Meditating on the Passion Narrative

Notes for the meditation on Luke 23, 1–5:

For the Passion narrative Luke uses the sources that had documented the trial of Jesus before Pilate and Christian traditions (Bovon, Francois. 2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 19,28–24,53. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/4. 391. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag). The Roman governor was apparently familiar with Jesus and his teachings and did not consider them a danger for the public order (ibid.). Nevertheless, eventually Pilate will cede to the pressure on him from the Jewish authorities and the crowd. With the help of a remissio that is an instrument of Roman Law that allows putting off the process for some time, Pilate succeeded delaying the deadly verdict twice. First, he holds Jesus as innocent and second, he sends him off to King Herod. Luke will insist on the historic fact that Jesus was subjected to the death penalty by a sentence from a Roman authority (ibid.).

I do not see the conflict between the Roman secular power and the divine power of Jewish authorities as Bovon does, Bonaventure does and many others (ibid.: 375). There is conflict between the Jews and Pilate. Jesus, in my eyes, is somewhat outside of this conflict, he had to deal with the Sanhedrin and Pilate and then Herod. The faith-sentence, I believe in Jesus Christ the crucified and resurrected Son of man, logically cannot be brought into contradiction or conflict with the sentence that the Roman governor Pilate was judging Jesus. Pilate judging Jesus by Luke is presented as a historic fact. The logical investigation of a historic fact follows a two-valued logic. Faith-sentences follow a three-valued logic, there are the truth values true, false, and I cannot know. Pilate asks Jesus “Are you the king of the Jews?” and Jesus answers “It is you who say it” (Luke 23, 3). What does Luke make affirm Jesus? The affirming answer of Jesus concerns the Go’d of Israel as Father of this king. In this sense Luke makes a faith sentence, he uses faith concepts and not political ones. It is true that Pilate does not waste a thought on Go’d. He tries to do justice, which is not trivial. He fails to do justice, which is human. He would need reconciliation with his wrong judgement; he needs forgiveness, mercy, peace and justice.

Jesus’ trial is composed of four scenes. The first is Jesus before the Sanhedrin. The second is Jesus before Pilate, the third is Jesus before Herod and the fourth is again Jesus before Pilate after Pilate had discussed with the Jewish authorities (ibid.: 376). Pilate is the one in charge of the events, a man known for his violent character. Luke narrates according to the stages of a Roman process (ibid.): The accusers bring the accused before the judge and accuse, the judge interrogates the accused, the accused answers, the judge proclaims his verdict (ibid.). Mark does not know of Jewish accusers. Luke lists three accusations: Jesus was inciting the people to revolt against the Romans, he opposed payment of the tribute to Caesar and claimed, “to be Christ, a king” (Luke 23, 2). Pilate’s verdict of innocence rapidly follows the short response of Jesus affirming that he is “the king of the Jews” (Luke 23, 3). Pilate was familiar with the Christians. This is the first of three times that Jesus was acquitted from a crime (Luke 23, 4; 23, 14 and 23, 22).

Notes for the meditation on Luke 23, 6–12:

The encounter of Jesus and Herod does not advance the overall plot (Bovon 2009, 393). Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great (72 BCE – 4 BCE), was ruling as a tetrarch over Galilee and Perea. Herod somewhat admired Jesus (Luke 23, 8). Jesus decides not to talk to Herod who reacts with his guards “treating him with contempt and making fun of him” (Luke 23, 11). There is a lesson: A ruler does not necessarily react with more maturity than a simple guard. By jeering and derision, persons often ward off “a person’s own feelings of shame” (Aichhorn, Wolfgang, and Helmut Kronberger. 2012. “The Nature of Emotions. A Psychological Perspective.” In Yearbook 2011. Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, 515–25. 521. Berlin: De Gruyter). Often previously admired persons are now projected with contempt “for accommodation of shameful parts of one’s self-representation” (ibid.). Herod was ashamed of his feelings of sympathy for Jesus and his miracles of healing. A king should heal the wounds of his people. Jesus was healing and serving. Herod was exploiting and being served. Pilate recognized that Herod failed like him on the duties of their office. The scene of Jesus before Herod is not a historical scene, but there is a tradition before Luke that speaks of this encounter and there are testimonies of this scene in the early writings of the Church fathers that are not dependent on Luke’s narrative (Bovon 2009, 399–400).

