Untitled Sermon (2)

Dion Pomponio

Sermon • Submitted 8 years ago

Luke 10:25–37

0 ratings

· 41 views

The Good Samaritan

Notes

Transcript

Sermon Tone Analysis

Emotion

Language

Social

View more →

Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 13–32 Jesus Is the Good Samaritan

Jesus Is the Good Samaritan

(310) It is likely that some frequently made these remarks about the Savior to one another in secret and called him a Samaritan because, like the Samaritans, he falsified Jewish traditions. “For the Jews do not have dealings with the Samaritans,” since they disagree with them on many doctrines.

(311) But it is possibly worthwhile to ask how, since the Samaritans deny the age to come and do not accept the continued existence of the soul, they dared to say the Savior was a [Samaritan] when he taught so many things about resurrection and judgment.

(312) But perhaps they say this to reproach him, and not at all because he teaches the same doctrines as the Samaritans. And it is likely that some thought that his teachings about the age to come, and judgment, and resurrection came, not from his own views on these subjects, since he himself held the Samaritan view that nothing is in store for men after this life, but from pretense, and that his remarks about resurrection and eternal life were made in accordance with what is generally approved and pleasing to the Jews.

(313) And they said he had a demon because of his teachings, which exceeded human limits, as when he said that God was his Father and that he had descended from heaven,313 and that he himself was the bread of life that was much greater than the manna, so that the one who eats this bread will live forever, and ten thousand other things with which the Gospels are filled.

(314) Now, it is also possible that they said, “You have a demon,” because of what they believed about Beelzebub, since some of them thought he “cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons,”316 and had Beelzebub in himself, as it were.

(315) His enemies, therefore, will know in what respect they say that he has a demon, but we believe him who declares, “I do not have a demon.” For a demon cannot open the eyes of the blind or perform these signs which also have been recorded. And traces and remnants of these signs continue to occur in the name of Jesus up to the present in the churches.318

(316) One might next investigate why indeed, when the Jews (not those who had believed in him) who answered him apply two slanders to him, namely, “You are a Samaritan,” and, “You have a demon,” he does not respond to both, but only to the charge, “You have a demon,” when he says, “I do not have a demon.”

(317) And see if it is possible that the message of the parable in the Gospel according to Luke is related to this. It is about the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves, whom the priest and the Levite passed by, but the Samaritan came upon him on his journey, saw him, had compassion, approached him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.

(318) For if someone, in discussing this parable, should be able to prove that the things said about the Samaritan who healed the man who was half-dead and had fallen among thieves refer to no one other than the Savior, he will also show why the Savior did not deny that he was a Samaritan.

(319) But someone else, when he has observed the distinction Paul makes between Jews and those under the Law, and has referred those under the Law anagogically to the Samaritans, and has understood that the Savior, more than Paul, became all things to all men that he might gain all men,322 will say that because he became as one under the Law for those under the Law, he also became a Samaritan, as it were, and in accordance with this he did not deny that he was a Samaritan.

(320) Moreover, a third person who has understood the meaning of the name Samaritan, which means guard, will say that, although the Jews called him a Samaritan in another sense, because he understood what the name means, he did not deny it. He knew that he was the guard of human souls, and that it was said of him, “Behold, he who guards Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep,”324 and, “The Lord is the guard of the little ones.”

(321) The Hebrews, however, call a guard somer, and thus they also hand on in their tradition that the Samaritans first received this name because the king of the Assyrians sent them to be guards of the land of Israel after the captivity, that is, that other Israel besides Judah, which was taken captive into Assyria because of their many sins.

The Lexham Bible Dictionary Culture

Culture

Ituraea held a poor reputation among Galileans. Josephus describes the area as full of thieves and bandits who hid out among the hills and caves and attacked travelers at will (Josephus, Antiquities 15.10). Although Josephus’ account certainly bears the marks of ethnocentrism, stories such as the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) demonstrate the dangers of traveling through Palestine and its surrounding areas in the first century.

A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture § 2. Of the Love of Our Neighbour

§ 2. OF THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOUR

The commandment to love our neighbour: 472 479; 558 (the good Samaritan); 640 648.

Models of the love of our neighbour: Noe 40; Abraham 57 60; Moses 160; Booz 209; Tobias 295; Jeremias 326; Mary 393; the first Christians 747; Stephen 756; Tabitha 770; Cornelius 776.

Our love of our neighbour ought to be

1. sincere: Abraham 57; Joseph’s love for his brethren 112; Moses’ love for his people 160; Mary’s for Elizabeth 393; Elizabeth’s neighbours 396; the centurion 487; the good Samaritan 558.

2. disinterested: Abraham 57; Rebecca 74; Booz 209; David and Jonathan 227; Tobias 300; Mary ministering to Elizabeth 393; “With what measure” &c. 479; the good Samaritan 558; Stephen 756; Tabitha 770; Cornelius 776.

