LUKE IS THE ONLY
ONE WITH ME
INTRODUCTION
The title of my homily is, “Luke Is The Only One With Me!”
The title of my homily is a sentence in today’s first reading from 2 Timothy 4: 10 to 17 b. “Luke Is The Only One With Me!”
Paul moves away from theology and exhortations at the end of this letter he’s writing to Timothy and gives us some autobiographical details. It seems there were 4 guys with Paul: Demas, Crescens, Titus and Luke. 3 out of the 4 disappear. Demas deserts Paul for the world. Crescens goes to Galatia and Titus goes to Dalmatia.
Then comes the sentence, “Luke is the only one with me.”
Then Paul makes some very specific requests. He asks Timothy to come to him with Mark and bring a cloak he had left with Carpas in Troas. I love that detail. He wants a cloak. Was he cold in Rome in prison? He also says bring the scrolls, especially the parchments. Were these the Jewish scriptures and / or were they some documents that lead up to the gospels? We don’t know.
JUST LUKE
The title of my homily is, “Luke Is The Only One With Me!”
The title of my homily is a sentence in today’s first reading from 2 Timothy 4: 10 to 17 b. “Luke Is The Only One With Me!”
Paul moves away from theology and exhortations at the end of this letter he’s writing to Timothy and gives us some autobiographical details. It seems there were 4 guys with Paul: Demas, Crescens, Titus and Luke. 3 out of the 4 disappear. Demas deserts Paul for the world. Crescens goes to Galatia and Titus goes to Dalmatia.
Then comes the sentence, “Luke is the only one with me.”
Then Paul makes some very specific requests. He asks Timothy to come to him with Mark and bring a cloak he had left with Carpas in Troas. I love that detail. He wants a cloak. Was he cold in Rome in prison? He also says bring the scrolls, especially the parchments. Were these the Jewish scriptures and / or were they some documents that lead up to the gospels? We don’t know.
JUST LUKE
A question hit me: What would Christianity be like if we only had one gospel and that Gospel was Luke?
I think that’s an intriguing question. For starters Luke gives the context of Jesus – time, place, and background. We have the importance of Christianity coming out of Judaism – especially because Luke was writing for the Gentiles. We hear about Mary, Joseph and John the Baptist. We have baptism and Eucharist and forgiveness. We have the importance of synagogue and temple – and especially Jerusalem. We have the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
In other words we would have enough. An added key would be the question, “Would you bring Acts into the question?” Luke wrote Acts, sort of as Part II of his Good News.
Once more the question I came up with was, “What would Christianity be like if we only had one gospel and that gospel was Luke?”
We wouldn’t have the great poetry and mysticism of John – but Luke is sometimes said to have the most polish of all 4 gospels – and the great parables that Luke alone tell us has certainly had a great impact on our world. For example, the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son stories – only found in Luke.
We wouldn’t have the conciseness and clear cut action scenes of Mark – but we have the development of story in Luke. For example, Mark begins with Jesus as adult – going into his ministry, but Luke brings us to Jesus’ beginnings. He writes about Mary saying “Yes” to the angel. Luke gives us these scenes and mysteries called, “Annunciation” and “Visitation” “Presentation and Finding in the Temple.”
A hesitation – one big hesitation…. If Luke was the only Gospel Christianity might not have survived – because Luke is the gospel of the poor and the outcast – the outsider and the rejected – and maybe the élite – the rich – the insiders – the clergy - down through the ages would reject the Good News of Jesus completely – because Luke focuses over and over again on the poor.
I don’t know.
CONCLUSION
But we have Luke and 3 other gospels – and in the meanwhile, I would like to know what was on those parchments that Luke wanted Mark to bring to him. Amen.
I think that’s an intriguing question. For starters Luke gives the context of Jesus – time, place, and background. We have the importance of Christianity coming out of Judaism – especially because Luke was writing for the Gentiles. We hear about Mary, Joseph and John the Baptist. We have baptism and Eucharist and forgiveness. We have the importance of synagogue and temple – and especially Jerusalem. We have the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
In other words we would have enough. An added key would be the question, “Would you bring Acts into the question?” Luke wrote Acts, sort of as Part II of his Good News.
Once more the question I came up with was, “What would Christianity be like if we only had one gospel and that gospel was Luke?”
We wouldn’t have the great poetry and mysticism of John – but Luke is sometimes said to have the most polish of all 4 gospels – and the great parables that Luke alone tell us has certainly had a great impact on our world. For example, the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son stories – only found in Luke.
We wouldn’t have the conciseness and clear cut action scenes of Mark – but we have the development of story in Luke. For example, Mark begins with Jesus as adult – going into his ministry, but Luke brings us to Jesus’ beginnings. He writes about Mary saying “Yes” to the angel. Luke gives us these scenes and mysteries called, “Annunciation” and “Visitation” “Presentation and Finding in the Temple.”
A hesitation – one big hesitation…. If Luke was the only Gospel Christianity might not have survived – because Luke is the gospel of the poor and the outcast – the outsider and the rejected – and maybe the élite – the rich – the insiders – the clergy - down through the ages would reject the Good News of Jesus completely – because Luke focuses over and over again on the poor.
I don’t know.
CONCLUSION
But we have Luke and 3 other gospels – and in the meanwhile, I would like to know what was on those parchments that Luke wanted Mark to bring to him. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment