Part 89

(14:53-65) The Sanhedrin Trial The account of Jesus' trial before the Jewish authorities is one where the historical questions of what actually happened are most acute, and almost intractable. The story as it stands gives rise to innumerable historical difficulties. Above all, there is the fact that Mark seems to think of the events described as some kind of formal 'trial', resulting in a death sentence, and yet the authorities seem to have broken a large number of their own rules in conducting a capital trial in the way described. Our evidence for such rules—mostly from the Mishnah—is admittedly from a later time, but infringements implied here include holding a trial on a feast-day, not having a statutory second session on the following day to confirm the sentence, Jesus being condemned to death for blasphemy yet technically he has not blasphemed (see MK 14:64). Some of these problems are resolved if one takes the event as less of a formal trial and more of an informal hearing, as is implied by Luke's account (which may be independent of Mark here) and also by John's (though there are the perennial problems of the historical reliability of John), and if one jettisons the Markan chronology which implies that all this happened on Passover itself (cf. MK 14:12—16). The Markan account has been somewhat embroidered and one certainly cannot simply read it as a straight transcript of what actually happened. How much Mark himself was aware of this is not certain: did Mark deliberately set out to portray the Jewish authorities as breaking all their rules in order to get Jesus killed? Or was he simply ignorant of the finer points of Jewish legal procedure and unaware of the problems his account would cause for later interpreters? In view of the lack of any explicit hints of irregularities in procedure here, the latter possibility seems more likely.

Jesus' refusal to answer (which could then be taken as a refusal to deny the 'accusation') leads on to the specific messianic question of Jesus' own identity. Jesus is asked explicitly if he is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed. (The high priest's words avoid uttering the divine name of God.) For the first time in Mark's narrative, Jesus now openly acknowledges his identity. Secrecy is no longer commanded. The reason for Mark may be that the context provides the true hermeneutical key: the one who is Messiah and Son of God is the one who stands as prisoner in the dock and is about to be condemned to death. True messiahship, true divine sonship, for Mark means obedience, suffering, and death. When that is made clear, no secrecy is necessary. Yet, as in ch. 8 when Jesus was alone with his disciples, talk about messiahship is immediately qualified by reference to himself as Son of Man (cf. Mk 8:27-33). F°r

Mark it is the idea of Son of Man that provides the proper key to any talk of Jesus as Messiah. As we have seen on several occasions, 'Son of Man' implies obedience, suffering, and subsequent vindication. Here the stress in on the last of these (cf. too 13:26). The one who is obedient to the cross will ultimately be vindicated by God. Further, the predictions of Jesus which have been fulfilled in the passion itself serve to buttress the validity of this prediction which for Mark awaits fulfilment in the future.

In terms of historicity, there is also the problem of how later Christians would have had access to any reliable information about what actually happened during the hearing. Maybe some general information was available, but the details must have remained unknown. Perhaps part of the difficulties raised by the accounts is due to some information which may have been available being coupled with a general belief on the part of later Christians that Jesus was fundamentally innocent of any 'charge' brought against him.

The story in w. 61—2 clearly reflects key elements in Mark's narrative. How far they are also historical is much harder to say. As we have seen, the sequence from the temple saying to the question of messiahship is plausible. Further, it is almost certain that Jesus was crucified as a messianic claimant (cf. the titulus over the cross). Open messianic claims by Jesus are however very rare in the gospels, and their historicity is sus-

Jesus is questioned first about an alleged claim to destroy the temple. As it stands, the account is highly implausible: Jesus is accused by false witnesses who cannot agree—but

919 MARK

viz., a cruel tyrant who would have not had the slightest compunction in executing an odd Jew or two to keep the peace. So too the Barabbas incident defies explanation: no such custom of releasing a prisoner on a regular basis is known, nor is it really credible. Most likely the account here has been influenced by the tendency to shift the blame away from the Romans and on to the Jewish authorities.

pert. Perhaps the most one can say is that Jesus must have been confronted by such claims at his trial and at the very least refused to deny them (perhaps because they reflected at least some of his positive aspirations, e.g. his wanting to rebuild a new Israel, even if other aspects of messiahship, such as political nationalism, were less appealing).

