Luke’s Central Section
Luke’s Central Section
The Perean Ministry
with
Episodes and Excerpts
from
Other Ministries
with
Episodes and Excerpts
from
Other Ministries
9:51–18:14
SUMMARY OF AND
INTRODUCTION TO
LUKE’S CENTRAL
SECTION (9:51–18:14)
Outline of Chapters 9:51–19:27
Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do
C. The Perean Ministry, etc.
1. Luke’s “Central Section”: The Perean Ministry, with episodes and excerpts from other ministries, 9:51–18:14.
2. The Perean Ministry (continued), 18:15–19:27.
This portion of Luke’s Gospel has always been considered one of the most precious parts of Scripture. It contains such oft-quoted passages as 9:51, 57, 58, 62; 12:4–7, 22–34; 15:7; such instructive stories as that of Christ’s visit to the home of Martha and Mary (10:38–42) and that of the cleansing of ten lepers, only one of whom—and he a Samaritan!—returned to give glory to God (17:11–19); and no less than 21 of Luke’s 27 parables! In fact, of the 18 parables that are peculiar to Luke’s Gospel, this Central Section contains 16. Among these 16 are The Samaritan Who Cared (10:25–37) and The Lost (“Prodigal”) Son (15:11–32).
Even apart from many parables much that is found here is without parallel. But there are also many paragraphs that are duplicated elsewhere, at least to some extent (9:57–62; 10:13–16, 21–24, etc.). The parallels are nearly always found in Matthew’s Gospel, not nearly as often in Mark.
We are faced here with the peculiar phenomenon that the same evangelist who in the earlier part of his Gospel—that is, in chapters 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (partly)—seems to be following Mark, suddenly stops doing so. He has been adhering to Mark’s outline so closely that once a person knows in which chapter of that Gospel—whether 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6—certain material is found, in many cases all he has to do is add 3 or sometimes 4 to the number of the chapter in Mark in order to locate Luke’s parallel. After the close of Luke’s Central Section that author returns to Mark, so that now by adding 8 to the number of Mark’s chapter, the Lucan chapter can generally be located. Not as if Luke is ever merely following Mark. He has a style and purpose of his own, adds certain passages and paragraphs—even entire (or large parts of) chapters (e.g., Luke 1, 2, 3, 7, 19, 24)—and omits certain Marcan materials. Nevertheless, for much of the earlier and some of the closing material of Luke’s Gospel the parallel is clear. The two, Mark and Luke, run side by side. Accordingly, once a person has made himself familiar with Mark’s Gospel he is well on the way to finding his way also in the earlier and the later portions of Luke. In fact, he will now even be able to locate most of Matthew’s materials. All this has been explained in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 12–16, 26–30, 387. See also on Mark 14:1, 2, and see Introduction, point III A 2.
But with respect to the Central Section of Luke (that is, 9:51–18:14) the situation is different. Here, to a large extent, Luke has turned away from Mark. In fact, for about half the paragraphs that belong to Luke’s Central Section that evangelist has even turned away from Matthew. Since by and large this Central Section does not follow a pattern with which we have become familiar from the study of the other Gospels, it may not at first seem easy to store in mind the arrangement of its materials.
What adds to the difficulty is the fact that in several cases Luke leaves us in the dark with reference to the connection, if any, between one reported incident and the next, or expresses himself indefinitely.
Nevertheless, without at least a summary knowledge of the contents of any Bible book, so that a person is able immediately to find what he is looking for, progress in the study of that book will be slow and time will be wasted. It is hoped, therefore, that the following three methods of finding one’s way through that which on the surface looks like the labyrinth of Luke 9:51–18:14 may be of some help.
The material under (A) at the same time serves as a series of Summaries of the various sections and chapters of Luke 9:51–18:14.
A. Thought Transition
Links between a passage and its predecessor may be divided into three groups: (a) those that present no problem but are immediately clear (for example, 10:12, 13; 10:20, 21; 11:26, 27; 11:36, 37; 12:21, 22; 13:30, 31; 14:14, 15); (b) those which, in the light of the context, gradually become clear (such as 13:5, 6, see verse 9; 15:7, 8, see verse 10); and (c) those with respect to which it is impossible with any degree of certainty to point out the thought connection with the preceding, if there even is any (study 10:25; 11:14; 12:54; 15:1). For the sake of memorization we can, however, in all three cases, consider links, or in the third instance possible links, with the definite understanding that what seems to us to be a possible connection may not have been the actual connection in the mind of Luke.
Ch. 9:51–62
1. The face of Jesus as revealed in 9:51 fills us with awe. His mind is fully made up. He is determined to go to Jerusalem in order to lay down his life for his own. High resolve to carry out the task which the Father has assigned to him, and love for his “sheep,” make his step firm, his face radiant and stedfast. Nothing, not even the refusal of the Samaritans to lodge him, can cause him to swerve from his course. To the cross he must go. What sublime, wholehearted devotion (9:51–56)!
2. It was this devotion which, in one form or another, was lacking in the case of the would-be disciples described in the chapter’s closing paragraph (9:57–62).
Ch. 10
1. With the cross so near and still so much to be done, it is not surprising that Jesus “appointed seventy (-two) others” and sent them ahead two by two into the harvest of souls. He issued specific directions and warned them that by many their message would be rejected (10:1–12). Note: Matt. 10: Charge to the 12; Luke 10: Charge to the 70 or 72.
2. Terrible punishments will be visited upon rejecters, such as Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (10:13–16).
3. Upon their return the seventy (or seventy-two) exclaim, “Lord, even the demons were subject to us in thy name.” Jesus purifies his disciples’ emotions by telling them that their chief rejoicing should be over the fact that their names are recorded in heaven (10:17–20).
4. Jesus himself also rejoices and praises the Father. He assures his disciples that they have heard and seen things far greater than those which in former days had been revealed to kings and prophets (10:21–24).
5. The thought connection, if there is any, between this and the next paragraph is not clear. If Luke intended a connection, it may have been as follows: A certain law-expert was not pleased with the words Jesus had spoken to the disciples. He said to himself, “By assuring the seventy [or seventy-two] that their names are recorded in heaven and that they have received revelations far greater than those formerly granted to kings and prophets, he has told them that even now they have inherited life everlasting. But surely in order to obtain this great blessing far more is required than these men have accomplished.” However that may have been, putting Jesus to the test he raises the question, “What must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus responds by eliciting from the lips of this “lawyer” a summary of the law, namely, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart … and your neighbor as yourself.” In order to justify himself the lawyer asks, “And who is my neighbor?” By means of the beautiful parable of The Samaritan Who Cared (or The Good Samaritan) Jesus now indicates that a person should not even ask such a question but should prove himself a neighbor toward any needy person whom God places in his path (10:25–37).
6. The question may easily arise, however, “But does being a good neighbor, taken all by itself, assure salvation?” Indeed not, and lest anyone should judge differently Luke now, in the chapter-closing story about Mary making the right choice, turns the attention of the reader from the neighbor to the Lord. Active love toward the neighbor must result from and accompany listening to and heeding the words of the Master (10:38–42).
