new-testament – StevePattonOnline

The Lukan Prologue: The How and Why of Luke’s Gospel

The questions related to the how and why of the Synoptic Gospels have been debated for millennia. The how helps us understand the relationship between the Gospels. Does Luke depend upon Mark? What about material unique to Luke, known as L? What about Q? Is Luke an independent work? Does the Lukan Prologue (1:1-4) help us understand those relationships?

Then there is the why. Why did Luke think it necessary to write what we now call a Gospel? The question is important as “why” is the essence of hermeneutics. I have stressed to students for over two decades that the goal of biblical interpretation is authorial intent. Understanding Luke’s overall purpose helps the interpreter get to authorial intent in any given passage within the Gospel. Does the Lukan Prologue help us understand his purpose and thus interpret the Gospel’s various passages?

Luke’s Prologue is widely held as among the best Greek literature of the first century.[1] By introducing his work, he is employing a well-known literary convention.[2] There is debate whether the prologue introduces both Luke and Acts. It likely serves as an introduction of the Gospel only as Acts has its own brief prologue that continues the story (1:1-2).[3] Also, the idea of traditions handed down (v. 2) probably refers more to the Gospel tradition than the Acts narrative.

In Greek, the prologue is one sentence. While that is a bit unwieldly, the structure is simple. First, there is a dependent clause (vv. 1-2) informing Theophilus of Luke’s predecessors and the prior transmission of Jesus traditions. An independent clause follows in which Luke presents his method (v. 3), followed by a purpose statement (v. 4).

While the prologue’s structure is clear, almost every word found in the four verses is debated. What follows is a verse-by-verse treatment, using my own translation of the Greek text. A summary of what one learns from the Prologue is then provided.

Verse 1

Since many have tried to write a narrative (produce an account) of the things which have been fulfilled among us.

“Since many have tried to write a narrative (produce an account)” – The first issue is the word ‘many.’ One would love to know how many had attempted to produce a narrative about Jesus. How many ‘lives of Christ’ were there? Here is where scholars often attempt to insert their favorite solution to the Synoptic Problem.[4] The fact is Luke is clear there were others. He is unclear, however, on the number.

A second important word in verse 1 is translated ‘tried.’ Scholars debate what Luke thought of those other ‘lives.’ Luke uses the word in Acts 9:29 and 19:13 in the sense of unsuccessful attempts. The context here, however, leans toward simply reporting a fact that Theophilus would know – there were other ‘lives of Christ’ out there. A censure seems out of place here. Besides, Luke portrays witnesses as positive in Acts (1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 22:20; 26:16).

“Write (produce) a narrative” – Are the other accounts written or oral? My translation leans toward written narratives.[5] While written accounts seem most likely, one still cannot rule out completely oral traditions.

“Of the things which have been fulfilled among us” – What are ‘the things?’ OT prophecies? Luke may not have specific OT prophecies in mind here but stating that Jesus’ life fulfilled the OT and its promise of a Messiah.

“Have been fulfilled” – Grammar matters. The perfect tense is used here to show that not only did these events happen in the recent past, but they have an effect in the present (‘they have been and still are fulfilled’). One can look no further than Luke’s second volume to see how the events fulfilled affected the early church.

“Among us” – Many scholars limit ‘us’ to first generation believers. Bock broadens it to second and third generation Christians: “Past and present believers, united by these events, share in their significance. The historical ground that produced this impact is the topic of Luke’s two volumes.”[6] Luke did not witness these events, but the consequences of the events were still very much in effect as Luke writes (and today as well!).

In verse 1, Luke writes that many have compiled a written narrative about Jesus’ life. There is no way to know how many. Did they include the other Synoptics? Maybe, but that cannot be ascertained from Luke’s statement. Thus, one wonders if the Prologue can help us at all with Synoptic relationships.

Verse 2

Just as the those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down to us

“Handed down” – translates a verb that is a technical term for the passing down of tradition.

“To us” – this pronoun is obviously a group that was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. The pronoun would seem to include Luke.

“Eyewitnesses and servants of the word” – Grammatically, Luke is telling us about one group. There is just one definite article used in the phrase, coupling the two nouns. This is a reference to the apostolic witness. They, the Apostles, were eyewitnesses and servants (proclaimers) of the Word.[7]

“From the beginning” – To what does the phrase refer? In Acts 1:21-22, we read about the Apostles replacing Judas. What was the requirement for that office? Peter is clear that the replacement must have been with them, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us – beginning with the baptism of John until the Day He was taken up from us.” So, the phrase means from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, starting with the forerunner. For Luke that would include the birth of the forerunner as the first chapter makes clear.