3. entire: Joseph’s love for his enemies 110 112; David 231 245; the good Samaritan 558; Stephen 756.

Jesus has commanded us to love our enemies 473 (“I say to you, love your enemies” &c.); 551 (parable of the unmerciful servant); He taught the same by His example 659 (by healing the wounded Malchus); 693 (by praying on the Cross for His enemies).

It is noble to forgive: 89 (Esau); 112 (Joseph).

Love of the poor, widows &c.: the king’s daughter and the infant Moses 130; Booz and the poor Ruth 209; Tobias 300; Jesus with the widow of Naim 491; the centurion 487; the widows of the early Christians 758; Tabitha and the widows 770.

The corporal works of mercy:

1. to feed the hungry: Abraham 57; Joseph 108; Booz 209; the widow of Sarepta 267; Jesus multiplies the loaves 526; Martha 560;

2. to give drink to the thirsty: Abraham 57; Rebecca 74; the woman of Samaria 453.

3. to clothe the naked: Tabitha 770.

4. to harbour the harbourless: Abraham 60; Martha and Mary 560; the two disciples at Emmaus 720.

5. to visit the imprisoned: Abraham 56; Daniel saves Susanna 331.

6. to visit the sick: Job’s friends 124; the disciples of John the Baptist 492; the good Samaritan 558; Peter visits Eneas 768.

7. to bury the dead: Tobias 305; the inhabitants of Naim 489; Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus 704.

The spiritual works of mercy:

1. to convert the sinner: Henoch 35; Noe 36; Joseph 107; Elias 271; John the Baptist 425; the thief on the right hand 696; Paul and Barnabas at Lystra 783.

2. to instruct the ignorant: Jesus in chapters XV–XVII; Peter on day of Pentecost 735; at Cæsarea 772; Philip and the Ethiopian 760; Paul at Athens 792.

3. to counsel the doubtful: Joseph 102; Roboam’s old advisers 262; Naaman’s servants 280; the counsel of Gamaliel 750.

4. to comfort the sorrowful: Joseph 99; Tobias 296; Jesus in chapt. XXIII (the young man of Naim), XXV (Magdalen), XXX (Jairus’ daughter), LIV (the raising of Lazarus), LXVIII (parting words).

5. to bear wrongs patiently: Job, his wife and his friends 126; David’s magnanimity 231; Tobias and his wife’s reproaches 294; Eleazar 361; Jesus in His Passion 656 701.

6. to forgive injuries: Esau 89; Joseph 112; David 228 246; Jesus 693; Stephen 757.

7. to pray for the living and the dead: Abraham intercedes for Sodom 62; Moses for his people chapt. XXXVII XL, Samuel XLVIII; Solomon LIX, Elias LXIII, Judas Machabeus LXXXV for the dead); the disciples pray for Peter’s mother-in-law 460; Jesus for His apostles 520; for the unity of the Church 265; for His enemies 645; Stephen prays for his murderers 755; the Church for Peter 780.

Ordinary Grace Weeks 1–17: Daily Gospel Reflections Fifteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time—Year C

Fifteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time—Year C

Lectio

Luke 10:25–37

Meditatio

“… a Samaritan …”

As followers of Christ we are called to a high standard of love. I was especially impressed by something that happened at the Superdome in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As help was arriving to rescue people, many pushed forward—even violently—to be taken first. A small group of Vietnamese Catholics quietly remained in their places, praying the rosary, asking that the others be taken first. Another moving example occurred in October 2006, when the Amish community in Pennsylvania publicly forgave a gunman who had brutally shot and killed five Amish schoolgirls.

When I witness families, communities, and parish committees who have a communication style marked by passive aggression or angry bitterness, I wonder where our high standard of love has gone. How are we different from those who have no faith? We have no gun (usually) so the violence isn’t reported in the papers, but it is still hateful violence. Can we still rise to the challenge that Jesus gives us with the parable of the Good Samaritan?

When we hear “Good Samaritan,” our hearts are warmed by the gentle kindness of the man who went out of his way to help someone who was down and out. When Jesus’ listeners heard “Samaritan,” they felt at least intense disgust if not outright hatred. Strong animosity existed between the Jews and the Samaritans. They didn’t live together, eat together, pray together, or even communicate. A centuries-long standoff kept the two groups apart. Jesus is saying that the one you hate, the one you think is no good, may be the one who will someday save you. In a way, Jesus is describing himself as the Good Samaritan for the human race. Jesus is also showing us how to behave when we are the labeled outsider, and he is humbling those who label others as good or bad. Finally, Jesus is calling us as his followers to communion, mutual forgiveness, and personal service.