Notes for the meditation on Luke 23, 13–25:

The people so far were on the side of Jesus. In Luke 23, 13 the people turn to the side of the enemies of Jesus. Jesus is now completely left alone. Luke 23, 27, Luke 23, 35 and Luke 23, 48 cannot neutralize that in Luke 23, 21 the group of the present Jews shouted out their demand for crucifixion. In Luke 23, 14 Pilate had declared Jesus innocent, in Luke 23, 15 he assessed that Herod had declared Jesus innocent and in Luke 23, 20 and 23, 22 he keeps repeating that Jesus is innocent. What perversion: The real criminal “who had been imprisoned because of rioting and murder” (Luke 23, 25) goes free and the innocent gets condemned to death on the cross (ibid.: 416). Jesus is not passive. He stays with his social choice to persevere his way to the Father and does not enter negotiations for pardon or release. It is important to assess that Pilate, too, makes a social choice, he is making a decision, he acts. He had the political power to resist the Jews, but he did not. Giving in to his weakness and his lack of self-esteem may be taken as mitigating circumstances for his terrible decision, but there is no doubt: he is acting on his responsibility. He is handing over Jesus to the will of those who are going on to kill him (Luke 23, 25). As biblical scholar Bovon identifies parallels to Luke 23, 1–25 in Acts 2, 23; 3, 13–15; 4, 10; 4, 27–28; 10, 39; and 13, 27–29 (ibid.: 419). As biblical theologian, Bovon sticks to a kind of divine determinism that makes Pilate and the group of Jews execute Go’d’s will (ibid.: 429) and claims that they really lack the freedom and liberty for a different kind of choice (ibid.: 435). If Go’d wants life (ibid.), why let Jesus be killed by Pilate and a group of Jews? There is no biblical evidence that Pilate and the Sanhedrin and the group of Jews had no choice, there is no description of the terms “life”, “liberty”, “freedom” by Bovon. He simply repeats formulas he had been socialized to use and refers to Luther’s exegesis of the Gospels (ibid.: 477). Bovon blindly sticks to the theology of this tradition that claims Go’d’s predetermination of atonement by the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus’s life for the sin of the whole world; the term “grace” is not used in this context. I believe in Go’d’s grace and mercy for the salvation and reconciliation of all women, men and queer at any moment of their lives. In my opinion, Pilate and the group of Jews who are going to kill Jesus were free to turn away from their path of violence until the very end. The narrative of the “good criminal” (Luke 23, 40–43) impressively affirms that repentance, reconciliation, and the promise of salvation is granted until the end.

Notes for the meditation on Luke 23, 26–43:

We find many persons in this scene of Jesus going to the cross. There is Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23, 26). There are “large numbers of people” and “women” (Luke 23, 27). There are two criminals who also get crucified (Luke 23, 33). There are the leaders and the soldiers (Luke 23, 35–37). I omit Luke 23, 34a and “the Father” as a person in this scene, because “it had been incorporated by an unknown copyist relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel” (Metzger 1994, 154). Simon was not forced to carry the cross (Bovon 2009, 442). Jesus addresses the people of Israel. “Daughter Jerusalem” and “daughter Sion” describe in the biblical tradition the collective of the people of Israel and the inhabitants of Jerusalem or the whole of Jerusalem (Bovon 2009, 455). The prophecy of Jesus sounds apocalyptic (Luke 23, 29–30), the following verse Luke 23, 31 is described as a wisdom saying (ibid.: 457). “For, if this is what is done to green wood, what will be done when the wood is dry?” (Luke 23, 31). The young and living Jesus compares himself to “green wood”; the old, dehydrated and sclerotic city of Jerusalem gets compared to “dry wood” (ibid.: 458). The announcement of Luke 22, 37 comes true in Luke 23, 32, Jesus gets crucified between two criminals.

The leaders, the soldiers and the “bad criminal” all use the term “saving” (Greek: sozein). Jeering and derision often ward off “a person’s own feelings of shame” (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012, 521). Often persons who once were admired, are now projected with contempt “for accommodation of shameful parts of one’s self-representation” (ibid.). Celebrating the Passover, a Jew remembers liberation from Egypt and prays for salvation at the end of times. The leaders, the soldiers and the “bad criminal” had lost their hope and faith in salvation. Are they ashamed of their desire to be safe and secure and project contempt on Jesus who is not ashamed of his hope and certainty of paradise?

There is also the inscription on the cross “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23, 38). This inscription proves that Pilate thought that Jesus had claimed kingly sovereignty over Israel (Bovon 2009, 466). The inscription is one of the most secure facts of history concerning the whole Passion narrative. All four Gospels know the inscription and agree on the content. Latin sources document the custom to indicate the accusation and cause of the penalty (ibid.).

So far, the good criminal is the only person that recognizes that the rejection and death of Jesus is his way to kingly power at the right of Go’d (Luke 23, 42). The disciples never could understand this way so far (Luke 9, 22, 44-45; 18, 31-34). The good criminal affirms the innocence of Jesus, recognizes his own guilt and converts, that is he turns to Jesus. Luke sticks to his narrative that Jesus seeks the company of the suppressed, excluded and the outcasts. Luke does not give much attention to the mighty centurion; instead, the outcast that gets crucified with Jesus is at the center. Jesus accepts and acts like the liberator and savior even at the cross. This is very important for Luke (ibid.).