In v. 2, Luke identifies those who have handed down the Jesus tradition. He calls them eyewitnesses and servants of the word. The Twelve stand as the primary stewards of that tradition.

V. 3

It seemed good to me also having carefully investigated from the beginning everything from the beginning to write for you an orderly account, excellent Theophilus

The main clause begins at verse 3. Luke tells Theophilus about the method he used in writing the Gospel.

Luke joins others who have written ‘lives of Jesus.’ First Luke says he investigated the other accounts and eyewitness testimony. BDAG defines the verb used by Luke as ‘follow a thing,’ ‘trace or investigate a thing.’ Robertson agrees, noting the perfect active participle means to follow a thing in mind, to trace carefully.[8] Luke is claiming fullness of knowledge before he began to write. Robertson states, “Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had mentally followed along by the side of these events.”[9]

“From the beginning” – Does this word mean ‘from the beginning’ or ‘a long time.’ Luke uses it in both ways in Acts 26:5. There it means ‘a long time.’ It is difficult here to determine Luke’s use here. If he means ‘a long time,’ he is discussing how long it took to research or is discussing its scope? Translations are mixed on the interpretation. The NASB, for example, translates the word as ‘from the beginning,’ while the ESV states Luke had followed all things, ‘for some time past.’ While it is difficult to decide, I lean toward Luke’s concern as scope rather than length of time. He appears to be more concerned about the content of his Gospel than how long it took him to research it.

“Carefully” – Luke investigated his sources carefully and thoroughly.[10]

“To write for you an orderly account” – As with most of the Prologue, this phrase is debated. The adverb is used five times in the NT, all by Luke. It means “in order, one after another, of sequence in time, space, or logic” (BDAG). The idea is Luke is writing in an orderly sequence.

The question is, what kind of orderly sequence? Luke begins with the Infancy Narrative and ends with the Passion Narrative. That suggests chronological. However, in the Central Section (9:51 to 19:27), it is obvious that he is more thematic.[11] Luke is telling Theophilus that his ‘life of Jesus’ is an orderly account. It is organized and tells the story of His life and ministry.

In v. 3, Luke writes that he investigated Jesus’ life carefully from start to finish and produced an organized account, telling the story of Jesus.

V. 4

In order that you may know the truth about the things (words) which were you taught.

Verse 4 is Luke’s purpose statement.

“Truth” – The word in Greek appears at the end of the sentence. The emphatic position points to its importance. Does the word speak of correctness, reliability, or assurance? Why not blend ideas. Luke is writing correct, reliable history that is meant to provide Theophilus assurance about the Jesus tradition he had been taught. He can be sure of the apostolic witness.

In v. 4, Luke states that his purpose is to bring Theophilus assurance that what he had heard and learned about Jesus’ life and ministry from the traditions handed down were true. From the Prologue, it is clear that Luke is interested in accuracy. After all, what good are the traditions Theophilus has been taught if they are untrue? How does Luke accomplish his purpose if he bears false witness? Plus, anything untrue in his life of Jesus could be easily pointed out by those still alive who witnessed the events.[12]

Does Luke help us understand Gospel relationships? Not really. He writes that there were other ‘lives of Christ’ out there, but he does not reveal how many, and although I have argued above the accounts were probably written, there could have still been some oral tradition circulating of which Luke was aware. We all would like to know if Luke used the other Gospels, if there was something like Q,[13] and what other specific sources he used for his unique material. Luke was not concerned enough about sources to identify them.

Luke was concerned about truth. By writing his own life of Christ, based upon careful research, Luke was taking the mantle as a steward of those traditions. He was concerned about relating them accurately and in an orderly fashion to both edify and encourage Theophilus and the readers who would come after him. Modern interpreters should keep Luke’s overall purpose in mind as they work through the Gospel. His ‘life of Christ’ is meant to strengthen and encourage the believer. The traditions handed down are true! Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise and of His salvation – a salvation that was then and is now available to all who call upon Him (Romans 10:13).

[1] Robert Stein, Luke, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 62.

[2] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/detail.action?docID=4860168.

[3] Most scholars see Luke’s work as one, not two books. For a discussion of how the prologues of Luke and Acts relate to each other, see Gary Habermas, Resurrection: Evidences (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024).