Ch. 11
1. However, this cannot mean that salvation is a merely human achievement, so that a person can say, “All I have to do is be a neighbor to man and listen to God.” The power even in principle to observe God’s commandments originates not in man but in God. It is he, he alone, who saves. This explains the importance of prayer directed to him. Hence, very appropriately the paragraph containing Christ’s Teaching About Prayer follows. To be sure, the immediate occasion of this teaching was the Master’s own praying, followed at once by the request of one of his disciples, “Lord, teach us to pray.” The evangelist is very indefinite about time and place. He says, “Now it so happened that as Jesus was praying in a certain place, when he ceased one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray,’ ” etc. Whether a very brief span of time or a longer period intervened between 10:38–42 and 11:1 f., and which came first, we do not know. See also under (B), p. 544. The point, as has been shown, is this: the three things—being a good neighbor, listening to Christ, praying—belong together.
Appropriately, Luke’s version of The Lord’s Prayer is found in this paragraph, as is also the accompanying parable about The Troubled—or Embarrassed—Host. This illustrative story stresses the fact that if even on earth and under difficult circumstances a man will grant the request of a friend, we can certainly expect that the heavenly Father will in answer to prayer give his children the Holy Spirit and all this implies (11:1–13).
2. As was pointed out previously, no connection is indicated between Christ’s Teaching About Prayer (11:1–13) and the next paragraph (11:14–23) dealing with the subject: Christ’s Miracles: Proof of Beelzebul’s Dominion or of His Doom? It would seem as if at this point Luke starts a new subject. He begins to relate the intensification of the struggle between Jesus and his enemies. To be sure, even in the preceding chapters collisions had been described (4:28–30; 5:21–24, 30–32; 6:2–5, 7–11; 7:39–46; 10:25). But now, after Jesus expels a demon, the conflict becomes far more severe and embittered. Reacting unfavorably, those who hate Jesus accuse him of being in league with Satan. They say, “It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that he casts out demons.” In the present paragraph Luke describes how the Lord annihilated that false accusation.
But is there in fact no connection between the preceding paragraph and this one? Luke does not definitely indicate any. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to forget the sequence: prayer (11:1–13), demon-expulsion (11:14–23). See Mark 9:29, “This kind can come out only by prayer.” Does not this mighty miracle (a double one according to Luke 11:14; a triple one according to Matt. 12:22) prove that God is almighty; hence, is able, in answer to our prayers, to fulfil all our needs?
3. The connection between 11:14–23 and verses 24–26 is so close that one might almost consider the two accounts to belong to one and the same paragraph. Have the Pharisees accused Jesus of being in league with Satan? In 11:24–26—the parable of The Return of the Unclean Spirit—Jesus tells his adversaries that they themselves resemble a man who is repossessed, so that in their case the one evil spirit has now been replaced by eight, namely, by the original demon and seven others “more wicked than [the first demon] itself.”
4. Also very close is the connection with the next little paragraph. Not everyone reacted unfavorably to that which Jesus had said and done. Not only were the crowds astonished (11:14), but one woman, reacting favorably, “lifted up her voice” and exclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed.” While not denying this, Jesus improves upon it by replying, “Yes, but better still, blessed are those who listen to the word of God and observe it” (11:27, 28).
5. The astonishment of the people and the praise Jesus received from this woman may well have been among the causes that aroused the ire of the Pharisees and their followers, so that, in order to discredit him, they asked him to perform a sign “from heaven” (cf. Matt. 12:38). Jesus answers that they will receive no sign except that of Jonah (see the book by that name 1:7; 2:10). The descent into the tomb and the triumphant resurrection of Jesus, dimly foreshadowed by the Old “Testament prophet’s experience, would spell the doom of all impenitent, sin-hardened enemies. In the final judgment the Ninevites will condemn “this generation,” and so will the queen of Sheba (11:29–32).
6. The flagrant character of the sin of rejecting Jesus, as those who demanded a sign were doing, appears all the more clearly from the fact that the Father had sent the Son into the world to be its Light, a light not hidden but shining brightly (11:33–36).
7. It is not surprising that in the closing paragraph of this chapter Jesus pronounces six woes upon rejecters, that is, upon these impenitent, legalistic Pharisees, etc. Cf. Matt. 23.
A Pharisee who had invited Jesus to his home for a meal “was surprised”—probably “horrified”—because Jesus had not (ceremonially) “washed” before eating (11:37–54)!
Ch. 12
1. Entirely in line with these woes by means of which Jesus had just now exposed the insincerity and inconsistency of the Pharisees he now, as a new chapter (the twelfth) opens, warns The Twelve (and probably other followers also; cf. 6:13; 10:1) against them (12:1–3).
2. Warning is followed by encouragement. Jesus fully realizes that the wrath of the opponents will be poured out not only on himself but also on his followers. He therefore admonishes his friends not to be afraid of those who “kill the body and after that can do no more” (12:4). He concludes by repeating, in slightly varied form, phrases he had used also on another occasion, namely, in The Charge to The Twelve. Speaking about God’s protecting care he says, “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Have no fear; you are of more value than any number of sparrows” (12:4–7; cf. Matt. 10:29–31).
3. Dwelling on the marvelous theme of the Father’s care, is it any wonder that the Master now declares that what is true with respect to the present age holds also for the coming one, and what can be said about the Father’s love pertains also to the Son’s and to the Holy Spirit’s? Note (verses 8–12), “I say to you, Whoever shall confess me before men, the Son of man shall also confess him before angels of God. But he who shall deny me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” Cf. Matt. 10:32, 33. Continued: “And everyone who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven.” Cf. Matt. 12:32a. Finally, “when you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.” Cf. Matt. 10:19, 20. “Do not worry but trust” in The Triune God is the substance of Christ’s exhortation.
4. The transition from 12:4–12 to 12:13–21 is unforgettable, not because of its smoothness but because of its harshness. Jesus has been encouraging filial trust in the heavenly Father, who fulfils every need. So someone in the crowd says, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” Has this man been sleeping? It is clear at any rate that the words of Jesus have had no effect on him whatever. In response to the impudent fellow’s demand Jesus tells the parable of The Rich Fool. Note especially these words: “You fool! This very night your soul will be demanded of you, and the things you have prepared (for yourself) whose will they be?”
5. As abrupt as was the change from 12:4–12 to 12:13–21, so natural is the transition from the latter to 12:22–34, beginning with “Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious about your life, what you are going to eat; or about your body, what you are going to wear.… Consider the ravens: that they do not sow … the lilies, how they grow.” This immediately reminds the reader of Matt. 6:25–34. Again, “For where your treasure is there will your heart be also” (Luke 12:34). Cf. this with Matt. 6:21, which has the singular “your treasure, your heart.” Note also the strikingly touching line, “Fear not, little flock, for your Father takes pleasure in giving you the kingdom” (verse 32).
6. The transition from the notorious (The Rich Fool) to the noble is easy to remember. So Luke now reports Christ’s parable of The Watchful Servants (12:35–40). Whereas the notorious rich fool had his mind set on earth, these noble servants are watching for the coming of the Son of man from heaven. After Peter’s question (verse 41) the same theme—the necessity of watchfulness with a view to the Lord’s return—is continued in the parable of The Faithful Versus The Unfaithful Servant (12:42–46). The degree of punishment for unfaithfulness coincides with the extent to which any servant has known his Master’s will (verses 47, 48).
7. Was it the relative separation just indicated (between those who knew and those who did not, verses 47, 48) that caused Jesus now to mention the far more radical division described in verses 49–53? Or is the thought transition as follows: The Master has been discussing the work and faithfulness of his disciples. This leads him now to discuss his own task—an agonizing one indeed!—and its effect upon mankind, namely, division. Note his words: “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”
8. Commentators are not agreed as to whether or not there is any topical connection between the immediately preceding paragraph and verses 54–56. If any, it could be this: the very division which Jesus brings about and which becomes more and more sharply delineated is a sign of the times, a sign far more significant than any signs of approaching weather.