Meditation on the inscription on the cross

I was meditating the inscription that indicates that the crucified effectively is a king that the “kingdom of hope” had not been extinguished and annihilated but got erected in a new way (Bultmann, Rudolf. 1964. Das Evangelium des Johannes. 518. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). I experienced one of these moments in meditation where an alarming shock made me recognize that my faith-system needs an answer: Do I really believe that Go’d is my hope in the moment of my death or am I simply calm and in peace because I complied with the reality of my ending life? I am very thankful to Bultmann for the expression “kingdom of hope”. In the Gospel of John Pilate writes the inscription in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. The inscription makes clear that the cross concerns the whole world claiming that “the king of the Jews” is “the savior of the world” as the Samaritans had confessed after having assessed their faith listening to the words of Jesus (John 4, 42) (ibid.).

Post scriptum:

It is kind of sad that Bultmann speaks collectively of the Jews “who had lost their king” (ibid.) and at this crucial moment of the cross Bultmann does not describe the fact that a very small group of Jews was responsible for handing over Jesus to Pilate. Precisely because the inscription concerns the whole world, as Bultmann claims, the kingdom of hope is always open for the Jews as for anybody else. The Jews had been aware that they are included in the hope for liberation long before there were any Christians. Bultmann does not consider Paul’s theology of hope for the Jews (ibid.).

Notes on the meditation on Luke 23, 44–56:

Again, we see persons: In Luke 23, 47 we find a centurion; in Luke 23, 48 “the crowds”, in Luke 23, 49 “friends” and “the women from Galilee”, in Luke 23, 50–54 we see “Joseph of Arimathaea”, and in Luke 23, 55–56 we find again “the women from Galilee”.

Comparing the four Gospels we see that in John there is no darkness of three hours and Jesus’ cry of abandonment (Mark 15, 34–35 and the parallel in Matthew 27, 46–47) also misses (Bovon 2009, 484). Luke is very sensitive; already at the Mount of Olives we saw this. Jesus suffers but he also really believes and Go’d is neither cruel nor indifferent (ibid.: 488). Luke does not permit that Go’d would abandon Jesus, not at the Mount of Olives and not at the cross, and in Luke Jesus does not express a feeling of loneliness. In Mark Jesus’ cry of abandonment and forlornness refers to Psalm 21, 2; in Luke 23, 46 Jesus prays with Psalm 30, 6: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”. Jesus puts his spirit into the hands of Go’d. Luke underlines the special relation of Jesus and Go’d and Jesus addresses Go’d as “Father” as he had done in Luke 10, 21; 22, 42; 23, 34 (ibid.: 491). The last words of Jesus in John 19, 28 and 19, 30 are different. The synoptic Gospels to not know the pierced Christ (John 19, 31–37). All four Gospels have the same function for Joseph of Arimathaea, Jesus gets the unused grave of a king. Only with John, there is the help of Nicodeme and the weight of the “myrrh and aloes” (John 19, 39). There is no centurion with John; instead, there is Jesus’ mother and his beloved disciple (John 19, 26–27). John, Matthew and Mark tell the names of the women from Galilee (John 19, 25).

According to Acts 13, 27–29, the body of Jesus was buried by his enemies in a communal grave (ibid.: 499). This tradition of Acts is older and more likely historic than the narrative of the Gospel on Joseph of Arimathaea and his grave (ibid.: 503).

In Luke 23, 55, the women continue the movement they had begun when following Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. Now they accompany the dead body of Jesus from the cross to the grave (ibid.: 501). Their names we will hear only from Luke in Luke 24, 10.

Meditation

First, I asked my body to give me my integrity. Considering the conscious experience of my integrity as the possibility condition for meditation or theologizing is part of my worldview.

I meditated on the death of Jesus. Realizing that I must meditate on death and resurrection of Jesus Christ together, meditating on the death of Jesus together with his resurrection brought me peace and calm. It is clear, my meditation is the meditation of my faith, and I am meditating with my faith. A Christian’s meditation on the death of Jesus is a meditation of death and resurrection; I am meditating from the point of my faith-sentence that I believe in Jesus Christ.

