|
Didaktikon
|
51#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Seguidor
(Date Posted:28/08/2009 02:50:33)
Hi, Ralph.
I'm not too sure what you're hinting at with your post, but I'd suggest that the New Testament very clearly presents the forgiveness of sins as being pivotal to salvation.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:28/08/2009 08:10:29)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Sh0es
|
53#
|
Registered:21/01/2009
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:28/08/2009 22:32:39)
Good afternoon Ian,
Thank you for your thought provoking questions, they have led me to consider Luke’s Gospel in a light that I hadn’t before. Apologies to the readers and yourself if some of my reflections are wrong or along a different path to what you intended.
Your encouragement to seek out Jesus message of the Kingdom in Luke’s Gospel has led me on a prayerful journey into first century Jerusalem. I have for a while been reflecting on the need to see Jesus message in the context of his time and society, but praying and considering those passages in Luke has led me to really sense the immediacy and urgency of Luke’s message.
The quoted story of the resurrection of the young girl and the mocking of Jesus is best framed to my understanding, against the Jewish concept of “God’s Salvation”. The Jews were never a people pre-occupied with the idea of going to heaven when they died, they instead saw “salvation” as God’s intervention into this world bringing his people to a place of safety NOW in this world. As such it was laughable to a Jewish audience to think of a girl who was dead and in a nation under Roman rule as being “saved” or at “peace”. How can a dead person dwell in physical safety? It’s also interesting that through the faith of those in the room that the girl would be saved, it again evokes the notion of “salvation”, the dwelling place of safety, being something that is experienced corporately through faith in Jesus.
The story of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus garment is also a story of corporate re-integration. Jesus hadn’t come to destroy the old law, but to fulfil it. God in the form Jesus the Christ was going to renew his covenant to Israel and make them a people who would finally fulfil God’s will in “saving” the Earth. This woman’s affliction had caused her to become an outcast from that covenant, Jesus healing of her body restored her place in that covenant. (His death would later bring her into the new covenant). As to why the forgiveness of sins was not expressly mentioned here? I could only suppose that Luke wanted to convey to his audience that Jesus Kingdom was something that was already here. Jesus would perform his greatest miracle of all “Salvation” to gather these people into that Kingdom. For the woman who was a Publicly shamed sinner this involved the forgiveness of sins, to the woman in this story it involved physical healing, however the focus is not upon the individual acts but upon the outcome which is “Corporate safety and peace in Jesus Christ”.
It is my basic understanding of Greek that there is a basic cross over in the meanings of the words “save” and “heal”. The intent behind the word “sōzō” is “to make whole”. The way that we interpret the method of “saving” throughout the gospel may vary in its’ method, but not in its’ outcome, restoration into God’s plan NOW.
Luke records it himself in chapter five “Is it easier to say, `Your sins are forgiven' or `Get up and walk'?”
In light of these stories, when I consider Luke’s two written works of his Gospel and the Book of Acts, I find it refreshing to see his larger picture. God’s plan was being brought to the world now. In the Gospel he focuses on and delights in the poor, wretched and sinners being restored into God’s plan much to the shock of the Pharisees. He then also rejoices in telling the story of the Apostles, not focusing so much on Peter’s ministry to the Jewish peoples, but that the Gentiles were also being gathered into Israel. The theme of Luke seems very much one of restoration and justice and the fulfilment of God’s old testament promises to Abraham.
These are just a few musings of mine and more than likely not the whole picture nor necessarily correct.
Shoes
|
|
Didaktikon
|
54#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Sh0es
(Date Posted:29/08/2009 06:33:47)
Good evening, Shoes.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts. And minor quibbles aside (I wonder whether your perspective on "salvation" is sufficiently full-orbed enough, for example), I largely agree with your conclusions. I particularly appreciated these comments: "The story of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus garment is also a story of corporate re-integration ... This woman’s affliction had caused her to become an outcast from that covenant, Jesus healing of her body restored her place in that covenant" and, "For the woman who was a Publicly shamed sinner this involved the forgiveness of sins, to the woman in this story it involved physical healing, however the focus is not upon the individual acts but upon the outcome which is 'Corporate safety and peace in Jesus Christ'."
It's only when someone is prepared to consider the complete range of contexts that the gospel accounts provide, that one can fully appreciate the breadth, depth and height of so wonderful a subject as "salvation". Too many people rob themselves blind, in settling for far less. Galien, for example.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 30/08/2009 02:24:45)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
55#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:30/08/2009 01:46:51)
Hi
I loved hearing your thoughts Shoes, and I apologise in advance to Ian as I do realise that this thread is about 'salvation' and our understanding of it.
I'd like to offer a comment or two - not about salvation but about something I noticed about the two women in Luke 7:37 & 8:43.
Both the woman with the issue of blood and the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus, had something in common – they both reached down to touch Jesus and in doing so, totally surrendered themselves to Him. The woman with the issue had done all she could to find a cure for 12 years and could do no more. The woman who anointed His feet with her expensive perfume, gave all she had and did it openly in front of those who she knew would surely mock her. Neither of the women cared about what others thought of them, but they openly surrendered themselves in faith to Jesus.
Isn’t this what He wants of us? Not to bring OUR agendas/opinions on OUR terms, but to give them up and come to His feet where we can be made whole (someone earlier said = ‘saved’ or ‘healed’). It is ONLY Jesus that can transform us, change us, heal us, forgive us. He said to the woman with the issue, “Daughter, your faith has made you well, Go in peace.” And to the other woman
"your faith has saved you; go in peace."
How crucial it is to have faith - and how important it is to say 'a little less of me Lord and a whole lot more of you'.
Urch
(Message edited by Sea Urchin On 30/08/2009 01:51:01)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
56#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Sea%20Urchin
(Date Posted:30/08/2009 02:12:03)
Hi, Urchles.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had intended this thread to be an exegetical and biblical study of a specific Lukan theme, rather than one that targeted more 'devotional' insights. Perhaps there would be merit in you opening another thread more along those lines, one that would enable interested people to 'toggle' between the two approaches as they prefer?
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Didaktikon
|
57#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 16:59:16)
As he approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me see again.” Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.” Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God. (Luke 18:35-43)
In our passage Jesus encounters a blind beggar. When the man learns that it is Jesus who is passing by, he exercises his faith by frantically calling out to him, seeking his attention. In the culture of the day, the beggar's actions would certainly be construed as a social "faux-pas": men of his circumstance simply did not bother respected Rabbis. Jesus hears him, and he calls for the man to be brought to him. Jesus then questions him, and having received a confession of the man's faith in him, Jesus "saves" him (the inflection of the Greek verb "save", yet again, is the perfect aspect and indicative mood. This indicates the fact of the man continuing in the "saved" state from the point of Jesus' utterance, forwards). I offer that our passage is pregnant with underlying assumptions, considerations, yet-to-be-teased-out meanings and theological implications. Given the theses that underpins our current study, would anyone like to share what they believe the passage teaches on the relationship between "faith" and "salvation"; the scope of "salvation" itself; and furthermore, its corporate/communal implications?
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 02/09/2009 17:04:38)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Metanoian
|
58#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 18:01:36)
Reply to Didaktikon
As he approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me see again.” Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.” Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God. (Luke 18:35-43)
In our passage Jesus encounters a blind beggar. When the man learns that it is Jesus who is passing by, he exercises his faith by frantically calling out to him, seeking his attention. In the culture of the day, the beggar's actions would certainly be construed as a social "faux-pas": men of his circumstance simply did not bother respected Rabbis. Jesus hears him, and he calls for the man to be brought to him. Jesus then questions him, and having received a confession of the man's faith in him, Jesus "saves" him (the inflection of the Greek verb "save", yet again, is the perfect aspect and indicative mood. This indicates the fact of the man continuing in the "saved" state from the point of Jesus' utterance, forwards). I offer that our passage is pregnant with underlying assumptions, considerations, yet-to-be-teased-out meanings and theological implications. Given the theses that underpins our current study, would anyone like to share what they believe the passage teaches on the relationship between "faith" and "salvation"; the scope of "salvation" itself; and furthermore, its corporate/communal implications?
Blessings,
Ian
Chaire Ianos, Just a quick point because I am up to my eyeballs doing a paper at the moment on 1 Cor 2:6 - 16 and Anthony Thiselton is really pinning me down.  But your right "sesoken" is present active (from whom the stem word "sozo" ) But page 990 VII TDNT points out that in this context sozo is pointing to healing.." In the healings of Jesus sozo never referes to a single member of the body but always to the whole man, and it is especially significant in view of the important phrase "thy faith hath saved thee." The choice of the word leaves room for the view that the healing power of Jesus and the saving power of faith go beyond physical life." The NIV translation IMO, is closer to context in translation: " Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you." Anyway I'll leave some room for others to do their own homework and I get back to my exegesis. (Incidentally there is a word here that describes you nicely that I am getting my head around: "Teleios" ) 
|
|
Didaktikon
|
59#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Metanoian
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 18:49:35)
Good morning, Eric.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think the current passage is instructive, in that it highlights the theological (never mind the) semantic overlap that exists between "physical preservation from harm", and "spiritual preservation from harm" encapsulated within the Greek verb, sōzō. However, I find myself disagreeing with your position with respect to the NIV, as I reckon translating our word as "healed" is not only overly interpretative, it also removes the "ambiguity" inherent in the Greek verb.
Blessings, dude.
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
spitchips
|
60#
|
Rank:Rookier
Score:1700
Posts:82
Registered:24/10/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 19:00:36)
Hi Ian
To me, the first thing that springs to mind - not very profound though. It is that these verses point out who can be saved. Not only those in the accepted social circles certainly. Faith in Jesus triggered Jesus response to him and saved him.
Also it occurred to me that curing blindness is so complete in itself. One either sees or one doesn't. And, once saved/healed, our life/sight is thus thereafter.
Chips
|
|
spitchips
|
61#
|
Rank:Rookier
Score:1700
Posts:82
Registered:24/10/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 19:09:29)
Ian,
One more tiny thing. Is it obvious that the man is healed to those about - maybe Jesus used the word saved instead to show that using faith leads to salvation.
Chips
|
|
Didaktikon
|
62#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To spitchips
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 19:14:19)
Good morning, Chips.
Actually, what you shared was quite profound: that "salvation" isn't dependent upon social, environmental, health or any other imposed circumstances. Furthermore, your views on the effectual nature of "salvation" were equally sharp. I think you might be surprised just how many religious people never grasp either point adequately enough.
Well done, and thanks for advancing the conversation.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
prezy
|
63#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 19:51:21)
A couple of things that stood out to me were the ministering nature of Jesus. "What do you want me to do for you?". Also is there a conection between the blind man addressing Jesus as "Son of David" being to do with the corporate nature of salvation? I can also see that even as far back as Abraham Faith is required to be justified and therefore in a position to be in the presence of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Didaktikon
|
64#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To prezy
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 20:10:40)
Hi, Rob.
First up, good to hear that Joey is doing well. I can only imagine how you and your partner must be feeling.
A couple of things that stood out to me were the ministering nature of Jesus. "What do you want me to do for you?"
Yes, the fact that Jesus was (a) prepared to help, and (b) prepared to ask what sort of help the person believed was appropriate, or necessary, is suggestive. I'm sure further reflection on this point would pay dividends.
Also is there a conection between the blind man addressing Jesus as "Son of David" being to do with the corporate nature of salvation?
There is indeed. The term, "son of David" identified the expected Messiah, the one who would redeem Israel and restore the nation to peace with God. The Jews, we must understand, had no concept whatsoever of individual redemption: their identity was as a people collectively, not as persons individually. Noting this, what "role" do you think the beggar might have played in Luke's conception of "salvation"?