The high priest claims that Jesus has blasphemed (v. 64). Strictly speaking, Jesus has not, since blasphemy technically involved uttering the divine name (see m. Sank. 7:5) and this Jesus has scrupulously avoided doing. In terms of history, it may be that Jesus was regarded as having made 'blasphemous' claims or assertions in a loose way, though not necessarily uttering the divine name, and it was this that led the authorities to want him killed, even if they may not have been legally empowered to execute him themselves—hence their decision to involve the Roman authorities. (The whole question of Jewish legal powers to execute at this period is a very vexed one: see the survey in Brown 1994: 363—72.) But for Mark, such legal niceties were probably irrelevant. Perhaps he knew that the question of Jesus' identity as Messiah was a key one in the 'trial', and he clearly believed that the Jews did condemn Jesus to death for what they regarded as blasphemy.

The question of Jesus' kingship, raised here by Pilate, is the one that will now dominate the chapter (cf. w. 9, 12, 18, 26, 32). The charge of being king of the Jews was almost certainly the charge on which Jesus was crucified by the Romans (cf. the titulus, v. 26): it was in any case a political charge (which would naturally lead to the punishment of crucifixion: cf. above), and moreover it was a charge on which someone like Pilate would feel obliged to act: a royal pretender would clearly pose a threat to political power which Pilate could not ignore. Hence some aspects of the story here are very plausible. However, it is much more likely that Pilate simply ordered Jesus' crucifixion without any compunction at all. For Mark, the issue is no doubt one of Jesus' kingship—yet not so much Jesus' identity as king as the nature of that kingship and of the royal power he exercises.

The mockery of Jesus which now ensues involves deep irony. Jesus is mocked as a prophet: yet he has just been shown to be a true prophet in predicting the flight of the disciples; Mark's story is about to show his prediction of Peter's denial being fulfilled very literally; and Jesus has just predicted his own vindication as Son of Man. Mocked as a false prophet (by implication), Mark's narrative shows Jesus to be a true prophet, and his apparent demise is in fact the true and only path that will lead to ultimate vindication by God.

(15:16—20) The Mockery This is brought out in the mockery scene which now follows, a scene impregnated with almost savage irony. Jesus is clothed by the soldiers in royal clothes— a purple cloak and a 'crown' that is an instrument of torture. The soldiers then do mock homage to him and hail him—for them ironically—as 'king of the Jews'. But the real irony goes one stage further because, for Mark, what is said here in mocking jest is in fact profound truth. Jesus is the king of the Jews. What the soldiers say in jest expresses for Mark the deepest reality.

(14:66^72) Peter's Denial The story of Peter's threefold denial spans the account of Jesus' trial. (Mark starts the story about Peter in v. 54, but then adds the trial scene to create a typical sandwich structure.) The net effect is to highlight the contrast between Jesus who stands firm and Peter who capitulates to pressure. Mark goes out of his way to show that the events fulfil Jesus' prediction precisely, even down to the cock crowing twice (cf. v. 30). The final sentence is obscure: the verb translated 'broke down' (NRSV) is totally unclear as to its precise meaning. If we are to see in Peter's tears remorse and contrition, any sequel is left unspoken: this is the last appearance of Peter in the gospel (though cf. 16:7).

(15:21—32) Crucifixion Jesus' cross is carried, under pressure, by one Simon of Cyrene: we know nothing of him (though his sons 'Alexander and Rufus' may have been known in Mark's community—hence their mention here). Jesus is then crucified and given a drugged drink. Possibly the story has been influenced by Ps 69:21 (certainly Matthew, who changes Mark's 'myrrh' to 'gall', makes the allusion clearer). Jesus however refuses. The next verse (v. 24), with its reference to casting lots for Jesus' clothes clearly echoes Ps 22:18, just as the note in v. 29 of the bystanders 'shaking their heads' echoes Ps 22:7. Ps 22 has had a powerful (if unstated) influence on the Markan narrative.

(15:1-15) Trial before Pilate The story of the hearing before Pilate raises almost as many historical problems as the account of the Sanhedrin trial. That there was some Roman involvement in the trial and death of Jesus seems undeniable: at the very least we have to explain the fact that Jesus was crucified, and crucifixion was a Roman punishment, reserved primarily for political rebels. The tendency in the Christian tradition, however, is to take the blame away from the Romans and put it on to the shoulders of the Jewish authorities. Undoubtedly we see this process happening here. The scene starts with Pilate abruptly asking Jesus 'Are you the King of the Jews?', and, when met with silence from Jesus, seeking desperately to release him. The picture is quite implausible, both in general and in detail. The picture of Pilate here as weak and vacillating, anxiously trying to please the Jews, in no way squares with what we know from elsewhere of the man,

The mockery of the bystanders again employs the motif of irony. The charge about the temple is brought up again, including the note about rebuilding a new temple, and the people call on Jesus to save himself and come down from the cross. But the new temple is the new covenant community, brought into being by Jesus' own death so that Jesus cannot save himself if the prediction of the new temple is to be fulfilled. Similarly, the words of the Jewish leaders, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself (v. 31) are, like the soldiers' mockery in w. 16—20, both a taunt and simultaneously at a deeper level a profound truth: Jesus is saving others precisely by being where he is and by not saving himself—he cannot save himself if he is indeed to be the saviour of the world.

A final bitter irony comes with the claim that if Jesus, as Messiah and king, could come down from the cross, they

MARK 920

may rather be the one veiling the Holy of Holies, so that, when this is torn in two, the barrier separating God from men and women is ripped apart: God himself is seen. Mark's scene here may thus be vividly and dramatically presenting Jesus qua Son of God as the very representation of God himself.

would then 'see and believe'. Yet Mark and Mark's readers know that such 'seeing' is not available, nor does it lead to the right sort of 'belief. Faith for Mark can never be based on miracles: miracles can only occur in the context of already existing faith and commitment (cf 8:11-12).

There is, however, a vital corollary. For the context for the confession of v. 39 is not only v. 38 but the whole scene itself, including v. 37. The centurion sees—a dead man hanging on a shameful cross, and says that this man is the Son of God. If Mark intends by v. 38 to claim that Jesus qua Son of God represents God, then his story also vividly and violently not only says something about what it means to be a Son, it also says something about God. It is not only about Christology, it is also about theology. God is to be seen most clearly and starkly in the abandonment, the weakness, and the powerlessness of the crucified one.

(15:33—9) Jesus' Death The same note of mockery, and possible irony, may continue as the story moves to its climax in Jesus' death. Darkness falls, an event which is clearly understood as a divine miracle. (An eclipse of the sun would have been impossible at the time of Passover which would have been a full moon.) Jesus then utters his only words from the cross in Mark, the opening words from Ps 22:1. Some have argued that this 'cry of dereliction' should not be taken too negatively: the citation of the opening words of Ps 22 imply that the later part of the psalm (expressing great hope) is also in mind. This seems unlikely. Mark's account has shown a progressive increase in Jesus' isolation and abandonment by others. He has been abandoned by all his friends, condemned by all human agencies, and now he feels himself abandoned even by God himself. Any reading of the text should not water down or dilute the starkness and harshness of the narrative Mark presents.

The identity of Jesus has been no secret for the reader from the very start of the story (cf. 1:1). However, the nature and significance of what it means to be Son of God—not only Son but also Son of God—are now spelt out in Mark's narrative. The scene is at one level the climax to which the whole of Mark's story has been leading.

(15:40^7) Burial The note about the women watching from afar (w. 40—1) prepares for the account of the women coming to the tomb on the first day of the week. As we have noted already, in Mark women often do what the male disciples have failed to do. At least these women have not deserted Jesus completely. The account of the burial of Jesus follows, told simply and with little adornment except for the extra conversation between Pilate and the soldiers which simply confirms the reality of Jesus' death.

Jesus' citation of Ps 22:1 (in Aramaic) is taken as a call to Elijah (why this should be so is not clear: such confusion could only occur if Jesus had spoken in Hebrew—as indeed Matthew claims—not in Aramaic). Perhaps what is in mind is the notion, evidenced in some later Jewish traditions, that Elijah, as the one who did not die, would help the righteous in times of trouble. This, however, seems to have been confused with another tradition of a bystander giving Jesus a drink (cf. Ps 69:21 again), either a drug to ease the pain, or vinegar to aggravate thirst—hence a mocking 'help'. The idea of Elijah as possibly coming to help may also be ironic since, for Mark's Jesus, Elijah had already come, been rejected and killed (cf. 9:11-13). Jesus' death comes—mercifully quickly in the end for a crucifixion. The events which follow are undoubtedly Mark's own theological interpretation of what has happened. The veil of the temple is torn in two, and the centurion confesses Jesus as Son of God. (The words of the centurion could be translated as saying simply that Jesus was a son of a god. However, for Mark, it seems certain that he intends the centurion to make the ultimate Christological confession: Jesus is the Son (capital S) of God. For what this means, see below.)

(16:1-8) The Empty Tomb The sequel to the story of Jesus' death and burial is in Mark's gospel terse and compressed. By universal consent, the sequel as we have it comprises only w. 1-8 of this chapter. Continuations of the narrative, either in a short ending or in a longer ending (printed as w. 9-20 in some English Bibles) appear in some MSS of Mark; but these are clearly not by the author of the text of the rest of the gospel and represent attempts to complete the narrative. Thus the final section we have of Mark's story contains only an account of the discovery of the empty tomb by the women with no actual appearance of the risen Jesus.

The story of the women coming to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body raises a number of well-known historical problems: e.g. if the women had no idea how the stone over the entrance to the tomb could be removed (cf. v. 3), why did they come at all? For Mark, however, such questions are beside the point: the narrative rather shows the miracle of the empty tomb which surpasses all human expectations and thus leads to astonishment on the part of the women.

The precise identification of the 'veil' of the temple is uncertain. Two possible curtains could be intended: that which stood at the entrance to the temple building, or that which stood at the entry to the Holy of Holies, symbolically preventing God from being seen by human beings. This Markan verse is often taken as referring to the temple as a whole, and the tearing of the veil as a symbol of the destruction of the temple and the end of the Jewish cult (cf. 11:16-19; I3:2! !4:58). This is possible, though it seems just as likely that v. 38 should be taken as integral with v. 39 as well: the tearing of the veil enables one to see now: and in particular it enables the centurion to see who Jesus is: for the first time in Mark's story, a human being now comes to the realization that Jesus is truly 'Son of God'. But what does this mean? At one level the interpretation may be provided by v. 38: the 'curtain'

The 'young man' encountered by the women is 'dressed in a white robe', probably indicating that he is to be thought of as an angel. He tells the women what the empty tomb implies: 'He has been raised; he is not here.' The order of the clauses is striking. The resurrection is almost assumed without question, and the empty tomb interprets it by the (self-evident) fact that Jesus is 'not here'. He is not present. There is thus no sense in which for Mark the empty tomb guarantees the reality of the resurrection or assures the presence of the risen

921 MARK

Jesus. Almost the reverse is the case: the empty tomb is an empty tomb: Jesus is not here to be experienced as a tangible objective proof of anything. If then he is not here, where is he to be found? The next verses provide an answer—albeit enigmatically.

where it does: It must be that either Mark continued with accounts of resurrection appearances and the ending has been lost (by accident or deliberate suppression), or he was prevented from finishing his work (e.g. by illness, or by being arrested).