Oratio

Jesus, what you say is hard. I’m not sure I can do this. How can I create communion in the difficult situations in which I live? I hear your answer: “You can’t create communion. Only I can. All I ask you to do is to forgive, to serve the other people in your life, even your ‘enemies,’ and to love everyone.”

Contemplatio

All that you ask of me, Lord, I cannot do on my own. I depend on you to accomplish it in me.

Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels The Words and Teachings of Jesus in the Context of Judea (Luke 10:29–37; John 2:18–22)

The Words and Teachings of Jesus in the Context of Judea

Luke 10:29–37; John 2:18–22

Key Points

• Jesus often used his immediate geographical backdrop to shape the way he delivered his message for those who listened.

• The bulk of Jesus’ Judean ministry took place in and around Jerusalem.

• Knowledge of the main road from Jerusalem to Jericho provides a backdrop for the parable of the Good Samaritan and clues for understanding the parable of the Unjust Nobleman.

• The appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem were all connected to Jewish rites and festivals, and references to “living water” are related to temple scenes.

Introduction

The ministry of Jesus occurred almost entirely within the historic boundaries of the land of Israel. Specifically, the Gospel writers relay that over the course of his short ministry Jesus visited and taught in:

• the regions of Galilee (numerous)

• the district of Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:13; Mark 8:27)

• the Decapolis (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1, 20; 7:31; Luke 8:26; cf. Matt 4:25)

• Phoenicia (Matt 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–31; cf. Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17)

• Samaria (Luke 9:52–56; 17:11; John 4:1–42; cf. Luke 10:33; 17:16)

• Perea (Mark 10:1; John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40; cf. Matt 4:15, 25; Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17)

• Judea (numerous)

In a parallel article in this volume, Vernon Alexander has demonstrated the particular geographical language that Jesus used during his ministry in Galilee where he spent the bulk of his ministry (see The Words and Teachings of Jesus in the Context of Galilee). This paper will examine the geographically specific language used by Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem.

Geographic Particularities Outside of Galilee and Judea

Before we begin our Judea-specific analysis, it is worth briefly examining the geographical particularities of the language Jesus used in the regions outlined above (besides Galilee and Judea). In general, many of Jesus’ actions and teachings bear a particular geographical distinctiveness that is often rooted in earlier biblical accounts, contemporary realities within the region, and topographic considerations. This brief discussion is not meant to be an exhaustive list of this dynamic in the regions mentioned, but rather to illustrate the types of geographical particularities that were highlighted by the Gospels writers.

In Caesarea Philippi, it seems to be no coincidence that Jesus chose to reveal his true identity (Son of Man) and purpose (death) to his disciples in a predominantly Gentile territory (Matt 16:13–28). These events likely prefigured the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom.

In Samaria, James and John suggested to Jesus that they should call down “fire from heaven to consume them,” because the Samaritan village had refused to receive him, on account of the fact that Jesus’ “face was set toward Jerusalem” (Luke 9:52–54). While the name of the Samaritan village is not given, it brings to mind similar events in the ministries of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:10–12) and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:23–25) where judgment was brought upon the inhabitants of Samaria (in the national sense, i.e., Israel), because of their rejection of Yahweh’s chosen messenger (Elijah/Elisha) and place (Jerusalem versus Bethel). In John 4, Jesus interacted with a Samaritan woman at the traditional well of Jacob (John 4:5–6; cf. Gen 33:18–20), and beneath the “mountain” (John 4:19–24) that included a large Samaritan temple on top of Gerizim. These contemporary realties are reflected in the language Jesus used with the Samaritan woman. Besides numerous other passages related to supernatural water (e.g., Ezek 47:1ff., see also below), Jesus’ metaphor for drinking “living waters” seems to be strongly alluding to Jacob’s interaction with Rachel “at the well” (Gen 29:1–14). Also, Jesus’ denunciation of the Samaritan religious system and its central location on Mount Gerizim (John 4:19–24) can only be understood against the backdrop of Jewish-Samaritan relations during the late 6th–1st centuries BC.

Likewise, in Phoenicia (Matt 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30), the Gospel writers once again drew from the intertextual parallels from the Elijah-Elisha cycle (1 Kgs 17:8–24) to show Jesus’ typological relationship as a prophet (and a “son of David” cf. Matt 15:21–22) who ministered to Phoenicians beyond Israel’s borders (cf. Luke 4:25–26).

Geographical Particularities in Judea and Jerusalem

The Geography of the Roman Province of Judea

Judea became part of the Roman Empire following Pompey’s conquest (without a fight) in 63 BC. The boundaries of Roman Judea were largely identical to Judea/Yehud during the preceding Hellenistic and Persian periods, and to a lesser extent the Kingdom of Judah from the first temple period. Each of these entities included the regions of Benjamin, the western and northwestern shores of the Dead Sea (cf. Ant. 14.55; 15.96–99; 15.253–258 for disputes between Herod and Cleopatra over territory including the region of Jericho), the northern portion of the Judean Hill country (north of Beth-zur; cf. 1 Macc 1:46; 2 Macc 11:5), and the northern valleys of the Judean Shephelah including the Aijalon, Sorek, and Elah valleys (the area south of these valleys was in the territory of Idumea).