[4] See Stein’s article, “Luke 1:1-4 and Traditionsgeschichte,” JETS 26, no. 4 (1983): 422 as an example.

[5] BDAG suggests a written account.

[6] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 57.

[7] Luke’s designation could include the 70 and perhaps even Paul. Luke reports that The Twelve were chosen from among His disciples (Luke 6:12-13). When Paul met Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Lord tells him he would be both a minister and a witness (Acts 26:16). Regardless, I think Stein is correct when he writes that for Luke, the Twelve stand at the forefront of this group (“Traditionsgeschichte,” 425). He would have them in mind primarily in v. 2.

[8] A.T. Robertson, “The Gospel According to Luke,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board, 1930), 6.

[9] Robertson, “Luke,” 6. See above where the writer concludes Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’ life.

[10] According to Robertson, the word means going into minute detail (“Luke,” 6).

[11] Also called Luke’s Travel Narrative, the section shows Jesus heading toward Jerusalem and the cross. Morris writes that is inarguable that Luke has Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem in mind in this section as it is mentioned several times (9:51, 53; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28). A problem, however, arises when one tries to trace its course (Leon Morris, Luke, rev. ed, TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 194). He quotes Kümmel who sees the section as “The Lord, who goes to suffer according to God’s will, equips his disciples for the mission of preaching after his death” (195).

[12] The writer holds that Luke was written in the 60s while Paul was under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28). The point is that there were many eyewitnesses still alive when Luke wrote his Gospel who could point out any inaccuracies.

[13] Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

Mark’s Titles for Jesus (Part 1)

While there are undoubtedly several themes in Mark’s Gospel worth pursuing, its primary one is Christological in nature. That is seen in the very first verse – “The beginning of the gospel of (about)[1] Jesus Christ, the Son of God (ESV).”

Mark’s Gospel is good news about Jesus Christ. “Christ” is not used often as a title for Jesus. Its only use by a disciple is Peter’s confession in 8:29. Each time the title is used (8:21; 9:41; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32) it is obviously referring to Jesus as Messiah. It is synonymous with “Son of David” (10:47, 48; 12:35, 37). There is some debate whether this is a title or simply His name. This is the only time in the Gospel that it is paired with “Jesus.” Since every other use of “Christ” is a title, I lean toward that here as well, especially given that a prophecy from Isaiah comes directly afterward. The time of messianic fulfillment has come in the ministry of John the Baptist (1:2-3).

Jesus is identified by Mark as “the Son of God.” There is a text debate about the phrase. The original א Ɵ 28 l2211 pc sa^ms Or omit “the son of God,” while virtually all other witnesses have the words. The omission in the two uncial MSS is probably due to scribal error, considering the sequence of six identical endings.[2]

What about the title? Stein argues it is the most important in Mark.[3] The title is used when God proclaims at Jesus’s baptism. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (1:11).[4] In 3:11, the unclean spirits cast out by Jesus fell down before Him and proclaimed Him as the Son of God. When he saw Jesus, the demoniac of the Gadarenes and worshiped Him, crying out, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God (5:7)? One sees the title again at the Mount of Transfiguration as God again calls Jesus His beloved Son and commands the disciples to “hear Him” (9:7).

The title is seen again in the Passion Narrative. In the Parable of the Vineyard (12:1-12), a father sends several servants into his vineyard to get some of its fruit from the vinedressers. They are treated shamefully and one is killed. “Therefore, still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them” (v. 6). The vinedressers kill him (8). While the title is not directly stated, Jesus is obviously speaking of Himself – the beloved Son of God — and predicting His own death.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His return, not even He – the Son (v. 32). After His arrest, Jesus is asked by the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (v. 61). Jesus replies, “I am” (v. 62); He then connected this title with Son of Man in proclaiming that they would see Him sitting at the right hand of God and coming “with the clouds of heaven.”[5]

The most ironic use of the title comes from the lips of the centurion after Jesus’s death: “Truly this man was the Son of God” (15:34).[6] I see this statement by the centurion as foreshadowing the gentile mission and acts and as the second book end to the Gospel – the other 1:1. Though ironic, the Roman soldier’s proclamation is an important literary device in Mark.

One other allusion to the title needs mention. In Mark 1, Jesus meets a man in the synagogue at Capernaum on the Sabbath with an unclean spirit – “And he cried out, saying, ‘Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth?[7] Do You come to destroy us? I know who You are – the Holy One of God!’” The title uttered by the demons is akin to Son of God. The supernatural insight of the demons shows Jesus’s special relationship to the Father. This is the only place the title is used in Mark.

