The Clash of Imaginations on the Identity of the Messiah in Luke 7:18−35 in the Perspective of Harari’s Theory of Imagination

Brief Scholarly Reviews on Luke 7:18−35

In the study and interpretation of biblical texts, Luke 7:18−35 is one of the texts that has attracted the interest of theologians, ranging from John Calvin, a reform figure who lived from 1509 to 1556 to theologians of the 20th century, including Joel B. Green, Michael Douglas Goulder, Jonathan Knight, and Roberto Martinez. The results of these scholars’ interpretations provide various understandings and conclusions about the text following the spirit of the times and their diverse contexts.

John Calvin interprets the text by harmonizing with its parallel, Matthew 11:1−6, as seen from the title of his book. The focus of Calvin’s attention is on the text itself and understanding it by relating it to other texts, especially parallel texts. The historical background of the text does not get enough attention. In doing it this way, he arrived at several conclusions about the text. Firstly, John’s question to Jesus does not mean that he does not believe in Jesus as the foretold Messiah. From the very beginning of the Gospel of Luke, it is stated that John is a close friend of Jesus (Calvin, 1999: 4). The picture of the Messiah as highlighted by the Gospel of Luke is that the Israelites believed that the Messiah would come with perfect salvation. The affirmation that Jesus is the promised Messiah is also seen in Jesus’ answer by quoting the Book of Isaiah 35 and 61. According to Calvin, John is convinced that Jesus is the coming Messiah. However, Calvin also argues that this text does not primarily focus on the question of John’s belief in Jesus as the Messiah, but on Jesus’ teachings on humility, which are revealed to his disciples.

In this connection, it is likely that Calvin, then, relates his understanding of this text to the real circumstances in the changing dynamics of the church that is experiencing tension, especially between the reformatory churches and the Roman Catholic Church. In interpreting the text, Calvin emphasizes that this text speaks of the Kingdom of God manifesting itself, and this shows the new condition of the church. The coming of the Messiah is to restore the church (Calvin, 1999: 7).

Michael Douglas Goulder interprets Luke 7:18−35 by looking at the narrative pattern contained in the text and comparing it with narrative patterns similar to other texts in the Bible. According to Goulder, this text contains a narrative pattern about the sending motives found in other parts of Luke and Acts (Goulder, 1989: 388). In Luke, the dispatch of two disciples by John has the same pattern as the narrative of the two soldiers sent by Claudius in Acts 23:23. It seems, Goulder states, that the narrative pattern with the sending of two people is the narrative favorite in Luke (10:1, 19:29, 15:26, 16:5, 22:8) (Goulder, 1989: 388). In interpreting this text, Goulder emphasizes the question of Jesus’s identity by examining Jesus’ answer to John’s question brought by his messengers. By comparing this text with the parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew (11:4), it appears that Luke is emphasizing Jesus’ answer, especially concerning the words “look and listen.” Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is evidenced by everything that is seen (the blind see, the deaf hear, etc.) and what is heard (news about Jesus’ actions told by others). Not only is Jesus’ identity emphasized, but Goulder also highlights John’s identity (Goulder, 1989: 389).

In contrast to Goulder, Joel B. Green makes an effort to understand Luke by utilizing information about the historical context at the time this Gospel was written (Green, 1987: 358). Regarding the text of Luke 7:18−35, Green argues that John’s question addressed to Jesus is based on the performance of Jesus’ ministry in the previous passage, namely Luke 7:1−17: Besides, John’s question also needs to be related to the narrative of the birth of John and Jesus in Luke 1:5−2:52, which alludes to the role of John as the figure who prepared the coming of the Messiah (Green, 1987: 358). The negative response to Jesus’ performance becomes the driving factor for John’s question about Jesus (Green, 1987: 358). Jesus answers the question or doubt by giving a summary of his activities, namely those related to healing and casting out demons in v. 22, and by echoing the Book of Isaiah, specifically chapters 29:18−19; 35:56; 42;18; 43;8; and 61:1. What Jesus has done to prove himself the Messiah is by providing a series of actions related to salvation that Green called “the festival of salvation” (Green, 1987: 361).

Meanwhile, using a narrative approach, Jonathan Knight conducts a study of the interpretation of Luke and asserts that this Gospel is a narrative and therefore should be read as a narrative (Knight, 2005: 1). He argues that the text of Luke 7:18−35 serves to recall the mission of Jesus Christ as alluded to in Luke 4:18−19, and also serves to show the fulfillment of the vision of eschatology (Knight, 2005: 94). Responding to the rejection of Jesus’ performance as exposed in chapter 4, and represented by John, Jesus answered John’s question by showing miracles as a sign of the presence of the kingdom of God. John’s question to Jesus is to ascertain whether Jesus is an eschatological Elijah; in other words, “the person to come” is Elijah. Jesus’ answer is a description that shows the performance of miracles. According to Knight, Jesus indirectly answered that he is not Elijah but a figure identical to the coming of God’s Kingdom (Knight, 2005: 94). By echoing Mal 4:5, Jesus instead associates the figure of John with Elijah, who plays a role in opening the way for the coming of the Messiah and not the coming of the Kingdom of God (Knight, 2005: 96).

