So I’m reading through the Gospel of Luke this week, just having reached the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. I always find benefit in gulping down sizable chunks of Scripture text all at once rather than the chapter-a-day approach.
But something that I’ve found myself struggling with is the apparent fragmentation of Luke’s Gospel. On the surface, it appears to be a random collection of “Jesus” stories as He flits from one Israeli hillside to another. It’s proving to be a rather difficult book to read through using my usual sizable-chunk-gulping ways. I can understand why folks struggle finding authorial intent in biblical books like this and instead default to being content with moral teachings when a theme is hard to pin down.
There are hints along the way about the Kingdom of God and the Law fulfilled with Jesus at the epicenter in each pericope. But two stories stand out to me like they haven’t before: the rich young ruler and the short rich tax-collector. Luke 18 describes the discussion with the rich young ruler while Luke 19 includes the story of Zacchaeus (the wee little man, apparently the first hobbit). The rich young ruler asks Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18) What follows is a traditional Jewish response about the Mosaic Law and Jesus’ ominous conclusion, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the Kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:24-25)
Flip the page to chapter 19 and read about the short rich tax-collector who gains entrance into the Kingdom of God by doing exactly what the first rich guy was unwilling to do, giving back to all and following Jesus. What is seemingly impossible in chapter 18 is found to be possible by chapter 19 and again at the epicenter is Jesus and the person’s response towards Him. The young ruler wants to justify his actions; the short tax-collector wants justification because of his actions. Ironically, something small is referenced in both stories: the eye of a needle and Zacchaeus himself. If the reader presumes that size is the issue in Luke 18 so all that is necessary is a tight squeeze through a small passageway (a particular kind of gate in the city wall, perhaps), overcoming a spiritual claustrophobia and somehow bypassing Jesus, then the story in Luke 19 of a short rich tax-collector –small in stature– would debunk that theory for salvation. Entrance into God’s Kingdom has nothing to do with mankind’s initiative or ingenuity. It has only to do with God’s mercy and His willingness to accomplish the impossible through the salvific work of Jesus, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)
Further study into Luke’s Gospel required here, but for now I’m declaring the theme of the book to be: Jesus is the Epicenter.
Glorify. Train. Engage. 
Is there a particular form of logic valued in Roman times that would help glue the pieces together? Just wondering.
LikeLike
Hey, great question! That’s one to research sometime. For a quick answer, there’s something to be said about text vs. event within biblical writing. The “text” is what’s revealed in Scripture –God-breathed, and its meaning is inherent, needing nothing exterior for understanding. My OT prof used to say, “A picture is worth a thousand words, but God gave us words and not pictures.” Trying to read the Bible using this kind of distinction is difficult, but I find it’s more rewarding in the end.
LikeLike