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
spitchips
|
65#
|
Rank:Rookier
Score:1700
Posts:82
Registered:24/10/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 20:34:59)
Ian
I think the role that the beggar played was that he represented the gentiles in salvation.
Chips
|
|
Didaktikon
|
66#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To spitchips
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 20:47:14)
Hi, Chips.
The Gentiles do you think? When the chap was Jewish? Perhaps the following hint might be useful: try to consider the beggar's personal circumstances, and then think "object lesson".
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 02/09/2009 21:35:37)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Metanoian
|
67#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 21:35:31)
Reply to Didaktikon
Good morning, Eric.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think the current passage is instructive, in that it highlights the theological (never mind the) semantic overlap that exists between "physical preservation from harm", and "spiritual preservation from harm" encapsulated within the Greek verb, sōzō. However, I find myself disagreeing with your position with respect to the NIV, as I reckon translating our word as "healed" is not only overly interpretative, it also removes the "ambiguity" inherent in the Greek verb.
Blessings, dude.
Ian
 BDAG page 982
(Message edited by Metanoian On 02/09/2009 21:40:35)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
68#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Metanoian
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 21:48:31)
Hi, Eric.
Sure, but I already knew what the BDAG lexicon stated (and Moulton-Milligan, and Souter, and Liddel-Scott-Jones for that matter). Lexical works such as these exist to provide synchronic and diachronic "glosses" to the Greek vocabulary of the NT; consequently, they are necessarily interpretative when it comes to according specific meaning to specific words, by specific authors, in specific passages. It is for this reason that you'll frequently find different lexicographers applying different nuances to the same words, with different Bible translations following suit. Given that I'd previously affirmed that our word's broad semantic range included the concept of restoration to physical well-being, I think it likely that you've not quite grasped what I was getting at
Blessings, bro'.
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 02/09/2009 21:53:19)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
prezy
|
69#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 21:57:19)
Joey was born with a condition called agenisis of the corpus callosum, which in laymens terms is the nerve membrane between his brain hemispheres doesnt exist. He has intellectual and physical disabilities as well as epilepsy. Joey had his tonsils out as he was suffering recuring bouts of tonsilitis which triggered his epilepsy. One of the worries for us was that a GA has higher risks for a person with epilepsy as well as the poor little fellow not really knowing whats going on. One very cruel thing I remember was at GRC camp once a "sister" comented to me, "he was obviosly born before you were saved". The oposite was the case and we had been going to GRC for a few years when he was born. Back to our topic, would I be on the right track thinking Luke would perhaps see that we all must turn from our unsaved state to follow Jesus with Faith in order to be saved. Jesus being the second Adam and the path to being right with God? 
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Didaktikon
|
70#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To prezy
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 22:06:33)
Hi, Rob.
Joey's a cute kid, whilst the opinionated GRC-er was clearly socially inept and theologically under-informed.
Anyway, you're perfectly correct in assuming that Luke intended for all people to turn to Jesus in order to be "saved". However, such isn't necessarily (or expressly) his intent in our current passage. As I hinted to Chips, consider the specific circumstances that Luke relates, and the inferences that result when viewed from a corporate perspective.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Metanoian
|
71#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 22:28:47)
Reply to Didaktikon Hi, Eric.
Sure, but I already knew what the BDAG lexicon stated (and Moulton-Milligan, and Souter, and Liddel-Scott-Jones for that matter). Lexical works such as these exist to provide synchronic and diachronic "glosses" to the Greek vocabulary of the NT; consequently, they are necessarily interpretative when it comes to according specific meaning to specific words, by specific authors, in specific passages. It is for this reason that you'll frequently find different lexicographers applying different nuances to the same words, with different Bible translations following suit. Given that I'd previously affirmed that our word's broad semantic range included the concept of restoration to physical well-being, I think it likely that you've not quite grasped what I was getting at
Blessings, bro'.
Ian
To Prezy, tell the GRC to take a hike !!
blessings..
Metanoia
|
|
Didaktikon
|
72#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Metanoian
(Date Posted:02/09/2009 22:45:38)
Hi, Eric.
Context is indeed "king". The very fact that a goodly number of English translations (both ancient and modern) have understood "sozo" to mean "save" rather than "heal" in our current passage, is of itself, illustrative. The fact that you apparently understood Luke's emphasis in our passage to be on physical healing is also illustrative. The fact that I've been hinting of the need to consider the matter more broadly should be, to you, reeeally illustrative 
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
spitchips
|
73#
|
Rank:Rookier
Score:1700
Posts:82
Registered:24/10/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 00:40:42)
Rob
What a dear little bloke! Thanks for posting the picture. Hope you spoiled him with ice-cream after the toncilectomy.
Chips
|
|
Sh0es
|
74#
|
Registered:21/01/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 05:53:50)
Hello all,
Thanks again for leading us into exercising our minds and hearts Ian. Not sure again how these particular reflections tie into your overall theme Ian.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts everyone, it creates a very profound image when you view an object from all angles.
Ian mentioned already that the blind man who couldn’t see, saw Jesus as the Son of David, The Messiah. There is a wonderful symbolism in someone who the world would class as blind being one of the few to see who Jesus really is. I believe throughout the early part of the Gospels, the blind man is one of the few who are able to see Jesus as the fulfilment of the covenant with David so early in his ministry.
What is interesting to me, is how an Israelite man in the first century would view the Messiah. The Jews certainly weren’t looking for the divine Son of God to walk in their midst. The expectation was for a warrior king in the image of their cherished ancestor David who threw off the yoke of the Phillistines and led the Children of Israel into an age of influence and prosperity. Likewise they expected their new Messiah to bring a Kingdom to them in this world, throwing off Roman rule and bringing Israel back beneath the Torah. The dialogue between the blind man and Jesus is very reminiscent of that between an Old testament King and his subject. The man appeals for the Kings mercy and Jesus responds by asking him what his petition would be. The blind man knows that Jesus is able to heal him but his petition speaks of more; his cry is an acknowledgement of Jesus Kingship and would have been done in the light of all that he knew of King David and his desire to be part of this new Kingdom. The healing like in the other stories places the blind man within the safety of God’s kingdom. That’s why the response of Jesus to the blind man makes a lot of sense translated as “saved” not “healed”. This man had faith in Jesus ability to and expressed his faithfulness by following his king.