Using a critical-narrative perspective, Martinez argues that the text of Luke 7:18−35 emphasizes the issue of the identity of Jesus. Similar to the other Gospels in cultivating traditional sources that have previously been circulating, Luke compiles the story in a formal pattern according to the literary standards of the time (Martinez, 2010: 103). According to Martinez, this text has been developed in the atmosphere of literary practice in Graeco-Roman culture in previous centuries. In the text, Martinez maintains, that John’s question is motivated by different expectations about the Messiah that will bring judgment and fire to the performance of Jesus’ ministry. Also, John, with a temperamental nature and ministry (Luke 3:7−9) and a seemingly strong and brave figure (3:16), is different from Jesus and his merciful ministry (Martinez, 2010: 119). According to Martinez, John’s question is rooted in the assumption of the birth narrative of Jesus, which indicates prophetic figures. This figure has been alluded to in the message of birth to Zechariah (Luke 1:17) and 1:30−33. In the birth narrative of Jesus, the terms used by the narrator relating to Jesus are Lord, the Savior, and the Messiah (Martinez, 2010: 120). But even though, from the narrator’s perspective, Jesus is the Messiah, for other figures Jesus has not yet become the Messiah (Martinez, 2010: 121).

According to Martinez, Jesus’ response to the messenger of John can be divided into three. First, by describing the healing miracles (7:21), second, by alluding to what is written in the Book of Isaiah (7:22), and third, by saying the beatitude (7:23). Jesus’ answer to John’s question is not with a “yes” or “no”, but rather with a narrative that everything confirmed that Jesus is he who comes from God (Martinez, 2010: 131). Jesus gives an indirect answer that he is the Messiah according to the category of Isaiah’s prophecy (Martinez, 2010: 133).

Harari’s Theory of Imagination as an Interpretative Perspective

Since the concepts in the New Testament narratives, especially about the identity of the Messiah in Luke, are essentially imaginations developed by their authors, it is very important to read Luke 7:18−35 from the perspective of the theory of imagination. Imagination theory has been developed by several experts, but in this article, I focus on the theory of imagination as developed by Yuval Noah Harari.

A professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, Harari grew up in a Jewish family and has conducted historical and anthropological studies. He can be regarded as one of the most serious thinkers on humanitarian issues today, concerning the development of human evolution from the emergence of sapiens to the future of humans thanks to advances in the field of information technology, especially the development of artificial intelligence. Harari’s three works, in particular the first book A Brief History of Sapiens, involve a serious effort to understand human existence as sapiens who develop themselves beyond other animals, especially in creating community life.

Harari stresses that the development of human civilization to the present stage began when humans discovered the ability to imagine, around 70,000 years ago, which produced the Cognitive Revolution (Harari, 2014: 27). Imagination is the element that makes humans become creative creatures, different from the others. This is evidenced by many discoveries of Sapien relics that require imagination, namely boats, oil lamps, bows, arrows, and needles from 30,000 to 70,000 years ago (Harari, 2014: 28). According to Harari, the ability to imagine is probably caused by genetic mutations in the human brain that cause humans to communicate together using new languages (Harari, 2014: 28).

The ability to imagine allows humans to communicate things that do not exist in reality. Mammals can communicate by conveying what happens in the reality that there are preys that can be hunted for food, but only humans can say that hunting for food sources must be done in cooperation. Furthermore, this ability develops as a tool to exchange information about the world and build communication between individuals (Harari, 2014: 29). So, humans become social creatures where social cooperation is the key to the development of human civilization.

In subsequent developments, humans can not only exchange information about factual matters but also about things that do not exist in reality (Harari, 2014: 31). Thus humans develop their imagination by creating abstract concepts through which human relations are based on the mutual agreement of imaginations. The concept of trade that includes bartering between one thing and another, the concept of social harmony that involves good relations between citizens, and even the concept of justice comes from the work of human imagination. As long as the imagination is mutually agreed upon and becomes a standard for behavior, imagination becomes a norm, teaching, ideology, and system (Harari, 2014: 32). Thus, the shared imagination that is agreed upon by people in the community requires the existence of trust between one another in the community.

In other words, the building of a society is always based on shared imagination or what is called collective imagination. Considering that human imagination is strongly influenced by the environment and diverse groups of people, there are, therefore, many imaginations about societies according to the group of people who produce them. Human imagination about this society includes the structure of society, the procedures and behavior in life that is considered good, the regulation of relations, and so on, referred to as culture. Culture is a very complex articulation of a shared imagination in a society.

