Revealing the Gospels (Part Three): The Gospel of Luke

It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke 1:3-4

The Gospel of Luke is actually part of a longer book, referred to by scholars as Luke/Acts. This is because both books are written by the same author in a continuous manner. The section called Luke is the period from birth to just after Jesus’s resurrection. Acts continues the story from Pentecost until Jesus ascends to heaven and is followed by the story of the disciples post ascension. Later it includes Paul’s story. In effect, it is a complete history from the birth of Christ to a period near the end of the first century.

Luke, by itself, is the longest of the four Gospels.

It is believed to have been written very late in the first century with revisions being made into the second century. The earliest date given to the writing of Luke is 60 AD, but other estimates date it as late as 110 AD.

It is important to note that the author addresses the Gospel to Theophilus. In  ancient Greek Theophilus means “lover of God.” While Theophilus might have been a real person, it is just as likely a translation referring to early Christian converts. This interpretation becomes even more likely when you take into account verse 4, which says: “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” However, there is wide disagreement about who Theophilus was.

Luke, like Matthew, uses Mark and the document Quelle.

It also seems likely that the author had a copy of Matthew due to the similarities in some sections. Luke also contains language unique to only this Gospel. Luke is the third and final of the Synoptic Gospels. Together, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain similar material.

There is much debate as to Luke’s intended audience. Some scholars say the Gospel was originally intended for early followers to read during the celebration of the last supper—similar to the Jewish tradition of reading the story of Exodus during Passover. Other scholars, like my New Testament professor, declared it as the Gospel of the poor. This is in part because of the use of the word “poor” in Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, which he called the Sermon on the Plain. Others believe it was intended for the educated Greco-Roman early converts.

Personally, I believe that because of its comprehensive history, these views depend on how those interpreting the Bible experience the Bible. In other words, one’s life experiences and connection with the Holy Spirit dictate how an individual sees and hears the words. I believe this is true of all other books of the Bible as well.

I like Luke for many reasons.

As a history buff, its historical narrative satisfies a lot of my questions about the foundational history of Christianity. The Gospel is filled with parables that are direct and frank. Of particular interest is the story of the Prodigal Son, which is a wonderful discourse on the essence of God as a God of redemption and forgiveness. The story portrays humankind’s struggle with God—to leave but then to return. Not as an inferior figure, but as a redeemed figure.

Another interesting aspect of this Gospel is the comparison of the rulers of the world to evil or Satan. These passages are somewhat hidden so as to prevent the ruling authorities at the time of its writing from banning the book. But its contrast is evident when you read the Gospel with this in mind. Conversely, Luke is strong in insisting that the Christian voice of authority is God through Jesus. Like the other Gospels, it also portrays the Pharisees as the main oppositional force to Jesus, painting them as villains in this wonderful story of salvation.

Read both Luke and Acts together

While lengthy, an interesting Bible study exercise is to read both Luke and Acts together with the knowledge that it was written as a complete history of Christ and the lives of early Christians. While reading, jot down in a journal after each chapter what was important to you. This will reveal some of what is most important to you in your relationship with Jesus. This will become even more apparent when you later read the journal in its entirety.

Just reading both Luke and Acts together will serve a primer on the history of Christianity—a solid base by which to get to know the Jesus story.

My primary focus after the first few years in theological school narrowed to the study of the Gospels. This is a common occurrence for most who become involved in advanced theological studies. Luke/Acts became a centering point in these studies for me. Because of its historical nature, it propelled me into deeper research of the Gospels. Then, transitioning from Acts to the letters of Paul increased my understanding of Paul, allowing me to gather a more complete theology.

Why not try this yourselves?

Blessings, until next time,
Bruce L. Hartman

Dr. Bruce L. Hartman is the author of Jesus & Co. and Your Faith Has Made You Well.