Just some thoughts.
Shoes
(Message edited by Sh0es On 03/09/2009 06:02:49)
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
75#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 06:08:51)
Luke 18:35-43
The blind beggar (the gospel of Mark identifies him as Bartimaeus) knew what he had to do to get what he wanted and persistently did it - much like the previous two stories of the women. All three of these people were social outcasts, were persistent in getting the attention of Jesus, knew WHO he was and sought him out. All three had faith to believe for the miracle and reached out or called out, knowing that they would be made whole/saved.
Bartimaeus called out "Jesus Son of David, have mercy on me" and the crowd told him to be quiet. It seems that he knew that he HAD to get Jesus to hear him regardless of what 'the crowd' said because He KNEW that Jesus was the answer - his healer, his saviour. He acknowledged WHO Jesus was - the Messiah, the Son of David.
The other thing that stood out to me was that Jesus asked him a question "what do you want me to do for you" - my first thought was 'surely Jesus knew what he wanted'! On reflection, I wonder if Jesus wanted to hear of the man's faith and wanted others to hear of his faith. Jesus said in v 42 'Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.' When his sight was restored he immediately followed Jesus, praising God and when others saw his joy, they also praised God.
I still feel that I'm missing something important though?
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
76#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 06:16:46)
Rob, what a gorgeous son you have, you must be very proud of him. Thank you for sharing Joey with us - glad his op went well!
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
77#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 06:24:16)
The blind man knows that Jesus is able to heal him but his petition speaks of more; his cry is an acknowledgement of Jesus Kingship and would have been done in the light of all that he knew of King David and his desire to be part of this new Kingdom. The healing like in the other stories places the blind man within the safety of God’s kingdom. That’s why the response of Jesus to the blind man makes a lot of sense translated as “saved” not “healed”. This man had faith in Jesus ability to and expressed his faithfulness by following his king.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
That's great Shoes, you seem to be able to see and express it all so well and have a real gift for 'kingdom' thinking!
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 07:47:16)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
79#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 15:03:41)
Ian
I think I see where you're leading us....
In each of these three examples of salvation, the people had FAITH in Jesus and were therefore saved by HIS grace. (Eph 2:8-10) Not by works lest any man should boast.
According to the revvers, these people couldn't have been saved because they had not 'done' the 'required' (by them) works of the 1, 2, 3 salvation message that they preach. Where, in these three examples do we see any of them being baptised, speaking in tongues etc? We don't! There is also the story of the thief on the cross who was saved and many other examples of people having faith in Jesus.
It is their faith in Him and His grace towards them that saves them. There is nothing else required.
I think you're leading us on to the second part of Luke, Acts.
But I still think I'm missing something vital - that there's more I'm not quite seeing?
Urch
(Message edited by Sea Urchin On 03/09/2009 15:09:24)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
spitchips
|
80#
|
Rank:Rookier
Score:1700
Posts:82
Registered:24/10/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 15:19:41)
Ian
The man was once able to see ('.....let me see again'). Something had happened to him to cause his blindness. He becomes saved and his sight is restored.
We are restored to God our Father when we are saved and brought (and bought/redeemed by Christ) back into the family of God.
The Jews were waiting for their Messiah but didn't recognise Him.
Chips
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
81#
|
Rank:Poster Venti III
Score:9010
Posts:431
Registered:15/02/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 15:31:01)
That's good Chips, I hadn't notice that he was once able to see! Yes, we are brought back or 'bought' back into the family of God.
We once were blind but now we see - as John Newton wrote.
Urch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
82#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 17:32:45)
Good morning, all.
Undertaking exegesis (i.e. the study of a biblical passage in depth) is invariably rewarding spiritually, as the practice enables us to begin to "see" (pun fully intended) far more than we otherwise would, should we read a biblical text at a more superficial level. Each person who has responded thus far has teased out certain aspects of our text, very important aspects, all of which help to inform the overall message that Luke intended for Theophilus to grasp. I wonder though, has anyone yet given consideration to the fact of this particular member of the Roman elite being the recipient of Luke's gospel account? And furthermore what this significant detail might actually imply? Something further to ponder, perhaps?
Anyway.
There's considerably more to our story than first meets the eye. But I'll content myself to this point, with interacting with specific aspects of what's been shared by others, recently. I'd simply ask that people continue to reflect on what I've suggested were key considerations that Luke had in mind when he penned his gospel account and Acts. Doing so will invariably lead to further discoveries, which will result in a mull full-orbed appreciation of the biblical concept of "salvation".
Ian mentioned already that the blind man who couldn’t see, saw Jesus as the Son of David, The Messiah. There is a wonderful symbolism in someone who the world would class as blind being one of the few to see who Jesus really is. I believe throughout the early part of the Gospels, the blind man is one of the few who are able to see Jesus as the fulfilment of the covenant with David so early in his ministry.
and
Bartimaeus called out "Jesus Son of David, have mercy on me" and the crowd told him to be quiet. It seems that he knew that he HAD to get Jesus to hear him regardless of what 'the crowd' said because He KNEW that Jesus was the answer - his healer, his saviour. He acknowledged WHO Jesus was - the Messiah, the Son of David.
