When I read Lk 23.43 "To day shall thou be with me in paradise," I was
struck by the resemblance to 1 Sam 28. 19 'You and your sons with be with me
tomorrow.' Saul had three sons (1 Sam 31.6).
It seems as if it would be just like the Romans to crucify Jesus' own
sons along with him. One son might not have approved of his fathers
activities.(Lk 23.39). The other son admitted his guilt, but held his father
not responsible for the conduct of the sons.
The third son might have been Barabbas, who was a seditionary(Lk
23.18-19). It would have been intentionally cruel and ironical to release
Jesus' convicted son and to condemn his father. Are the gospel writers
satirizing the supposed fairness of Roman law?
Perhaps Jesus's [alleged] sons are hinted at as anti-Roman insurgents,
and the intent of the gospel is to exculpate Jesus of any such motivation.
Jesus favors one of his two sons, the one who defended him. This is
reminiscent of Mt 10.35 "I have come to set a man at variance with his
father," and maybe also the division between the sheep and the goats (Mt
25.33,46), although that refers to "all nations."
This is a pretty-far fetched interpretation, and goes against the
plain meaning of the text, which refers to the two crucified with Jesus as
"malefactors," (Lk 23.39), and has one refer to Jesus as "this man" (Lk
23.41) and as "Lord." (Lk 23.42). Did a jewish son customarily address his
father as 'lord?'
It suggests a cover-up. It suggests the authors of the gospels were
not above suppressing the facts in order to justify a religious promotional
campaign.
It also suggests this interpretation may be strained.
.
|