Yes, I am granted the gift to experience Jesus Christ in meditation that is I am experiencing and assessing my faith in Jesus Christ as conscious and living presence. To meditate resurrection together with Jesus dying for a Christian is the only possible meditation of the death of Jesus because if there is no reciprocal emotional bonding possible to the Christ of faith, then there is simply no faith experience of Christ. It is no catastrophe for a Christian’s faith, if she or he does not experience something like being secure and taken care in a presence that is felt as invisible and powerful, as very tenderly and sustained with strength. From the faith in Jesus Christ, i.e. from the faith in Jesus Christ as the crucified and resurrected, and the faith or confession sentence that I believe in Jesus Christ the crucified and the resurrected, I am allowed to hope for my own death and resurrection. I hope in the kingdom of hope, I hope in the just world of Go’d. My faith in Jesus Christ as the crucified and resurrected gets sustained in meditation. Faith is first, the narrative of the empty grave and resurrection is later talk (See my Posting “Confession-sentences about Go’d raising Jesus from the dead in the Bible”). The strong point of my faith in Jesus Christ concerns his faith in the Father, concerns Jesus’ empowerment, security, and safety by the invisible Go’d, the Only One, who is relating to him. From Jesus’ baptism onward “the Holy Spirit descended on him” (Luke 3, 21-22). Jesus not only receives the experience of Go’d relating to him. Jesus Christ promises all women, men and queer of good will enjoy the same relation to Go’d that is the Holy Spirit.

Notes for meditation on Luke 24, 1–12:

The Church fathers, the Christian theologians of the first centuries CE, inverted the order of first finding faith in resurrection and only then speaking of the empty grave. The empty grave is a concept of faith, not an empirical statement on the burial site of Jesus. Jesus was buried by his enemies in a communal grave, not in a kingly tomb (Acts 13, 27-29). The development of the second and third century CE more and more changed the faith concept of resurrection to the positivity of an empty grave as the corporal proof of the resurrection (Bovon 2009, 586). The myth was introduced to the Christian faith and replaced large parts of the faith. It is unbelievable that 2000 years after Jesus’ burial in a community grave a mass of Christians – faithful as theologians alike -, still talk about bodily resurrection. The expressions body or flesh were important for the Christian testimonies of Jesus because they wanted to show that Jesus was a human and not a ghost.  A ghost does not need any resurrection. The expression “flesh” (Greek: “sarx”) is used to ward off those who negated resurrection because they saw in Jesus a kind of God or half-god, an immortal kind of phenomenon. The expression “flesh” was also an important argument for those who refused the belief in resurrection as a spiritual resurrection (ibid.). Human flesh decays. Therefore, there were discussions if the risen would have digested what he had eaten and how he would have digested the food (ibid.: 590). Yes, Jesus was a human, and yes, resurrection is of a concept of faith and not of natural science.

Notes for meditation on Luke 24, 13–35:

Jesus Christ takes over at the table as the invited host. “… He took the bread and said the blessing; then he broke it and handed it to them” (Luke 24, 30). The expression “to break the bread” starts the series of meals that we will see in Acts, beginning with Acts 2, 42 (Bovon 2009, 563). We are reminded of the last supper before the Passion where Luke uses the same words (Luke 22, 19a) and already in Luke 9, 16 -  one of Jesus’ miracles of the loaves - we find the same wording. Luke’s narrative emphasizes the rite that together with baptism characterizes the life of the first Christians (ibid.). The resurrection experience of the disciples of Emmaus is realized in a Eucharistic context (ibid.). After Jesus Christ had spoken the blessing, broken the bread and having handed it over to them “their eyes were opened and they recognized him but he had vanished from their sight” (Luke 24, 31). Amazingly, the Eucharistic context of the resurrection narrative of the disciples of Emmaus was not brought up either by the Greek or by the Latin Church Fathers (ibid.: 564). It was Saint Augustine who started a tradition of interpreting this narrative that was never forgotten since (ibid.: 567). A day after Easter Sunday, Augustine meditates on the experience of the disciples of Emmaus in his Sermon 235 and claims that the risen Christ was at the same time visible and invisible (Bovon 2009, 566).

The eyes of the disciples were to recognize Jesus, not to see him, interprets Augustine (ibid.). In his Epistle 149, Augustine affirms that the disciples of Emmaus recognized the risen Christ in the moment of breaking the bread, as we recognize the Lord when praying with the blessing words of Jesus and breaking the bread celebrating the sacrament (ibid.). Beda Venerabilis(8th century CE), Caesarius of Arles (5th and 6th century CE), and Petrus Venerabilis (11th century CE) insist on the importance for the narrative of Luke of this moment where Jesus was blessing, breaking and handing over the bread. They claimed that it was celebrating the Eucharist where the “eyes” of the Emmaus disciples “were opened and they recognized him” (Luke 24, 31), it was not while reading Moses and the prophets (Bovon 2009, 568).

The resurrection narrative of Luke as the resurrection narrative of John are faith and confession narratives, they insist on the conjunction of the cross and the resurrection, on the conjunction of the resurrection and the cross and the whole life of Jesus. I want to turn for a moment to the resurrection narrative of John and its interpretation by the Christian exegete and theologian Rudolf Bultmann.

Notes for meditation on John 20, 16–17:

In Mark 16, 7 and Matthew 28, 7, the women get instructed by the angel to simply tell the disciples that Jesus is risen and will appear to them in Galilee (Bultmann 1964, 533.). Luke and John speak only of appearances in Jerusalem and the women simply tell the disciples that Jesus has risen (ibid.).