The fact that the blind beggar could recognise Jesus as the anticipated Messiah is crucial. Our man was Jewish, and as such he was a covenant member of God's Israel. He understood his nation's current dilemma, but he also understood God's longstanding promise of restoration. At some point during his life the man had become physically blind (kudos to Chips for noting that he had once been "sighted"). Due to this physical deformity, he was reduced in status to that of beggar, and placed on the periphery of the worshipping community. The net effect of such a "humbling"; however, proved to be, overall, positive: his circumstances sharpened the man's resolve to be restored to the full life of the community, and it honed his spiritual insight in the process. The beggar, being Jewish, understood that the only person who could restore him to the Kingdom of Israel was Israel's King. And as Shoes rightly noted, this necessitated the delivering of a plea, a petition that had to be laid before the feet of the King for consideration. Consequently, our beggar put his faith into action. He sought out a place where he knew that Jesus would eventually pass, and when the Saviour did so, the beggar threw himself upon the mercy of the Messiah. He cried out in spite of his status. He cried out in spite of the opposition that he faced. He cried out because he knew that Jesus would listen, and that was all that he cared about. In this action the "blind beggar" represented the community itself. Israel, like him, had once been "sighted". However, Israel, like him, had subsequently been blinded, and had been reduced in state to that of "beggar" among the nations. Israel, like him, consequently needed to be restored. But the question that needs to be asked, especially in light of where our passage fits in Luke's narrative, is this: would Israel recognise, as the beggar had done, the King in their midst?
The other thing that stood out to me was that Jesus asked him a question "what do you want me to do for you" - my first thought was 'surely Jesus knew what he wanted'! On reflection, I wonder if Jesus wanted to hear of the man's faith and wanted others to hear of his faith. Jesus said in v 42 'Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.' When his sight was restored he immediately followed Jesus, praising God and when others saw his joy, they also praised God.
I think we can safely acknowledge that Jesus knew precisely what the man sought. However, public confession and/or petition invariably equals active faith; transformative faith; restorative faith, which very frequently leads to a reinforcing of, and growth in, corporate faith. One man who had been dispossessed by the worshipping community exercised a tangible and "grasping" faith in Jesus as Messiah, the eventual result being not only his restoration, but the transformation of the community itself! Given such, how should we interpret his subsequent actions, and those of his compatriots?
The healing like in the other stories places the blind man within the safety of God’s kingdom. That’s why the response of Jesus to the blind man makes a lot of sense translated as “saved” not “healed”.
It does, doesn't it? The story is not so much one of a physical healing as it is one of restoration into the safety that is the corporate Kingdom of God. Hence my general "objection" to the NIV's rendering of the Greek verb "saved", as "healed".
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 03/09/2009 19:02:09)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Fremde
|
83#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 21:19:54)
Prezy,
Thank you for sharing your Joey son with us so to speak. He is a blessing to you. I perceive by what you write that you love him dearly in the midst of his and your trials. I pray our Father puts me in mind to pray for you and Joey often.
Oh the stupidity, faithlessness, lack of love and ignorance of Revivalist/Pentecostal teaching and thinking. False prosperity and false health doctrines.
As I have alluded to in an earlier posting, my wife's sister was brutally murdered in Australia, when we were in England (don't start me on the stupidity of that move!). If you will excuse my sarcasm, as one could expect, the boot was put in, and the tragedy was attributed to our walks. I had crossed swords with the so-called head Pastor who had visited our small stagnating assembly, however my wife had done nothing wrong and I did not ask her to get involved and we had agreed she ought not. Why therefore would God punish her? That's a rhetorical question, how we thought then and how we think now are poles apart.
I was put out for my "rebellion" and because I had attended another Pente group's meetings nearby to where we lived. My wife Sharon, continued. Some months passed and one day at work Sharon phoned and said "I have something to tell you"..... my heart sank ..... I feared she was giving me the flick. She said "I phoned Pastor Neil and said to him that I believed my place was beside my husband, to which he then said "Goodbye" and hung up".
All but one couple shunned us, started denigrating us and saying that our lives would be cursed etc etc.
I had a really well paid job, in a wonderful company with the best bosses I had ever had. I told Sharon we were going home to Oz, to which she replied that I would regret leaving my job etc., and I replied that we could not live any longer in the neighbourhood with those loonies. We put our house on the market and the rumor came back that we would not prosper in the sale. In the five years we had been in England someone decided to electrify the rail line from London to Bedford and made an express stop at St Albans in Hertfordshire, reducing the journey from 45 minutes to 20. We got about two and a half times what we payed for the house.
I did not and will not and do not, exchange curses. You of course know that we are taught to bless them that curse us.
A couple with whom we were close friends, shunned us and conspired in my demise and the denigration of Sharon and I. Their child that had a cot death. Oh me oh my. We were blamed for just about all that went wrong long after we left. It was said that God didn't work in the new work in England because of me. Wow! Did they think I was able to stop God?!?
I must say that I am somewhat overwhelmed by the current discussion about faith and believing. I have moved way way away from the garbage Revivalism and Pentecostalism passes off for a belief system. Contextual analysis is not on the agenda. A guy I did Army Officer training with, recently commented that I (back then) was not a dab hand at navigation. Whilst wanting dearly to reach the destination of faith in Christ Jesus I am at present struggling navigating the current topic. That is not to say I am in disagreement, just struggling and find myself inept. A bit like the man who cried to Jesus "I believe, help thou my unbelief".
John
|
|
Didaktikon
|
84#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Fremde
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 21:57:09)
Hi, John.
I wouldn't be overly concerned with your current level of "confusion" concerning this topic, and the approach that I've taken to it, were I you, as such is perfectly understandable given your Revivalist past. Consideration of the implications that context plays in properly interpreting/determining the meaning of Scripture has never been a facet of Revivalist belief. Ergo, it's normal to experience a little "dislocation" when such issues are brought to the fore. Such will pass, in time.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
spitchips
|
85#
|
Rank:Rookier
Score:1700
Posts:82
Registered:24/10/2008
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 22:35:10)
John,
That's a heartwrenching story. I'm so sorry you were treated so badly. The wounds run deep when they come from those we thought were our friends and spiritual family. I have friends who, having left RF, are all but being blamed for the global economic crisis.
