G. Jesus teaches the people (11:27 – 12:59)
G. Jesus teaches the people (11:27 – 12:59)
At this point Luke has a considerable section of teaching, including some interesting controversial passages. There is little indication of time or place, though some of the passages are linked to one another.
1. True blessedness (11:27–28)
Typically it is Luke alone who tells us of this spontaneous exclamation from a woman in the crowd. She apparently thought it must be wonderful to have a son like Jesus and she pronounced a blessing on the mother who had borne him. Her words involve a recognition of his Messiahship and are in part a salutation of Jesus. He did not reject the woman, but proceeded to something more significant. The word menoun, translated rather, ‘does not question the truth of the preceding statement, but emphasizes the greater relevance of what follows’ (THB ). It is not physical relationship to Jesus that is supremely important, but hearing and keeping the word of God. This points to patient, unspectacular religious practice. The word of God came to the people of that day through the teaching of Jesus as well as through the study of Scripture. They had a certain advantage over others, but Jesus is saying that wherever people have Scripture the path to blessing is open.
2. The sign of Jonah (11:29–32)
Jesus has dealt with the assertion that he exercised power over demons with the help of Beelzebul (15); he now proceeds to look at the request for a sign (16).
29. Jesus’ response was given as the crowds were increasing. Evidently the demand for a sign was widespread and he regards it as characteristic of this generation. But in that it seeks a sign it is an evil generation. People should trust God and not look for miracles. A sign is not defined, but clearly it means some miraculous divine activity. Such a sign will not be given. The only sign these people would have would be the sign of Jonah. In Mark’s account Jesus says simply, ‘no sign shall be given’ (Mark 8:12), which conveys essentially the same meaning. J. Jeremias remarks, ‘Materially, there is no discrepancy between the absolute refusal to givea sign (Mark 8:11) and the intimation of the sign of Jonah. Both statements make it clear that God will not give any sign that is abstracted from the person of Jesus and that does not give offence.’5
In the event at Nineveh the prophet and his preaching led to repentance, but neither Jesus’ resurrection (16:31) nor his preaching (11:32) would bring about repentance in the people of his day.
30. Jesus explains. Jonah had been a sign to the men of Nineveh and he himself will be one to this generation. It seems best to understand this of the resurrection, as is made clear in the corresponding passage in Matthew. Jonah had been in the whale for three days (Jon. 1:17) before, so to speak, coming to life again. For the Ninevites the sign was the reappearance of a man who had apparently been dead for three days. For the people of Jesus’ day the sign would be the reappearance of the Son of man on the third day after his death. Many recent scholars think that the sign here is not the same as in Matthew, but a simple appeal to the fact that Jonah preached the authentic word of God and the Ninevites recognized the fact and repented. Similarly Jesus proclaimed the word of God and people ought to repent. One difficulty in the way of accepting this commonly held view is that of seeing in what sense preaching can properly be called a sign. A second is that Jesus does not speak of Jonah’s and his own words as signs, but of Jonah and himself. In each case the sign is the person. A third is the use of the future tense. Jesus does not say that he is a sign, but that he will be a sign. This fits in with Matthew’s account and also with the fact that John tells us that, when Jesus was asked for a sign on another occasion, he pointed forward to the resurrection (John 2:19). Jesus then makes it clear that when he gives a sign it will be one of his own choosing, not one given at the demand of an unbelieving generation.
31. He hammers home the guilt of that generation by referring to the queen of Sheba. Though almost certainly a heathen, she had been prepared to make a long and difficult journey (Sheba was in southern Arabia, the modern Yemen) to hear the wisdom of Solomon. At the judgment (i.e. on judgment day) the men of Jesus’ generation would stand condemned by such an example. They had no journey to make, for Jesus was in their very midst. In a day of male supremacy the use of the term andrōn for men, rather than the more general anthrōpōn (which might mean human beings), is probably important. She was but a woman, where they were men. But they did not respond. Something greater (the Greek neuter means more than ‘someone greater’) seems to stand for all that is involved in the coming of Jesus and the inauguration of his kingdom. This is an action of God mightier by far than anything he had done in Solomon.
32. The men of Nineveh will also condemn Jesus’ contemporaries, for they repented at the preaching of the prophet. And just as God’s action in Christ was greater than Solomon, so was it greater than Jonah. It Solomon and Jonah are taken to represent the whole wisdom tradition and the whole prophetic tradition, then greater points to a tremendous claim indeed. And it is a telling point that both the queen of Sheba and the inhabitants of Nineveh were Gentiles.
3. The light that is in you (11:33–36)
Jesus proceeds to some teaching on light. He starts with physical light and goes on to speak metaphorically of the light within us.
33. The function of light is to shine. Nobody kindles a lamp and then puts it where it cannot be seen. On the contrary, it is put where its light may be seen to the best advantage (cf. 8:16).