Photo by wisconsinpictures on Unsplash

We love to give credit to budding photographers

Green Shoots of Hope

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Jeremiah 29:11

In the early part of the 20th century, many churches were built to house the growing population of Christian worshippers. At that time, because of the relative cost of building, churches were often large and statuesque buildings. They often served not only as a place of worship but also as a central place for the community. Many of these churches became artistic monuments and a great source of pride for local communities.

However, fast forward to today, thousands of churches are closing each year. This is a result of declining congregations and burdensome costs to maintain these older facilities. Some churches now spend the largest part of their budget maintaining these grand buildings, forcing them to cut back on community mission work and worship.

Attendance is Declining

At the same time, despite the growing population in the United States, worship attendance is declining, and population centers have shifted. In fact, 35 percent of churches today are experiencing declines in attendance. Much of this has affected the mainline denominations.

Non-denominational churches are also emerging and, in many cases, rent spaces at local schools or community centers, in effect lowering their operating costs and providing more services to the membership and local communities.

The effect of all these factors is the need to abandon these once-great pillars of our communities. Nostalgic memories are now not enough to keep them open.

Some churches are sold to create new housing, and others are just left abandoned. Millions of dollars’ worth of space is being sold or left vacant, while God’s work still needs to be done.

But there is a new trend starting to pop up like Easter flowers in the spring. New rays of hope for churches whose mighty edifices serve their communities. It is a trend to bring vibrancy back to these beacons of Christian light.

We recently moved to Asheville, North Carolina and came across one of these great churches from the past—the Bethesda United Methodist Church. Their membership had shrunk to a mere ten attendees each Sunday. Facing the inevitable decision to close, sell, or choose a new way to serve, they chose to continue serving, but in a new way.

Creating a Community Center

The congregation created a community center called Haw Creek Commons. Inside their building, they opened up meeting spaces for local businesses. They turned their kitchen facilities into a place for local chefs and bakers who needed space. They opened a retreat center that can sleep nine and started an Alcoholics Anonymous group and retrofitted space for local textile and woodworking artists, creating studios in an area where space is at a premium.

The congregation didn’t stop there. They changed their outside spaces as well. They constructed a community garden and food forest. The Haw Creek Bee Club needed space and were given a place for beehives. Next door was a school that had limited playground space. Once again, they responded to a community need and built a playground.

Instead of giving up, they changed.

They changed how they served their community. They didn’t stay riveted in the ways of the past. Ten people responded to save their Father’s House.

Today, the church is bustling with activity that creates and inspires. From a desperate situation, God answered their prayers by providing wisdom on how to make the bleak look bright.

A side benefit is that the church now has fifty attendees a week attending service—a welcome byproduct of change.

I can only imagine the discussions of the ten people that had to make this change. The hand-wringing and tough debates. Like the Israelites crossing the Red Sea many years before, this group had to walk between two walls of water into a brighter future. They trusted in God that the way forward, while unusual and dangerous, was the only course to take.

Change is Needed

We have all been in these situations, where the present conditions are no longer sustainable. Change is needed to step into an unknown future while seeking God’s will. It takes bravery and faith.

What Bethesda United Methodist Church has done is to show a way forward for the many churches in decline. This is no longer a mysterious step forward but a path created by a group of Christian pioneers. This isn’t the only place these new green shoots of life are arising for declining churches. It is happening at White Rock United Methodist church in Dallas, which has invited preschools to pop up in their building and they too are creating community gardens. And there are organizations like the United Methodist Development Foundation which is seeking to help these religious entrepreneurs change the course of what church life can look like.

Hope in the unseen is the very essence of faith. It takes blind faith in the power of God and a willingness to move forward.

Blessings, until next time,
Bruce L. Hartman

Dr. Bruce L. Hartman is the author of Jesus & Co. and Your Faith Has Made You Well.

George Washington and Religious Freedom (Part Two):

After the end of the Revolutionary War on September 3, 1783, George Washington retired to Mount Vernon, his home in Virginia. When he arrived after the many years of serving as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, he found his home had deteriorated and needed his attention. He was also tired from the duties of directing a citizen army and was more than ready to retire.