Political Regions of Herod the Great

As we shall demonstrate, most of Jesus’ activity in Judea was in Jerusalem with the bulk of events and teachings occurring in and around the temple mount. Outside of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity, there is no record of Jesus traveling further south than Bethlehem, or any indication that he visited the Negeb or the Shephelah during his ministry. However, there are a few accounts that deal with Jesus in Jerusalem’s periphery. We will address these texts separately.

Jesus in Judea

Baptizing in the Judean Countryside (John 3:22–4:3)

The first instance of Jesus in Judea comes from John, who records that Jesus was baptizing in the “Judean countryside” (John 3:22–4:3) following the Passover festival (John 2:13, 23) and before John had been “put in prison” (John 3:24). While none of Jesus’ “words” are recorded in this account, it is worth noting that Jesus was baptizing at a different location than John the Baptist, and that a discussion arose concerning Jewish ritual purification among John’s disciples. Given the critical role water purification (via a ritual bath) played in Jewish religious practice, it is interesting that Jesus practiced baptism (through his disciples; John 4:2) in the same manner as John. Clearly, from the “baptism of John” (e.g., Matt 21:25) the practice of baptism developed into a critical part of the Gospel movement (e.g., Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16), so this “early” reference to Jesus’ participation in this practice demonstrates the significance of baptism to the entire kingdom movement. While no specific location is given for Jesus’ baptism, there are many springs in the vicinity of Jerusalem particularly in the south and west (e.g., Moza, Sataf, Tzuba, etc.) that could have served as a baptism site. Even until today, visitors to these springs will often find Jewish men using the springs as a ritual bath (see Wilderness Events: The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus).

Bethany beyond the Jordan (north and south)

Video: The Wilderness

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37)

In the famous parable of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:29–37), Jesus used the real physical setting of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho (i.e., the Ascent of Adummim; Josh 15:7; 18:17; cf. J.W. 4.474; 5.69–70;Onom. 24.5) as the background of a parable illustrating actions that represent being a true “neighbor” (Luke 10:37). The ascent of Adummim is a well-known route that connects Jerusalem to Jericho. The ascent is marked by a continuous ridge that descends down from the eastern side of the Mount of Olives just south of the Augusta Victoria Hospital and continues past modern Maʿale Adummim toward Jericho above Wadi Qelt.

Atlas: Jesus’ Final Journey to Jerusalem

Elevation Profile of Jerusalem to Jericho

“

The Ascent of Adummim connected Jerusalem and Judea with the Jewish communities in Perea and Galilee, which would have made it a logical place for robberies, a main thoroughfare for Levites and Priests, and perhaps an unlikely route for a Samaritan.

”

The biblical references refer to the ridge route and not a specific place along the route. Yet, the most notable part of the route is marked by a series of later buildings built on top of a highpoint where the rock is especially marked by red streaks in the Senonian limestone, which seem to have given the name to the route. 13 During the Late Roman period, a road was built along the natural route, and fortresses were constructed during the Late Roman and Crusader periods on the hill opposite the Byzantine church where excavations revealed remains from the second temple period beneath the fortress.15 The Ascent of Adummim connected Jerusalem and Judea with the Jewish communities in Perea and Galilee, which would have made it a logical place for robberies (Luke 10:29), a main thoroughfare for Levites and Priests (Luke 10:30–31), and perhaps an unlikely route for a Samaritan (Luke 10:32). With regards to robbers, Jerome relays that St. Paula “went through the place of the Adummim, which means ‘blood’ because a great deal of blood was spilled there as a result of frequent attacks by robbers.” Given all of the surrounding evidence, it seems that Jesus aptly used the geographical and socio-political setting of his day to illustrate a powerful rhetorical statement about being a true “neighbor” (see The Passover Pilgrimage from Jericho to Jerusalem).

The Parable of the Nobleman (Luke 19:11–27)

Following the salvation of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1–10), Jesus told a parable to those at Zacchaeus’ house who were partaking in a meal together. Significantly, this parable was told “because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately” (Luke 19:11). This indicates that Jesus had travelled along the main road through Perea, before entering the region of Jericho. In the chronology of the Gospels, this parable seems to have been told the night before Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem via the Ascent of Adummim. Since it seems that Jesus shared a Shabbat meal on Friday night with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus before the triumphal entry on Sunday of Passion Week (John 12:1), then this parable would have been told the Thursday before the approaching Shabbat.

