Lectionary Commentaries for April 14, 2024
Third Sunday of Easter

“They thought they were seeing a ghost” (Luke 24:37 Common English Bible). In this passage, Luke describes how the conversation among Jesus’ followers continues from the previous scenes on the road to Emmaus and the ensuing meal (24:13–35). The same characters are present, including Jesus’ remaining followers in Jerusalem. They discuss the evidence of the risen Lord and the coherence between what they perceive to be the messianic pattern provided by Moses and all the prophets. They also talk about the prophetic witness of the Scriptures to the Messiah who suffers and enters into his glory, the ministry of Jesus as this has focused on table fellowship, and the experience of the resurrected Jesus.

During their discussion, they see what they think is a ghost or a phantom. They recognize the person before them as Jesus but are not ready to accept that he could have any form other than an incorporeal or intangible one. At this point, the shape of Luke’s account might seem like that of an angelic appearance, which is similar to the appearance of Gabriel to Zechariah back in 1:11–13.

In an early Christian context, it is expected to greet someone with the word “peace.” This greeting communicates a wish for communal well-being, also related to the Hebrew notion of shalom. (See the RCL Gospel commentary on April 7, 2024.) In the Third Gospel, “peace” is used as a substitution for “salvation.” Therefore, when Jesus greets someone with “peace,” it has an enhanced meaning. 

The travelers to Emmaus believed that Jesus’ rejection and crucifixion had made him incapable of serving as Israel’s redeemer. However, this passage demonstrates that Jesus continues communicating or transmitting salvation to those gathered after his death. This causes conflicting responses, as some may feel a sense of shalom while others may feel trepidation or even panic. This sets the stage for what is to come next in the text.

Luke describes the encounter between Jesus and his followers, which is very important and even intense. The word “frightened” was used before in the Gospel to describe Zechariah’s reaction to a divine messenger, and now it is used to describe Jesus’ followers. “Doubt” is a familiar feeling among Jesus’ opponents or disciples when they fail to understand his message. 

The word “heart” has been used multiple times in this passage, indicating the importance of the inner commitment of these people to be transformed by the resurrection of Jesus. They must change their attitude, behavior, and thinking to understand Jesus’ new message better. However, they struggle to understand and interpret this new experience, just like Jesus’ companions on the road to Emmaus, who were slow to comprehend.

Jesus provides two proofs of his bodily or material existence as evidence of his resurrection. Luke shows that Jesus’ disciples don’t mistake him for a revived corpse, and Jesus is not an “immortal soul” free from bodily existence. Jesus is represented as an embodied person, alive beyond the grave. Luke’s affirmation is emphatic, indicating continuity between Jesus’ life before the crucifixion and his existence after the resurrection. This is demonstrated by his hands, feet, flesh, and bones and his ability to eat food. The repeated references to “seeing” and the claim that Jesus ate “in their presence” signify the authentic witness upon which the disciples would be called to testify.

The passage highlights the limitations of material demonstrations, as they are not enough to produce the desired effect of faith. The chapter emphasizes the inherent ambiguity of an experience and the necessity of its interpretation. Even incontrovertible evidence of Jesus’ existence is not enough to produce faith. 

Actual resolution will occur only when scriptural illumination is combined with material data. Before this, the disciples respond to the extraordinary events with wonder. However, their “disbelief and wonder” response indicates how little their understanding of Jesus’ message concerning his death and resurrection has progressed. Luke attributes their disbelief to joy, suggesting they found what they were experiencing too good to be true. Later, their disbelief will be replaced by great joy, in association with praise and obedience.

Jesus, the early church, and the stories of Israel are interwoven in this passage. Jesus connects his story as the suffering and resurrected Messiah to the Scriptures. He also ties the early church’s story to his story and the Scriptures. By doing this, he emphasizes the truth of the resurrection and the importance of God’s plan. This revelation helps the disciples understand how God’s past, present, and future work together for salvation. As a result, the disciples can effectively spread the message as witnesses. This pivotal moment marks the story’s transition into the book of Acts.

Jesus’ opening words correspond roughly to the angels’ message to the women at the tomb (24:6–7) and Jesus’ utterance on the Emmaus journey (24:25–27). Included among the parallel elements are the following: (1) the continuity of Jesus’ message before and after the crucifixion and resurrection, (2) the necessity of messianic suffering, (3) the promise of the resurrection on the third day, and (4) the emphasis on fulfillment. 