He was sure this was where he wanted to stay.

Washington quickly discovered he would still be involved in the development of the country. Many came to Mount Vernon to stay and discuss the state of the new nation. Each day, visitors would arrive to seek advice and guidance and give political insight. Washington, as usual, stayed above the fray and held his thoughts close to the vest. He would only reveal his concerns about the state of this new nation to his closest friends.

After the end of the war, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which had been put in place by the Second Continental Congress. They weren’t working, and much rancor between the individual states developed. Finally, in 1787 it was decided a convention was needed to discuss drafting some changes.

First, they needed a leader.

Washington was the one person all could agree upon. His independent, non-opinionated, and above-the-fray demeanor was welcomed and sought after. At first, Washington wouldn’t agree to attend. Not wanting to be part of the rancor and selfish positioning of some, he refused. But two men, James Madison and General Henry Knox, knew that without Washington the efforts of this convention would not produce adequate results. Eventually, they convinced Washington, and he arrived in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787.

Quickly after arriving, Washington was elected as the president of the convention and took the seat at the head of the room. Washington led the convention not with opinion but to ensure adequate debate. He only expressed himself when things got overly argumentative. His very presence added dignity and trust for all who attended.

The Bill of Rights

By the middle of September, the Constitutional Convention had scrapped the Articles of Confederation and drafted a new document, now called the Constitution. But some still felt that the document wasn’t complete. After much handwringing, James Monroe agreed to draft a separate set of Bill of Rights to further amplify the protections for the citizenry. With Washington’s back-office lobbying, the new plan was agreed to, and Monroe would draft the supplemental document called the Bill of Rights.

Monroe drafted seventeen individual rights and submitted them for approval. Later, these were pared to ten and sent to the various states for ratification.

One in particular—number three in the first draft, which later became number one—was the statement about personal freedoms. This amendment now reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the inclusion of religious freedom. This was of paramount interest to many who attended.

Washington and others were well aware of the need for this inclusion. Most European countries were actually theocracies in that, while there were some personal freedoms, there was also a state religion. The group was also well aware of the many wars in Europe over religion, and the Founders saw this as a threat to the stability of the new country.

Limited Freedom

Further, even in the new United States, religious freedom was very limited. Even though the Puritans had come to escape religious persecution, they themselves denied freedom to others. Maryland, which had been settled by Catholics were being persecuted by the local protestants. The only real place for the Jewish population to live without recourse was New York City. In spite of the original attraction of religious freedom in relocating to the thirteen colonies, many were still persecuted.

The inclusion of this amendment set the stage for the great expansion of religious fervor in the following three decades, culminating in a period called the Second Great Awakening in the 1820s. During this time, many were baptized and were able to select their own form of beliefs. This gave rise to two new denominations, the Methodists and the Baptists. In fact, by 1840, 44 percent of the country was Methodist, growing from nearly zero at the time of the American Revolution. Later in the nineteenth century, Catholicism would also experience a similar revival.

First President

Later, Washington would become greatly affected by this amendment due to his role as the first president. As a side note, Washington took office in 1789 and is the only president ever elected unanimously by the Electoral College.

Washington took this religious freedom to heart and became very private about his own religious activities. He stopped taking communion, only attended church once a month, and often reassured the various groups of his neutral stance.

Washington famously wrote while president: “Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest, and least liable to exception.”

He wrote to the Jewish population, assuring them of their protection.

The Baptists, in particular, who had previously experienced persecution in Massachusetts and the south, wrote asking for assurances. Washington wrote back, stating, “No one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers to end spiritual tyranny.”

Washington knew that spiritual tyranny would threaten both society and the young union. For the balance of his life, he was a silent Christian for the sake of the great experiment of government for the people by the people.