Roman Road and the Jerusalem-Jericho Road

In light of the close proximity of the Herodian residence of Herod Archelaus (Archelais – Khirbet el-Beiyudat) to Jericho, many scholars have pointed to Archelaus’ “journey” to Rome (Ant. 17.342–343; J.W. 2.111–113) as the background for Jesus’ parable of the “nobleman who went to a far country to receive himself a kingdom and then return” (Luke 19:12). The palatial compound at Jericho that was greatly enlarged by Herod the Great (located beneath Cypros and along Wadi Qelt) is well-known, and discussed in several accounts by Josephus.

Herod’s building at Jericho is one of numerous complex, monumental building projects that were undertaken by Herod the Great. Conversely, Archelais is the only known building project attributed to Archelaus. According to Josephus, Archelais was founded in Archelaus’ first year, which is usually dated to 4 BC (Ant. 17.340; 18.31; cf. Pliny Nat. 13.44, who states that the village was between Jericho and Phasaelis).

Herod’s Winter Palace in Jericho

Excavations at the site have revealed “an agricultural estate (date groves) with a tower and an aqueduct that brought water from the el-ʿAuja spring (located 8.5 km to the west).” As noted by Hizmi, in addition to its purpose as an agricultural estate for dates (and perhaps balsam), Archelais seems to have also been used as a waystation for collecting taxes of travelers.23 The residence remained active throughout the Early Roman period, and a “monumental ashlar tower” was added during the time of the Roman procurators, as demonstrated by the discover of coins relating to Valerius Gratus, Pontius Pilate, and Antonius Felix. These details provide an additional background layer to the character and employment (i.e., tax-collector) of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:2), as well as providing a physical element of Rome’s presence along the main Jewish pilgrim route to Jerusalem from Perea and Galilee.

Archelaus was recalled by Caesar “in the tenth year of his government” (AD 6), because he had “broken the commands of Caesar” (Ant. 17.342–343). Caesar called “Archelaus’ steward” who informed his master of his decision, and, after sailing for Rome, Archelaus was banished to Vienna (in Gaul), and his money was taken away from him (Ant. 17.343–344).

Many of these details have parallels in Jesus’ parable including the departure of the nobleman (Archelaus), the calling of a steward, and the hatred of citizens who sent a delegation to the king. Of course, the outcome of the events in the parable are reversed from reality, as Jesus imagined a situation in which the nobleman returned, and dealt harshly with those who had spoken ill of him and not acted faithfully with his wealth (Luke 19:13–26), whereas Archelaus never did return. Conversely, and given the severe actions of Archelaus before his banishment, as well the well-known jealousy-driven cruelty of his father (Herod the Great), Jesus’ warnings in his revisionist parable offered a realistic depiction of the consequences for disobedience had Archelaus been allowed to return. Jesus’ parable seems to be a clear example of him using his contemporary setting to illustrate a larger theological point (see The Historical Basis of the Parable of the Pounds).

The Walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35)

Moving to the western side of Judea, Luke records that Jesus travelled with “two disciples” to the village of Emmaus following his resurrection (Luke 24:13–35). Regarding this account, several geographical comments can be made that help illustrate this dramatic discussion between Jesus and two of his dejected followers (one was named Cleopas, Luke 24:18). Emmaus was located west of Jerusalem at a distance of either 30, 60 or 160 stadia along the main Roman road from Jerusalem to the Aijalon Valley and the coastal plain. This road is sometimes referred to as the “Kiriath-jearim ridge route,” and is largely identical to the modern Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway (see The Post-Resurrection Appearances of Christ).

Regardless of the precise identification of New Testament Emmaus (perhaps Qaloniyeh/Moza), the direction of their journey indicates that these followers of Jesus actually presided in Judea, as opposed to the majority of his followers, who would have been from Galilee. In fact, besides Joseph of Arimithea (Matt 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50; John 19:38), these two are the only known of Jesus’ followers who were from Judea and lived outside of Jerusalem. It is also interesting to note that the conversation between Jesus and his two unsuspecting followers occurred along the same route that was taken by David when he brought the Ark of the Covenant from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6). Perhaps Jesus mentioned this fact to the two when he began with “Moses and then all the prophets interpreting to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:26).

David’s Journey from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem

Video: Emmaus / Nicopolis

Jesus in Jerusalem – Rituals and Feasts

With our discussion of the narratives associated with Judea complete, we can now turn our attention to Jesus’ numerous statements in Jerusalem. All of the Gospel narratives of Jesus in Jerusalem are related to a particular Jewish rite or festival. In several instances during his ministry, Jesus made a declaration of intent to go to Jerusalem. These visitations to Jerusalem and accompanying declarations include the following:

1. Joseph and Mary present Jesus to the Lord at the temple on the eighth day after his birth (Luke 2:22).

2. Jesus travelled to Jerusalem with his parents for Passover at the age of twelve (Luke 2:41–51).

3. The first Passover of Jesus’ ministry (John 2:13, 23).

4. Jesus travelled to Jerusalem for “a feast of the Jews,” which was possibly the feast of Tabernacles (John 5:1).

5. The second Passover of Jesus’ ministry (John 6:4), but with no record of Jesus travelling to Jerusalem.

6. Private journey to Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles with public ministry during the middle of the feast (John 7:2, 10, 14, 37).