34. The eye is the organ that receives light and Jesus speaks of it as the lamp of your body. When the eye is reacting to light in the normal manner, the whole body gets the benefit. One can perform almost any bodily function when one has good illumination. But if the eyes are impaired so that one cannot make use of the light, many bodily functions are impaired. The failure of the eyes affects for the worse everything the person does. There is a spiritual parallel. It is possible for the eye to be sound (where the Greek means ‘single’). One’s eye may be single-mindedly fixed on the good: then the whole person is full of light (cf. Ps. 18:28). But when the eye is not sound (the Greek word can mean ‘evil’), when the attention is focused on evil, then the whole person is corrupted. He is full of darkness.
35–36. Since the whole life is concerned and may be given to right or to wrong, people must take care lest the light that is in them be darkness. That is the ultimate disaster. Then what is good in the person is wholly corrupted. But Jesus finishes with the encouragement that one may be full of light, having no part dark. That person will be wholly bright. The shining lamp is an illustration of this.
4. True cleansing (11:37–41)
Jesus’ acceptance of a Pharisee’s invitation to a meal at his home leads to teaching in which the Master is sharply critical of some aspects of Pharisaic practice.
37–38. Luke mentions briefly the Pharisee’s invitation to a meal and Jesus’ acceptance (aristaomeans ‘to have lunch’ rather than to dine). The reason for the invitation is not given. But as it came after an address (while he was speaking, besides being improbable, overlooks the aorist; better is JB, ‘He had just finished speaking’), it is a fair inference that the host was interested in Jesus’ teaching. When Jesus came in, the Pharisee was astonished that he did not wash (the verb is baptizō) before the meal. This had nothing to do with hygiene, but was a rule made in the interests of ceremonial purity. Before eating anything, scrupulous Jews had water poured over their hands to remove the defilement contracted by their contact with a sinful world. The quantity of water and the manner of washing are prescribed in minute detail in the Mishnah (Yadaim 1:1ff.). The Pharisee clearly expected that Jesus, as a noted religious teacher, would conform to the accepted practice.
39–41. It is not recorded that the Pharisee said anything. But Jesus discerned his astonishment and commented accordingly. He stressed the importance of the inward where the multitude of the rules, so dear to the Pharisees, concerned themselves only with the outward. The result of this was that they could keep their rules and still be full of extortion and wickedness. They were concerned with what one does, Jesus also with what one is. Forthrightly he castigates them as fools. He goes on to an instruction about almsgiving, the precise meaning of which is disputed. RSV’s give for alms those things which are within is a fairly literal rendering. But what are the things within? Some understand it of the things within the cup and the dish. The expression then means that people should give food to the poor rather than feast luxuriously themselves. Cf. NEB, ‘let what is in the cup be given in charity, and all is clean.’ Others take the cup and dish as symbolizing possessions in general, as Knox, ‘you should give alms out of the store you have, and at once all that is yours becomes clean.’ Others see the saying as ironical, ‘As regards the soul (the things within), give alms and everything is clean (so you think).’ Moffatt has ‘Better cleanse what is within’. This gives good sense, but it rests on a conjecture about the meaning of the underlying Aramaic. Such meanings cannot be dismissed as impossible, but it seems that Jesus is stressing the importance of the inward over against the outward, and it is better to take the words as referring to the importance of a right inward attitude when we give alms. We must give from our hearts and not just make an outward gesture. ‘The gift without the giver is bare’ (Lowell, cited in Arndt). When one gives from the heart everything is clean. No amount of pouring of water can make up for a wrong state in the inward life.
5. Woe to the Pharisees (11:42–44)
Other Pharisaic practices in which the emphasis on the outward leads to error come in for notice.
42. Woe is an expression of regret, not of vindictiveness, with a meaning like ‘Alas’ (see on 6:24–26). Jesus grieves over the Pharisees for their tithing practices. Tithing was commanded in the Law (Lev. 27:30; Deut. 14:22, etc.). It was meant to be a joyful offering of love, but this calculation of one tenth of all the stalks of garden herbs made a burdensome mockery of it. Actually this kind of detail was not required by the Law, while the Mishnah expressly lays it down that rue, at any rate, was exempt from the tithe (Shebiith 9:1). The Pharisees were going beyond what was required. There was nothing actually wrong in doing this and Jesus does not say that they should not have done it. But when people concentrate on the trivial they are apt to overlook the important. The condemnation of the Pharisees lay, not in the fact that they tithed herbs, but that in their zeal for trifles they neglected justice and the love of God. We might have expected ‘the love of man’ rather than ‘the love of God’; but the point is that our attitude to God controls all our actions.
43–44. A further result of Pharisaic preoccupation with the outward was the love these men showed for being in the public eye. They liked to get the best seat in the synagogues, i.e. a seat at the front facing the congregation. Anyone sitting there was prominently in view and was seen to be a man of distinction. Salutations in the market places were plainly elaborate greetings in public places which marked the recipients as men to whom deference should be shown. All this hindered rather than helped ordinary people. Jesus regretfully goes on to liken the Pharisees to graves which are not seen. To come into contact with a grave was to incur ceremonial defilement. A problem was posed by the fact that people were sometimes buried in unmarked graves and the unwary traveller could easily walk over such a grave and all unwittingly contract ceremonial defilement. There is irony in the comparison of the religious Pharisees, who thought so well of themselves, to these unsuspected sources of defilement. People who walked over unmarked graves became ceremonially unclean. And people who walked in the teaching and ways of the Pharisees became morally unclean.