In John the resurrected Jesus does not instruct Mary of Magdala to announce to the disciples that he is risen and that he will appear to them too (ibid). Instead she should say: “… go to my brothers, and tell them: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20, 17).

At first glance, she should tell them what Jesus had already told his disciples himself: “I came from the Father and have come into the world and now I am leaving the world to go to the Father” (John 16, 28); “But now I am going to the one who sent me. No one of you asks, ‘Where are you going?’” (John 16, 5). “… about who was in the right: in that I am going to the Father and you will see me no more;” (John 16, 10). “… where I am going you cannot come” (John 13, 33). “You know the way to the place where I am going” (John 14, 4). “In all truth I tell you, whoever believes in me will perform the same works as I do myself, and will perform even greater works, because I am going to the Father” (John 14, 12). “You heard me say: I am going away and shall return. If you loved me you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14, 28).

At second glance, we realize that Jesus speaks in John 20, 17 of “my Father” and “your Father” that is the Father of Jesus now had become the Father of his disciples and he calls his disciples “my brothers” (ibid.). The announcements of Jesus in John 16, 27, in John 14, 21 and 23 have come true, the love of Go’d for Jesus turns also to the disciples (ibid.).

With these citations from John, Bultmann demonstrates that the faith of Easter joins the going to the Father with the cross, or joins the cross with the going to the Father (ibid.). Cross and resurrection are the bedrock of the Christian faith. The terms “cross” and “resurrection” for the Christian are seen as one term “cross and resurrection” or “crucifixion and resurrection”, or the terms “cross” and “resurrection” may be used by the Christians exclusively in the form of adjunction connected by the logical operator “and”.

We must read Luke 24, 26, where Luke makes Jesus say the sentence “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?” exclusively according to the above rule of the adjunction operator. Theologians and biblical scholars engage in illogical speculations and use the expression “necessary” as an operator of logical implication claiming, “if there is crucifixion then there is resurrection”. Luke explains with the words of Jesus to the two Emmaus disciples that the term “glory” must be seen in connection with the suffering and the death of Jesus Christ at the cross and not separated from the crucifixion. Luke did not claim that Go’d made Jesus Christ suffer for his glory as possibility condition for resurrection and salvation. With Go’d there are no conditions. The term “Jesus Christ” is a term of faith, resurrection is a term of faith. A Christian scholar or theologian writes as a Christian i.e. she or he believes in Jesus Christ. The faith-sentence “I believe in Jesus Christ” claims faith in “crucifixion and resurrection” but not faith in “resurrection because of crucifixion”. It is Go’d who operates resurrection, and the use of the word Go’d does not tell who She is, but what you mean. The bedrock of Christian faith, the faith in Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected helps understand the Hebrew Bible in a new way, in the way of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Bible does not announce the faith in Jesus as the Christ that is the Messiah.

Notes for the meditation on Luke 1, 4 and Luke 24, 31:

Luke wishes in Luke 1, 4 that Theophilus recognizes with certainty Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah, the crucified and resurrected Son of man. Theophilus had been instructed and had been taught the Christian faith, but apparently he was not convinced of what he had heard. He did not believe in Jesus Christ and was not confessing the crucified and resurrected Messiah. Luke wants him to “recognize with certainty”. We will find the same predicate “recognize” (Greek: epiginóskein) with the disciples of Emmaus in Luke 24, 31. There the disciples “recognized” Jesus, they “came to know” him as the one who has risen, they “had learned or found out”, they “acknowledged, understood and perceived” the crucified and dead as resurrected. We have to pay attention to this special use of the predicate “recognized” in the Gospel of Luke. There is no reason to translate in Luke 1, 4 differently than in Luke 24, 31 or 24, 16. It is clear from the context of the narrative in both cases that Luke is speaking of the same experience that is the faith experience of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Luke wants Theophilus to become a believer and not a secular biblical scholar. Luke writes his Gospel as a believer, and he puts his narrative at the service of his faith in Jesus Christ hoping that Theophilus and others and we start believing.

Gregory the Great (6th century CE) had already spoken of “the eyes of the heart” when he preached about the narrative of the disciples of Emmaus (Bovon 2009, 567). Believing and having faith are described as something that has to do with certainty, with a secure and safe conviction that one holds for true (Luke 1, 4). The whole Gospel serves this conviction and faith. Life, cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the bedrock of the Christian faith. Throughout his Gospel Luke narrates from the perspective of his belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the anointed Son of man and at the same time narrates pictures from the life of Jesus Christ. Luke describes the words and deeds of the Jesus Christ of his faith. Luke narrates that Jesus Christ was baptized and after baptism was praying (Luke 3, 21 – 22). Baptism with water as a symbol for purification is a very bodily aspect of a life. The “eyes of the heart” of Luke that is his faith in Jesus Christ makes him legitimate Jesus Christ as the Messiah in his Gospel narrative. The possibility condition of narrating Jesus’ prayer and faith experience of Go’d speaking to him and receiving the Holy Spirit is the faith of Luke. He counts as one of the “apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Dei Verbum 7. Second Vatican Council 1962-1965).