I always enjoy reading your posts as you have a knack of summarising what it is some of us are thinking/trying to say. You are perhaps not as inept as you might think. We are all bungling along together and I couldn't think of a better lot to learn with.
Chips
|
|
Galien
|
86#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 23:18:27)
John
I was put out for my "rebellion" and because I had attended another Pente group's meetings nearby to where we lived. My wife Sharon, continued. Some months passed and one day at work Sharon phoned and said "I have something to tell you"..... my heart sank ..... I feared she was giving me the flick. She said "I phoned Pastor Neil and said to him that I believed my place was beside my husband, to which he then said "Goodbye" and hung up".
I already want to smack these idiots around, and I don't even know them. Go you for having the courage to stand up for yourself in such difficult circumstances, and your wife for standing by you. You have already said what a marvellous person she is.
All but one couple shunned us, started denigrating us and saying that our lives would be cursed etc etc.
Bastards. What kind of people do that to brethren they are supposed to love.
A couple with whom we were close friends, shunned us and conspired in my demise and the denigration of Sharon and I. Their child that had a cot death. Oh me oh my. We were blamed for just about all that went wrong long after we left. It was said that God didn't work in the new work in England because of me. Wow! Did they think I was able to stop God?!?
My my you are the clever one aren't you being able to push god around like that.
I must say that I am somewhat overwhelmed by the current discussion about faith and believing. I have moved way way away from the garbage Revivalism and Pentecostalism passes off for a belief system. Contextual analysis is not on the agenda. A guy I did Army Officer training with, recently commented that I (back then) was not a dab hand at navigation. Whilst wanting dearly to reach the destination of faith in Christ Jesus I am at present struggling navigating the current topic. That is not to say I am in disagreement, just struggling and find myself inept. A bit like the man who cried to Jesus "I believe, help thou my unbelief".i
I hear you there with that last bit John. Sounds to me like you are right on track.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
drmont
|
87#
|
Registered:04/04/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:03/09/2009 23:58:30)
Hi all,
I have been reading the posts on salvation(not all as i find Lukes too long winded) and there is one thing that has always confused me.
In Revivalism we talked about the first resurrection( the one for the born again tongue talkers), not much was ever spoken about the second resurrection. Correct me if i'm wrong( i know you will)but if we are judged according to works in the second resurrection, wouldn't that mean that most decent people are saved anyway, they just miss out on the 'ruling and reigning' with JC part? If this is the case, how can we say that someone is or isn't saved because no one can know another mans heart.
|
|
Metanoian
|
88#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Fremde
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 00:03:45)
Reply to Fremde
I was put out for my "rebellion" and because I had attended another Pente group's meetings nearby to where we lived. My wife Sharon, continued. Some months passed and one day at work Sharon phoned and said "I have something to tell you"..... my heart sank ..... I feared she was giving me the flick. She said "I phoned Pastor Neil and said to him that I believed my place was beside my husband, to which he then said "Goodbye" and hung up".
All but one couple shunned us, started denigrating us and saying that our lives would be cursed etc etc.
John
Hi John, If you don't mind my asking.. What was/is your former revival fellowship pastor's name. PM me privately if you feel uncomfortable stating the name publicly upon the boards.. blessings Metanoian
|
|
Galien
|
89#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 00:30:10)
In Revivalism we talked about the first resurrection( the one for the born again tongue talkers), not much was ever spoken about the second resurrection. Correct me if i'm wrong( i know you will) but if we are judged according to works in the second resurrection, wouldn't that mean that most decent people are saved anyway, they just miss out on the 'ruling and reigning' with JC part?
If this is the case, how can we say that someone is or isn't saved because no one can know another mans heart.
You are not the first ex revival person I have heard say this. It is what a fair few of them believe that I know that are no longer in revival, or attached to any church. I guess Dr Mont it depends on what people believe "decent" to be, and what god thinks it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
90#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To drmont
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 01:06:38)
Hi, DM.
My advice would be for you to disregard everything that Revivalism taught you about the "resurrection", whether first, second, third or forty-fifth! In simple terms there will be a general resurrection: either to eternal life in the presence of God, or to eternal damnation away from the presence of God. Being a "tongues-speaker"; however, doesn't accord anyone a "foot-up" into the Kingdom ahead of anyone else. In fact, it doesn't account for very much at all, in the greater scheme of things.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 04/09/2009 01:08:42)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Sh0es
|
91#
|
Registered:21/01/2009
|
Reply To drmont
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 01:13:38)
Reply to drmont Hi all, I have been reading the posts on salvation(not all as i find Lukes too long winded) and there is one thing that has always confused me. In Revivalism we talked about the first resurrection( the one for the born again tongue talkers), not much was ever spoken about the second resurrection. Correct me if i'm wrong( i know you will)but if we are judged according to works in the second resurrection, wouldn't that mean that most decent people are saved anyway, they just miss out on the 'ruling and reigning' with JC part? If this is the case, how can we say that someone is or isn't saved because no one can know another mans heart. Hello drmot This is definitely a topic that Ian will be better at explaining to you. Many Pentecostal groups including Revivalists are Premillennialists. This doctrine states that at Jesus return there will be a resurrection of the "tongue talkers" as you colourfully put it, where the faithful in Christ will go onto to rule the natural Earth for 1,000 literal years. At the end of this time, there will be a second resurrection at which time all the living and dead who are not Spirit filled will be judged. Have you ever noticed that Revivalists take some parts of Revelation literally and other figuratively almost at will? This is a topic that may seem "fringe" as far as the doctrine of Salvation is concerned, however there is a large danger in Premillennialism. It states that Christ is not actively the King of this world now, it implies that one day his Kingdom is coming to the Earth, but until then, ignore this world and prepare for the next. This flies directly in the face of the passages we have been considering in Luke where the Kingdom was something that was coming in the NOW. Jesus Kingship was coming NOW. Jesus even said: Luke 9:27 "And I assure you that some of you standing here right now will not die before you see the Kingdom of God." The far more sensible approach to Revelation is the Orthodox approach which is called Amillennialism and fits beneath the large banner of "Orthodox Eschatology" This doctrine states the the Millennial rule of Jesus Christ is not a literal thousand years, but a figurative one, speaking of the time between his resurrection and his return. That is, that Jesus resides NOW as king over the Earth now and we believing in him have been born again, a Spiritual "First resurrection". At the end of days when Christ returns physically to the Earth, there will be the second PHYSICAL resurrection of all who have walked the Earth believers and unbelievers alike. Revelations 20:6 "Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years." There is only one Physical resurrection and following it is the "Second death" or the unbeliever, those who have a part with Jesus bringing his will to the Earth now, have no fear of the second death, we already have the "First Resurrection" We are not called to be a people living in fear of whether we are going to make the First Resurrection, we have that new life now. Our calling is to bring Jesus Christ's rule to this Earth as we labour for his Kingdom in the present, doing his will in continuing his calling of Evangelism and Justice. As Ian pointed out already in this thread the term "Salvation" is declarative. I hope that helps, Shoes *EDIT* Ian beat me to the post button.