9. The saying of Jesus (verses 57–59) that closes this chapter begins as follows: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” Does “for yourselves” link with the immediately preceding, so that the meaning is “apart from any consideration based upon the seriousness of the times”? Or does it mean “apart from any advice others—e.g., I or even the Pharisees—might wish to give you”? Either way, the main point is this: “Be reconciled with God!” In other words, “Repent.” This reconciliation is necessary here and now. The matter is very urgent, for an impenitent person will never escape (hell’s) prison. Conversion includes repentance!
Ch. 13
1. The topical connection of 13:1–5 with the ending of ch. 12 is close: “… unless you are converted, you too will all perish” (13:5; cf. 12:59). There is also a temporal connection between the close of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13, as the expression at that very time indicates. But for that and the story of “the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices” see on 13:1.
2. In the parable of The Barren Fig Tree and the Magnanimous Vineyard-keeper (verses 6–9) Jesus teaches that it was because of God’s marvelous generosity and patience that the impenitent had not as yet perished. Note the words of the man who took care of the vineyard, “Leave it alone this year also, while I dig around it and fertilize it.” Continued impenitence will mean destruction. Doom comes at last: “… if it bears fruit next year [fine!], but if not, cut it down.”
3. But even though Jesus strongly urged conversion, his opponents did not even repent, as is evident from the story of the healing of the crippled woman on the Sabbath (verses 10–17).
4. Does this manifestation of impenitence mean that the kingdom would never be established? Not at all. Did not this healed woman become one of its citizens? One must have the correct understanding of the nature of the kingdom. Therefore Jesus tells the parables of The Mustard Seed and of The Yeast (verses 18–21; cf. Matt. 13:31–33; Mark 4:30–32).
5. If there is any thought connection between the preceding paragraph and this one (verses 22–30), it could well be this: Jesus had made very clear that the kingdom of God does not come all at once, but little by little. Now this one enters, then that one; sometimes several, sometimes very few. So someone now asks the question, “Lord, will the saved be few in number?” Jesus answers that instead of being inquisitive about a matter such as this, one should strive to enter by the narrow door. It should be borne in mind that once the door is closed it will not be reopened (verses 22–30; cf. Matt. 7:13, 14, 21–23; 25:10–12).
6. But though Christ’s exhortation was certainly earnest and well-meant, in the case of men with hardened hearts it fell on deaf ears. With the warning and threat, addressed to Jesus, “Get out and move on from here, because Herod wants to kill you,” these sinister individuals tried to frighten Jesus and chase him into Judea, in order that there, where the hostility was the most bitter, he might be killed.
In the stirring Lament over Jerusalem Jesus clearly reveals that he knows that Jerusalem will kill him. The moving words of this lament, filled with tenderness, compassion, and grief, were spoken a little later, namely, during Passover Week. Cf. the present paragraph (verses 31–35, especially verses 34, 35) with Matt. 23:37–39.
Ch. 14
1. Were all Pharisees about equally hostile toward Jesus? Well, here is one who, as host, invited Jesus to be his guest. But among those present there were those who were filled with hatred for Jesus and with a sense of their own importance. Also present was a man suffering from dropsy. It was the sabbath. The Pharisees and lawyers (experts in the legal system of Judaism) were watching Jesus to see whether he would heal this man. He did exactly that. Moreover, by means of the illustration of a son or an ox that had fallen into a well but was rescued on the sabbath, he exposed the inconsistency of his opponents (verses 1–6).
2. The preceding paragraph blends nicely into the one found in verses 7–14. The new paragraph contains a lesson for guests, followed by one for the host. As to the first, having observed how the guests upon entering made for the best places, Jesus, in the parable of The Reserved (or Chief) Seats (seats set apart for honored guests), castigates this rude habit. Cf. Matt. 23:2, 6; Luke 11:43. Next, he said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends … or your rich neighbors … rather invite the poor, the crippled, etc.… and you will be blessed.”
3. Again the transition is an easy one. When a fellow guest remarked, “Blessed is the man who will partake of the feast [literally, who will eat bread] in the kingdom of God,” Jesus, by means of the parable of The Rejected (or Slighted) Invitation, also known as The Great Supper, showed what will happen (a) to those who, by reason of their mistaken priorities, slight, and thus in essence reject, the invitation, and (b) to the house where the feast is held: that house will nevertheless be filled (verses 15–24).
4. “Mistaken priorities,” that was the trouble with the people whose horrible mistake was exposed in the preceding paragraph. To them a recently acquired field, five yoke of oxen, or a bride meant more than the earnest invitation from the almighty and merciful God to attend his banquet!
That same subject is continued here in verses 25–33. A person must be ready to surrender all in order to follow Christ. And he should do so consciously, considering the cost. This thought leads naturally to the parable of The Rash Builder and to that of The Reasonable King.
5. Yes, a follower of Jesus must know what he is doing and must be willing to follow wholeheartedly. He must be genuine, “pure salt.” Salt that has lost its flavor is useless (verses 34, 35).
Ch. 15
1, 2, 3. The Father’s Yearning Love for the Lost is illustrated in the three unforgettably moving parables of The Lost Sheep (verses 1–7, summarized in Matt. 18:12–14), The Lost Coin (verses 8–10), and The Lost Son (verses 11–32).
Is there any topical connection between chapters 14 and 15? This has been denied. If, nevertheless, there is one, could it be the same as that between chapters 10 and 11, human responsibility being stressed in the former, divine sovereignty—here particularly God’s sovereign love—in the latter? Note also the word hear both in 14:35 and 15:1. Publicans heard Jesus.
But instead of making an attempt to find a connection, though there probably is one, should we not rather place the emphasis on the fact that the immediate occasion for the telling of these parables is clearly stated in 15:1, 2? The Pharisees had said, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” By means of these parables Jesus proves that in associating with despised people he is following the example of his heavenly Father, the One who sent his Son into the world to seek and to save the lost. Note particularly the hostile attitude of the elder brother at the close of the chapter.
Ch. 16
1. This attitude, that of the elder brother, so typical of the Pharisees, is not only very sinful; it is also very foolish, for in the end such cold-hearted individuals will have no one to welcome them into heaven’s everlasting habitations; in fact, they will not even enter there. In the parable of The Shrewd Manager (The Steward with Foresight) Jesus shows that worldly people are often more shrewd, more forward-looking, than are the people upon whom the light has been shining. Of course, none of this means that Jesus in any way whatever praises this “manager” for his dishonesty. The very opposite is true, as verses 10–13 (climaxed by “You cannot serve God and mammon”) clearly show.
2. It is not surprising that the Pharisees now sneered at Jesus, for they were the people who tried to serve God (outwardly) and mammon (inwardly). They were lovers of money. Jesus tells them how detestable they and all self-justifying people are in the eyes of God. They were far worse than the very people whom they were always condemning. Ever since the days of John (the Baptist) those belonging to the latter group were pressing forward vigorously to enter the kingdom. Cf. Matt. 11:12. These were the very people who, following where Jesus led, interpreted the law according to its original meaning and intention. So viewed, not even the tiniest hook on a letter of the law would ever drop out. Cf. Matt. 5:18. The Pharisees, however, that is, those men who posed as the guardians of the law and condemned all who did not agree with them, were the people who trampled upon it, as is clearly evident from their position on marriage and divorce (verses 14–18).