“Divine purpose,” a pervasive Lukan motif, surfaces in Luke’s terminology—“it is necessary” and “fulfilled”—and in the all-encompassing reference to the Scriptures. The latter is highlighted by the unusual reference to “the Psalms” alongside “the law of Moses and the prophets,” a consequence of the critical role of the Psalms in Luke’s interpretation of Jesus’ passion. Isaiah (22:37) and all of the Scriptures speak of Jesus and have their fulfillment in him. Equally reminiscent of the Emmaus episode is Luke’s observation that Jesus “opened their minds to understand the scriptures” (24:31–32, 45); this parallelism accentuates again how the career of Jesus and the message of the Scriptures are mutually informative.

Peter’s speech in Acts 3:12–19 interprets the dramatic events that have just occurred; to understand the speech, we must look to the previous passage. 

In 3:1–11, as Peter and John are entering the temple courts to pray, a man who was born lame asks them for money. Instead of giving him what he requests, Peter miraculously and completely heals the man in Jesus’ name, to the astonishment of those who witness it. In fact, four times Luke says the witnesses to this healing are astonished (3:10–12), further developing a well-established Lukan theme: in the Gospel, first, God “amazes” people (1:63; 2:18, 33), then Jesus does (4:22, 32, 36; 5:24-26), and now in Acts, the apostles take on this role. 

The healing bolsters Peter’s authority, partly by connecting him with Jesus’ previous miraculous healing abilities (compare with Luke 7:22), and partly by recalling the prophetic tradition that at Israel’s redemption, those who are lame will “leap like a deer” (Isaiah 35.6). Yet, Peter is quick to impress upon his hearers that he healed the man through God’s power, not his own (3:12–13).

Recent advances in disability studies offer several important correctives to common readings of this passage. First, disability rights advocates caution against echoing biblical rhetoric that equates humans with their disabilities; for example, instead of “the lame man,” we can use phrases such as “the man who was born lame.” To some, this might seem unnecessarily cumbersome or like it’s merely semantics, but phrases like “the lame man,” “the paralytic,” or “the blind man” treat the person as though that physical condition is all they are, as though a bodily characteristic fully defines them. 

Second, “disability” itself is a cultural construct; all humans are impaired to varying degrees and in varying ways. This does not diminish the very real circumstances (including ridicule, discrimination, and violence) experienced by folks with specific impairments, nor does it negate the need to advance God’s love by working for mercy, justice, and equity in the world. 

Rather, it helps us acknowledge that no one should be defined solely by one attribute, physical or otherwise, and it allows for diversity in responses to those specific realities. Not every person who is blind, for instance, thinks or feels the same way about blindness; those with sight should not automatically assume that physical healing is desired. No one should assume they understand others’ experiences of what it means to be in the bodies they are in.

Third, biblical texts like this one frequently equate impairment with sin and impurity, and take bodily healing as a sign of divine blessing and forgiveness. Luke portrays the healing at the Beautiful Gate as the first instance of the “wonders and signs” prophesied in 2:43; afterward, even the apostles’ opponents (the Jewish council) wonder what to do about the apostles, “for through them, a notable sign has come to be, visible to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (4:16). 

Even if Peter saves his condemnatory language for his Jewish listeners, calling them, and not the man he has healed, to repentance (3:13-15), the healing is depicted as an undeniable sign of the apostles’ godliness and the truth of their message. 

A subtle consequence of this is that the text pulls attention away from the man with the disability and toward the apostles. Where is our attention? Whom do we center in our preaching? Do we focus on those our society tends to marginalize and stereotype as powerless, or on the ones who claim God’s power? When might those not actually be separate at all? That is, when do those whose bodies are marginalized have a great deal to teach about God’s miraculous power? 

Scholars debate whether, historically, actual laws banned those with disabilities from entering the Temple, but at least in Acts, the man only does so after he is healed. A key question, then, is whether this story demeans or emancipates those who have disabilities: Does Luke’s God overturn human discrimination and welcome all, regardless of appearances or abilities, into divine presence? Or is Luke subtly reinforcing ancient body-related polemics, implying that one must be physically able in order to be spiritually acceptable? 

Peter’s speech does not answer these questions directly. It does, however, echo the one he gave at Pentecost (which is next week’s lectionary passage). Just as in Acts 2:1–21, Peter here addresses a misunderstanding and offers a new interpretation, clarifies a miracle’s divine origin, and demonstrates that Jesus fulfills messianic prophecies. How can Christian preachers today mirror these aspects of Peter’s speech, instead of the harmful ableist rhetoric we also find in this passage? 