It is interesting that the so-called Western text makes “the voice of heaven” (Luke 3, 22) cite verse 7 from Psalm 2 to legitimate Jesus as Son of Go’d: “You are my Son; today have I fathered you” (Psalm 2, 7) (Metzger, Bruce M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 112. Stuttgart: German Bible Society). Most translations follow the shorter Alexandrine text that looks like Matthew 4, 17 “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well-pleased” which refers to Isaiah 43, 1 where Yahweh “puts his Spirit upon” his chosen servant whom He supports and who will bring just arbitration to the case (Hebrew: mischpat) (ibid.: 113). Concerning the correct translation of Psalm 2, 7 it will take almost two thousand years that Christians in the West will fight for gender equality. The translation of Psalm 2, 7 “today I have fathered you” is a patriarchal translation.  Psalm 2, 7 literally reads: “You are my Son; today I have given birth to you”. This correct translation speaks of a Go’d who gives birth. Nobody will dispute that giving birth does not describe fathers but mothers.

Luke narrates a public experience of Jesus Christ and at the same time confesses his faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of man, the Messiah who is anointed with the Holy Spirit. With the eyes of faith, the eyes of the heart, Luke narrates that Jesus withstands the attraction of worldly power and presents himself as a believer confessing “You must do homage to the Lord your God, him alone you must serve” (Luke 4, 5 – 8). Luke presents Jesus as Christ, as the anointed of Go’d, as the Son of man who serves Go’d throughout his Gospel. Luke narrates the words and deeds of Jesus as the words and deeds of the Christ, the crucified and risen, as the one Luke believes in as the Messiah. Luke narrates that Jesus was teaching and had authority, that he was challenged and maintained his authority, that he served his words, healed and had power, forgave and had authority to do so. In Capernaum “his teaching made a deep impression on them because his word carried authority” (Luke 4, 31–32). Notwithstanding the question on his authority, Jesus stands straight (Luke 20, 1–8) and as the one who serves the Passover meal he serves and teaches to serve (Luke 22, 27). He heals and exercises the power of healing (Luke 4, 39). He forgives and forgives sins (Luke 5, 20–26). Finally, Luke confesses his faith in Jesus Christ and narrates that Jesus accepts the challenge of being mocked for not disposing any more over his life: “He saved others, let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen one” (Luke 23, 35). Luke confesses his faith that Jesus had transversed death. In the last instructions of Jesus to the apostles before his ascension Luke makes Jesus say that the Hebrew Bible “the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the Psalms” had written everything about him “So it is written that the Christ would suffer and on the third day rise from the dead” (Luke 24, 44-46).

In Acts Luke will continue confessing his faith and will speak of the suffering Christ that is the Messiah (Acts 26, 23). We are allowed to say that Luke wishes Theophilus the certainty of recognizing Jesus Christ as the Messiah (Luke 1, 4) just in the way that the disciples of Emmaus experienced that the eyes of their heart “were opened and they recognized” Jesus Christ risen from the dead (Luke 24, 31).

Notes for the meditation on Luke 24, 49:

The apostles are called by Jesus to be witnesses to Jesus Christ, his suffering and resurrection and to his proclamation of the forgiveness of sins for turning to a new way of life (Luke 24, 47–48).

Luke does not speak very often of the Holy Spirit in his Gospel. In Luke 1, 15-17 the angel of the Lord tells Zechariah that his son, John the Baptist “from his mother’s womb will be filled with the Holy Spirit for the reconciliation of the fathers with their children and the people with Go’d”. The Holy Spirit will also come upon Mary (Luke 1, 35). In Luke 4, 18–21, Jesus claims that the Holy Spirit is with him and that the promise of Yahweh to Isaiah (Isaiah 61, 1-2) is fulfilled. In Luke 3, 16, John the Baptist claims that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The disciples of Jesus will have to wait to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, they have to find and be given the faith in Jesus Christ and only then, that is in Luke 24, 49, Jesus Christ will proclaim the fulfillment of this promise to his disciples that he has made in Luke 11, 13. Very interestingly, Luke makes Jesus proclaim in Luke 24, 49 the coming of “the power from on high” and does not use the expression “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit”. In Luke 12, 11–12 Jesus assures his persecuted disciples of the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It is apparent that Luke reserves the Holy Spirit for the believers. The Holy Spirit for Luke is the accompanying presence of Jesus Christ for the time of the church. The promise of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father; Jesus Christ will not send the Holy Spirit to the believers.

Notes for the meditation on Luke 24, 50–53:

At the beginning of the Gospel of Luke the angel of the Lord announces to Zechariah that the son his wife Elisabeth will bear “will be your joy and delight and many will rejoice at his birth” (Luke 1, 13–14). The angel of the Lord announces to the shepherds the “great joy” that the savior was born (Luke 2, 10–11). In Luke 24, 52 we find again the same expression “joy” (Greek: chará), “great joy” filled the disciples” (Bovon 2009, 620). The narrative of the Gospel of Luke is constructed with an inclusion of joy and delight. The story of Zechariah began in the temple and now at the end of the Gospel of Luke the disciples again are in the temple (Luke 24, 53). The temple is the place for prayer (Acts 3, 1) not any more of sacrifice. In the temple, Peter starts proclaiming Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Messiah (Acts 3, 12–26). With the missionaries, Go’d’s Gospel will pass from Jerusalem to the whole world (ibid.). For this time, it is clear that Jesus Christ stays with the Father in the glory of Go’d and that Go’d’s Holy Spirit will stay with those believing in Jesus Christ.

The disciples “went back to Jerusalem full of joy” (Luke 24, 52). In psychology happiness counts as one of the seven basic emotions that are fear, anger, happiness, disgust, contempt, sadness, and surprise (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012 516). I want to use joy in the sense of happiness, knowing that it is more pleasant to experience joy and happiness than having to describe the feeling. “Emotions regulate interactions between individuals”, and are of basic importance for developing the child’s personality, create personal and sustain social relationships (ibid.: 515). Emotions induce affects, that is physical responses without any conscious cognitive representation, which is also without speaking (ibid.: 516). Emotions are therefore part of the whole empire of the subconscious that constitutes most of our body’s constant biological activities. Others recognize affect, the response to an emotion. The mother smiles when she looks at her quietly sleeping baby. The baby that observes the mother’s smile starts smiling herself or himself and the corresponding emotion of joy or happiness is induced within the baby. This mirroring provides the basis of empathy but also tells us that if I am not happy and joyful, my affects will not induce happiness with others (ibid.).

The psychologists claim that “comparable emotional functions are also activated in reading a novel or a poem” (ibid.). I do not doubt this description; it rather indicates that contemporary globalizing culture is working with the production of all sorts of pictures; I speak of the new social media, which induce many emotions and activate all sorts of affects. Emotions are consumed and we respond in order to induce emotions again. It is clear that we must be able to meet our bio-psychological, social, economic, cultural and spiritual needs in order to be happy. We cannot feel satisfied and be happy without satisfying our basic needs for food, clothes, shelter, security, peers, in short without enjoying our personal integrity (Aaker, Leslie and Robin 2010, 3). In order to sustain our integrity, we need to make social choices. It is hard to be happy if we do not dispose over free choices in our life (ibid.: 4). There is happiness that is short living, like immediate pleasure. There is more durable and lasting happiness and there is happiness of different qualities. There is for example the feeling of satisfaction after having enjoyed good food. There is also the pleasure of happiness after experiencing meaning, looking at works of art or listening to music (ibid.: 6).

Connectedness to others and to the present moment increase with age (ibid.). We can help feeling happy and finding meaningfulness in our day-to-day enjoyment of life by practicing moments of silent awareness of joyful experiences and by cultivating mindfulness for gratitude (ibid.: 12). Different cultures identify different meanings of happiness. American youths would choose an excited smiley face to indicate happiness; Taiwanese youths chose the calm looking smiley face (ibid.: 7). European American college students would prefer holidays for exploring and doing exciting things while Hong Kong Chinese prefer relaxing (ibid.). The understanding of happiness varies by culture (ibid.). At the same time, primary affects like happiness are present in all cultures “and even in higher animals such as other primates (beside human beings)” (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012, 516).

I am reading a novel or a poem because I expect the reading will give me some satisfaction by learning about emotions of others, and virtually assisting experiences of women, men and queer. Apparently, I can read and spontaneously mirror the emotions that are described in the novel or the poem (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012, 516). For decades, I thought and hoped that the narratives of the Gospels operate comparable emotional functions. Well, they do and they do not. The Gospel as a narrative of an author mirrors the emotions and motivations, the thoughts and hopes and beliefs of the author. The psychologists tell us of mirroring emotions, not of mirroring beliefs, hopes and thoughts. On the other hand, it is true that while speaking of my beliefs, hopes and thoughts I am showing emotions and emotions will show up on my face and will be communicated by my body language. I have an interest to communicate with positive emotions and I hope that the mirroring of these emotions on the side of my listeners will convince them of the validity of my claims to my beliefs, hopes and thoughts. Reading in Luke 24, 51-52, the narrative that the disciples were prostrating before the withdrawing Jesus and “then went back to Jerusalem full of joy” does not spontaneously activate joy and happiness in my consciousness.