3. Unless they repent, what is going to happen to these “lovers of money”? That is made very clear in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus, that is, The Show-off and The Beggar (verses 19–31).
Ch. 17
1. Not only are the Pharisees and their followers culpable by reason of their own impenitence; they are also deserving of condemnation because they lead others astray. Is this perhaps in the background of the admonition addressed specifically to Christ’s disciples, namely, “For temptations must come, but woe to him through whom they come”? Cf. Matt. 18:7. Instead of causing people to sin, Christ’s followers should be kind to them and forgive them. When the Master spoke these words, “the apostles” (note designation in verse 5 and compare with verse 1, “his disciples”), conscious of the fact that they needed this warning, replied, “Increase our faith.” So, first of all, in the parable of The Coldly Calculating (or Unprofitable) Servant—also called The Plowing Servant—(verses 7–10), who did only what he was expressly told to do, Jesus teaches The Twelve that genuine faith never operates in that mechanical fashion but is prompted by love.
2. Such love is the result of gratitude, as beautifully illustrated in the story of the ten lepers who were cleansed, only one of whom returned to give thanks, and that one a Samaritan (verses 11–19).
3. It is such inner qualities as these—active faith prompted by love, a love resulting from gratitude—that are brought about by the reign, kingship or “kingdom” of God. “The kingdom of God is within you” says Jesus, in answer to a question asked by the Pharisees, who reappear upon the scene here.
This does not exclude an outward, visible manifestation of the kingdom at the close of the new dispensation. The Son of man will be seen by all. His arrival will be as sudden as was the coming of the deluge in the days of Noah. Those who are ready will then be taken; the others will be left. They will suffer the punishment merited by their selfishness and lack of genuine faith. In frequently recurring phraseology—see Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; John 12:25—Jesus drives home this important principle: “Whoever tries to keep his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life shall preserve it” (verses 20–37).
Ch. 18:1–14
1. What Jesus told his disciples about the necessity of manifesting genuine faith, a faith prompted by love and gratitude (17:5–19), and this especially in view of the sudden return of the Son of man (17:20–37), is very appropriately climaxed by his exhortation that they should persevere in prayer. Faith and prayer cannot be separated. Therefore the parable of The Widow and the Judge or The Widow Who Persevered (or Persisted) is definitely appropriate at this point (verses 1–8).
2. To be genuine, faith must not only persevere; it must also be the expression of a humble heart. If the heart is humble, so will be the prayer, as Jesus sets forth in the gripping parable of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector, climaxed by the memorable epigram, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (verses 9–14).
B. Time and Place Connection
Not long ago a good friend told the author of this commentary the following true story. A bright and promising young man was enrolled in one of the country’s best seminaries. He was happy, studied diligently and seemed to be well on the way to becoming a very useful laborer in God’s vineyard. Then, rather suddenly, a change came over him. When questioned, he revealed that the doctrine of inspiration bothered him. He lost interest in his studies and left school. Upon further investigation it was discovered that his difficulties with the Gospel According to Luke had contributed powerfully toward the deplorable situation.
It is especially the central section of Luke’s Gospel that has disturbed many a reader. This is not surprising. From 9:51 he receives the impression that the evangelist is about to give us “a chronologically running account”347 of a trip which Jesus made from north to south; that is, from Galilee to Jerusalem and its vicinity. According to 10:38–42 Jesus actually reaches the village of Martha and Mary, presumably Bethany, very close to Jerusalem. But according to 13:31 he is still in the domain of Herod Antipas; hence, has not arrived in Judea. In fact, he himself admits that he must still cover a considerable distance before he will have reached Jerusalem. And, to cap the climax, when we finally reach 17:11 we discover that the Master is still in the north, for he is described as “traveling along the border between Samaria and Galilee.”
For many readers a summary of all the attempts to solve this problem might become wearisome.348 In the main, commentators are divided into three groups. Basic to their variant theories are the following three travel passages:
“Now it came about that, as the days before his ascension were running out, he resolutely set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51).
“Now he was traveling through cities and villages, teaching and making his way to Jerusalem” (13:22).
“Now it came about that, as Jesus was going on to Jerusalem, he was traveling along the border between Samaria and Galilee” (17:11).
First of all, then, there are those who believe that these three passages describe three separate trips which Jesus made from north to south during the last half year of his public ministry. One can find a vigorous defense of this view in A. T. Robertson’s book, A Harmony of The Gospels for Students of The Life of Christ, New York, 1922, pp. 276–279. He refers to the problem before us as “the most perplexing question in harmonistic study.” His solution is that Luke’s three journeys must be identified with John’s three, in such a manner that:
Luke 9:51 is parallel to John 7:2, and refers to Christ’s journey to Jerusalem in order to attend the Feast of Tabernacles; Luke 13:22 corresponds to John 11:17, and deals with the Lord’s trip to Bethany in order to raise Lazarus from the dead; and Luke 17:11 agrees with John 12:1, and describes Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem (via Bethany) to attend the final Passover, to die, and to rise again.
Secondly, there are those who say, “We do not know.” Thus, for example, S. Greijdanus, Kommentaar, Vol. II, p. 444, writes, “Even though in this part [of his Gospel] Luke refers three times to the Lord’s journey to Jerusalem … his account does not clearly inform us whether or not he is in each case referring to the same journey.”349
Thirdly, there are those who favor the idea that all three references (Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11) indicate one and the same journey, namely, Christ’s final journey from Capernaum via Perea and Jericho to Jerusalem and thus to the cross, resurrection, and ascension. Thus A. B. Bruce, op. cit., p. 567, states, “It is always the same journey.”350
The defense of the third and probably correct view is as follows:
a. Though John’s Gospel shows that Jesus, during the final six months of his earthly journey previous to his crucifixion, made more than one trip to Jerusalem, there is nothing in the three Lucan passages (9:51; 13:22; 17:11) to show that all three correspond to the passages in John (respectively to John 7:2; 11:17; 12:1). Luke says nothing about a going to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Tabernacles or to raise Lazarus from the dead.
b. Even the very first of Luke’s three passages (9:51) has a tone of finality about it. It shows that at the very beginning of his trip Jesus was conscious of the nearness of his ascension. Does not this point to Christ’s final journey?
c. Luke 9:51 closely resembles Mark 10:32, which has to do with Christ’s final journey to Jerusalem. See N.T.C. on Mark 10:32.
d. If it be true that even the journey introduced in Luke 9:51 finally reaches Jerusalem, and there is no sign anywhere in Luke’s central section that Jesus subsequently returned to Galilee, is it not logical to conclude that also 13:22 and 17:11 refer to the same final journey? In all three passages Jesus is described as traveling “to Jerusalem,” never “to Galilee.”
e. Parallelistic or synchronistic style—in which an author first states a fact, lays down a proposition, or tells a story, and then, for the purpose of amplification, clarification, or reminding, retraces his steps and returns to what he has already stated or narrated—abounds in Scripture. A few examples: Is not Gen. 2 to a certain extent a return to and amplification of the story of creation first told in Gen. 1? Does not II Kings 7:16–20 remind the reader of the events reported in verses 3–15? Do not the four “beasts” of Dan. 7 correspond to the parts of the king’s dream image, described in Dan. 2? Does not Mark 6:17–29 repeat and clarify verses 14–16? And is not the structure of John’s first epistle and of his book of Revelation definitely parallelistic?