In Harari’s thoughts, imagination plays a highly crucial role in human civilization, where it has been used by certain groups of humans to dominate others. In reality, certain human groups do try to dominate other human groups. Sometimes this is achieved by using warfare and physical mastery. Yet, the most fundamental way is through the domination of the imagination. To convince others in large numbers with a form of imagination is not easy (Harari, 2014: 38). However, mastery through physical or military power is always based on imagination, for example, certain kingdoms are considered victorious kingdoms if they can conquer other kingdoms. Also, the glory of a nation is imagined when there are so many people who are subject to the king of a certain nation accompanied by cultural conquest of the dominated kingdom.

Because imagination determines society, making changes in society suggests a change in the form of imagination. In other words, changes in the structure of society can be done in various ways, including violence and war, but the most basic way is to change the shared imagination (Harari, 2014: 39). Because of that, the imagination of society can be said to be fiction or social construction, or an imagined reality that becomes the foundation of the social order (Harari, 2014: 39). Therefore, an event of social reform or revolution is essentially that of the clash of imaginations.

By using the perspective of the theory of imagination as emphasized by Harari in understanding the text of Luke 7:18-35, hermeneutical questions can be raised, as follows. First, what are the imaginations being expressed in the text and how do they clash? Secondly, what imagination is being used to dominate or replace the other one? At least with these two main questions, then, Luke 7:18-35 can be understood in a different way than the understandings that have been expressed by previous scholars.

Social Context of Luke’s Gospel and the Imaginations in the Hegemony of the Roman Empire

In interpreting the text of Luke 7:18−35 from the perspective of the theory of imagination, it is highly important to understand the context surrounding the writing of Luke by emphasizing what main imaginations live amid society in that context. In this study, it is crucial to grasp the context of Luke’s Gospel, as it underscores that the imagination constructed by Luke’s Gospel concerning the Messiah’s identity is framed within the context of the Roman Empire, which is itself shaped by particular perceptions and ideologies. To shorten the discussion of circumstances surrounding the writing of Luke, I will briefly explain the context of it below.

First, Luke has a very close relationship with Acts as seen in the introduction in both writings (Carson and Moo, 2005: 201; See also, Green, 1997: 106). These writings are often considered by scholars to be a single entity (Koester, 2000: 310), but in the process of canonization, Luke and Acts were separated because they were considered to have different characteristics (Carson and Moo, 2005: 202). However, the division of these two writings within one book might have been due to a technical reason, namely in connection with the use of the scroll. The scroll would be too long if the two writings were put together (Green, 1997: 107). In literary terms, Luke can be classified into the genre of Hellenistic biography, while Acts is more precisely included in the category of genre “history” (Carson and Moo, 2005: 202). Helmut Koester argued that in terms of literary customs at that time, Luke should be categorized as aretology, while Acts would be included in the category of romance (Koester, 2000: 312). In a study of the relationship between Luke and Acts, however, scholars find that both Luke and Acts are included in the category of historiography and biography in Greco-Roman society, (Ehrman, 1997: 98), so although each writing has a distinctive feature, it can be seen as a single entity (Green, 1987: 103, See also, Knight, 2005: 7, Ehrman, 1997: 100).

Additionally, it is imperative to recognize the authorship of the Gospel of Luke. Ultimately, the author contributes significantly to shaping the conception of the Messiah’s identity in alignment with John and Jesus. As alluded to in Luke 1:1−4, the writer of Luke most likely is not an eyewitness of the activities of Jesus’ ministry, but rather a second-generation Christian who in writing of the Gospel relies on the previous sources. While the Gospel is written systematically as it is usually done in the formal writing of history in the Greek manner, scholars have agreed that most of Luke’s sources are Mark and Q as well as other sources not found in Mark or Q that are referred to as “L source” (Brown, 1997: 265). However, what is certain is that about 55% of the material in Luke’s Gospel is dependent upon Mark’s Gospel (Koester, 2000: 315; See also, Carson and Moo, 2005: 212).

Secondly, it is generally accepted that Luke and Acts are two books written by the same author (Carson and Moo, 2005: 202, See also: Knight, 2005: 8), although the two writings do not include the author’s name. Luke (and also Acts of the Apostles) is anonymous writing. It is not only the prologue of these two writings that proves that the authors of these two writings are the same person but the use of language, style, and theological thinking as well (Carson and Moo, 2005: 203). The author is most likely a person named Luke, a follower of Paul as alluded to in Paul’s writings, the Epistle of Philemon (24) and writings that are not Paul’s writings, namely 2 Tim 4:11 and Col (4:14). External evidence from Marcion and the Canon Moratorium, Irenaeus, and Tertullianus confirm that the author of these two writings is Luke (Carson and Moo, 2005: 202; See also, Knight, 2005: 9, Brown, 1997: 267). Although the identity of Luke is not known very clearly, it seems that Luke is a second-generation Christian (Koester, 2000: 313), a follower of Paul, and an educated person who uses Greek as his mother tongue (Brown, 1997: 267). It is very likely that Luke is not Jewish but understands the main points of the teachings of Judaism and the Septuagint (Koester, 2000: 314).