Blessings, until next time,
Bruce L. Hartman

Dr. Bruce L. Hartman is the author of Jesus & Co. and Your Faith Has Made You Well.

Photo by Matt Briney on Unsplash

We love to give credit to budding photographers

Revealing the Gospels (Part one): The Gospel of Mark was First and Foundational 

The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark 1:1

One of my first classes in theological school was called “New Testament Study.” Our instructor, Dr. Stephen Moore, was a learned professor who believed strongly but also listened to his students patiently. Our first topic of study were the four Gospels.

I always had wondered why there were four Gospels; why couldn’t they all be combined so we didn’t have to flip through each one to get the whole story. I also wondered why there was so much repetition between them.

I was soon to discover why.

My first task was to research and write about Mark. Huh! Why Mark? It is the second Gospel. Well, I came to discover it was actually the first to be written. The exact date isn’t firm, but scholars put it at between 66 AD and 70 AD. In fact, all the Gospels were written after the books written by Paul, such as Romans, Galatians, etc..

Still curious about why there were four different Gospels, I found an ancient book written by Origen—one of the early church fathers—who lived in the late second and early third century. He viewed the Gospels as having a different meaning targeted at very distinct audiences. For instance, Mark was written for the gentiles—the general population outside of Judea. Coincidently, these were the same people Paul visited on his three missionary trips. The other three Gospels are directed toward distinct groups as well, which we will discuss in future writings.

The book of Mark

The book of Mark is part of what is called the Synoptic Gospels, which also includes Matthew and Luke. The reason for this is that they share common sources of information. The Gospel of John was written much later and is more spiritual than historical, and, as such, is not considered one of the Synoptic Gospels.

Mark was written first, and much of Mark is contained in some way in Matthew and Luke. The original text was written in Ancient Greek, which was the common language of the Roman Empire. This is what led many scholars to conclude it was written for the gentiles.

Another interesting aspect of Mark is that, while it was written first, it was likely finished last. The original writing of the Gospel ended at 16:8. 16:9-20 was almost certainly added by a scribe later and gives the account of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances.

The word Gospel means “the good news.”

Specifically, the good news about Jesus. As such, Mark follows the life of Jesus. Mark can be very macabre at times, as many Christians were suffering some form of persecution. imposed by the existing  Roman emperor. The Gospel of Mark also portrays a dim view of the disciples understanding of who Jesus was. Personally, I am more optimistic that the writer was actually portraying that the common path to the acceptance of Christ includes a lack of understanding. Our Faith increases over time and is especially  reinforced by significant events. In this case, the death and resurrection of Jesus would have been the significant events for the disciples.

The very first line of Mark—”The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”— also gives us other clues. The first clue lies in the words “Son of God.” The capitalization of the word “Son” indicates Jesus’s divinity. But it is also a direct connection to Jesus’s relationship in the Holy Trinity. The second clue we receive is the intended purpose of the author. By saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the author intends to state the history of the good news of Jesus’s life. Ironically, or perhaps not, the words “the beginning” are true in terms of the whole account of the Four Gospels—the book of Mark itself is “the beginning.”

An interesting note about Mark, is the twenty occurrences of miracles or healings at Jesus’s hands, further highlighting his divinity. This may also make the reader ask: “why did the Disciples take so long to truly believe the messages of Jesus.” Again, I wonder if this interplay isn’t more of an indication of the human condition which caused them to move slowly in coming to believe in the power of Jesus.

The human author of Mark is believed to be unidentified.

While tradition holds that it was John Mark—Peter and Barnabas’s associate in the Book of Acts—scholars doubt his connection. While I describe a human author, it implies that the human author was inspired by God. This in an important distinction. If we believe that the Bible was written by human authors without divine inspiration, then the Bible itself loses its importance. We could also believe that God himself wrote the words of the Bible, and some do. However, scholarly critique suggests divine inspiration. Whether divinely written or divinely inspired it doesn’t change that it is the word of God.