Now if this parallelistic style is borne in mind, so that one is aware of the fact that in writing in this manner Luke is doing what many others before him had done and others were going to do, an obstacle to faith will have been removed. One will then begin to realize that it was entirely proper for Luke to decide on his starting-point (9:51) and then twice to return to it (13:22; 17:11).
Another stumbling block will have been removed when one realizes that very often this evangelist, in narrating incidents from Christ’s life on earth, or in recording his sayings, omits all definite time and place references (9:57; 10:25, 38; 11:1, 14, 29, 37; 12:22, 54; 13:20; 14:1, 25, etc.). By means of these omissions he avoids conflicts with passages in the other Gospels. See the Introduction, point V B; also comments on 1:1–4; 4:1–13; 10:38.
The fact that, as was shown, Luke never planned to compose a strictly chronological account also means that in this Central Section he does not need to limit himself to that which took place during any one particular ministry of Christ, whether Great Galilean, Retirement, or Perean. Though it is true that The Perean Ministry is ever in the background and is basic, the evangelist allows himself the freedom any time the Spirit so guides him to include in his narrative incidents that occurred, or dominical sayings that were spoken, during The Great Galilean or The Retirement ministries. To him topical connection is often more important than chronological or geographical.
The beauty and clarity of Luke’s style and the warmth and tenderness of the Savior’s love—revealed especially in such parables as are recorded in 10:29–37; 11:5–13; 13:1–9; chapter 15; 18:1–14; in such miracles as are related in 13:10–17; 14:1–6; 17:11–19; and in such dominical sayings as are found in 10:21; 12:6, 7, 22–32; 14:12–14—contribute their share in causing Luke 9:51–18:14 to stand out as one of the most faith-strengthening portions of Scripture.
Are there any time-and-place links between Luke’s Central Section and Mark? Links that could serve as an aid to the memory, in addition to those mnemonics mentioned under the heads (A) and (B)?
From the study of Mark we learned that on his final journey to the south Jesus traveled to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32}, by way of Jericho (10:46), and Bethany (11:1). It is interesting to observe that also in Luke’s account Jerusalem, Jericho, and Bethany are indicated in that order (Luke 9:51; 10:30; 10:38–42). Is it possible that the parable about “the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho” was spoken when Jesus was in or near Jericho? This is only a conjecture. Nevertheless, when a person has mastered the summary of Mark, he may well discover that locating the well-known parable and the story describing how Mary made the right choice has become a little easier. Luke, however, does not indicate when this visit of Jesus to Bethany occurred. That it did not take place very close to the final Passover is clear from John 11:1, 2; 12:1.
Is it possible that with the map of The Retirement Ministry (see p. 491) before us we can conjecture another geographical-historical link between Mark’s story and Luke’s? Here, however, we must be very careful.
During that ministry Jesus first traveled from Capernaum to Syrophoenicia, where he wished to be in seclusion, probably for having more time to teach his disciples. Was it at this time that a disciple asked, “Lord, teach us to pray”? Cf. Mark 7:24 with Luke 11:1. From there Jesus traveled to Decapolis and then crossed the sea to Dalmanutha, where the Pharisees asked for a sign. Cf. Mark 8:11–13 with Luke 11:16, 29–32. A slight difficulty might be this: Luke 11:16, 29–32 clearly parallels Matt. 12:38–42, which, however, belongs to The Great Galilean Ministry. However this is a difficulty only for those who believe that Christ’s adversaries asked only once for a sign. Asking for a sign was a habit with them. See I Cor. 1:22. The answer, too, could well be the same. Finally, while recrossing, but now in the direction of Bethsaida Julias, Jesus warned the disciples against “the leaven of the Pharisees.” Cf. Matt. 16:5–12; Mark 8:14–21; Luke 12:1. But see on Luke 12:1. We should distinguish between identical and similar events!
The material presented under (A) and (B) and the careful reading of Luke 9:51–18:14 should: (a) enhance our appreciation of this beautiful portion of Holy Writ, and (b) enable us with some ease to locate its incidents and sayings, including the parables, to which we now turn. An attempt will be made to answer two important questions:
1. Is there an easy method to remember where they are located?
2. How should they be interpreted?
C. Parable Location
The sense in which the New Testament (on the basis of the Old) uses the Greek word parabolē is broader than that which we commonly associate with our English word parable. The parabolē need not be a story. It may simply be a “dark saying”; see Mark 7:15, 17. Or it may be a proverb; see Luke 4:23 (“Physician, heal yourself”). It can be an illustrative type or symbol; see Heb. 9:9. But often it is, indeed, “an illustrative story.” Whenever this is true, the Greek parabolē has the same meaning as our “parable.” Some of the clearest examples of parabolē = (English) “parable” are Luke 8:4, 9–11; 12:16; 15:3; 18:1, 9; 19:11; 20:9, 19; 21:29. When we now speak of parables, we are using the term in the latter, to us more familiar, sense.
In a parable an important truth is expressed by means of word pictures. What is constantly happening in the natural realm is vividly portrayed, in order to show what transpires in the spiritual realm. Or else, what is bound not to happen in connection with ordinary human relations is made the symbol of that which either (a) will even more certainly never take place in the kingdom of God; or (b), by contrast, always occurs in that heavenly realm.
Nature and grace resemble one another in ever so many ways, the reason being that God originated both. Nevertheless, at times, because of the entrance of sin, nature and grace form a striking contrast. See Isa. 49:15; cf. Matt. 20:8–10; Luke 18:6, 7.
Using the term parables in the more usual, the popular, sense, we can say that Luke’s Central Section contains 21 of that Gospel’s 27 parables. Of these 21 no less than 16 are peculiar to Luke. But how can we retain in the memory the place where they are found? Part of the answer has been given under heading (A). If more is needed, consider also the following easy method. The list contains the titles of these 16 parables found in 9:51–18:14. For good measure the title of the parable found in 19:11–27 is also included; hence 17 parables (peculiar to Luke) in all, in this part of Luke’s Gospel.
A few words about the titles in the middle column. Several of them are so familiar that no further comment is necessary. As to No. 1 (Luke 10), not only was this Samaritan “good,” he revealed his goodness in action, proving himself to be The Samaritan Who Cared. The notes introducing Nos. 3 and 4 (ch. 12) indicate that we are dealing here with a contrast—notorious versus noble—these notes are no titles, yet are significant, as will become clear. As to No. 5 (ch. 13), Luke 13:8, 9 shows that we should fix our mind not only on the fig tree but also on the vineyard-keeper. Besides, the suggested double title reminds us—as the familiar title does not—that this fig tree had been planted in a vineyard.
