Please accept my best wishes for a Happy Easter to all western Christians who will again celebrate the Resurrection tomorrow morning. Not sure when Orthodox Pascha is this year but my sincere hope your observation provides joy and blessings for your lives. This year is the first time in many, many years that the three Abrahamic Faiths celebrate their great festivals at the same time. Lunar calendars do that!  I am not familiar with the appropriate greetings for these other two faith expressions but the warm wishes I send to you for you come from my heart. In many Christian traditions, during yesterday's Good Friday worship we pray specifically for "those who know God by different names". Probably should do it more frequently. For those of you who hold no faith practices, may your lives be safe and well. May the good examples of lived faith have a chance to speak to you and may you discount those of any faith tradition who profess it with their lips and disgrace it with their lives!
A very few times my BD comes on Easter Sunday, this year it came on Good Friday. To say I'm truly blessed is an understatement. I hope everyone has a wonderful day. God bless
Happy Easter! Here is an outline of a class (part of a series) on the resurrection I'm teaching this weekend: The Resurrection in Luke: Mystery. Reality. Theology. <the road to Emmaus> Luke 24:13-35. See also: Luke 1:1-4. Acts 1:1-4. 24:36-43. · There is strong evidence that Luke is writing a classic Hellenistic (Greek) historical biography. In line with noted ancient historians, Tacitus and Seutonius. o Richard Bauckham: “Luke’s preface (1:1-4) suggests obvious influences from the rhetorical conventions of Hellenistic historiography. That makes Luke a writer of ‘historical’ narrative, but not necessarily a ‘historian.’ Luke-Acts appropriately belongs within the rather wide spectrum of Hellenistic historiography.” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 118). · Yet, Luke is more than biography; it’s also a theological treatise. This is what one would expect if Jesus really was raised from the dead. It changes how we view ourselves and the world. It transforms how we read the Old Testament. All this is incorporated into the gospel accounts. I. Mystery. A. Luke doesn’t shy away from the mystery. 24:33. Jesus disappears! This is in contrast to what is possible in the physical realm. Jesus’ resurrected body is both in Continuity and Discontinuity with the present physical realm. 24:36-43. (Note that Jesus appeals for them to see his body and he eats fish. Yet his body and activity are transformed). B. Not all believed (Lk. 24:11: Mt. 28:16-17). Shows how hard it was to believe; a) the disciples were not credulous or gullible; b) Gospels were willing to acknowledge these struggles. II. Reality. A. Postmodern Subjectivism (no such thing as real history; all biased accounts). “You say that because you are a white male in power …”). Well, yes, some truth to that. 1. - e.g., Russia, Putin invasion of Ukraine – “to eliminate fascists” – a ‘political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted.’ Clearly untrue of Ukraine. Simply to justify invasion. Fascists in Ukraine? Yes, of course. There are tens of thousands of fascists in America. (In the 1930s, support for Hitler and Fascists / Nazis in US was so strong, Jews seeking to escape Hitler were turned away from entering the country due to a pro fascist/pro Hitler contingent). 2. Postmodernism offers a healthy corrective to absolutist certainties. Yet, CS Lewis speaks to the challenge of ad hominem elements in postmodernism: “You say that 2+2=4 because you are a biased mathematician.” Not all ‘truth claims’ are pure bias. 3. UCLA Historians, Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, & Margaret Jacob – Telling the Truth About History. While much of their book acknowledges the importance of postmodern correctives to modernistic certainties (which have influenced much of traditional-evangelical Christianity), they also push back against extremes: a) “Denying the absolutism of one age, the doubters [postmodernist skeptics of all ‘truth claims’], seem oblivious to the danger of inventing a new absolutism based upon subjectivity and relativism.” b) “Contemporary understanding of how knowledge is created now prompts calls for a different, more nuanced, less absolutist kind of realism than that championed by an older – we would say naïve – realism. The newer version – what we call ‘practical realism’ – presumes that the meanings of words are never simply ‘in our head,’ nor do they lock onto objects of the external world and fix reality for all time.” c) “Practical realists accept the tentativeness and imperfections of the historians’ accounts. This does not, however, cause them to give up the effort to aim for accuracy and completeness and to judge historical accounts on the basis of those criteria. … no philosopher has ever succeeded in proving that meanings are simply ‘in our head’ or, the reverse, that human language can be fixed on objects and describe for all time the way the external world is.” (pp. 247-249). B. Luke’s account is grounded in a real historical setting. Note the historical figures & geography (1:5, 3:1-2, 3:23; 6:17; 10:13; 19:28; 23:50-51; Acts 19:31). Breaking of bread (Lk. 24:30-32). Eating food (Lk. 24:39-43; cf. ‘touching Jn. 20:25-28). Physical, concrete, historical reality. These accounts can’t be judged on the basis of modern historiography – applying modern standards we ourselves have developed. The most reasonable way of evaluating these is, it seems to me, on the basis of ancient standards under which they lived. Consider Lk. 22:60-61. 