Psalm 4 is the second of five individual laments of David that appear at the beginning of Book 1 of the Psalter. Commentators cite the many links between Psalm 4 and Psalm 3, which, in its superscription, is placed firmly within the life story of David—“A Psalm of David when he fled from his son Absalom.”¹ In Psalm 3, David laments the many foes rising up against him, but states with confidence that the Lord is a shield, his glory, and the one who lifts up his head. David can, therefore, with confidence lie down and sleep and wake again with no fear.

Psalm 4 indeed seems an apt follow-on to Psalm 3. It opens with a familiar lamenting petition: “Answer me …” (see Psalms 13:3; 55:2; 108:6; 143:7). The psalm singer continues by reminding God that at some point in the past God provided “room” (New Revised Standard Version Updated edition), perhaps better translated as “a wide space.” One commentator suggests a translation of “I was in a tight spot and you provided space for me to move and breathe.” As we find in many individual lament psalms, the psalm singer is asking God for help, reminding God that God has provided that help in the past.

The singer of Psalm 4 continues, “Be gracious to me, and hear my prayer.” Like “answer me,” “be gracious to me” (or “show favor to me”) is a common lamenting petition (see Psalms 9:13; 25:16; 30:10), along with “hear my prayer” (see Psalms 39:12; 54:2; 102:1; 143:1). The psalm singer cries out to God, asking to be heard and to be dealt with favorably.

In verse 2, the psalmist addresses the people (“the sons of man,” perhaps “you mere mortals”—see the book of Ezekiel’s reference to Ezekiel as “the son of man”—“mortal” in the NRSVue) with words usually addressed to God in lament psalms: “How long?” (see Psalms 13:1; 79:5; 89:46). How long will these people spread lies (empty words) about me and compromise my honor? The psalm singer continues addressing the people in verse 3, stating with confidence that the Lord hears when the psalmist calls.

Commentators disagree on the audience of the words of verses 4–7 of Psalm 4. If the psalm singer is speaking to themself, the words are a reminder of the peace that God has granted in the past amid inner and outer turmoil. The word translated at the end of verse 4 in the NRSVue as “be silent” can also be translated as “take a deep breath.” If the psalm singer is speaking to the oppressors, the words admonish them to avoid the sin that tempts them; to ponder it upon their beds, take a deep breath, and trust in God. In verse 6, the psalmist expresses a heartfelt wish that the light of God’s face would shine on humanity.

Psalm 4 concludes in verses 7–8 with the psalm singer celebrating God’s good provisions: gladness, more so than when grain and wine abound, and a good night’s sleep in the safety of God’s watchful eye. These closing words echo those of verse 5 of Psalm 3: “I lie down and sleep; I wake again, for the LORD sustains me.”

We might be permitted to read Psalm 4 as the further words of the singer of Psalm 3. The psalmist has endured oppression and slander. In Psalm 3:1–2, the singer cries out to God: “Many are rising against me; many are saying to me, ‘There is no help for you in God.’” But in 3:4, the psalmist states, “I cry aloud to the LORD, and he answers me from his holy hill.” God has answered the psalmist’s plea, and in Psalm 4:1 we read, “You gave me room [a wide space] when I was in distress.”

Thus, the singer, with the knowledge of God’s past provision, is confident enough to address the oppressors and foes directly in verses 2–3: “How long, you people, shall my honor suffer shame? How long will you love vain words, and seek after lies? But know that the LORD has set apart the faithful for himself; the LORD hears when I call to him.” Further, the psalmist seems to be concerned for the welfare of the oppressors in verses 4–5: “When you are disturbed, do not sin; ponder it on your beds, and be silent [take a deep breath]. Offer right sacrifices, and put your trust in the LORD.”

How might we understand the intention, the direction of this heartfelt psalm and, in particular, incorporate it into our understanding of the post-resurrection mindset that we bring to this time in the liturgical calendar? In the other liturgical readings for this Sunday, Jesus meets with and shares a meal with the disciples after his resurrection (Luke 24); Peter has healed someone and then speaks to the gathered community (Acts 3); and the writer of 1 John admonishes us to live rightly (1 John 3).

As we confront those who seek to slander or oppress us, may we first cry out to God for direction and peace (to lie down and sleep and wake with God’s sustaining care). Then, in faithful compassion, may we ask those who oppress to ponder it on their beds, take a deep breath, and seek their own peace with God.