“Rash Builder” and “Reasonable King” have been suggested for Nos. 8 and 9 (ch. 14). In connection with the Builder it is indeed rashness that is
Seventeen Parables in Luke
|
No.
|
Chapter
|
Name of Parable
|
Other Names
|
|
|
1
|
10
|
The Samaritan Who Cared
|
The Good Samaritan
|
|
|
2
|
11
|
The Troubled (or Embarrassed) Host
|
The Friend at Midnight
|
|
|
3
|
12
|
The Notorious Individual:
|
The Rich Fool
|
|
|
4
|
12
|
The Noble Individuals:
|
The Watchful Servants
|
|
|
5
|
13
|
The Barren Fig Tree and The Magnanimous Vineyard-keeper
|
The Barren Fig Tree
|
|
|
6
|
14
|
The Reserved (or Chief) Seats
|
||
|
7
|
14
|
The Rejected (or Slighted) Invitation
|
The Great Supper (or Banquet)
|
|
|
8
|
14
|
The Rash Builder
|
||
|
9
|
14
|
The Reasonable King
|
||
|
10
|
15
|
The Lost Coin
|
||
|
11
|
15
|
The Lost Son
|
The Prodigal Son
|
|
|
12
|
16
|
The Shrewd Manager (or Steward)
|
The Unrighteous Steward
|
|
|
13
|
16
|
The Show-off: A Rich Man; and The Beggar: Lazarus
|
The Rich Man and Lazarus
|
|
|
14
|
17
|
The Coldly Calculating (or Unprofitable) Servant
|
The Plowman
|
|
|
15
|
18
|
The Widow Who Persevered (or Persisted)
|
The Widow and the Judge
|
|
|
16
|
18
|
The Pharisee and The Tax Collector (or Publican)
|
||
|
17
|
19
|
The Pounds
|
emphasized (verses 29, 30). But the King deliberates, reasons, is reasonable (verse 31).
Some readers may regard No. 11 (ch. 15) as unfamiliar. Actually it is not, for it occurs in several parable expositions. Besides, it is better than the older title. The designation Parable of The Prodigal Son destroys the intentional triad: lost sheep, lost coin, lost son. As to No. 12 (ch. 16), the title The Unrighteous Steward misses the main point of the parable: the man was shrewd, prudent. He had foresight. As to No. 13 (again ch. 16), do not verses 19, 20 fully justify this title? As to No. 14 (ch. 17), the old designation The Ploughing Servant, or The Plowman, says nothing about the real thrust of the parable. On the other hand, the title I suggest finds support in Luke 17:10. The title The Widow and the Judge for No. 15 (ch. 18) is probably a good one—and even suits our present purpose (how to locate the parables), as will become clear—but would not the appellation The Widow Who Persevered (or Persisted) be even better? See Luke 18:1, 5, 7.
After careful consideration it would seem, therefore, that all the titles as proposed in the middle column can be defended.
The question will be asked, “But how does this list help us to locate any specific parable?” The answer is simple. Memory experts351 have pointed out that consonants can be represented by numerical figures. Thus, the letter “t,” having one down-stroke, can be represented by the figure 1. Letters close to “t” in sound—namely, “d,” and “th”—are also represented by 1. The letter “n” has two down-strokes and is therefore equivalent to 2. Similarly “m” = 3; “r” = 4 (note f o u r); “l” = 5 (cf. Roman numeral L = 50). The letter “j” somewhat resembles and is represented by 6. With “j” we should associate “sh,” “ch,” and soft “g,” all of them being represented by the figure 6. For a similar reason “k,” hard “g,” hard “c,” and “q” are represented by 7. The cursive “f”—that is, the “f” in Mr. Coffin’s signature—resembles the figure 8, its numerical equivalent. To this “f” group, all of them represented by 8, belong also “ph,” “v,” and (I would add) “w.” The letter “b” is an upside-down figure 9, its numerical equivalent. Naturally the letter “p” is also equivalent to 9. Finally, it is easy to remember that “z” represents zero; hence the “cipher” (0). With “z” are associated “s,” and soft “c.” The letters “h” and “y” and also the vowels have no numerical equivalents.
As already indicated, the author of this commentary has not created this system of “consonants and their numerical equivalents.” His own contribution is merely this, that having slightly modified it, he has seen and has grasped the opportunity of applying it to the distinctly Lucan parables, as follows:
In the above chart of Parable Titles note the boldface letters. It now becomes clear that the parable entitled “The Samaritan Who Cared” is found in Luke 10 (Th = 1; S = 0). Similarly, “The Lost Coin” and “The Lost Son” are found in chapter 15; “The Shrewd Manager” in chapter 16; and “The Pounds” in chapter 19. And so for all the others.
Now that we have indicated how easy it is to remember where, in the Central Section of Luke (plus ch. 19), the parables peculiar to Luke are found, what about the remainder of Luke’s parables?
Aside from the seventeen already mentioned, Luke’s Gospel has only one other parable that is peculiar to that book. Its theme is Cancellation of Debts, and it is found in the seventh chapter (hard “c” = 7). As for the name or title of that parable it is probably impossible to improve on The Two Debtors (7:40–50).
There are nine parables common to Matthew and Luke. Three of these nine can also be found in Mark. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 24. To discover where these nine are found the “letter = figure mnemonic” is not needed.
It is well known that the names of the twelve apostles are given in Matt. 10, a chapter which contains Christ’s Charge to The Twelve. Perhaps equally well known is the fact that these names are also found in Luke 6. In Matthew the account of the sending forth of The Twelve as “Kingdom ambassadors” is followed in the next (the 11th) chapter by a report of Christ’s tribute to “the herald of the kingdom,” John the Baptist. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 28. The parable of Children Sitting in the Market Places (Matt. 11:16–19) belongs to this word of tribute. It is easy to remember, therefore, that also in Luke the chapter that contains the names of The Twelve (ch. 6) is followed by the one (ch. 7) which has the parable about the frivolous behavior of the children.
We have already taken note of the fact that the parable of those noble people, namely, The Watchful Servants, is found in Luke 12. It is therefore easy to remember that the somewhat similar parable of The Faithful Versus the Unfaithful Servant is found in that same chapter; in fact, it immediately follows (respectively verses 35–40; 41–48). The same parable occurs also in Matt. 24. One naturally looks for the parable of The Lost Sheep in Luke 15; for, though not entirely peculiar to Luke (an abbreviation is found in Matt. 18), it belongs to the trio: Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, Lost Son. And if we bear in mind the rule that for the earlier chapters of Mark and of Luke one can frequently add 3 or 4 to the number of the chapter in Mark in order to locate some of its contents in Luke, it creates no surprise that the parable of The Sower (or The Four Kinds of Soil) occurs both in Mark 4 and in Luke 8. It is also the first of the seven kingdom parables found in Matt. 13.
If all this is easy, the rest is perhaps even easier. We assume that, assisted by N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 26–30, and by the repeated reading of Matthew, one knows his way around in that beautiful book. All one has to do now is to remember that Luke’s remaining five parables parallel Matthew exactly or almost exactly. In two cases the number of the chapter is the same for Luke and Matthew; in the other three subtract 1 from Matthew’s number—after all, Luke has fewer chapters than Matthew—and find the number of Luke’s chapter:
The Last Five Parables in Luke
|
Name of Parable
|
Ref. in Matt.
|
Ref. in Luke
|
|
The Mustard Seed
|
13:31, 32
|
13:18, 19;
also in Mark 4 |
|
The Yeast (or Leaven)
|
13:33
|
13:20, 21
|
|
The Two Builders
|
7:24–27
|
6:47–49
|
|
The Return of the
Unclean Spirit |
12:43–45
|
11:24–26
|
|
The Wicked Share-
croppers (or Tenants) |
21:33–41
|
20:9–16;
also in Mark 12 |
The Entire List of Lucan Parables
|
Ref.
|
Those Peculiar to Luke
|
Those in Luke, etc.