6. Woe to the lawyers (11:45–54)
The lawyers, as we have noticed before, were men who gave themselves over to the study of the Old Testament Law. They were religious men and many of them were Pharisees. There was a difference in that the lawyer was a member of a learned profession and the Pharisee of a religious party. There was a link in that the essential Pharisaic position was based on a close study of the Law.
45. It is not clear what made the lawyer think that Jesus’ words were not meant to apply to him and his fellows. But the reference to tithing (which has a legal flavour) may have seemed a possible source of misunderstanding. Since in his view Jesus could not possibly have meant to include the lawyers in his denunciation, he gave him the opportunity of excepting them. You reproach us is scarcely strong enough. The verb means ‘insult’.
46. But Jesus had no intention of letting the lawyers off. He proceeded to single them out for special criticism. The first count is that they asked others to do difficult things and did not help them. The burdens hard to bear were the scribal interpretations of the Law and the traditions of the elders. These were taken with the utmost seriousness. The Mishnah lays it down that it is more important to observe the scribal interpretations than the Law itself (Sanhedrin 11:3). The reasoning is that if it was a serious matter to offend against the Law which was sometimes hard to understand, it was a much more serious matter to offend against the interpretation which, the scribes thought, made everything clear. The lawyers ought to have expounded God’s Law in such a way that it helped and inspired people. Instead they made it a wearisome burden. The lawyers’ failure to touch the burdens with one of your fingers may mean that they did not lift a finger to help other people, or that their interpretations enabled them to escape themselves. They did not need even to use one finger. Perhaps we can see something of the situation by considering an example. On the sabbath, they taught, a man may not carry a burden ‘in his right hand or in his left hand, in his bosom or on his shoulder’. But he may carry it ‘on the back of his hand, or with his foot or with his mouth or with his elbow, or in his ear or in his hair or in his wallet (carried) mouth downwards, or between his wallet and his shirt, or in the hem of his shirt, or in his shoe or in his sandal’ (Shabbath 10:3). Multiply this by all the regulations of the Law and ordinary people have a burden beyond bearing even to know what they might do and might not do. But there is also a multitude of loopholes for a lawyer who knew the traditions which enabled him to do pretty well what he wished.
47–48. A second count was the treatment the lawyers accorded the prophets. They held that they were honouring those heroes of the faith by building splendid tombs for them. But really they were doing no more than complete the work of those who killed them. The same spirit actuated both. Their action gave an unconscious assent to the murders. It is always easier to honour dead saints than living ones. The lives of the builders of the prophets’ tombs showed all too clearly that they were at one with the murderers.
49–51. It is not clear what book Jesus is quoting, if any, for the words of the Wisdom of God. The saying is not found in the Old Testament, but some hold that Jesus is quoting a non-canonical book. It is, of course, impossible to disprove this, but we should bear in mind that in no other place does Jesus quote from such a book and no book is known which has these words. Moreover the reference to apostles is more likely to come from Jesus than from a noncanonical book. Perhaps he is not quoting, but saying in effect, ‘This is in accordance with God’s wisdom’ (cf. 7:35). It was in the purpose of God to send prophets and apostles. Thus were God’s will and God’s word made known. But, though God knew that people would reject his messengers, that rejection is not blameless. The people of this generation are castigated because they rejected the essential position of the prophets and aligned themselves with all those who had persecuted and killed them. Thus the blood of all the prophets would be required of them. Abel, of course, was the first martyr (Gen. 4:8; it is not clear why he should be called a prophet). Zechariah’s death was the last death of a prophet mentioned in the Old Testament, taking the books in their normal Hebrew order (2 Chr. 24:21f.). Jesus is saying that the blood of all those slain for their faithfulness to God will be required. It is laid at the door of this generation, because the people of the day fully share in the attitude that brought about the deaths of the prophets.
52. The final Woe reveals another paradox. The lawyers professed to expound the meaning of the Law and thus to be the teachers of the people, but in fact they have taken away the key of knowledge, i.e. the key that unlocks the meaning of Scripture and brings people to the knowledge of God. Their methods were such that people could not get at the essential meaning of God’s word. Instead of opening up the treasures of knowledge, the lawyers closed them fast. They turned the Bible into a book of obscurities, a bundle of riddles which only the experts could understand. And the experts were so pleased and preoccupied with the mysteries they had manufactured that they missed the wonderful thing that God was saying. They neither entered themselves nor allowed others to enter. There were ordinary people on their way to the knowledge of God until these teachers turned them away.
53–54. Jesus’ opponents were incensed. The scribes (another name for the lawyers) and the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus. That they began to press him hard shows their intensity and their vehemence. Their method was to try to provoke him into some indiscreet saying which could be used against him. The word rendered catch is thēreusai, which is used of hunting wild beasts. It is a vivid word for intense opposition.