If Luke uses Mark, then Luke must have been written after Mark and could have been authored after Paul died in Rome. Most scholars think that Luke was written between 75−85 CE (Carson and Moo, 2005: 208, See also: Brown, 1997: 226), or 80−90 CE (Knight, 2005: 10, See also, Esler, 1996: 29). This date is based on the piece of information provided by Luke that Jerusalem has been destroyed, which happened in 70 CE. This date closely follows the pieces of information contained in Luke and Acts presupposing that Paul was dead and that Christianity had developed very broadly in the Mediterranean regions. Besides that, the theological thoughts that are developed in Luke represent those of the second-generation era where the understanding of the delay of the Parousia has been developed.

Although Luke is addressed to Theophilus, who was an important official in the Roman Empire who had just been converted (Carson and Moo, 2005: 210), scholars believe that this writing was also addressed generally to Christian communities outside of Palestine. These communities were most likely in Asia Minor, Ephesus, or Syria. But what is very certain is that the communities receiving this Gospel are mixed ones of people from Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds, with non-Jews being more dominant than those with other backgrounds including Jews (Esler, 1996: 31). In other words, communities were growing where the role of non-Jews might have been increasing in ecclesiastic life.

Commuities of Luke were in the areas controlled by the Roman Empire which was formed by a very dominant political imagination. The imaginations that lived in this area included that the Roman Emperor was the ruler of the Roman Empire and at the same time a religious leader. When Augustus became Emperor of Rome, one of the titles given to him was Pontifex Maximus, or High Priest in religious celebrations. Another imagination was that the Roman emperor was the Son of God and Savior. As the Son of God and Savior, the emperor promoted the Pax Romana (the Peace of Rome), imperial propaganda for prosperity for the entire region of Rome including the colonized areas in the entire Mediterranean region, which also shaped the imagination in the first century CE in the Mediterranean basin. Even when Domitian became emperor at the time when Luke was written, he referred to himself as Dominus et Deus (Setyawan, 2010: 224, 241). In connection with this, these imaginations were cemented by the rite of emperor worship, which had to be carried out by the people in the territory of the Roman Empire. In other words, imaginations relating to politics and religion in the era of the Roman Empire determined the lives of all people in the Mediterranean region of the first century CE.

Another imagination that lived in Graeco-Roman society was the patriarchal cultural one. The patriarchal culture that became the foundation of the ideology of the Roman Empire became stronger and stronger. All famous figures in the history of the Roman Empire were men, and all persons who were dominant in society as well were men. In such a culture, women were regarded as imperfect men, thanks to the decisive influence of Greek philosophy. In this situation, women and slaves became very vulnerable because of their position in society. Slaves were even exploited to the extent that they were not regarded as humans, but as tools that belonged to their masters.

In sum, the dominant imaginations of the time around the writing of Luke are determined by the hegemony of the Roman Empire’s power. These imaginations formed the social structure of this society. These imaginations greatly determined the lives of people in the Mediterranean region including the lives of Christians in this area during the first century CE.

Contesting the Imaginations of John the Baptist and Jesus Concerning the Identity of the Messiah

The clash of imagination concerning the identity of the Messiah is immediately seen at the beginning of the narration in Luke 7:18−35. Two of John’s questions that his disciples have to ask Jesus are, “Are you the one who is to come?” (v. 19) and “Should we expect someone else?” (v. 19). These indicate that imagination about the Messiah had likely already been developed among people, the audience of the Gospel, as confirmed by the use of the word “should we expect someone else?” in verse 19. John’s words seem to represent the imagination of many people. This developed imagination seems to be accepted by John as evidenced by the statement in v. 18, “John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, he sent them to the Lord…” This means John should examine Jesus’ imagination concerning his Messianic identity. In other words, the people’s imagination about the Messiah as received by John clashes with the one held by Jesus.

The imagination about the identity of the Messiah that developed among the masses can be traced to the previous sections of Luke 7:18−35, as stated by Green (Green, 1987: 358). Even though there is a statement about Jesus in 7:16 that says “a great prophet has appeared among us” which is reaffirmed by the statement in 7:17 that “this news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country,” it still seems as though the imagination of the Messiah that has been built by Jesus, according to Luke’s narrative presentation, is still in contrast with John’s imagination. The imagination of the Messianic identity established by Jesus seems different from that of John’s imagination. In other words, John’s question does not signify that he truly believed in Jesus as the Messiah, and it is not a teaching about humility as Calvin had found (Calvin, 1999: 4). Also, in contrast to Goulder and Martinez who interpreted John the Baptist’s question by emphasizing the idea of the identity of the Messiah (Goulder, 1989: 389; See also, Martinez, 2010: 131), in this text, this question suggests a clash of imaginations about the identity of the Messiah.