|
Found Also in
|
|
6:47–49
|
The Two Builders
|
Matt. 7:24–27
|
|
|
7:31–35
|
Children Sitting in
the Market Places |
Matt. 11:16–19
|
|
|
7:40–50
|
(Cancellation) The Two Debtors
|
||
|
8:4–15
|
The Sower or The
Four Kinds of Soil |
Matt. 13:3–9, 18–
23; Mark 4:3– 9, 14–20 |
|
|
10:29–37
|
The Samaritan Who Cared
|
||
|
11:5–13
|
The Troubled (or Embarrassed)
Host |
||
|
11:24–26
|
The Return of the
Unclean Spirit |
Matt. 12:43–45
|
|
|
12:13–21
|
(The Notorious One) The Rich
Fool |
||
|
12:35–40
|
(The Noble Ones) The Watchful
Servants |
||
|
12:41–48
|
The Faithful Versus
The Unfaithful Servant |
Matt. 24:45–51
|
|
|
13:1–9
|
The Barren Fig Tree and The
Magnanimous Vineyard-keeper |
||
|
13:18, 19
|
The Mustard Seed
|
Matt. 13:31, 32;
Mark 4:30–32 |
|
|
13:20, 21
|
The Yeast
(or Leaven) |
Matt. 13:33
|
|
|
14:7–11
|
The Reserved (or Chief) Seats
|
||
|
14:15–24
|
The Rejected (or Slighted)
Invitation |
||
|
14:28–30
|
The Rash Builder
|
||
|
14:31–33
|
The Reasonable King
|
||
|
15:1–7
|
The Lost Sheep
|
Matt. 18:12–14
|
|
|
15:8–10
|
The Lost Coin
|
||
|
15:11–32
|
The Lost Son
|
||
|
16:1–13
|
The Shrewd Manager (or Steward)
|
||
|
16:19–31
|
The Show-off: A Rich Man; and
The Beggar: Lazarus |
||
|
17:7–10
|
The Coldly Calculating (or Un-
profitable) Servant |
||
|
18:1–8
|
The Widow Who Persevered
(or Persisted) |
||
|
18:9–14
|
The Pharisee and The Tax
Collector (or Publican) |
||
|
19:11–27
|
The Pounds
|
||
|
20:9–16
|
The Wicked Share-
croppers (or Tenants) |
Matt. 21:33–41;
Mark 12:1–9 |
D. Parable Interpretation
In a commentary one cannot expect to find a detailed history of parable interpretation. A summary must suffice. A sample of the many books and articles on this subject is given in the footnote, to which frequent reference will be made.352 Also consult the commentaries.
In the early church the allegorical method of parable interpretation gained a measure of popularity. This method amounted to an attempt to discover a hidden meaning in every element of the story-illustration. There was nothing new about this. Greek philosophers, unable to “swallow” the many foolish myths about gods and goddesses, but also realizing that outright rejection would make them the objects of public wrath and persecution, resorted to the subterfuge of saying, as it were, “These tales that have been handed down to us from antiquity, though valuable, cannot be taken literally. Their outer form conceals an inner truth.”
When in certain centers—Alexandria for one—Greek philosophy and gospel proclamation met head-on, the result was not only opposition but also compromise. There were those who were willing to accept the narratives about Jesus’ works and words, including the parables, if they were permitted to indulge in their favorite pastime of allegorization. Even among the most prominent leaders of theological thought there were those who resorted to this practice. We think especially of the great Augustine, by God’s grace a truly marvelous leader, one whose writings contain treasures of thought and expression suited to every age. Nevertheless, he was an allegorizer of the first rank. See, for example, his Quaestiones Evangeliorum II.19. To this group of over-interpreters belongs also Jerome, as will be shown. They had many followers both then and afterward, especially throughout the Middle Ages.
It is only fair to mention, however, that even during the early period the allegorizers did not have everything their own way. Among those who opposed and frequently warned against over-interpretation of parables was the great orator and uncompromising church reformer, John Chrysostom.
We now turn to the sixteenth century, that of The Reformation. Its emphasis on the Bible as the only source of redemptive truth brought about a renewed emphasis on sensible parable interpretation. Even today one can derive real benefit from John Calvin’s warm and practical comments on the parable of The Sower. At the very beginning of the discussion he reveals the main lesson this parable teaches: “The general truth conveyed is that the doctrine of the gospel, scattered like seed, is not everywhere fruitful, the reason being that it does not always meet with a fertile and well-cultivated soil.” The rest of the explanation, too, is a masterpiece of succinct interpretation and application to life. And the manner in which, at the conclusion, Calvin annihilates the allegorizers is unforgettable. Commenting on the fertile soil, producing a hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold (Matt. 13:8), he says, “These three gradations are tortured by Jerome in an absurd manner, as if [respectively] they indicated virgins, widows, and married persons” (Vol. II, pp. 112, 118).
It was especially the archbishop of Dublin, Ireland, namely, R. C. Trench (born 1807, died 1886), a man of saintly character and a great scholar, who tried to bring order into the chaos of interpretations. In the early pages of his book he carefully defines the concept “parable,” contrasting it with “myth,” “fable,” “proverb,” and “allegory.” He even warns against falling into either of the two extremes: under-interpretation and over-interpretation or allegorization. But a little later he himself becomes guilty of adopting the latter extreme (pp. 247–253). In connection with the parable popularly known as that of The Good Samaritan he describes that good man as in reality being Jesus Christ. Also, as he sees it, the inn represents the church. And the robbed and grievously injured traveler, who after his encounter with highwaymen had been left “half-dead,” pictures the sinner. Trench argues that, due to the fall, Adam’s posterity was left spiritually “half-dead” … Eph. 2:1, 5 notwithstanding!
One of the most influential figures among British New Testament scholars who flourished during the middle of the twentieth century was C. H. Dodd (born 1884, died 1973). In his book he accepts many propositions with which every careful scholar can wholeheartedly agree; such as, that the typical parable presents a single point of comparison, while in an allegory each item has a separate meaning (pp. 18, 19); that there is a resemblance between the kingdom of God and the process of nature, so that illustrations can be drawn from the latter to describe the former (p. 22); that the terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven are synonyms (p. 34); and that the attempt to eliminate ethical precepts from the teaching of Jesus is unjustified (p. 104).
That which, however, distinguishes Dodd’s presentation is the theory that has become known as “realized eschatology” (p. 51). Thus Dodds points out that in the parable of The Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31, 32) right now the birds are finding shelter in the plant which has now become a tree. The harvest, pictured in John 4:35–38, is now (pp. 111, 179, etc.), not at some future moment of time. When the objection is raised that in a number of parables—see Matt. 24:45–51; 25:1–30; Luke 12:35–48—Jesus disclosed the future and even foretold a period of waiting between his death-and-resurrection, on the one hand, and his return in glory, on the other, Dodd’s answer is that these parables never proceeded in that form from the lips of Jesus but were reinterpretations by the early church.
Objection: When the Gospels were first published, many people who had either heard Jesus personally or had learned about his sayings from the earliest witnesses were still living. Nevertheless, Dodd wants us to believe that the Gospel writers would put into the mouth of Jesus all kinds of parables which, in the form now presented, had never been spoken by him. Without offering any objection did everybody accept the new versions as if they represented what Jesus had actually taught? Is this at all credible?
Besides, in I Thess. 5:2, 3—“For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night,” etc.—the apostle is clearly speaking about Christ’s second coming, and he does so in language borrowed from the Lord’s own sayings (Matt. 24:43, 44; cf. Luke 12:39, 40). Did Paul then also naively accept a lie? The only possible conclusion is that there is no justification for Dodd’s textual and literary criticism, nor for his “realized eschatology.”
