Luke refutes the religion of Paul

Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 19.02.39Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 19.03.03

I meant verse 21. Paul gives his opinion that if justification/righteousness was obtainable through the Law then his religion is void.

Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 19.05.57.png

Luke in the opening of his gospel describes two Jews as “righteous” before God due to their faultless obedience of the Law.  Paul’s religion therefore is null and void and totally unnecessary.

Luke 1:5-7 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.

Categories: Bible, Christianity

26 replies

  1. Both follow the same religion with a broad range of different interpretations, second temple Judaism. Islam is different much later story I’m afraid.

  2. Indeed it refutes the religion of Paul.

  3. Zacharias and Elizabeth were obeying the law, including all the animal sacrifices for forgiveness of sins. The context of that passage in Luke is about Zacharias’ turn to do the priestly duties in the temple (the animal sacrifices and all that goes with it.)

    the animal sacrifices in the temple pointed to the final sacrifice – Jesus the Messiah.

    Same with Job – see Job chapter 1 – he sacrificed burnt offerings, because “perhaps my children cursed God in their hearts” (unseen sins and attitudes; anger, etc.)

    Job and Noah and Zacharias and Elizabeth were godly believers, with a relative righteousness, looking to the future Messiah through animal sacrifices.

    The Messiah fulfilled their desires for righteousness.

    The Messiah and His self sacrifice / ransom is the ultimate righteousness / justification, the fulfillment of the law, fulfilling all the sacrifice laws of the OT.

    Mark 10:45

  4. Zacharias’s Prophecy
    Luke 1:67-79

    67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

    68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
    For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
    69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
    In the house of David His servant—

    70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—
    71 Salvation from our enemies,
    And from the hand of all who hate us;
    72 To show mercy toward our fathers,
    And to remember His holy covenant,
    73 The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,
    74 To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
    Might serve Him without fear,
    75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
    76 “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
    For you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways;
    77 To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
    By the forgiveness of their sins,

    78 Because of the tender mercy of our God,
    With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
    79 To shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
    To guide our feet into the way of peace.”

    So, he realized that God had given him John (the baptizer) who would be raised up to be a prophet and prepare the way of the LORD – prepare for coming of Jesus the Messiah and LORD, who brings salvation and forgiveness of sins.

  5. why does Luke omit it?

    The Greek text of Luke is so different than Mark and Matthew that this proves that he is not looking at Mark and using Mark, which also goes against Stewjo004’s charge that they are plagiarizing each other.

    There is so much other material in Luke – Acts that teach the theology of the substitutionary atonement of Christ that shows that he teaches the same harmony of theology, but using different words and concepts, rather than word for word copying, which proves the plagiarism charge is wrong.

    So, Luke is not really “omitting it”; rather he communicates the theology of atonement in different sections and different words.

    critical texts involved in the discussion: Luke 22:19-20 and Luke 24:25-49 and Acts chapters 2, 13, and Acts 20:28.

    The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles clearly speak about the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and the forgiveness of sins.

    Departure: Luke 9:31 – (the transfiguration) looks forwards to Jerusalem as the place where Jesus’
    departure would be fulfilled.

    Luke 9:51; 24:50-51; Acts 1:2, 11 – link the
    departure with ascension.

    Death, resurrection and forgiveness:
    see Luke 24:25-27; 24:44-49 – speaks of the Messiah
    suffering and dying, and being raised after 3 days. Repentance
    and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:22-46 shows that repentance, faith, and baptism are based on faith in believing in Jesus as Messiah and Lord and the cross, burial, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins based on those events.
    (see also Acts 13:33-39 forgiveness of sins is based on faith in the Messiahship (Son of David from Psalm 2), the cross and resurrection, etc.)
    forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem: i.e. the place of
    departure. (ascension to heaven, see Acts chapter 1) These are the key elements for a theology of atonement.

    • @ Ken

      Didn’t read your post as I’m not that invested in it. Just a quick note because you threw my name up (my article must’ve really struck a cord because you don’t do this with anyone else), whether right or wrong, in this case, showing ONE time they don’t plagiarize each other doesn’t mean they didn’t plagiarize. This is again what everyone talks about with your deception (aka lying). This is a known thing in your scholarship that somehow, someway an author copied the other with various theories to explain it but it’s pretty much a consensus they re not independent and relied on each other.

      • Difference of opinion and / or different way of understanding something is not lying or deception. I know that the literary dependence is the main consensus; so I am not lying.

        Here is how a friend of mine (Steve Hays of Triablogue) answers the charge of “plagiarism” – I agree.

        i) In the prologue, Luke tells his readers that he is using sources. So he’s not trying to take credit for someone else’s work

        ii) It’s possible for Mark’s Gospel to be a literary source of Matthew’s Gospel while the Apostle Matthew is an informant for Mark.