7. The leaven of the Pharisees (12:1–3)
The saying about the leaven is in all three Synoptic Gospels, but that about revealing what is covered is lacking in Mark and is found in a different context in Matthew. This should not trouble us greatly. There is no reason for holding that the selection or arrangement of material must be the same in all three Gospels. And in any case there is every reason for thinking that Jesus repeated his teaching on different occasions with slight variations.
1. Only Luke speaks of so many thousands as having gathered. The word myrias means properly ‘ten thousand’ (in Acts 19:19 five ‘myriads’ amount to 50,000). But the term is often used indefinitely of a large crowd and that will be the meaning here. The article with it in the Greek may mean ‘the usual large crowd’. Luke also is the only one to tell us that the people trod upon one another, the press was so great. Though there can be no doubt that Jesus wished the crowd to hear what he said, he addressed his teaching to the disciples first. Those who professed to follow Jesus could not sit back comfortably and listen while Jesus made demands on people outside their number. Disciples must see the Master’s teaching as addressed to them in the first instance, whatever applications it may have to outsiders. Jesus began on this occasion with a warning against the leaven of the Pharisees. The metaphor would have been more obvious then than now, for people tended to make their own bread and everyone would be familiar with the way a little leaven slowly transforms a large lump of dough.6 Leaven speaks of a penetration that is slow, insidious and constant. In this case the leaven is hypocrisy. The practice of saying one thing and doing another eats at the moral life like a canker.
2–3. Many things could be said about hypocrisy, but on this occasion Jesus chooses to point out that it is short-sighted. The art of being a hypocrite depends on the ability to keep some things concealed. When concealment is no longer possible the hypocrite is inevitably unmasked. At present the Pharisees may have certain things covered up, or hidden. But in the end, on judgment day, all will be known. People may think they have said things safely in secret, but all will be brought into the light. They have whispered in private rooms. These are really ‘store rooms’, but, where walls could be easily dug through, store chambers tended to be inner rooms well away from exterior walls and thus the secondary meaning ‘inner rooms’ developed. But what has been whispered so secretly will be proclaimed upon the housetops. A housetop would give a speaker a first-rate platform from which his voice could sound out, so Jesus is referring to the fullest publicity.
8. Be ready for judgment (12:4–12)
The teaching about the Pharisees and the judgment leads naturally into a more general section on judgment and the importance of being prepared for it.
4–5. Jesus calls the disciples friends here only in the Synoptic Gospels (but cf. John 15:14). First he warns them that they must get their values straight. There is a natural tendency to fear those who may kill the body. The end of this life seems the ultimate disaster and we commonly fear it. But Jesus points out that people who kill can do no more. Death is their ultimate achievement. Their power extends no further. We should not fear those whose powers are so limited. Rather we should fear God whose authority extends beyond death and who has power to cast into hell. The fear of God is rather out of fashion these days; we much prefer to stress the love of God. But, while there is a sense in which perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18), there is another in which fear is quite compatible with love. This kind of fear is continually regarded in the Bible as a necessary ingredient in right living. It is an attitude compounded of a recognition of the greatness and the righteousness of God on the one hand and our readiness to sin on the other. Fear of this kind guards against presumption and must find its place in a right faith. Hell here is Gehenna, which is not to be confused with Hades, also translated ‘hell’ in the older versions. Hades is a general name for the place of departed spirits, whereas Gehenna carries the notion of punishment. The word derives from the Hebrew geHinnōm, ‘the valley of Hinnom’. This was a valley adjacent to Jerusalem where in earlier days children had been offered in sacrifice to the god Molech (Lev. 18:21; 1 Kgs 11:7, etc.). Josiah ended all this (2 Kgs 23:10), but the valley was regarded as accursed (Jer. 7:31ff.; 19:6). One ancient writer at least saw this as permanent: ‘This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever’ (1 Enoch 27:2). In New Testament times the place was used as a rubbish tip and no doubt a fire was always burning there. The associations of the term made it a fitting symbol for the perpetual torment of hell. A few commentators have held that the one with power to cast into hell is Satan, but this should certainly be rejected. The evil one can operate only within the limitations God assigns him and there is no indication that God ever gave him this power. Moreover we are not to fear Satan but to resist him (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9). It is God who has power over the eternal issues and Jesus repeats, yes, I tell you, fear him!
6–7. But his basic concern is to reassure his friends, not to frighten them. He goes on immediately to the care God has for his people and illustrates from the little birds. Five sparrows were sold for two pennies. Matthew tells us that two sparrows went for a penny. Evidently one was thrown in for nothing when two pennyworth were bought. But not one of them (not even the free one!) is forgotten before God. God takes notice of the commonest and cheapest of birds. Much more, then, will he be concerned for people. Jesus brings out this point with the information that the hairs of our heads are all numbered. The importance of this does not lie in the actual count, but in the fact that God cares enough about his people to know the minutest detail about them. He knows things they do not know about themselves. So those who are of more value than many sparrows should face life without fear.
8–9. Our attitude to Jesus is all important. If anyone acknowledges him before people, Jesus will acknowledge him before the angels of God (Matthew has ‘before my Father who is in heaven’). This is warm encouragement for judgment day. But anyone who denies (‘disowns’, NEB) Jesus will face the ultimate denial. He has refused to number himself among Jesus’ followers. When he stands before God his choice will be ratified. Jesus leaves his hearers in no doubt but that eternal issues are involved in their attitude to him. Moorman reminds us that there is more than one way of denying Jesus. These days, he thinks, we are unlikely to deny him in the same way as Peter, for example, did. But we may deny ‘the unique authority of his teaching, imagining that, on some points, we know better than he did, or that much of what he said can be explained away’. We may also deny his divinity and repudiate his claims. ‘In either case it is the sin of pride and self-assurance, man’s … ultimate denial of the supremacy of Christ and of God.’
10. This leads to the solemn thought that there is a sin so serious that it cannot be forgiven. Jesus introduces this with the statement that a word spoken against himself can be forgiven. This does not mean that such a word is a trifle. The preceding verse has shown something of the dignity of the Son of man: he is not to be taken lightly. Yet even sin against this august personage may be forgiven. People may blaspheme and then repent; the blasphemy is not their final word. But he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is in a much worse case. We must understand this, not of the uttering of any form of words, but of the set of the life (‘It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man’7). This blasphemy is so serious because it concerns the whole person, not a few words spoken on any one occasion. Matthew and Mark put these words in connection with the Beelzebul controversy and this helps us with the meaning. Then Jesus’ opponents attributed his works of mercy to the devil. They called good evil. People in such a situation cannot repent and seek forgiveness: they lack a sense of sin; they reject God’s competence to declare what is right. It is this continuing attitude that is the ultimate sin. God’s power to forgive is not abated. But this kind of sinner no longer has the capacity to repent and believe.8
11–12. But we should not think of the Holy Spirit primarily or only as one whom we must be careful not to blaspheme. He is our helper. He is present with God’s people, especially with God’s persecuted people, to give them the assistance they need when they stand before the authorities. Jesus speaks first of being brought before the synagogues, which points to persecution by the Jews. The synagogue could be a court or a school as well as a place of worship. He speaks also of the rulers and the authorities, a comprehensive expression which might refer to Jews or Gentiles or both. Being accused in this way could be a terrifying experience. But Jesus tells his own not to be anxious at such a time about what they are to answer (the Greek term is often used in the technical sense of ‘make a legal defence’). The reason? The Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say (cf. 21:14f.). Notice that the Spirit’s teaching will come at that moment. He will not instruct people some time beforehand. What you ought to say might well be rendered ‘what you must say’. Jesus is concerned with the duty that rests compellingly on believers even in such a time of danger. He is not telling them how to secure acquittal. He is telling them how they may best serve God in their trying situation. The Spirit will inspire them with such a defence that through it the gospel will be proclaimed and God’s purposes be set forward.
9. The rich fool (12:13–21)
An interruption from the crowd gives the opening for some teaching on the right use of material possessions.
13–14. One of Jesus’ hearers was having trouble with his brother about the proper division of an inheritance. Jewish laws of succession covered most cases (cf. Deut. 21:17), but there was sometimes room for doubt and in this case the man who spoke up felt that an injustice was being done. His brother was clearly in possession and he wanted Jesus to persuade him to disgorge. He does not ask Jesus to decide on the merits of two claims: he asks for a decision in his own favour. He seems to be acting unilaterally for nothing indicates that the brother had agreed to have Jesus try the case. The man is taking Jesus as a typical rabbi, for the rabbis customarily gave decisions on disputed points of law. Jesus, however, refused to have anything to do with it. His form of address, Man, is far from cordial (cf. Bengel, ‘He addresses him as a stranger’). He came to bring people to God, not to bring property to people. In this situation he was concerned with the attitudes of those involved, not with who got what.
15. Jesus issues a strong warning against all covetousness (GNB, ‘every kind of greed’). He introduces it with Take heed, and beware, which surrounds the injunction with a solemn seriousness. Actually beware scarcely does justice to the force of phylassesthe, which is rather ‘guard yourselves’ (GNB): it is the taking of positive action to ward off a foe. Jesus follows with a statement of principle, a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. It is an important warning for those who live in an age of affluence.
16–17. Characteristically Jesus hammers the point home with a parable. He pictures a wealthy farmer with a good harvest. His stores are full and he has nowhere to put this latest bumper crop.
18–19. So what does he decide to do? Pull down his barns and build bigger ones! That will take care of the storage problem. With enough of everything laid by he can relax and enjoy his wealth. He looks forward to years of pleasure. Notice the repeated my (four times in vv. 17–19 while I occurs eight times in the Greek) which points to an ingrained selfishness. The man is not concerned to use his wealth wisely. He is trying neither to serve God nor to help other people. He is not even concerned to have a richer and fuller life for himself. He is concerned only with self-indulgence.
20. Fool! says God. A man’s life is an uncertain thing at best and no-one has the assurance that he will live the years he would like. The really stupid thing was the rich man’s easy assurance that the future was in his control. God said to him This night (first for emphasis) your soul is required of you. The verb is literally ‘they require’, a construction common among the rabbis to denote an action of God (SB), i.e. ‘God requires your soul’. A man whose life hangs by a thread and who may be called upon at any time to give account of himself is a fool if he relies on material things.
21. Jesus rounds this off with a contrast between laying up treasure for oneself and being rich toward God (i.e. rich ‘where God is concerned’, Phillips). It is the latter that matters. People are fools to settle for less.
10. Seek the kingdom (12:22–34)
From the sins of greed and selfishness Jesus turns to that of worry, which in a way is connected with the other two. ‘Greed can never get enough, worry is afraid it may not have enough’ (Arndt). Wealth can represent a danger to those who do not have it as well as to those who do. Jesus emphasizes the importance of trust in God and detachment from things.
22–23. The previous words were addressed to the crowd, these to Jesus’ disciples. What he now says arises from his previous words, as Therefore I tell you shows, but this is not teaching for the masses. It is to his own that Jesus says, do not be anxious about your life. The believer may take reasonable forethought for his needs, but he is not to worry about food or clothing. Life is bigger than such things (cf. 12:15).
24. Jesus reinforces this with an appeal to the ravens (or ‘crows’, Goodspeed, GNB), mentioned here only in the New Testament (they are the objects of God’s care in Ps. 147:9). Birds do not engage in agricultural activities, but they do not lack for all that. God feeds them. There is possibly significance in the fact that ravens were unclean (Lev. 11:15). God makes provision even for these unclean birds. And Jesus goes on to remind his hearers that they are of more value than birds (cf. V. 7).
25. In any case people are limited. It is not quite clear what the limitation is that Jesus singles out: the word hēlikia can refer either to age (John 9:21) or to stature (19:3). A cubit is a measure of length (the distance from the tip of the fingers to the elbow). But measures of length were occasionally applied to time (e.g. ‘handbreadths’ in Ps. 39:5). So the expression might mean ‘add a short period to his life’ or ‘add 18 inches to his height’. Those who favour the former meaning hold that few people worry about increasing their height by 18 inches, but many worry about lengthening their life. The rich fool could not add one moment to his span of life when God’s summons came. They hold also that this fits better with the references to a ‘small’ thing in the next verse. Though an increase in the span of life seems a large matter to us, it may well be the point that it is small to God. Those who see a reference to height point out that the same thing could be said about adding 18 inches to one’s height. They also say that this fits the context better, with its reference to the growth of plants. Plants do not worry, but they make great increases in height. Certainty is impossible but the way the terms are generally used favours the second view.
26. The point is driven home. If people cannot do such a ‘tiny little thing’ (Fitzmyer), then why should they be anxious about other things? God who takes care of our growth will take care of all our needs.
27–28. Jesus has appealed to the birds; now he turns to plant life. The lilies are probably not lilies in our sense of the term. BAGD suggest that the autumn crocus may be in mind, or the Turk’s cap lily or the anemone or the gladiolus. Shewell-Cooper adds the iris and the Martigon lily.9 In the Old Testament it is used of the colour of the lips (Song 5:13), which leads some to favour the scarlet anemone. But clearly there is great uncertainty and there is much to be said for the view that the term is not specific. Jesus then would be referring in a general way to ‘flowers’. These do not manufacture cloth as people do, but God clothes them with a beauty that even Solomon’s gorgeous robes could not match. Yet the flowers, now spoken of as grass (which supports the view that no particular plant is in mind), are very temporary. They live today and are burnt tomorrow. The argument is irresistible. If God does all this for the flowers that disappear so quickly, how much more will he clothe his people? O men of little faith shows that some of the disciples had shown anxiety. It is needless.
29–30. Jesus commands (not advises) his followers not to worry. Worry is a great inhibitor of action; to live in worry is to miss what life is all about. The disciples are not to seek food and drink. This does not, of course, exclude legitimate effort, but it does prohibit concentration on these items. Phillips gets the meaning with ‘You must not set your heart on what you eat or drink’ (cf. the rich fool, 16–20). Similarly the disciples are not to be of anxious mind. Worry about food and clothing may befit the nations of the world (a common rabbinic designation of the Gentiles; see SB), but it is not proper to God’s people. Your Father knows that you need them; and he who knows the need will supply it.
31. From the negative Jesus turns to the positive and instructs the disciples how to live. They are to seek his kingdom, which points to a concentration on all that the kingdom involves. Disciples have pledged themselves to their Master. They must accordingly spend their time in doing his work and seeking his kingdom. This will mean trying to produce in their own lives conduct appropriate to those who have accepted the rule of God. It will also mean trying to bring others into a like way of living, for it is in this way that the kingdom grows. Jesus adds the information that when his followers concentrate on the kingdom, these things shall be yours as well. When people truly honour God, God honours their faith. His servants may not grow wealthy as the world understands riches, but they will not lack.
32. Little flock is an unusual form of address, found only here in the New Testament. The Psalms and the prophets, of course, frequently use the word ‘flock’ for the people of God (e.g. Ps. 77:20; Isa. 40:11; Mic. 4:8; 5:4). It speaks of the small number of true disciples, but also of the care they may expect from their Shepherd. Indeed Jesus goes straight on to speak of the Father’s gifts to his people. These are not wrung from him as though he were unwilling to give: it is his good pleasure to give. And his gift is the kingdom, that very kingdom they have just been told to seek.
33–34. Jesus reverts to the comparison of earthly and heavenly riches. He counsels his followers to concentrate on the real riches, heavenly treasure. This can involve selling earthly possessions and giving the proceeds away. But we should not understand the words as though they meant that all Jesus’ followers must sell all their possessions. To produce a class of holy paupers in this way would be to sin against love, for these paupers would be a charge on their hardworking neighbours. In any case it is relevant to recall that Jesus was entertained in Martha’s house (10:38), and that he later commended his mother to the beloved disciple who took her into his home (John 19:27). In neither case did Jesus rebuke his follower for owning possessions. Indeed, Jesus and the apostles themselves had money which they used to buy food and to give alms (John 13:29). It seems clear that Jesus is not excluding private ownership; but he is emphasizing that believers must not be dominated by their possessions. Trust in riches prevents trust in God. When this takes place, possessions become a fatal barrier to life. Real riches are a treasure … that does not fail, found in purses that do not grow old. Such riches are secure from robbery and from moths (which eat away at some forms of earthly riches, e.g. costly robes). The heart and the treasure go together. Anyone’s heart, the concentration of his energies and interests, is always with his treasure, i.e. the things he values most.
11. The coming of the Son of man (12:35–40)
Jesus reinforces his teaching on the right use of wealth with the reminder that earthly things are temporary and the coming of the Son of man sure. We naturally interpret this of the second coming, but many scholars feel that this would have been incomprehensible to Jesus’ hearers. They hold that Jesus is warning them to be ready for a crisis, which is probably to be seen in the events surrounding the crucifixion. It is hard to exclude such a meaning and there is a permanent application in that Jesus’ followers must always be ready to face the crises of life in the spirit of true discipleship. But it is impossible to hold that this exhausts the meaning. There is the fuller reference that looks forward to the second coming.
35–36. Jesus calls on the disciples to be ready. Your is emphatic and there is an emphatic ‘you’ with ‘you be …’. Whatever others do, you must be ready. The girding of the loins is a step towards preparedness. The long, flowing robes of the Easterner were picturesque, but apt to hinder serious labour, so when work was afoot they were tucked into a belt about the waist. Jesus goes on to picture servants whose master has gone to the marriage feast and who expect him back at any moment. They will not be found unready, but will open the door as soon as he knocks, and show themselves prepared for whatever service he wants.
37. Any master who finds his servants in such a state of readiness is pleased. This one is so pleased that he reverses the normal roles and has them sit at table while he serves them a meal. This unexpected twist cannot be taken from life, but is something extra provided for God’s people (cf. 22:27). But then the reward of God’s people is never commonplace: it is always the unexpected.
38–40. The importance of being ready, whenever the Son of man comes, is now stressed. Jesus pronounces a blessing on the servants who are ready when the master arrives in the second watch, or in the third. The Romans divided the night into four watches, but the Jews into three (cf. Judg. 7:19). Thus Jesus is speaking of servants who watch throughout the night for the coming of their lord. They do not know the time of his return, but they know that it may well be long delayed. A change of imagery reminds us that no householder would suffer loss if he knew when the burglar was coming. The house in mind is one of mud brick which could be ‘dug through’ (broken into). The householder must be ready: that is the only way he can be secure from such robbery. Jesus rounds off this section with the explicit statement that the disciples do not know when the Son of man is coming. That coming is certain, but the time is not known; it will be at an unexpected hour. They must therefore live in constant readiness, as the whole of the foregoing section makes clear.
12. The responsibility of servants (12:41–48)
Peter’s question may be meant to raise the question of the privileges and responsibilities of the apostolate. It certainly has relevance to the work of the ministry, a topic that would have been important to Luke’s readers. Jesus does not answer directly, but draws attention to the responsibility of all servants. He stresses that the greater the privilege the greater the responsibility.
41–44. Only Luke tells us that it was Peter who asked, but the question is quite in character. As he often did, Jesus countered with another question to make his questioner think. The steward was a slave (he is called doulos in v. 43), to whom was given the task of managing the whole estate. This freed the owner from routine administration and it meant that the steward necessarily had considerable freedom of action. If he was faithful and wise he would see that the estate was properly run, which included making sure that all members of the household were duly fed. Jesus speaks of a situation wherein the master is absent but returns unexpectedly (43). A diligent steward, whom his master found working efficiently when he thus returned suddenly, would be promoted (44).