In this series of commentaries we have frequently referred to the theories of the redactionists. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 21–23; on Mark, pp. 599, 600; and now on Luke, pp. 35–42. Unsurprisingly the parables, too, have not escaped their attention. What merits comment, however, is this, that there is little agreement among the proponents of this view. That which is solemnly affirmed by one higher critic is just as definitely rejected by another.
Very revealing and refreshing, in this connection, is the article by Carlston. He points out that (a) according to the redactionist J. Sanders, the parable popularly known as that of The Prodigal Son consisted originally only of Luke 15:11–24, thus omitting entirely verses 25–32 (about the elder son); (b) according to another critic Luke, not Jesus, invented this story-illustration; (c) still another assigned the entire parable to Jesus. By means of a series of linguistic arguments Carlston himself reaches the conclusion “that the parable probably originated with Jesus in substantially its present form.” We are thankful for this conclusion, even though we cannot see any good reason for endorsing the qualifying words “that its original sharpness has been blunted and shifted slightly in transmission and redaction.”
We heartily endorse Piper’s statement (see his encyclopaedia article), “Recent scholarship has pointed out the typically Aramaic form of these narratives and their Palestinian background, which would make it impossible to ascribe them to any but the earliest period of the primitive church.… These considerations make it advisable, if not imperative, to regard Jesus as the author of all of them.”
Thorough study of the original, both Aramaic and Greek, is necessary. Does this mean that sermon-books on the parables (see the footnote) can be dismissed? Not at all! The very fact that these parables do not deal with abstractions but with the day-to-day lives of men, women, and children proves that a truly practical sermon at times reaches the parable’s depth of meaning more adequately than does abstract linguistic research. But both research and sermons are needed, sermons based on research and on life. Not only sermons in the English language, however, but also those in other languages. Besides, much can be learned from the best commentaries. And as to the books and articles mentioned in the footnote, it should be pointed out that even though one may not agree with every one of Bailey’s conclusions, he has rendered a real service in teaching us in a most interesting way that if one wishes to understand a parable based on a Near East background, knowledge of the conditions and customs of that part of the world cannot be neglected.
On the other hand, increasing emphasis has been placed in recent years on the fact that one cannot penetrate to the depth of the parable as long as he neglects to see himself as the object of its teaching. In other words, we must put ourselves into the parable, so that it begins to grip us, to put us to shame, and by God’s grace to bring us to the proper attitude of mind and heart; in fact, it must lead us to take the required action. In this respect Te Selle’s book, and also Tannehill’s (see pp. 202, 203), have been and are a real blessing.
In conclusion note the following points on parable interpretation:
Though not all agree—see R. W. Funk, p. 56—it is safe to assume that as a general rule a parable teaches a single lesson. It has one “third of comparison.” Somewhere, whether in the body of the parable, in its introduction or opening sentence, or in its conclusion, this central thrust is made clear. Thus, the main lesson of the parable of The Two Builders (Matt. 7:24–27) is “Be a doer of the word, not merely a hearer” (see verse 24). Similarly, the parable of The Lost Son (Luke 15:11–32) teaches “God the Father warmly welcomes penitent sinners; so should we” (see verses 2, 7, 20b, 43).
It should not be taken for granted, however, that it is always possible to express this central lesson in one short and simple statement. The story of The Marriage Feast of the King’s Son is really a threefold or three-in-one parable. The three easily recognizable parts are: (a) the rejected invitation (Matt. 22:1–7), (b) the filled wedding hall (verses 8–10), and (c) the missing wedding robe (verses 11–14). The lesson is, “Accept God’s gracious invitation, lest while others enter glory you are lost; but bear in mind that membership in the visible church does not guarantee salvation. Basic and continual renewal—the putting on of Christ—is necessary.”
One more question, perhaps the most difficult of all, deserves consideration. It is this, “What must be done about those various single items within the body of the parable, items which may or may not importantly touch the central thrust?”
Some items very clearly pertain merely to the story as such, having been added in order to make the illustration more vivid. They may be said to belong to the “fringes” of the parable. But there are also other items where this is not so clear. Here are three examples:
In the parable of The Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1–7) do the ninety-nine that are left behind have any figurative meaning, and if so, to whom do they refer? According to Taylor (see his excellent book, pp. 313, 314) they represent the angels who have kept their first estate. He is not entirely sure about this but favors this explanation.
In the parable of The Leaven (Matt. 13:33) what is meant by the leaven? The famous English congregationalist, author and lecturer, G. C. Morgan, who throughout his active life was a channel of blessing to ever so many, was of the opinion that the leaven represented something bad, namely, “the principle of disintegration” (p. 65).
And in the parable of The Five Foolish and the Five Sensible Girls (Matt. 25:1–13) what, if anything, is meant by “They all grew drowsy and (soon) were sleeping” (verse 5)? As Donfried, employing “the redaction-critical method” sees it, basing his argument partly on I Thess. 4:15–17, the reference is to those Christians who had died (p. 426).
Undoubtedly all of these three opinions—that of Taylor, that of Morgan, and that of Donfried—are questionable. As to Donfried’s, how I Thess. 4:15–17 can serve as an aid to the interpretation of Matt. 25:5, which is totally different, is a mystery. As to the opinions of the other two authors, see below on Luke 15:1–7, especially on verses 4 and 7; and on Luke 13:21 (parallel to Matt. 13:33).
Of course, the various items in those parables which Jesus has himself interpreted for us do not present any great difficulty. See Matt. 13:18–23, 36–43. But how must we interpret the details of all the other parables? In many cases the task is rather easy. So, for example, in the parable of The Two Builders the man who built his house on rock is the person who not only hears but puts into practice the words of Jesus. The other builder represents the individual who hears the Master’s words but does not put them into practice. So also in the parable of The Lost Son the younger boy in his return to his father represents the penitent sinner (see Luke 15:1, 2), while his older brother clearly symbolizes the self-righteous Pharisee (see 15:2, 28–30). The human father pictures the heavenly Father in his forgiving and yearning love.
Here and there, however, we are confronted with a problem. There are parables with respect to which, though the central lesson is clear, the separate items are not nearly as perspicuous. Do these details belong to the “fringes” of the story, necessary to make the total picture more graphic, but not to be figuratively interpreted? The answer may depend on the context, parallel passages, word usage, etc. Each case will have to be judged on its own merits.
The problem can, however, be exaggerated. In most cases it is perhaps not as serious as at first it may seem to be. Referring again to the parable of “The Ten Virgins” (to use the older title), its single lesson is clear enough. It is stated in Matt. 25:13, “Keep on the alert therefore, because you do not know the day or the hour.” Several ancillary truths can easily be derived from this lesson. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 878, 879. But what about the oil? Does it or does it not have a symbolical meaning? We can probably not be sure. However, we can always say, “If the oil does have symbolical significance, then, in line with the use of the word elsewhere and in keeping with the parable’s central thrust, namely, ‘Keep on the alert,’ etc., does the oil perhaps represent the Holy Spirit, through whose transforming and enabling power and activity men are being spiritually prepared and kept on the alert to welcome the Bridegroom?” See Isa. 61:1; Zech. 4:1–6; II Thess. 2:13.
In connection with each parable the main lesson or third of comparison must be grasped. If, with respect to a marginal matter, absolute certainty cannot be obtained, what is wrong with saying, “I do not know”?