        Since, according to Acts 12:12, Mark’s hometown was Jerusalem, and his home was an early house-church, Mark had access to any apostles living in Jerusalem. So there’s no reason why he wouldn’t interview Matthew–among other apostles and eyewitnesses. In that event, when the Gospel of Matthew quotes Mark, it may be Matthew quoting himself!

        iii) Moreover, this isn’t like stealing someone else’s ideas from a screenplay to make a movie without giving the screenwriter credit.

        Rather, this is dealing with facts in the public domain. There were thousands of eyewitnesses to the public ministry of Christ. No individual hold the copyright to historical events.

        Likewise, when Jesus said something, no one had the copyright on what Jesus aid. His words were a matter of public record. Thousands of people heard him.

        iv) To take a final example, most of what I know about the 9/11 attacks is based on live television coverage (and instant replay). But it’s not “plagiarism” for me to discuss what happened on that day in NYC and DC if I don’t explicitly attribute my information to a particular TV network. In fact, I probably did lots of channel switching on that day. I wouldn’t be able to untangle the sources. What did I get on that day from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN?

  6. Your conclusion as to Luke 1:5-7 conflates imputed righteousness with it’s fruits(living Blamelessly). Paul is correct as is Luke.

    • Yes, that is good John Saracco – that is why Noah, Job, others, the righteous man in the Psalms, and Zacharias and Elizabeth – the text is describing true believers – Noah and Job offered animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins – looking forward to the Messiah as the final sacrifice.

      see especially Job 1:5

      When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.

  7. @ Ken:

    It is deceptive to say:

    “The Greek text of Luke is so different than Mark and Matthew that this proves that he is not looking at Mark and using Mark, which also goes against Stewjo004’s charge that they are plagiarizing each other.”

    As it makes the reader seem as if Stewjo004 (aka me) pulled this from out of nowhere when this is the consensus of YOUR scholarship NOT my personal claim. All of your points are refutable but I am not that invested in the topic I’m only commenting because of your post making it sound as if what I said was some baseless assumption like the ones you make towards Islam. There were plenty of ways to say what you said without throwing my name in there.

  8. Along with other passages in Luke-Acts above,
    In Luke 18:9-14 – the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector:

    When the tax-collector prays, “God be merciful to me the sinner!” – the word “be merciful” can also be translated “be propitious to me”and is the same basic root as the word for atonement and propitiation – the satisfaction of the wrath/anger/justice of God against sin. And remember, he has gone to the temple to pray and so the context of the temple is the animal substitutionary sacrifices – it seems reasonable to assume that he is praying after offering sacrifices. The cry for mercy is based on God’s propitiation. The word is used regarding Jesus’ atoning death on the cross – Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 2:17; I John 2:2; I John 4:10. So right there in that parable is the deeper teaching of the atonement. Also, the use of the definite article “the sinner” shows that the tax-collector recognized he is a sinner by nature and deserves death and does not deserve mercy, and is consistent with the doctrine of original sin (Romans 5:12; Psalm 51:4-5; Genesis 6:5; Ephesians 2:1-3; but he also knows that God’s mercy is based on His providing an atonement, starting in Genesis 3 onward.

    So, Luke agrees with Paul’s theology, and John, and Hebrews and the OT substitutionary theology for salvation. The whole Bible, OT and NT is a unified whole.

  9. One also can note the clear difference between Paul and Luke regarding the understanding of the resurrection.

    Paul had a very negative attitude towards the body and the law of God. No surprise that some scholars consider Paul as Gnostic.
    Paul said “But someone may ask, “How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?”….it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body
    Bear in mind that Paul said that in the context of his talk about Jesus’ resurrection.
    Also, he said “You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both …They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies.” By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also”

    In contrast , Luke has an explicit and vivid account for Jesus’ body and his stomach.
    “Look at my hands and my feet It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones , as you see I have. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet
    Not only that, but also, ” And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish. and he took it and ate it in their presence”

    This makes me wonder why this gospel was linked to the disciple of Paul? It is obvious that author,whoever he was, was not in agreement with Paul.

    • “spiritual body” means “a body actualized and energized by the Spirit” or as in other texts “a glorified body” – a real resurrection of the body that is glorified and energized by the Spirit that is able to go through walls and eat food.

      So there is no contradiction.

      • //real resurrection of the body that is glorified and energized by the Spirit //
        I don’t think that’s what he meant because christians believe that they are filled with the Spirit once they accept Jesus as their savior. Paul was talking about the resurrection of the dead ones who are buried! There’s no need to twist his talk, Ken. He made a clear distinction between the to spiritual and the natural. Luke has Jesus deny that he’s a ghost.

Leave a Reply