The Lukan reference to Jesus of Nazareth as ‘Savior’ has more to do with the later Christian community’s need for eschatological reconsideration than the author’s Christological perception.
First of all, the gospel of Luke is the only Synoptic Gospel to directly attribute the term ‘Savior’ to Jesus. A comparative overview of the Synoptics is of vital importance at this point because of what this Lukan ascription actually reveals about the Gospel literarily. Luke presents a Jesus who is “Savior” during his lifetime; Mark and Matthew present a Jesus who saves humanity through his death. Reasonable deduction based upon these literary-critical allusions can lead to various conclusions, such as: 1.) Attributing the term “Savior” to Jesus and his entire lifetime never occurred to the authors of Mark and Matthew; 2.) Attributing the term “Savior” to Jesus and his entire lifetime did occur to the authors of Mark and Matthew but they instead chose to completely and willfully abandon the term; 3.) Luke derived the term and its specific attribution to the life of Jesus from a personal need to publicly deal with an overarching Lukan theme concerning an undeniable delay of Jesus’ promised return, a literary act Mark and Mathew never would have needed to consider given their earlier dates of authorship. It is difficult to fathom Mark and Matthew willfully discarding the attribution of the term “Savior” to Jesus’ lifetime if they had indeed been cognitive of it. If, however, the attribution of the term ‘Savior’ never occurred to Mark and/or Matthew then a subsequent issue involving the historical authenticity of Luke’s particular implementation of ‘Savior’ must be properly addressed. If the attribution of the term wasn’t important enough to be attested to by Mark and Matthew then where did Luke get it? Why did Luke find the attribution necessary while Mark and Matthew are completely void of it? Luke’s authorial purpose must be rooted in later issues concerning the Christian community, namely the delay of the return of Jesus and the ultimate culmination of God’s salvific plan for his people.
The Lukan attribution of the term ‘Savior’ to Jesus during his lifetime is also accompanied by a distinctive concept of ‘immediate salvation.’ In fact, “Luke is distinctive in that he never links salvation definitively to Jesus’ death on the cross” (Powell 104). Salvation, rather, is linked to the present and is often alluded to by the author through his repeated use of the word “today” (2.11; 4.21; 5.26; 19.5; 19.9; 23.43). “Right at the start of Luke’s narrative, then, Jesus does what Matthew only sees happening at the end, and then only from the risen Christ; Jesus opens the doors of kingdom participation to people of all nations” (Blount 85). This living ‘Savior,’ therefore, finds the crux of his salvific mission in ‘real-time’ proclamation rather than Jesus’ death alone. He, consequently, proclaims the availability of salvation even during Jesus’ lifetime.
Secondly, the overarching Lukan concern with the delay of the second coming of Jesus of Nazareth is the literary catalyst of much of the Gospel’s eschatological material. The Lukan concept of salvation is distinctive from Mark and Matthew (i.e., Jesus as ‘Savior,’ salvation now!) because it has been reinterpreted through the lens of the author’s eschatological adjustments. “In Luke, the influence of the kingdom’s coming is not as great because the kingdom is not thought to be coming quite as soon” (Blount 82). Luke is, if nothing else, pragmatic. A salvation completely tied to the return of Jesus may never be realizable. Jesus and this kingdom of God must be much more than chance or a disappointed expectation of a beleaguered constituency. The author of Luke seems to think so and works hard to adjust his sources where necessary. “Operating carefully on his Markan source (Mark 9.1) at Luke 9.27, his Jesus, while still prophesying that there are some standing with him who would not die before seeing the kingdom of God, stops short of echoing the Markan claim that they will see the kingdom come with power” (Blount 82). Luke also adds a specific clause to his kingdom/end of the age scenario which would have been to future oriented for the earlier Christian community who believed the end was near. Matthew 24’s apocalypse is imminent and the length of these days will also be shortened so at least some – the elect – will be saved (Matthew 24.22). Luke, however, adjusts Matthew’s apocalypse to fit the community’s obligatory delay by couching the scenario within the “fulfillment of the time of the Gentiles (Luke 21.24). “In Luke, Jesus does not envisage the end of the age happening immediately. How could he? First the Christian church had to be spread among the Gentiles, and this would take time” (Ehrman 128). The delay of Jesus’ return and the kingdom of God is a priority Luke and his community had to face. Mathew and Mark, obviously, had the luxury of blurry hindsight.
Concluding Thoughts Concerning Luke’s Use of the Term
It can, therefore, be concluded that Lukan Christology is more of a direct product of the Gospel’s corrective – or evolving – eschatology, than it is Gospel centered Christology. Jesus being deemed ‘Savior’ during his lifetime, rather than after his death and even beyond, is Luke’s priority but is not found in earlier Gospels or epistles attributed to Paul. The attribution of the term ‘Savior’ to Jesus, and the expansion of the term’s connotations to the Life of Jesus (salvation now!), are both products of Luke’s need to adjust the eschatological schematics of the maturing Christian community. The end of the age was no where in site; evolution was required to save the entire faith from imploding into its own misplaced expectation and emphasis. Luke’s emphasis became diligent and ethical living while waiting for something that may never actually be seen or experienced in the lifetime of the community. The attribution was a spiritual and pragmatic move on the author’s part.