(Message edited by Sh0es On 04/09/2009 01:14:52)
|
|
Sh0es
|
92#
|
Registered:21/01/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 01:21:52)
Reply to Didaktikon
Good morning, all.
Undertaking exegesis (i.e. the study of a biblical passage in depth) is invariably rewarding spiritually, as the practice enables us to begin to "see" (pun fully intended) far more than we otherwise would, should we read a biblical text at a more superficial level. Each person who has responded thus far has teased out certain aspects of our text, very important aspects, all of which help to inform the overall message that Luke intended for Theophilus to grasp. I wonder though, has anyone yet given consideration to the fact of this particular member of the Roman elite being the recipient of Luke's gospel account? And furthermore what this significant detail might actually imply? Something further to ponder, perhaps?
Hmmm Ian, I think a light bulb just went on.
|
|
drmont
|
93#
|
Registered:04/04/2009
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 03:12:34)
Hi Shoes,
Thank you for your reply, very well explained and thoroughly conceivable(how did you ever buy into revival world)? Often i have heard other Christians say that we have already risen with Christ ie the Kingdom is here and now and we are part of it, and Ians thoughts(i'm sure they're biblical) of one resurrection to eternal Glory or eternal torture seems to fit. Its funny how revivalists really push the first resurrection, and you are right about the live for tomorrow attitude.........who cares about now,JC will return soon and make everything better (because basically we are losers and cant cope).
Ian, obviously everything Revival teaches you doesn't dissipate overnight, but the tongue talker resurrection thing was said sarcastically. I actually cant see any benefit in the upbringing that was forced upon me, apart from the freaks i met along the way.
Thanks
DM
|
|
MothandRust
|
94#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 04:33:11)
Reply to drmont:
Hiya there... nice to see a new face on the forum.
"and Ian's thoughts... of one resurrection to eternal Glory or eternal torture seems to fit"
Torture? That'll fix 'em huh? I don't actually recall Ian using that word and I think to do so is a huge misconception, but that's for another thread. Take care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
|
|
Sh0es
|
95#
|
Registered:21/01/2009
|
Reply To drmont
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 07:25:19)
Reply to drmont Hi Shoes, Thank you for your reply, very well explained and thoroughly conceivable(how did you ever buy into revival world)? Often i have heard other Christians say that we have already risen with Christ ie the Kingdom is here and now and we are part of it, and Ians thoughts(i'm sure they're biblical) of one resurrection to eternal Glory or eternal torture seems to fit. Its funny how revivalists really push the first resurrection, and you are right about the live for tomorrow attitude.........who cares about now,JC will return soon and make everything better (because basically we are losers and cant cope). Ian, obviously everything Revival teaches you doesn't dissipate overnight, but the tongue talker resurrection thing was said sarcastically. I actually cant see any benefit in the upbringing that was forced upon me, apart from the freaks i met along the way. Thanks DM You're welcome DM, If it's any consolation, I understand completely your life. All I can encourage you to do is to open yourself to the ability of Jesus to heal your heart. Jesus is so much more than you were ever told and the plan of God more exciting than you could have ever dared to believe.
|
|
Sh0es
|
96#
|
Registered:21/01/2009
|
RE:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 08:56:40)
Hello Ian,
As I said previously a lightbulb went on for me (perhaps errantly) when I read your encouragement to consider the audience. This is still clearly not a full orbed view so correct me where I go wrong
Luke 1
1 Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honourable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
Acts 1
1 In my first book I told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit. 3 During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.
Theophilus was a believer prior to reading the letters from Luke! Therefore the message of the Gospel of Luke is not evangelical, at least that's not it's primary message. It must have a different focus, which I think Luke covered in his introduction to Acts.
And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.
Theophilus was a Roman, he already was a part of a Kingdom, that of a man who wasn't too keen on sharing power, one Caeser. Talk of another King who would have ruled the Earth would have been massively controversial and revolutionary in it's time, daring to challenge the power of Rome. The way the blind man cried out to his Saviour is very familiar to someone relying on Caesers favour.
Luke 20
20 Watching for their opportunity, the leaders sent spies pretending to be honest men. They tried to get Jesus to say something that could be reported to the Roman governor so he would arrest Jesus. 21 “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you speak and teach what is right and are not influenced by what others think. You teach the way of God truthfully. 22 Now tell us—is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 He saw through their trickery and said, 24 “Show me a Roman coin. Whose picture and title are stamped on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 “Well then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”
26 So they failed to trap him by what he said in front of the people. Instead, they were amazed by his answer, and they became silent.
This passage carries more weight when you consider the audience.