45–46. But the master’s prolonged absence might lead a careless steward into a false sense of independence. There was nothing to stop him from indulging his whims; after all he was in charge. When a steward abused the trust reposed in him the master’s return would surprise him. The result would be the punishment and downgrading of the unreliable manager. Punish is a picturesque word (see mg.) and points to a severe penalty. That Jesus is thinking primarily of his followers and not of the setting of the little story is seen in the putting of the offender with the unfaithful. This would not worry a self-indulgent steward very much (unless we take it in the sense ‘servants being punished for their unfaithfulness’), but it would matter to a Christian.
47–48. Jesus rounds off this section with a warning of the certainty of punishment for those who fail to do their duty. Responsibility rests on those who have received much (cf. Amos 3:2). Notice that people are punished not simply for doing wrong, but for failing to do right (cf. Jas 4:17). It is important that Jesus’ servants be active in doing his will. We are apt to be disturbed by the thought that one who sins in ignorance will be punished (48). But we must bear in mind that ‘there is no such thing as absolute moral ignorance (Rom. 1:20, 2:14, 15)’ (Farrar), and again, ‘Our very ignorance is part of our sin’ (Ryle). The emphasis is on the fact that the beating is light, but we should not minimize the importance of doing God’s will. God’s servant must make every effort to find out what God’s will is and do it. All are accountable.
13. Fire on the earth (12:49–53)
There is a sense in which Jesus came to bring peace. But some things are more important than peace, and sometimes his message and the way it is received mean division. Jesus spells this out.
49–50. The meaning of this passage is far from obvious. Some take fire to mean division, others holiness or faith. But the term more often stands for judgment and that is probably the sense of it here. Jesus’ coming means judgment, for example on unbelief. He looks forward to its being kindled, i.e. at the cross, the focus of all his activities. Some, it is true, take the words in the sense, ‘And what do I want, if it is already kindled?’ (Rieu). But this is a less likely understanding of the Greek, and of the parallelism with what follows. Jesus is saying that God’s plan is for salvation that involves judgment, but a judgment that the Messiah will bear for others, not one he will inflict on others. It is not an attractive prospect, but Jesus longs for it to come, for only so can the saving work be accomplished. He goes on to the thought of the cross as a baptism, a figure he uses elsewhere (Mark 10:38f.). It fits in with the frequent link of ‘baptism’ and ‘baptize’ with death.10 We catch a glimpse of the cost of the cross to Jesus in his comment, ‘what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over!’ (NEB). The shadow of the cross hung over him. He knew it was inevitable: it was the very purpose of his coming (accomplished = telesthē, not a fate or an accident, but ‘a destiny to be fulfilled’, Marshall). But though he accepted its inevitability nothing could make it attractive.
51–53. To the question whether Jesus came to bring peace most of us would unhesitatingly reply ‘Yes’. But Jesus’ No is emphatic (ouchi ). There is, of course, a sense in which he does bring peace, that deep peace with God which leads to real peace with people. But in another sense his message is divisive. The cross challenges people. Jesus calls on his followers to take up their own cross as they follow him (9:23ff.; 14:27). When people do not rise to this challenge they not uncommonly become critical of those who do. The divisions that thus arise may run through families (cf. Mic. 7:6). Incidently, the five of verse 52 have not grown to six in the next verse, for the mother and the mother-in-law are identical. The family is father, mother, son, son’s wife (who would come and live with them), and daughter.
14. The signs of the times (12:54–59)
It is not clear whether these words were spoken on the same occasion as the preceding. There is no obvious connection, and Matthew gives a similar saying in response to a request for a sign. Probably Luke is reporting a saying without indicating its context.
54–55. Jesus comments on the ability of his fellow-countrymen to forecast the weather. They had learnt how to interpret the clouds and the winds and their forecasts were accurate.
56. But they were hypocrites. They concentrated on the superficial. They gave attention (dokimazein) to the weather that they found interesting, but ignored what was important. ‘They were unable to see the true character of the times because they did not want to see it’ (Arndt). Weatherwise they were, but they could not discern the storm clouds that were even then rising and were to burst in the cataclysm of AD 66–70. They understood the winds of earth, but not the winds of God; they could discern the sky, but not the heavens. Their religious externalism prevented them from seeing the significance of the coming of Jesus.
57–59. Jesus encourages his followers to make their peace with God. In earthly matters people get the best settlement they can out of court instead of insisting on seeing a hopeless case through. Or, in a land like Judea where there were two jurisdictions, the Roman and the Jewish, someone who was likely to be in trouble in one jurisdiction might appeal successfully to the other. But sinners should not be lulled into a sense of false security, thinking that, though their case against God is hopeless, they have a good one in earth’s jurisdictions. If they rely on this they will finally lose everything before the one tribunal that matters, that of God, for ultimately they cannot avoid his jurisdiction. They should spare no effort accordingly to get right with God. When he finally condemns anyone the penalty will be inflicted to the uttermost (copper = lepton, the smallest coin in use).