There are titles in Mark used more often (Son of Man/Teacher[8]), but Son of God is used in the Gospel’s first verse. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is with this title that the Father describes the Son (baptism and transfiguration). The demonic world obviously considers Him the Son of God. The centurion proclaims Him as such at the cross. Perhaps, I have been influenced too much by the fact that Son of Man is used more often in Mark. I am not quite there, but I am leaning toward Stein’s position that this is the most important title in the book for Jesus, especially given the bookends of the Gospel’s thesis statement in 1:1 and the centurion’s proclamation in 15:34. According to Mark, Jesus has a relationship with the Father no one else has – as His beloved Son.

[1] Parentheses mine showing the genitive as objective.

[2] R.T France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 49.

[3] Robert H. Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 22.

[4] Scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise noted.

[5] Many scholars see Jesus’s reply to the high priest as seeing two events: His exaltation after the resurrection and the Parousia.

[6] The title lacks the definite article in the Greek text, thus, the translation could be ‘a son of God.’ However, in 1:1 there is no definite article, and in the context of Mark’s Gospel, it seems clear that “son of God’ is meant here. Of course, the centurion would likely not understand the full impact of that reality. However, Stein is correct when he writes, “The death of Jesus reveals to the gentile world that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is ironic that the Jewish leadership and onlookers mock Jesus, but a hated Roman solider makes the greatest human confession in the entire Gospel . . . What God bore witness to at Jesus’s baptism and transfiguration, what demons have confessed time and time again, and what Jesus has acknowledged to the Jewish leadership is now confessed by a Roman centurion, who represents a large host of gentiles who would become followers of Jesus” (pp. 719, 721)

[7] I like the NET translation, which is a bit less wordy and captures the idiom – “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!”

[8] See next post.

What Did Jesus Mean by the Kingdom of God?

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” [Mark 1:14-15 NIV]

There is not much unanimity in scholarship, so when you have it, you would think any debate is over. Not necessarily. There is unanimity on the fact that the primary subject of Jesus’ teaching and preaching is the kingdom of God (heaven). The debate, however, remains about what He meant by that important term.

The term “kingdom of God” or Matthew’s preferred circumlocution, “kingdom of heaven” appears in sixty-one separate sayings in the Synoptic Gospels.[1] The most common interpretations of what Jesus meant by the coming/nearing kingdom of God are:

A Davidic-like kingdom about to be established in Jerusalem (political view)
A new, spiritual rule of God established in the human heart (non-eschatological view)
The end of history is soon occurring and the final judgment taking place (consistent eschatological view)
The promised rule of God now having arrived in its entirety (realized eschatological view)
The kingdom is future, but its agent (Jesus) is present, thus the kingdom in His ministry is not present in an absolute sense but only in so far as it is represented by Jesus. Its arrival is future (potential eschatology)
The reign of God now beginning, in that OT promises are being fulfilled, the promised Spirit is once again active and soon dwelling in every believer, but the final consummation still lies in the future (inaugural eschatology or the already-but-not-yet view)[2]

Only the sixth view makes sense of the Gospel passages about the kingdom. First, Jesus was not a revolutionary seeing to oust Roman rule with a political government. He makes that clear, for example, in His famous statement in the Temple court, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s (Mark 12:17 NKJV).

Second, Jesus never spoke of the kingdom of God as mere spiritual – within the human heart. Neglecting the future aspect of the kingdom is an error. Plus, the kingdom does not enter the believer; it is the believer who enters the kingdom.

The third and fourth view do have Gospel support. The consistent eschatological can be seen in passages such as Matthew 25:31-46; Mark 9:1; 14:25; Luke 11:2. Passages such as Matthew 11:4-6; Mark 2:19-22; Luke 11:20 support realized eschatology.[3]

The fifth view fails due to too much hair splitting. If the kingdom’s agent is present, then is it not enough to say the kingdom has come in the Son of Man? It appears the teachings and mighty works of Jesus do more than make the kingdom potentially present.

