matthew. You have about another, you have 30% of the Sermon on the Mount who's that are scattered across Luke. You have about one-third of it that's in the Sermon on the Plain. What's missing are most of the legal elements that deal with things that are particularly of interest to Judaism. So for example, the antitheses of Matthew 5, you know, you've heard it said, but I say unto you, which happened six times in chapter five of Matthew. Only one of those shows up in Luke because the one that shows up is about the ethics of loving your enemy. Uh, all the others go to the side because Luke is not interested in those legal, in those legal takes on what has happened with the Old Testament.

SPEAKER_00 30:50

Let's just for a minute press into um uh the historical Jesus work that you're doing at the moment. What's exciting you about that field of study here?

SPEAKER_01 31:00

Well, it is that as we've gone the normal way of talking about this, although it's controversial, is to talk about the his three historical quests for Jesus in the time that this has been done since the end of the 18th century. Um each quest has actually resulted in a more conservative

The Historical Jesus Quests Today

SPEAKER_01 31:20

take on who Jesus is as a historical figure. Um the first quest was largely negative and produced such a variety of Jesuses that Albert Schweitzer ended what's called the first quest by saying if our method only is only able to produce this wide variety of Jesus and Jesus made in the image of the person who's doing the writing and what they want out of Jesus, then uh then we don't have a good method. Uh the second effort tried to resurrect the ethics of Jesus and argued that some of his core ethical teaching goes back to him, but it but he wasn't at the center. Uh who he was was at the center. Uh the second quest, Ernst Kezemon, is the is the chief name, which started in 1953 with a speech that was a reaction to his mentor, Rudolf Bultmann, another key New Testament person of the 20th century, who argued we could know next to nothing about Jesus. Um and Kezemon said, Oh, I think we can know more. Um but it it it pushed in an ethical direction and made Jesus sound more like a prophet than a Messiah. Uh the third quest began with the right premise, which is the only way to understand Jesus, understand him out of his Jewish background and how he is playing on Jewish themes as he presents himself and who he is. And the issue isn't just his ethics, the issue is he's in the middle of what it is that's going on. And that emphasis uh has shown itself in many, not all, but in many third quest efforts about Jesus. There's now discussion about whether there should be a fourth quest because the gospel of John, which has tended to be out of the historical Jesus discussion because he has so much unique material, 88% of John is unique to him. Um uh there are now people who say we need to be able to trust more of what John is telling us about Jesus at a historical basis. And so the fourth quest, if there is one, is saying we need to take John more seriously and make it a part of the discussion. And that's happening with some people.

SPEAKER_00 33:26

Thank you so much for coming in. You're very, very welcome. Darrell Bok has been my guest. He is uh senior research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and of course, uh the author of major commentaries on Luke, which I have brought in for him to sign. This has been The Pastors Heart. My name's Dominic Steele. Thanks for joining us. We'll look forward to your company next Tuesday afternoon.