Works Cited
Blount, Brian K. Then the Whisper Put on Flesh : New Testament Ethics in an African American Context. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 3rd ed. New York Oxford University Press, 2004., 2004.
Powell, Mark Allan. Fortress Introduction to the Gospels. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.
Related posts:
Are you saying Jesus wasn’t considered “Savior” until long after his death, when Luke was written?
No … not as much as I’m saying that the Synoptics seem to be works in progress. Said differently, the authors and the community were ‘figuring it out’ as time went on, especially as concerns eschatology and Christology. Jesus was always Savior, but the minutia needed to be further and more deeply explored as the experience matured. Specifically, as regards this post, the point has more to do with when Jesus’ work was considered salvific, not if. Jesus was/is ‘Savior’ across all Synoptics, but Matthew and Mark place this salvation squarely on the cross event, while Luke situates it in the life of Jesus too. It’s not a question of ‘if,’ but ‘when’. The post simply asks why this difference exists. I agree with more than a few scholars and cite the community’s evolving eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ promised return as the catalyst for this subtle but very real shift. Luke was written later than Mark and Matthew and after the 70AD destruction. Christianity was also becoming more and more Gentile. Things obviously had to be reinterpreted in light of all these events.
I think it’s important to look at things like this in the Gospel. It’s obviously there. Looking at these things forces us to approach the Bible differently and it allows the authors the freedom to journey. This can have a huge effect on the way we actually commit to faith and praxis. The journey itself – a journey upon which the Gospel authors themselves seem to embark – is what is inspired.
If I am speaking out of ignorance, please forgive me. But this sheds a lot of light on Paul as well. I may be taking things beyond the text, but there are places where Paul seems to think of parts of justification as future things that have not yet happened. Specifically I refer to Galatians 2:16 where Jesus talks about it in the future tense.
I know that Paul’s writings are considered some of the earliest among Christianity. Could it be that he held similar views to the Matthew and Mark’s sources?
OK. I think I understand, somewhat. As I see it, the issue is how the identity of Jesus is expressed in various cultures and various times. The Jews of Jesus’ day obviously would understand the term “Messiah” better than later Gentiles would. The question for us to ponder is – what term/s best applies to Jesus today? I believe we can draw on the rich storehouse of Biblical language in such a way that makes sense to the “secular Joes” and “secular Janes” out there. What do you think?
I’ve often wondered if Jesus was wrong about his own eschatology…or was he emphasizing the immediacy of God’s action and the nearness of God’s Kingdom, the coming of the end of the age more for motivational/rhetorical purposes than future-predictive accuracy. After all “no one knows the day or the hour…”
@Danny: You are making a very important point. Paul’s writings did precede the Gospels and his eschatology could be called “more immediate.” Paul, in his writing, seems to think the end is immediately imminent. The earliest Gospels reflect this belief too. Post 70AD, and the growing Gentile nature of the church, this begins to change, and for pragmatic reasons too. Great point, Danny.
@Pete: What do I think? I think you are onto something incredibly important, Pete. It’s all about “redemptive apologies.” There is not only a rich storehouse of Biblical language from which we can draw many redemptive analogies, but also a deep analogic reserve in culture itself. We should be fishing as many redemptive analogies from this cultural reserve as we can , if that’s what it takes to articulate the story of God is understandable and relevant ways. Right on, Pistol.
Jemila: Great questions! You are doing some deep thinking, eh? Right on!
Theologian and New Testament/historical Jesus guru Albert Schweitzer believed that Jesus was wrong about his eschatology. I personally don’t agree with the direction Schweitzer took Jesus and his eschatological ignorance, but that’s not the point. He (Jesus) didn’t really know everything about this end time (Mark 13:30-33), so it’s entirely possible to paint his (Jesus’) eschatological articulation as motivational in purpose.
It’s a very interesting question, Jemila. It does emphasize my larger point concerning the disciples/authors of the Gospel. Why is it so hard for some to admit that they (disciples/writers) had to work out or develop their eschatological expression? Why is it so hard to admit this very real development can be seen in the Gospels and New Testament?
Interesting post, Shawn. I think your comment to Pete that the early church and writers were “figuring it out” is right. You see that process beginning on the Emmaus road and in the days before Jesus’ ascension. It continues through Acts and beyond, with each new revelation/realization causing a re-thinking of Jesus original words and intentions.
I imagine it took quite awhile for the Jewish preconceptions of what Messiah would do (pre-Jesus) to be reforged by the realities of what he actually did and said. And, of course, that remolding became the wedge that split Christians from Jews. The Church allowed Jesus’ words and ministry to take it away from the preconceived Jewish notions about the Christ, whereas the Jewish traditionalists rejected Christ the Savior and went back to waiting for a political King.
Exactly, Charlie. I think a true understanding of what you express should be a very important part of our hermeneutic, or the way we interpret Scripture. If it were a part of that interpretive process, I think we would have some pretty solid answers for some of the changes inherent to the text. Sometimes we smother those early Christians with our own need for them to have everything worked out and completed. This is just not the case and it really open up the Gospel in refreshing and powerful ways when we give the writers the freedom to think about Jesus … at least as much as we do!
[...] (for example, see: Luke’s handling of particular texts in Mark and Matthew here and here). The question to be asked then is a simple yet profound one: Is Luke’s interpretation of [...]