Coping with the loss of the departing Jesus would make one cry. Luke evidently does not narrate the experience of loss and pain but the experience of joy, happiness and consolation. He does not narrate that the disciples cry; at the departure of Jesus, pain does not become overtly present but joy. Luke communicates that the disciples evidently accepted the loss of Jesus as a loss and joy somewhat safeguards the loss and not crying. They even “welcomed with respect” (Greek: “proskunein”) - the translations of the Greek expression for “prostrating before” usually speak of “worship” -, the loss of Jesus. There is no narration of crying of anger, there is no more pain for the loss and no panic anymore. The disciples were full of joy as Jesus “was carried up to heaven”. Reading of the joy of the disciples does not help my emotional state of feeling estranged from this joy narrative. Thanks to Go’d I did not respond with grief to my disappointment of my reading expectations. It is not the Gospel that abandons me, it is my way of reading and understanding that some kind of spontaneous mirroring of the narrative would activate my joy and give me attachment to Go’d. Abandonment and loss, joy and happiness are emotions and experiences that challenge and empower our bio-psychic-social integrity.

The spiritual aspect is one aspect of my integrity as a person. I speak of a bio-psychic-social-spiritual integrity. Reading a novel, a poem or the Gospel cannot substitute for the interactions with women, men and queer in life. Happiness is an emotion that gives testimony to my integrity as a person, to my well-being and that of others. A woman, man or queer who cannot smile and cannot experience well-being, joy and happiness is in trouble. Not being capable of disposing of one’s integrity calls for identification of the dysfunctional elements of the person’s integrity. If a physical element of the person is sick, the physical element needs healing; if a psychic element is dysfunctional, the psychic element needs professional cure. The social, economic, cultural, and spiritual elements have to be seen too within the healing logic of diagnosis and treatment according to the dysfunctional element of the integrity of the person. It is only possible to heal a dysfunction of an element by concentrating on the dysfunctional element. If there is a psychological problem, there is need for a professional psychological treatment. If a person is in need of a job-training we cannot substitute the education with prayer. Healing consists in healing the wound and not in substituting for a basic need.

The practice of the exercise of sitting down, listening to one’s emotions, to the pictures of the consciousness, the precious products of the processes of self-awareness and becoming calm by breathing deep and stopping to look at the surrounding noise, the old called doing wisdom that is searching for peace and justice. I was reading a German translation of the Tao Te Ching (Laotse 1996. Tao Te King. Translated by Richard Wilhelm. München: Eugen Diederichs) and the following sentences mirror some insights from my reading. The wisdom of the Tao Te Ching looked for the soft and weak, because it was able to smile and live. The strong and hard as steel are fellows of death. The baby is for life, soft, and weak (Tao Te Ching, number 76). Lao Tzu knew well that the baby needs the protection of the parents and empowering love for living and growth. Yet meditating on wisdom and sense and meaning, he speaks of peace as a victory and of war leading into defeat (Tao Te Ching, number 68). Lao Tzu speaks of asking for forgiveness and receiving forgiveness for one’s sins and speaks of the great ultimate by saying what he means (Tao Te Ching, number 62). He speaks of himself as a baby who has not yet learned to smile and confesses persevering to seek food from the mother (Tao Te Ching, number 20). There is no use for despair over abandonment that drives you to death (Tao Te Ching 16). It is clear, Lao Tze or the authors of the Tao Te Ching speak of life, of health and sickness, of peace and injustice.

The Tao Te Ching helped me on my way as a Christian. It is true that the Catholic Church affirmed in the Declaration on the relation of the Church to Non-Christian religions Nostra Aetate in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “regarding with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate, 4). The smile that my face received in meditation and that warmed my heart and hopes, came from Christian testimonies in my life. After having healed my integrity, meditating on the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament were the faith testimonies giving me peace and faith.

The whole Gospel narrative is about the belief of the unity of life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the basic belief of my faith. I had to understand that reading of the joy of Jesus Christ or of the joy of his disciples does not make me happy. Meditating on the belief-narrative of Luke that mirrors Jesus Christ’s experience of Go’d as his beloved Father, empowers me to silently sit down to experience Go’d’s life sustaining love in meditation and prayers of thanksgiving. Given the faith believing in Jesus Christ, crucified, and resurrected, empowers my faith hoping for my life, death and resurrection and for the life, death and resurrection of all women, men and queer on this earth. My hope is based on the faith in the mercy of Go’d. Luke ends his Gospel narrative with the eulogy of Go’d. The disciples of Jesus that had experienced his crucifixion and resurrection were confessing their faith that Jesus Christ was taken up to heaven, and they give thanks and praise to the power and grace of Go’d the Only.