I finally understand why Dr. Moore had us start here first. Mark is a great way to enter the Gospels and lays a good foundation for understanding.

While I express my opinions and provide scholarly interpretations for the text, each person experiences the Bible differently, and perhaps Mark will affect you differently than it has me.  

Blessings, until next time,
Bruce L. Hartman

Dr. Bruce L. Hartman is the author of Jesus & Co. and Your Faith Has Made You Well.

Photo by Iñaki del Olmo on Unsplash

We love to give credit to budding photographers

God Revealed as the Holy Trinity

One of the most interesting and complicated facets of Christianity is the Holy Trinity. Simply put, the Trinity is the three essences of God: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I get a lot of questions about this concept and its meaning. From a theological standpoint, it is very complicated, but once understood, it is invaluable to our lives.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from the Latin “trinitas” for threefold) holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and cosubstantial persons. While not completely evident in the New Testament, there are a number of Trinitarian formulas or references. The early leaders of the church sorted this out in the early part of the fourth century.

God itself as a concept and God’s existence was never the issue; the question for early Christians to resolve and decipher was: how did Jesus and the Holy Spirit enter the realm of God?

First, was the divinity of Jesus.

Some thought of Jesus as a being that achieved divine nature through being “begotten by God”—in other words, created by God. This concept was formulated by Arius in the early fourth century. While controversial and later dismissed, this theory launched an important debate amongst the bishops and theologians of this period. It was ultimately resolved at the Nicean Council in 325 AD. Central to this debate was: when did Jesus exist? The answer to this question establishes a second figure of the Trinity.

Critical to this debate is the first line in the Gospel of John which says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In this line, the “Word” is Jesus. We know this because of the capitalization of “Word” and the intent of the Gospel of John, which was to persuade early first century people to believe in Jesus. With that understanding, if you substitute Jesus in the sentence, it will read: “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.” In other words, Jesus existed from the beginning and was both with and was one with God.

At the council of Nicea, the Arianism views were successfully dismissed by Athanasius. The early church leaders agreed with Athanasius and proceeded to include this concept into the approved Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The third and perhaps most difficult entity to fully grasp is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is within each of us. In First Corinthians 6:19 it says: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” When I first came across this verse, it was a remarkable revelation for me personally. It gave me hope and a greater sense of my personal sacredness.

The idea of the Holy Spirit was wrestled with for many years by the early church fathers. The major question was: Did the Holy Spirit exist from the beginning or was it added later by Jesus and God? Some denominations believe the former and others the latter.

The essence of the Godhead

God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as three entities in one has been debated for centuries. When I was in theological school, I would hear various opinions from my professors and fellow students. Each had opinions that were uniquely different, leading me to the conclusion that, while the debate is very important, it is also about how one feels and how they have journeyed with God. Some, like my fellow student Wendy, feel very attached to the Spirit. For Peter, another fellow student, it was about the authority of God. While both believed in the Trinity, they expressed their feelings differently based upon how they interact with God.

This debate will continue for many years to come, driven by the many and varied relationships that people have with God. To me, it is more important that we know that God (the Holy Trinity) meets us where we are. Like snowflakes, each of us has a personal and unique relationship with God (the Holy Trinity).

Our lives have shaped the lenses of how we view and interact with God. It is never static and ever-changing. We can see this when we read a verse in the Bible and feel a certain meaning. Revisiting this same verse later, it might mean something else entirely. Both meanings are sacred but reflect how our personal relationship with God has changed.

So, while I concur that trying to understand the Holy Trinity is a rich and educational experience, it is also important how we both approach and meet God. This makes our experiences more personal.

Reflecting on this relationship in our daily prayers and conversations with God is a healthy state of being and one from which we all grow in our faith.

Blessings, until next time,
Bruce L. Hartman

Dr. Bruce L. Hartman is the author of Jesus & Co. and Your Faith Has Made You Well.

Photo by David Siglin on Unsplash