7. Hanukkah (feast of Dedication) in Jerusalem (John 10:22).

8. Death and resurrection prediction before final Passover in Jerusalem (Matt 20:17–19; Mark 10:32–34; Luke 18:31–33; cf. Luke 9:31, 51–55; 13:22, 31–35; John 11:55; 12:1).

Interactive: Jewish Calendar

“

All of the Gospel narratives of Jesus in Jerusalem are related to a particular Jewish rite or festival.

”

These eight instances illustrate the significance of Jerusalem in the ministry of Jesus. Luke’s account provides the early record of Jesus’ circumcision and presentation as a son of the covenant as a youth (cf. Luke 2:22 ff.) Besides the final Passover that is mentioned in all four Gospels, John includes four additional journeys to Jerusalem by Jesus (see above). Due to limitations of space, I am limiting the discussion of Jesus in Jerusalem to the timeframe before his entrance into the city during the final Passover/Passion Week. In this final section, we will discuss each of the four earlier visits Jesus made to Jerusalem according to the Gospel of John.

Destroy “This” Temple (John 2:18–22)

During Jesus’ initial visit to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, John records that Jesus cleansed the temple from the money-changers and sacrifice-sellers (John 2:14–17). In the aftermath of this action, the following interchange took place between Jesus and the Jews who were present at the temple.

“So the Jews said to him, ‘What sign do you show us for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple (τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον), and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple [ho naos houtos, ὁ ναὸς οὗτος], and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” (John 2:18–22 ESV)

John’s theological explanation is clear. Jesus was referring to the temple as a metaphor for his own body that would be crucified and raised with power after three days (cf. also Matt 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29). On the other hand, scholars have been divided over the meaning of the Jews’ confused response to Jesus, which makes reference to a duration of forty-six years in connection with the construction of the temple. As noted by Hoehner, Josephus made a distinction between the temple itself (ναὸς) and the entire temple mount complex (ἱερος). This distinction was also used in the Gospels (e.g., Luke 21:5). Therefore, in this context Jesus and the Jews were referring to the temple building itself (naos, ναός), which was commenced in the 18th year of Herod the Great (20/19 BC – Ant. 15.380; cf. J.W. 1.401, which dates this event to the 15th year of Herod the Great, see discussion in Hoehner) and finished a year-and-a-half later in 18/17 BC (Ant. 15.421). Therefore, the Jews’ statement that the temple (naos, ναός) had been standing for “forty-six years” (i.e., in the year 29/30 AD) indicates that the building that had been standing most, if not all, of their lifetimes. They understood the monumental effort undertaken in constructing the temple, and it was unimaginable that such a majestic structure could be destroyed and re-built in a mere three days (see Magnificent Stones and Wonderful Buildings of the Temple Complex).

Infographic: The Temple Mount

Chronological issues aside, Jesus’ use of the temple as a metaphor for his body is even more shocking than the Jews’ understanding of his statement as a prophecy/threat. The temple was the most important part of Jewish life. It was the house of Yahweh, where his Spirit dwelled (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:4–11), and the focal point of all religious expression and life in Jerusalem. In this metaphor, Jesus was pointing to the parallels between the temple and himself. Both the temple and Jesus were indwelt with God’s Spirit. Both the temple and Jesus were the culmination of a long process in God’s redemptive plan. Shockingly, both the temple and Jesus will/would be unexpectedly destroyed and, yet, raised again.

Remains of the Western Wall

“

In order to fully understand the implications of Jesus’ prophetic metaphor we need to see through the eyes of those who had witnessed the building and lived with the colossal Herodian temple.

”

From a hermeneutical perspective, it is important for readers to realize that the Jews of that day did not understand Jesus’ theological metaphor, and, in fact, even his disciples did not understand the metaphor until after his death (John 2:22). They had a clear understanding of the image that Jesus was using (i.e., the temple building). While modern readers have the benefit of John describing the purpose of the metaphor (John 2:22), we can easily struggle in imagining the visuals that Jesus was drawing on to illustrate his point, because we were simply not there. However, in order to fully understand the implications of Jesus’ prophetic metaphor we need to see through the eyes of those who had witnessed the building and lived with the colossal Herodian temple. Only then can we possibly grasp their incredulousness at Jesus’ statement. Conversely, only we (those living this side of the cross and the empty tomb) can fully understand the true shock of the rejection and death of the true living temple, which is only surpassed by the outright astonishment of the true temple’s resurrection in three days.