In texts preceding Luke 7:18−35, the imaginations of the Messiah offered by the writer of Luke were from the actions of Jesus – miracles of healing and raising the dead. It is stated that Jesus raised the dead (7:11−17) and healed an officer’s servant (7:1−10). In addition to performing miracles, Jesus teaches in a flat place (6:20−49) which ends with a healing event. It was not only his disciples who listened to His teaching. Many people from all over Judea, Jerusalem, and the areas of Tire and Sidon also came to hear his teachings and to be cured of their illnesses (6:17). At this stage, the imagination of the Messiah’s identity contains the idea that the Messiah plays important roles both as a rabbi or teacher and, at the same time, as a charismatic healer.

The formation of imagination about the identity of Jesus as the Messiah is constructed by the writer of Luke at the beginning of the Gospel where the figure of the Messiah is accompanied by the imagination of the Kingdom of God. It is also obvious in the 7:18−35 text, although it is mentioned by Jesus himself when he says in v. 28. “…yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Although the Kingdom of God is alluded to casually in that verse, this is a very important element concerning the imagination of the identity of the Messiah. Therefore, in affirming his imagination of the Messiah against that of John, Jesus alluded to the issue by relating it to the idea of God’s Kingdom (7:26). The imagination of the Kingdom of God can also be traced to texts before 7:18−33.

According to Luke, the Messiah is the almighty Son of God who will occupy David’s throne and the king of his descendants. His kingdom will not end, as highlighted in the narrative of the announcement of Jesus’ birth to Mary (1:32−35). A similar affirmation can be seen in the narrative of the encounter of Mary and Elizabeth (1:43−45) in the story of the birth of Jesus as Savior, Christ, and Lord (2:11), in the story that Simeon would not die before seeing the Messiah (2:26), in Jesus’ baptism (3:21−22), and his genealogy (3:23−38). Luke also introduces Jesus as the Messiah who is the same as the Son of God in the narrative of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (4:1−13). In this, the devil knows Jesus as the Son of God. These texts mentioned above lead the reader to imagine that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. The narrative of the calling of the 12 disciples can be interpreted as a symbol of the Kingdom of God (like Israel with 12 tribes) (6:12−16) that connects with the identity of Jesus as the Messiah.

Although Luke forms the image of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah in the narratives he put forward (4:16−22), the people rejected it because they recognized Jesus’ identity through his origins as a carpenter’s son (4:28−29). This does not prevent Jesus from continuing his ministry in proclaiming the Kingdom of God through his teaching and healing. After teaching with extraordinary strength (4:31−37), he calls his disciples to be fishers of men (5:1−11). After healing Simon’s parents-in-law and curing many people’s illnesses, Jesus is recognized by the demons. They shout that Jesus is the son of God (4:41). The imagination about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is getting stronger and stronger. In the story of healing a leper, it is stated that the name of Jesus had become so popular that he needed to retreat to a desolate place (5:16).

However, it remains that the imagination of Jesus as the Messiah is not enough to convince some people who have formed a different imagination of the identity of the Messiah. Jesus is considered the one who blasphemes God because he proclaims himself as a person who can forgive sins (5:21). Jesus’ actions in inviting tax collectors to be his disciples (5:27−32) as well as his teaching that there is no urgency to practice fasting (5:33−39) make Jesus the object of surveillance by religious leaders. When Jesus’ disciples pick wheat on the Sabbath, and Jesus does not forbid it, the Pharisees are disturbed. They rebuke Jesus, saying that the actions of his disciples are unlawful (6:1−2). Jesus has become the object of scrutiny by the Scribes and Pharisees (6:7) concerning healing on the Sabbath.

By paying attention to Luke 7:18-35 in conjunction with other passages in the Gospel of Luke, I aim to elucidate John the Baptist’s perception of the Messiah as depicted in Luke’s narrative. First, the Messiah should obey the teachings of Judaism, including the rules of the Sabbath. As stated by Martinez, this text emphasizes the connection between Luke 7:18-35 and the broader context of Luke 3, particularly verses 5:33 on fasting and 11:1 on prayer (Martinez, 2010: 119). However, based on the narrative of Luke 7:18-35, John the Baptist’s reaction, which caused John’s disciples to question Jesus’ messiahship, is: “John’s disciples told him about all these things” (7:18) Hence, close attention of preceding events, such as Jesus’ healing acts (4:38-39, 5:12-16, 17-26, 6:6-11, 17-19, 7:1-10, 11-17, 7), and teachings (4:16-37, 42-43, 5:33-39, 6:1-5, 17-46), is important. In this act of healing and teaching, Jesus performs healing miracles on the Sabbath (6:6:11) and does not forbid His disciples to pick wheat on the Sabbath (6:1-5). This information shows that, even though it is not explicitly stated in his words, John the Baptist imagined that the long awaited Messiah would be someone who obeys the teachings of the Jewish religion, including fasting and living according to the rules regarding the Sabbath.

On the contrary, on many occasions Jesus violates religious regulations by healing on the Sabbath, letting his disciples pick wheat on the Sabbath, and not teaching about fasting. In other words, the Messiah in the imagination of John the Baptist is coming exclusively for the Israelites; therefore, adhering to Jewish religious rules and regulations is an absolute requirement for becoming the Messiah.

Second, according to John’s imagination, by representing the people, the Messiah should not have the right to forgive sinners. Nor should the Messiah claim to be a person who proclaims the Good News to the poor, preaches liberation to captives and visions to the blind, sets free the oppressed, and preaches the year of God’s grace (4:18−19). Jesus’ claim to say this seems too high, especially when many people know Jesus’ origins as Joseph’s son (4:22). In the imagination of the people who are approved by John, the Messiah should carry out the primary mission of political liberation by fighting the invaders.

Such a Messiah, John likely imagines, would lead a revolt against the Romans who, since the time of Augustus, had occupied the Palestinian territories including Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Perhaps this image had been strengthened by historical events with resistance figures from the Maccabean family, especially when Judas Maccabees succeeded in defeating Antiochus IV’s Syrian Kingdom and recapturing the Temple in 164 BCE. This struggle from the Maccabean family gave birth to the Kingdom of Israel which was free from the occupation of a foreign authority. Even when John Hyrcanus I became its ruler, its territory was as large as King David’s. Therefore, the calling of the twelve disciples to be the apostles in 6:12-16 was very likely to have caused problems for John and the crowd as well because one of his twelve disciples, Matthew, worked for the Roman Empire. After all, the healing miracles that Jesus performed were also carried out on the servant of an officer who was a military official from the Roman empire (7:1−10). While the imagination of the Messiah that had been formed among John’s supporters is the Messiah who would oppose the invading Roman Empire, Jesus did not clearly show that he was against Roman authority and its accomplices.

Third, although John builds an image of the Messiah’s identity by emphasizing his role as a liberator from the invaders regarding the Kingdom of Heaven, John’s imagination emphasized the aspect of obedience to religious rules and asceticism, as mentioned by Jesus in Luke 7:33. According to John, the coming of the Kingdom of God required a radical conversion so that God’s forgiveness could occur. Therefore, the proclamation of the coming of the Kingdom of God was delivered with demands on individuals to repent. This repentance was followed by forgiveness from God, symbolized by receiving the water of baptism. However, changing attitudes and behavior must manifest this individual repentance. Repentance must be followed by individual ethics in line with the person’s profession and respective roles in society. Soldiers were asked to be content with their wages, and tax collectors were expected not to extort money from ordinary people.

The emphasis on repentance and individual ethics is very apparent in the way John lived. John the Baptist carried out self-control or asceticism very clearly by living apart from the wider world and living in the wilderness (Luke 3:2). John’s way of life is an alternative way of life by eating grasshoppers and forest honey (according to information from Matthew 3:4). John did not follow the diet of most people. He abstained from eating bread and drinking wine, going against what had been a customary practice for generations in the Palestinian community, especially among the Jews.

Because individual repentance requires individual ethics, John criticized rulers who were not capable of conducting asceticism and still indulged in the pleasures of worldly life. He criticized Herod for taking Herodias, his own sister’s wife (Luke 3:19−20), a matter that was considered incompatible with repentance and individual ethics. In other words, according to John, the Kingdom of God is understood as an entity consisting of individuals who practice asceticism and an alternative lifestyle by abstaining from the pleasures of the world and being ethical with others.

The three conclusions of the imagination about the identity of the Messiah formed among many people and supported by John, as stated above, are closer to John himself (3:15). Although John acknowledges that he is not the promised Messiah (3:16), John seems to expect that the Messiah should fulfill his imagination and should be bolder than himself (3:17).

In Luke 7:18−35, Jesus’ imagination of the identity of the Messiah clashes with John’s. According to Jesus, the Messiah is not the figure of a political-military warrior who fought against the oppressive Roman empire, but rather a figure who presents the Kingdom of God by making changes in the world. In other words, Jesus’ imagination about the identity of the Messiah cannot be separated from his imagination about the Kingdom of God.

Luke continued to put forward the relationships between the identity of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God, as stated in the previous section, and this is strengthened by the substance of the teachings of Jesus. According to Jesus, his mission is to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God (4:43, 8:1). In His teaching, Jesus gives the secrets of the Kingdom of God to his disciples and others in the form of parables (8:10). In chapter 9:2 Jesus sends the disciples to preach the Kingdom of God (also 9:60). Those who are sent to proclaim the Kingdom of God must have a strong commitment (9:62, 18:29). The proclamation of God’s Kingdom by Jesus is accompanied by the miracle of healing (9:11). When Jesus casts out demons by the power of God, then the Kingdom of God has come (11:20). Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets are in the Kingdom of God (13:28), but other than that there will be many people from the east and west in it as well (14:15). So, in Jesus’ imagination, the Kingdom of God is not an exclusive idea that includes only Israelites but is inclusive of a variety of nations. But Jesus also realizes that during this time God’s Kingdom has been manipulated for certain purposes (16:16). Thus, it can be said that the presence of the Messiah and the movement of the Kingdom of God is identical to what Jesus does in healing and preaching about the Kingdom of God.

Jesus’ imagination of the identity of the Messiah that relates to that of the Kingdom of God in Luke 7:18−31 can be stated as follows. Firstly, the imagination about the identity of the Messiah consists of individual transformation. Thus, when Jesus performs healing miracles and delivers people from evil spirits, it reveals the transformation of individual life. Personal repentance is not highlighted in the proclamation of Jesus. This may be due to Jesus’ understanding that repentance is not the main condition for the presence of the Kingdom of God, but rather the direct effect of grace poured out in God’s reign. When God’s reign is present, the conditions of individual life are recovered, and repentance will occur in the process of life. In the text, it appears that the suffering of individuals caused by the colonial structure of the Roman Empire is the main concern of this transformation.

The individual transformation includes healing the blind (seeing), the lame (walking), and the deaf (hearing). The three are persons with disabilities who experience obstacles to expressing themselves physically and obstacles from the community. While the conditions of lame and deaf people are very likely to be congenital, as suggested by the Greek text, the condition of a blind person occurs during the life of that person after birth. Therefore, the healing experienced by the blind person is included in the terminology, “can see again.” Individual transformation occurs during the process of healing by restoring individuals from a sickness that occurred from the beginning and in the process of life that is not according to God’s will.

The author of Luke’s Gospel adds imagination about the identity of the Messiah by providing editorial comments about it, as imagined by Jesus, by listing the individual transformations. The summary of the individual transformation is written in v. 21: “At that very time, Jesus cured many who had diseases, sickness, and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind” (NIV). Three very prominent circumstances in the transformation were that Jesus heals many people from all diseases, sickness (or sufferings), and evil spirits. In this understanding, humans not only face problems related to illness and suffering but also with the power of evil spirits which are often considered the cause of illness and suffering, although not all diseases and suffering are caused by evil spirits. But it is recognized that the existence of the power of evil spirits can never be ignored. The power of the spirit is beyond the limits of human ability. Therefore, liberation from sickness and suffering and the power of evil spirits are important characteristics of individual transformation.

Secondly, Jesus’ imagination of the Messiah has to do with the transformation of social relationships in the community. Jesus’ very fundamental action as the Messiah is that of making people who have leprosy become clean (v. 22). It should be emphasized that people who suffered from leprosy were not only considered physically sick, but socially and religiously unclean as well. Because they were considered socially improper, those who were affected by leprosy should be excommunicated so that the rest of the people in the community were not infected with impurity. Since lepers were categorized as unclean people, they were not fit to join the religious community and participate in religious ceremonies. If the leper was a priest he was not allowed to bring offerings or sacrifices. He would need to be removed from his priesthood until another priest had declared him to be clean. Being a leper meant becoming a person who was marginalized and not worthy of being considered a part of society. In other words, being a leper meant being deprived of her/his relations with the community, both socially and religiously. When Jesus cleansed those who had leprosy, a transformation of relations in a community occurred, in which people were reinstated in communal and religious relations. Purification is the process of liberating people from alienation and dislocation and transforming relations in society.

In line with this, the Messiah goes beyond religious laws and has the power to forgive sins. The role of the Messiah, in this case, is the same as God who can forgive sins. The Messiah according to Jesus’ imagination is he who rules over religious law and renews religious law, liberating humans from bondage by healing and exorcism, not firstly the expulsion of foreign powers. The Messiah changes the oppressive rules of religion into a liberating religion.

Thirdly, Jesus’ imagination of the identity of the Messiah has to do with the transformation of social structures. While individual transformation and transformation of social relationships in the community are emphasized, Jesus asserts that the role of the Messiah is to free the social structure from impoverishing patterns. The good news for the poor or the powerless people (ptokhoi) is conveyed to show that there is hope that the impoverished social structure has changed. This good news is not to say that this poverty will soon disappear by itself but emphasizes that structures that generate poverty are going to be transformed, considering that poverty (except voluntary poverty) is always related to social structure. It is true that in the teachings and actions of Jesus, it is not clear enough how the implementation of good news for the poor is manifested in the transformation of social structures. But what is very substantial is that the preaching of the Good News to these poor people is an “open space” that has the potential of being filled with various possibilities, movements, and initiatives in today’s contemporary context. The change in the social structure that is good news is always aimed at achieving a more humane, just, and prosperous society.

Fourthly, the identity of the Messiah according to Jesus’ imagination has to do with the transformation of the world as a whole, which includes the eschatological presence of God’s ruling in the history of mankind and the world. A very crucial statement in this text is that the transformation of the world includes Jesus’ performance by raising the dead (Luke 7:11−17). In the Jewish rabbinic tradition, it was believed that when the end of the age had arrived, it would be marked by the raising of the dead. With the resurrection of the dead, God’s eschatological ruling has definitively arrived, and God’s power over this world is present. If God’s kingdom is present, then life will be stronger than death. The event of the resurrection of the dead carried out by Jesus as a sign of the beginning of the end of the age is confirmed again in the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection. In other words, the Easter celebration is a form of remembrance for the Christian community that God is ruling now the world.

Luke’s text does not directly mention whether in the present governing of God the existence of the ruler, the state, and the empire is still recognized, but it seems that all human institutions that determine unjust social structures are considered to be facts in the world. God’s reign, however, is the most important thing. God’s will is when just social structure gives good news to the poor. A transformation of social structure, thanks to the outbreak of God’s governance, might not have been good news for those who have a fortune in an unfair social structure that benefits the rich and powerful. The creation of a just social structure, however, indicates a radical change (repentance) from a group of people who have benefited from this unfair social structure.

According to Jesus, when God reigns there is: individual transformation, the transformation of social relationships in the community, the transformation of impoverishing social structure, and the transformation of the world. Even though there is an intersection of the imagination about the messianic identity built by Jesus and that built by John, namely in terms of the importance of individual transformation and social transformation, Jesus emphasized the the individual, social, and world transformation epitomize the presence of the Kingdom of God. Although Jesus continues the preaching of the Kingdom of God begun by John, Jesus’ imagination of the identity of Messiah challenges John’s. In this way, Luke’s Gospel emphasizes that Jesus is the Messiah who presents the Kingdom of God through his actions. In other words, Jesus’ imagination of the identity of the Messiah contains the idea that the Messiah proclaims the Good News and presents the Kingdom of God.

In the clash of imaginations about the identity of the Messiah, while affirming the identity of the Messiah, Jesus also affirmed the identity of John as not being the Messiah. Jesus stresses that John is the herald who precedes the coming of the Messiah. Jesus also confirms that John is a great prophet and that no one born is greater than John. But because John’s imagination about the identity of the Messiah is contrary to Jesus’ imagination, then Jesus denigrates John’s status by saying that the smallest in the Kingdom of God is greater than John (v. 28). Jesus tries to dominate the imagination of the Messiah and strengthen it by his statement in v. 23. “And blessed are those who do not become disappointed and reject me.”

Conclusion

There are three conclusions about the clash of imaginations about the identity of the Messiah in Luke 7:18-5 are as follows.

Firstly, the text shows the clash of two imaginations about the identity of the Messiah, namely between the imagination of John the Baptist (and the common people) and that of Jesus. While John’s imagination about the identity of the Messiah represents the public’s imagination about the identity of the Messiah, Jesus develops an alternative imagination about the identity of the Messiah in the intertwined presence of God’s kingdom.

Second, while John emphasizes the identity of the Messiah is based on obedience to the religious laws, Jesus instead considers that the laws need to be transformed to be more humane so that they can liberate humans. This transformation is inclusive and liberating. It is inclusive because all parties of people are included in the transformation of the community. tax collectors, scribes, Pharisees, those who are sick, those who have leprosy, and those who are considered unclean. It is liberating because the transformation is characterized by liberation from suffering, disease, oppressive religious rules, and evil social structures that cause poverty. This inclusion and liberation surpassed the demand for personal repentance which was emphasized by John.

Third, the imagination about the identity of the Messiah is intensely related to the imagination of the Kingdom of God. Both John and Jesus share the same ideas regarding the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Messiah, but they differ in the imaginations of their content. In connection with the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Messiah, John insists on fighting against invading foreign rulers while maintaining the Torah and even practicing an ascetic life. In contrast to John, Jesus emphasizes that the Messiah presents the Kingdom of God that transforms the world with individual and social transformations leading to the transformation of the world order. The transformation of the world rests precisely in the presence of the Kingdom of God, namely the God who rules the world that transforms its order into a more humane, just, and prosperous one. God who is governing is present to permeate the world but surpasses worldly governments. That is to state that God’s government does not intend to destroy or eliminate the world’s governments but to surpass them and restore them. The claim that the Kingdom of God is incarnated in a world government or a church institution is incompatible with an imagination raised by Jesus of God’s Kingdom.