That brings us to the sixth view – already-but-not-yet. Taking views three and four and combining them, one can see clearly that the kingdom of God has come in the ministry of Jesus. The reign of God is now. Jesus has encroached upon Satan’s territory and is taking it one person at a time as the Spirit indwells every believer. Yet, the kingdom is not yet consummated. That awaits the coming of Jesus. At His return, the world will come under His rule (Matthew 7:21-23; 25:31, 34). That is why believers are urged to pray, “Your kingdom come.”[4]

The kingdom, according to Jesus:

Includes a radical righteousness greater than the Jewish religious leaders (Matt 5:19-20)
Requires believers to seek it first, before any physical need (Matt 6:33)
Must be proclaimed by believers (the church). The parables of the kingdom (Matt 13 and Mark 4) present the preaching about the kingdom and responses to that preaching
Has authority. The keys to the kingdom (Matt 16:19) symbolize that authority. The keys are the apostolic message about Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
Is entered by repentance and faith (Mark 1:15), characterized by childlike humility (Matt 18:3-4; 19:14)
Requires vigilance as its future arrival is unknown (Matt 25:1-13).[5]

The answer to the question, What did Jesus mean by the Kingdom? is multi-faceted. In essence, the kingdom arrived in the ministry of Jesus and awaits consummation when He comes again. To be a kingdom citizen means a person has come to Christ humbly, repenting of sins; lives righteously by the power of God’s Spirit; and is on mission extending the kingdom to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8), while watching for its full consummation.

[1] Robert Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 72. The circumlocution reflects the Jewish avoidance of the divine name. The number of kingdom sayings in the Synoptics varies. I have used Stein, but Caragounis in his excellent article about the kingdom in DJG lists 76 different kingdom sayings. The kingdom of God plays no significant role in John.

[2] Stein, Mark, 72.

[3] Advocates of consistent eschatology hold that Jesus was a prophet who predicted imminent apocalyptic catastrophe that would usher in the reign of God – thus the kingdom of God is future. Those who hold to realized eschatology view Jesus as a teacher of ethics who inaugurated the kingdom on earth, where it will always be [David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 42-3.] Turner rightly points out also that the two views are very close to those held by dispensationalists and amillennialists – perhaps more familiar terms for readers.

[4] See George Ladd’s seminal work, The Presence of the Future (Baker: Eerdmans, 1974). Nearly all of NT scholarship sides with Ladd and holds the already-not-yet view of the kingdom

[5] Adapted from Turner, 44.

Strangers in the New Testament

(Part II of Strangers in the Bible)

The New Testament is not silent about strangers/aliens/sojourners. The gerim’s faith in Yahweh prefigures the Gentile mission that begins in Acts and is central to Paul’s ministry. He repeatedly emphasized that there was no barrier between Jew and Gentile in Christ (Gal 3:28; Romans 3:22-30; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11). The Apostle writes to the Ephesians and reminds the Gentile members of the church that they were “separated from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world . . . But now in Christ . . . you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and are of God’s household . . .” (Eph 2:12-13a, 19).

One of the primary contributions of 1 Peter to NT theology is the idea that Christians, both Jew and Gentile, are ‘resident aliens’ in this world (1:1), sojourning in the present while looking forward to the future kingdom – their permanent home. Just as God’s people in the OT, whether Jew or Gentile, Christians are expected to conduct themselves in such a way as unbelievers may be drawn to Christ and “glorify God in the day of visitation” (2:11-20). Just as the gerim, Gentiles have all the rights, privileges, and, yes, the responsibilities of their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ.

The only admonition from Jesus concerning strangers is found in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats found in Matthew 25:31-46. In words reminiscent of the prophets, Jesus was clear that those who are blessed by the Father and allowed into His eternal kingdom are those who have displayed His love and compassion upon the vulnerable – “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited me in . . .” (Matthew 25:35). When asked by the righteous when they saw Him as hungry, or naked, or a stranger, the Lord’s reply: “Truly I say to you; to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it unto Me” (v. 40). The opposite will be true for those who refused to see the stranger[1] – “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (v. 46).

Blomberg is right in his observation that there are three basic human needs, apart from salvation – food, shelter, and companionship.[2] Acts of mercy done for the “least of these” are acts of mercy done for Jesus and His sake. Preparation for the Day of Judgement is a heart full of Jesus that results in a life marked by compassion. Ultimately, fulfilling the two great commandments – loving God and loving others – are the proofs of salvation. Less than that is less than the Christianity that allows one to enter the eternal kingdom. One of those acts of mercy is hospitality to strangers/foreigners.