Interactive: Jerusalem Before & After

The Blind and the Lame (John 5:2–17; 9:1–12)

John’s “six miracles” are considered by many to be the main literary structure of his Gospel. Two of these miracles occurred in Jerusalem. First, Jesus healed the man who had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years (John 5:2–17) at the pools of Bethesda during the unnamed Jewish feast of John 5:1 (see Jesus at the Pool of Bethesda. Second, Jesus healed the man born blind in the Lower City and the pool of Siloam (John 9:1–12) during the feast of Tabernacles (cf. John 7:2) (see Healing by Living Water at the Pool of Siloam). From a geographical perspective, these two events occurred at the northern and southern end of the eastern hill of Jerusalem respectively. During the Gospel era, the pools of Bethesda were located north of the Herodian temple mount and outside of the fortifications of the second wall, whereas the pool of Siloam (Luke 13:4; John 9:7, 11; cf. 2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Neh 3:5; Isa 8:6) was located at the southern end of the Lower City within the Central Valley, and near the confluence of the Kidron, Hinnom, and Central Valleys.

Infographic: Jerusalem

Video: The Pool of Bethesda

Video: Jerusalem Flyover (3D)

“

King David refused to let the blind and the lame into his palace; but Jesus healed the blind and the lame so that they could enter into his house.

”

While these narratives clearly serve multiple literary purposes in the context of John’s Gospel (e.g., as a narrative device for showing the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious establishment), it is interesting to note that the physical misfortunes (i.e., being lame and blind) of these two men have a very clear intertextual parallel with the “blind and lame” inhabitants of the city when David conquered it. According to 2 Samuel 5:6ff., the “blind and the lame” of Jebus could not enter the house of David, because the Jebusites used them to taunt David on account of his presumed inability to conquer the city. Despite the Jebusite claim, David (via Joab; cf. 1 Chr 11:6) conquered the city using the water system, after which he made his pronouncement concerning the blind and the lame. Besides the clear similarity between the blind and the lame in the narratives, it is also interesting that a Jerusalem water system is the method of salvation in all three accounts. Finally, as is often the case with Gospel intertextual parallels, the main point of the allusion is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over his predecessor. In this instance, David refused to let the blind and the lame into his palace, whereas, Jesus healed the blind and the lame so that they may enter into his house (i.e., the temple – cf. Isa 35:5–6; Jer 31:8; Matt 11:5).

Living Waters from the Temple (John 7:37–38)

On the last day of the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), Jesus “stood up in the temple,” and stated “if anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:37–38). Within the context of the feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34–39; Num 29:12–34), this statement has clear allusions to the Israelites’ wilderness wandering experience in which they were hungry and thirsty (e.g., Deut 8:5). On the other hand, there are several prophetic statements that refer to a future “living” fountain or river that would flow from the temple to both the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea (Ezek 47:1–12; Joel 3:18; Zech 14:8). The prophets used the image of a flowing fountain from the temple that would flow through the Kidron Valley and into the Judean Wilderness causing the land around, and even the Dead Sea itself to flourish and bring forth life. Against this prophetic and geographical background, Jesus stood in the very place where the prophets had stated that these things would occur “on that day” (i.e., the Day of Yahweh, cf. Joel 3:14), and claimed to be the very fountain that had been promised by the prophets (see The People’s Thirst at the Feast of Tabernacles).

Judean Wilderness

In Solomon’s Portico (John 10:22–39)

Solomon’s Portico (stoa, στοά), which is referenced in John 10:22 and Acts 3:11, is usually identified with the eastern colonnade or porch of the temple mount. According to Josephus, this section had been previously built by Solomon, as he wrote, “this was the work of king Solomon, who first of all built the entire temple” (Ant. 17.221). These passages indicate that the Jews of the second temple period believed that the eastern side of the temple mount was the most ancient section of the structure. In fact, Ritmeyer has conclusively demonstrated that this portion of the eastern wall was initially constructed during the first temple period (i.e., Iron Age II).

Map of New Testament Jerusalem

During Hanukkah in the winter before the final Passover of his ministry, Jesus taught in Solomon’s Portico (John 10:22). From a practical perspective, the weather was likely the cause for Jesus teaching in the relative shelter of Solomon’s Portico, as opposed to the open “court of the Gentiles,” which surrounded the Temple. On the other hand, and given the fact that shade in Israel is always preferable to standing in the hot Mediterranean sun (as many can attest!), it is possible that the mention of Solomon’s Portico is meant to draw the reader’s attention to parallels between Solomon and the substance of Jesus’ teaching.