Luke does not back down from claiming Jesus is the one true Messiah and that his Kingdom on Earth has begun. He uses the stories of the gospels to paint a picture of Christianity not as a centralist movement of the priests and Pharisees, but a movement amongst the outcasts, the foreigners, the beggars and the sinners, reaching out to a world in need of safety.
Luke does not threaten the power of Rome or the validity of its rule. His teaching of Theophilus is to show him that the Kingdom of God abides very much in this world and that Jesus is indisputably the rightful King. It would seem that Luke being a gentile would wish his pupil to know that Jesus was not just a Jewish king but that his call had always intended to be spread to the world and was a relevent to a man by birth outside the covenant of Israel. Theophilus was to know Jesus by this record and it was a record of the poor and needy being brought into eternal peace and safety. It would also have been a message designed to provoke it's audience in a position of power and influence to be humbled and provoked into good works and justice of Jesus message.
Maybe just another very small piece of the puzzle.
Shoes
|
|
Didaktikon
|
97#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Sh0es
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 18:06:42)
Good morning, Shoes.
Let me begin by stating: not a bad start, overall.
In order to understand a written message, one needs to understand: (a) the author of the message, (b) the recipient of the message, (c) the provenance of the message, (d) the chronology of the message, (e) the idioms used in the message, and (f) the purpose of the message. Once someone has a reasonable grasp of all of these contextual features, then one stands a better than average chance of grasping the message itself. Hence, a little further reflection is needed to fill in the detail, but the broad brush-strokes on the canvas are more-or-less complete.
Reflect that Luke went to great pains to point out that Christianity wasn't a threat to the Pax Romana. He also went to great pains to differentiate between the Roman Kingdom (of this world), and God's Kingdom (in this world). The former was ordained by God to promote social peace and order; the latter would eventually fill the earth to bring everlasting peace. Again, the implications to Luke the Evangelist with respect to "safety", or "salvation" if you prefer, were inextricably and thoroughly corporate!
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 04/09/2009 21:00:09)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Episkopeo
|
98#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 22:58:21)
There isn't a lot of information on Theophilus, the recipient of Luke's gospel and it's sequel Acts. Although Luke wasn't an eyewitness he had researched his work well and drawn up an account of Jesus life based on interviews from those who "from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" and had himself developed "perfect understanding" KJV. From this wealth of information he presents a detailed historical account of Jesus life stressing Jesus compassion for the underdog, the misfits, the outcasts. Luke's gospel is quite a socially minded gospel. So he sends his work to Theophilus an influencial Roman official of high rank and social standing. I wonder why? In his gospel Luke states that it is so Theophilus "may have certainty concerning the things you been taught" so it seems that Theophilus had been instructed by and been one of Luke's converts. In his profession as a physician Luke would have had the benefit of a wide circle of contacts and perhaps he was physician to Theophilus at one time.
It appears that Luke was actively involved with Paul in his ministry (Paul's "beloved physician Col 4:14) and (fellow worker Piliemon 1:24)and Acts contains some "we" passages which involve Luke on a journey with Paul from Jerusalem to Rome where I'm sure Luke would have keenly observed the situation in Rome and Paul's difficulties there.
Luke writes to "most excellent Theophilus" to give assurance to him of the solid truths about Jesus (the Messiah) his ministry and in Acts the course of the gospel wihch began with Jesus and continued in the spread of the church from Jerusalem to Rome. I'm sure also Luke eager to emphasise that the gospel was not subversive, a threat to Rome and that any suspected sedition was unfounded sent his two books to Theophilus as an appropriate recipient. Theopilus might have had access to scribes so that Luke's books could be widely distributed. Judaism had earned the toleration of the Roman Empire why then not Christianity (the fulfilment) be given the same consideration.
Just a few of my thoughts as Theopilus has always tickled my fancy, so to speak.
Epi
|
|
Didaktikon
|
99#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Episkopeo
(Date Posted:04/09/2009 23:27:12)
Good afternoon, Epi.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. Both you and Shoes have indicated that you believe Theophilus to be a Christian convert. However, the text itself doesn't state that he was such, although it does indicate that Theophilus was interested in the Christian faith. I personally believe it more likely that our Roman friend was favorably disposed towards Christianity, and that perhaps Paul (through Luke) was hoping that he would serve as a patron for the Roman Christians. I suggest this given that neither the Gospel According to Luke, or his Acts of the Apostles, presents as being written expressly for a Christian audience; the indications seem that the intended audience comprised decidedly "well-heeled" Roman citizens, something that didn't define the composition of the Church at Rome in the mid 60's (acknowledging, of course, certain notable exceptions). What strikes me as determinative is that the Greek is too polished, the literary style too "high-brow", and the tone too deferential towards Roman authority in general. Furthermore, every New Testament letter that was clearly written to a named Christian related to a specific issue, circumstance or event that needed to be addressed. Luke-Acts, however, is considerably more general in content. I also find it telling that the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark and John weren't addressed (or dedicated) to individual Christians; Luke's is distinctive in that (a) it had a primary recipient--the man Theophilus--and, (b) it was a two-part/two-stage work. Too much seems to speak against the "Theophilus was a Christian" scenario to make the theory probable in my estimation.
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 05/09/2009 00:48:31)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Episkopeo
|
100#
|
Rank:Regular Rookier
Score:5700
Posts:267
Registered:30/08/2007
|
Re:Salvation according to Luke
(Date Posted:05/09/2009 02:50:22)
Good afternoon to you Ian,
Hmmmm the Romans liked their patrons. Theophilus must have acquired some information about Christianity probably in discussions with Luke and later Luke deciding to supply him with the more detailed and chronicled accounts. There must have been a close friendship, if not a conversion, for Luke to feel confident that Theophilus would favourably influence that class of Roman society that he represented and Luke wanted to attract. Paul didn't seem to have much help in the way of an advocate in his defense when he was brought before Nero.
God Bless
Epi
|
|
|