The most important question in the parable, and the one most often discussed, is the identity of “the least of these brothers of Mine.” The prevailing view today is that they are anyone in need, and salvation is predicated upon efforts to help them.[3] There are two problems with this view. First, it sets up a works salvation. While Jesus certainly helped the needy and expected His disciples to do so, this writer agrees with Keener that this view is not “exegetically compelling.”[4]

Second, that interpretation does not fit within the Matthean context. In this Gospel, a brother is either a biological or spiritual sibling. Spiritual brothers and sisters are fellow disciples who follow Jesus (5:22-24, 47; 7:3-5; 12:48-50; 18:15; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10).[5] In the broad sense, all human beings are related and are God’s children, but nothing like that appears anywhere in Matthew.

A related term, according to Turner, is the word translated “the little ones” (10:42; 18:6, 10, 14) – “whose repentance renders them humble disciples who no longer seek worldly power and status. One dare not cause the spiritual ruin of these little ones (18:6), and genuine forgiveness must occur if one sins against the other (18:21, 35).[6]

Christians are resident aliens in this world. They live counter-culturally and will encounter hardships as they bear witness to Christ around the world (Acts 1:8). Thus, they will need help. They are going to need the basics of life from time to time: among other things — food, clothing, and companionship. From whom will that help come? From the Romans? From unbelieving Jews? Help must come from others who are committed also to the Lord and His mission. While there is ample biblical evidence that believers are to show compassion to others, no matter who they are (Micah 6:8 comes to mind), the interpretation this writer advocates is more in line with the Matthean context.[7] Believers are to show hospitality to other believers – especially the stranger.

The stranger in this parable reminds one of the gerim. They were believers in Yahweh, who were committed to obeying His word. They were considered a vulnerable class. They would encounter hardships, and Israelites were to provide help. Their responsibilities to the gerim are outlined above. Those responsibilities closely resemble those found in Jesus’ parable: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide hospitality to the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and the prisoner.

Conclusion

In this post (both parts), the writer has shown the gerim were resident aliens, proselytes of Israel’s religion. The Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, teaches they had both rights and responsibilities. As members of the assembly, they had the right to worship just as any native born Israelite. They had the responsibility to obey Yahweh’s law. If they failed, the gerim were subject to the same judgement as Israel. The gerim would be part of the eschatological kingdom to come.

Israel did have obligations to them. As the passage in Leviticus 19 commands – they were to love the gerim as themselves. They are not to love them just because they are human beings and poor ones at that; they were to love them because the gerim were brothers and sisters in the faith.

The New Testament survey shows the gerim’s faith prefigured the church’s Gentile mission. The Apostle Peter was clear that all Christians are resident aliens in this temporary home, anxiously awaiting their eternal one. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the strangers are fellow believers who would need hospitality and companionship along the way for at times the road would be hard to travel, especially as one is on mission for Christ’s sake.

Let us finish where we began. My social media friend’s post was intended to be critical of current immigration policies. That is unsound hermeneutically. The internet search led to articles in which strangers were equated as today’s migrants. That position is exegetically flawed. In the Bible, strangers (gerim) are proselytes to Israel’s faith in the Old Testament and Christians in the New Testament. All Christians have the same rights and responsibilities in Christ. They are all resident aliens in a hostile world.

One can be on either side of today’s immigration debate; it is America, and each person has the inalienable right to hold either opinion. There can and should be healthy debate, however, that debate cannot include the stranger passages in the Bible. Those are about believers. They are not about those who cross the border in the United States. A country and the church are two different institutions. The former can make any laws it wants about citizenship and how to go about it. The church makes no distinction between people groups — God sees us all as sinners in need of His grace and once a Chirstian, as part of His family.

The church’s primary responsibility, therefore, is not debate but evangelism. That responsibility is to all people no matter where they live or whose border they crossed. Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19). This ministry of Jesus, to proclaim the Gospel in the power of the Spirit, is ours (Acts 1:8). It is not church’s responsibility to involve itself in immigration politics but proclaim the gospel to all, citizens and migrants, because without Christ people are poor, captive, blind, and downtrodden. It is the favorable year of the Lord; the Great Commission demands the church proclaim that to every corner of our country and, indeed, to the remotest parts of the earth.

[1] One is reminded here of what Jesus said to Saul of Tarsus: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5).

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 377.

[3] David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: 2008), 604. See footnote 1.

[4] C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1999), 604-5.

[6] Turner writes, “In Jesus’s radically egalitarian community, status and prestige are out of place, since all his disciples are siblings in the same family (20:20-28; 23:8-10), Matthew, 606.

[7] A major hermeneutical rule is context determines meaning.