The reign of Solomon (c. 971–931 BC) was the unquestioned golden age of ancient Israel. From a literary perspective, this is highlighted in a number of ways in the book of Kings. Following David, his messianic father (cf. 1 Sam 16; 2 Sam 7), Solomon was the “christ” (mšḥ – cf. 1 Kgs 1:33–40), who oversaw a period of prosperity when “Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea” (1 Kgs 4:20). This summary statement closely matches the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 22:17), and indicates a partial fulfillment of that covenant. Moreover, Solomon had built his palace just south of the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6–7), and presided over the indwelling of Yahweh’s temple (1 Kgs 8)—both of these structures had been located in the immediate proximity of Solomon’s Portico.

These are important background details for understanding Jesus’ response to the questions regarding whether or not he claimed to be the messiah (John 10:25). The preceding “Good Shepherd” sermon and the confusion of Jesus’ audience (John 10:1–21) is also worth considering. In this sermon, which apparently occurred some months earlier during or just after the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus used the familiar shepherd image to illustrate his covenantal claim to the role of the Davidic Messiah (cf. 2 Sam 5:2; Ezek 34:23 ff.; 37:24). In John 10:22–31, Jesus reiterated the Davidic shepherd metaphor (10:25–27); claimed that his authority was derived from “his Father,” who he was equal with (10:25, 29), like Solomon had been with David; and offered eternal life to his followers (10:28 – compare to the kingdom conditions during the reign of Solomon, see above). While it would be an overstatement to point to a direct intertextual link between this passage and 1 Kings, the lasting memory of Israel’s golden age under Solomon and the expectation that even that era would be surpassed as a result of Solomon’s coming successor should be taken into account when considering the crowd’s questions and Jesus’ response.

Moreover, and besides the possible parallels with Solomon, the fact that this interchange occurred during Hanukkah should also cause us to examine the events connected with the development of the feast of Hanukkah for potential textual ramifications. Hanukkah (or the feast of Dedication) was a Jewish festival that was observed in the winter months (November–December) in celebration of the Hasmonean/Maccabean re-dedication of the temple and the altar (1 Macc 4:36–61; 2 Macc 1:18; 2:16, 19; 10:3, 5, 7) in late 165 or 164 BC following its desecration by the Seleucid Monarch Antiochus IV. In Jesus’ day, the festival was widely observed by Jews. During the brief period of Hasmonean rule (c. 165–63 BC), Judea was independent, and even expansionistic, ultimately attaining a kingdom roughly the size of the kingdom under David and Solomon.

Significantly, the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty coupled with the re-dedication of the temple meant that this brief period was the only time in which daily sacrifices were not offered in honor of an imperial power who controlled Yehud/Judea (cf. Ezra 6:10). This practice began following the return to Judah under Cyrus I after 539 BC, and was presumably resumed following the Roman annexation of Judea by Pompey in 63 BC. It is worth noting that the Jews of Jerusalem received special privileges from Rome in that they were not required to offer sacrifices to the emperor as a deity, but, instead, they offered sacrifices in his honor and for his well-being and the well-being of his family (cf. Cap. 2.77–78). However, it appears that even this practice was abhorrent to many Jews, as made evident by Josephus’ statement that refers to the cessation of the imperial sacrifice as the “true beginning of our war with the Romans, for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar” (J.W. 2.409–410).

Interactive: The Cyrus Cylinder

Against this historical backdrop, Jesus’ strongly implied claim to be the Messiah in the Davidic/Solomonic line (in addition to being “one with the father” and the “I am” – John 10:25–38) would have had multiple layers of meaning. Theology was the primary layer highlighted by John based on Jesus’ claim to divinity, and the spectators’ hostile response. However, it seems there would have also been contemporary political undertones in Jesus’ claim. In fact, following the feeding of the 5,000, John made an explicit reference to Jesus’ awareness of the crowds’ desire to “take him by force to make him king” (John 6:15). In this regard, it can be safely stated that Jesus was aware of the historical background of the imperial sacrifice, the Hasmonean re-dedication of the altar and the temple, and the deep-seated Jewish animosity of Rome’s renewal of this practice. Subsequently, and given the above-mentioned examples of geographical and political driven themes in Jesus’ teaching, it seems that Jesus was using the existing political environment to demonstrate his true and Rome-surpassing authority as the Son of God and the true messianic King of Israel.

Conclusion

In this essay, we have looked at several different examples of Jesus using language that was distinctive to the geographical and political setting of Judea and Jerusalem during the Gospel era. Despite the fact that Jesus grew up and spent most of his ministry outside of Jerusalem, it is quite clear from the examples discussed that Jesus had an intimate knowledge of the landscape and political realities of Judea. This reality can be observed in the ways in which Jesus used his Judean surroundings as a way of illustrating his teachings and his interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and allusions concerning himself.

Untitled Sermon (2)

​