Notes

1. See 2 Samuel 15 for the narrated story.

First John 3 opens with an exclamation of exuberant wonder: “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are” (3:1). While the author has frequently referred to his addressees as “children” (for example, 2:1, 12), this is the first time in the letter where he refers to them explicitly as “children of God.”

This identity is not a mere title but a relationship and vocation spoken into existence by God. Being children of God is a life-altering reality born out of the gift and priority of God’s love (see 4:8–10, 19). As people born of God (gennaō; 2:29, 5:1l; see also 1 Peter 1:3, 23), Christians resemble their Father by taking on his character by doing what is right/just (2:29; 3:10), being without sin (3:9), and loving our brothers and sisters (3:10).

The fact that 1 John reiterates “and this is what we are” (3:1c) and “we are God’s children now” (3:2a) suggests that members in this community are struggling to recognize their new identities amid the alienating voices and forces that say otherwise (see 2:18–22). The “world” (kosmos) fails to recognize that believers belong to God because it does not know God (see also 2:15–17).

However, Christians, who know God, can be confident that the loving relationship between them and the Father does not depend on their merit or validation from an ignorant world. The author seems to anticipate the despair felt by children who struggle to be like their Father due to their human failings and sins. Thus, he asserts, “What we shall be has not yet been revealed” (3:2b).

The adverb “not yet” (oupō) directs the reader’s gaze to the full benefits and blessings of being a child of God soon to be realized. At present, God’s beloved and begotten children have the privilege of intimacy with their Father: they see and know him—and even resemble him—even if they do so imperfectly and partially (see also 1 Corinthians 12:9-10). This is because they can look forward to a time when they will become “like him” (1 John 3:2d) and “see him as he is” in fullness (3:2e). This future consummation, or revealing (3:2c), which 1 John links with Jesus’ Parousia (2:28), brings about their complete transformation.

The eschatological hope that they will someday be like Christ should motivate believers to “purify themselves” (3:3) since their moral transformation begins “now” (3:2a). The linkage between having hope (elpis) and being pure (hagnos) is unique to 1 John 3:3. While “to purify” (hagnizō) is originally a cultic term for ritual purification in the Old Testament (for example, Exodus 19:10–11; Numbers 8:21), 1 John underscores that the cleansing from sin through the blood of Christ (1:7, 9; 2:2) makes it possible for believers to be in the presence of God.

The emphasis on 3:3 is thus on moral, not ritual, purity. “Purify” in the present active indicative conveys how Christians consecrate themselves to God again and again through their willful obedience to God’s will and intentional imitation of Christ, who is pure (see also James 4:8 and 1 Peter 1:22–23).

In 3:4, 1 John makes an abrupt and sharp contrast between Jesus’ sinlessness and human sinfulness:¹ “Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” The severity of this indictment is troubling because who other than Jesus can say they do not commit sin (hamartia)? And if “everyone who” (pas ho) sins is guilty of lawlessness (anomia), how can God’s children “abide in him” (2:28; 3:5)?

It is unclear whether the author here has the Old Testament law in mind or a lawless eschatological age (Matthew 24:11-12; 7:22-23; 2 Thessalonians 2:3). By associating sin with lawlessness, 1 John describes an attitude and posture of willful disobedience to God and disregard for his authority that goes beyond breaking the law or doing what is unrighteous. Lawless sinners do more than sin inadvertently—they intentionally act in ways that are antithetical to God’s will and “disdain the very idea of a law to which one must submit.”²

The fact that 1 John has already established that believers see and know God means that they acknowledge that God is holy (“in him there is no darkness at all,” 1:5), they are sinful (1:8–10), and Christ “was revealed to take away sins” (3:5).

Thus by “commits sin” and “sins” in 3:4, 6, 1 John means willful, spiteful disobedience to God by those who do not see or know God and do not wish to please God. Such sinners are not born of God but born of the devil (3:8), which is why children of God and children of the devil have no relation or resemblance to each other (3:9–10).

Make no mistake, Christians do sin. But because we live in the purifying presence of God, we can actively confess our sins to a faithful and just God with full assurance that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin and unrighteousness (1:7, 9). We trust that the work of Christ to take away sin and destroy the work of the devil has begun and will be completed.

We live into our beloved and begotten identity confident of the fact that God is not done with us yet. We commit ourselves again and again to doing what is right and loving one another, knowing that becoming more like the Father is a privilege of being called his sons and daughters—and that is what we are!

Notes

1. Marianne Meye Thompson, 1–3 John, IVPNTC (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 92.
2. Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 143.