1. Philosopher/theologian David Bentley Hart notes: “When Peter did indeed thrice deny Christ … he went apart and (according to the synoptic accounts) wept bitterly at the knowledge of what he had done. This may perhaps seem a rather unextraordinary episode, albeit a moving one, but therein lies its peculiar grandeur. To us today, it seems only natural that a narrator should pause to record such an incident, and treat it with a certain gravity; but, in the days when the Gospels were written, the tears of a common man were not deemed worthy of serious attention. They would have been treated by most writers as, at most, an occasion for mirth. Only the grief of the noble could be tragic, or sublime or even fully human. The tears of Peter were therefore indicative of a profound shift in moral imagination and sensibility. Something had become visible that had formerly been hidden from sight. For Christian thought, God had chosen to reveal himself among the least of men and women, and to exalt them to the dignity of his own sons and daughters. And, as a consequence, a new vision of the dignity of every soul had entered the consciousness of the Gentile world.” (David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity, pp. 21-22). 2. This is indicative of the upside-down, inverted system introduced by Jesus, according to the gospels. But it also serves to both put the gospel (Luke’s) account in the first century cultural milieu while simultaneously subverting cultural expectations. C. Brings us to 3rd point (theology). III. Theology. A. Luke 24:30-32. When the two disciples saw Jesus break bread, “their eyes were opened.” Genesis 3:6-7 Adam & Eve – “eyes of both were opened.” (In the LXX, the Greek text of the OT, it is the same wording). B. Gen. 3 is the first meal of the First Creation. Comp to two disciples in Luke 24, the First meal of the New Creation (inaugurated by Jesus’ Resurrection; Gal. 6:15; 2Cor. 5:17). 1. The first recorded meal came with Deception by Evil (Serpent) and Rebellion against the creator. State of World. In contrast, in Luke 24 – Jesus provides True Perception (Reality) and Redemption. a) From Deception to Reality (True Perception). b) From Rebellion to Redemption. 2. In Genesis 3 – the two, in their greed, take food for themselves. Grasping & Greed. In In Luke 24 – Jesus (God) provides food (the ‘Bread of Life’). Giving & Grace. a) From Grasping & Greed (of humanity) to Giving & Grace (of God). b) And it’s Jesus, the God-Man. The incarnation of God. Uniting humanity & Divinity into one (the full intention of God). Heaven and Earth (Rev. 21:1-2). 3. Mary M. in garden (John 20). Serpent & Eve vs Jesus & Mary. Spiritual battle over evil is won. Humans are redeemed. Raised (symbolically & literally). The gospel accounts are the most unique of writings (combining concrete reality & the mystical; myth and miracle in a real person; history & theology). They combine together … Mystery. Reality. Theology.
Very interesting outline DF! Love your connection in the first section. I have often argued the history nature of Luke/Acts. I looked more to the speech dominant formatting of Acts so adding your arguments reinforces my work. Thanks. Your second section is a different approach than I have traditionally seen. I would like to hear the discussion. I would generally agree with your conclusions but might not have gotten there from these texts. But it does seem to be very much in line within the Lukan emphasis. Would you support a theory that the "Magnificat" is an outline of Lukre's understanding of the impact of the Jesus event? Your third section is very well done, imo. Particularly your linguistic tie to Gen 3. Great work. I am guessing your Christian tradition does not emphasize Sacramental theology? That direction would look to the connection to the Communion aspects of the meal. Your approach is very strong and should, again imo, be more strongly explored in the commentaries.
a) “Denying the absolutism of one age, the doubters [postmodernist skeptics of all ‘truth claims’], seem oblivious to the danger of inventing a new absolutism based upon subjectivity and relativism.” b) “Contemporary understanding of how knowledge is created now prompts calls for a different, more nuanced, less absolutist kind of realism than that championed by an older – we would say naïve – realism. The newer version – what we call ‘practical realism’ – presumes that the meanings of words are never simply ‘in our head,’ nor do they lock onto objects of the external world and fix reality for all time.” c) “Practical realists accept the tentativeness and imperfections of the historians’ accounts. This does not, however, cause them to give up the effort to aim for accuracy and completeness and to judge historical accounts on the basis of those criteria. … no philosopher has ever succeeded in proving that meanings are simply ‘in our head’ or, the reverse, that human language can be fixed on objects and describe for all time the way the external world is.” (pp. 247-249). These are three very good points.