In v. 7, the young man gives a message to the women for the disciples and Peter: Jesus is 'going ahead' of them to Galilee, and they will see him there. The specific reference to Peter makes it highly likely that the 'seeing' involves a resurrection appearance, with the mention of Peter perhaps referring to a special appearance to Peter (cf i Cor 15:3; Lk 24:34). (Hence the reference is not, as some have argued, to the parousia: cf. Marxsen 1969.) Further, the young man's last words ('as he told you') clearly recall Jesus' prediction in 14:2 8. The reference is thus to a meeting between the risen Jesus and the disciples when the latter will be forgiven and restored; their relationship with Jesus, broken by their failure to stick with him, will be renewed. Once again they will become disciples, with Jesus 'going ahead' of them, just as he did before (cf. 10:32).

Neither of these theories is entirely satisfactory: one would expect a lost ending to be restored, and theories about Mark's personal circumstances are entirely speculative. In any case such theories depend heavily on preconceived ideas about what a gospel narrative, in particular the conclusion to such a narrative, 'must' contain. Without such preconceptions, the onus is probably on the reader to try to make sense of the narrative as it stands and to take seriously the possibility that 16:8 is indeed the intended ending. It seems clear that the end of the narrative is not the end of the line of events which start in the narrative itself. For example, the prediction of 16:7 of a renewal of the relationship between Jesus and the disciples must, for Mark, have been fulfilled. Throughout Mark's passion narrative, Jesus has been shown to be a reliable prophet, predicting events to come with great accuracy (cf. on Peter's denial). The whole literary plot of the narrative therefore demands that Jesus' predictions are fulfilled, including those not explicitly covered by the narrative itself. Thus the narrative structure created by Mark compels us to believe that the continuation of Mark's story-world into Mark's real world has led to the meeting implied in 16:7 having taken place.

The women's reaction is, however, to ignore what they have been told. They are seized with 'terror and amazement'; they flee away, and say 'nothing to anyone, for they were afraid'. It seems highly likely that, from Mark's point of view, the women's reaction is to be regarded negatively. Although amazement and awe in the presence of the numinous (e.g. an angel) is in one sense entirely appropriate, the 'fear' shown by the women here seems to be wholly bad. 'Fear' elsewhere in Mark is the reaction which contrasts with faith (cf. 4:40); and the women here fail to do what they have been explicitly told to do. There is an almost ironical reversal of the situation earlier in the gospel. Earlier, people were regularly told to be silent about Jesus (and often disobeyed); here, the women are told to speak out openly—indeed the earlier secrecy charge in 9:9 had indicated that the time after the resurrection would be the time for openness; yet they are silent! There seems to be then an underlying pattern of divine command and human failing, which does not stop even here in the story with the resurrection. So too, however much the women in Mark act as correctives to the behaviour of male disciples, in the end they too are shown as failing. Human weakness and failing is thus shown to be universal. But is this Mark's last word? We must consider the problem of the ending.

Hence too the women's silence in v. 8 cannot have been absolute and everlasting. Despite it, the message to the disciples must eventually have got through to them so that they met up with the risen Jesus in Galilee. In any case, Mark's own Christian community must have known of the resurrection of Jesus (cf. the passion predictions which all include predictions of the resurrection as well: again Mark must have believed that they were fulfilled), and this must presume that the message of the young man did (eventually) reach its goal.

Perhaps though the message to the disciples has more significance for Mark than just its surface meaning. They are to meet up with Jesus in 'Galilee' where Jesus is 'going ahead' of them. For Mark, however, Galilee is the place where discipleship starts, and the path of discipleship is one which leads from Galilee to Jerusalem, which for Mark is the place of suffering and death. Similarly, 10:32 makes it clear that Jesus' 'going ahead' means going ahead on the road that leads to Jerusalem, the place of suffering. The way of discipleship for Mark is the way of the cross (cf. 8:34 etc.). If the disciples are to meet with Jesus in Galilee, then this is not necessarily some glorious panacea that will enable them to forget about the preceding events and mean a glorious, trouble-free existence. It is rather suffering discipleship to which they are called, as indeed ch. 13 has made clear.

The Ending

As already noted, Mark's text as we have it ends at 16:8. Other endings found in some MSS of the gospel are clearly (on stylistic grounds) secondary additions, mostly being compressed conflations of the resurrection appearance stories in the other gospels. Did then Mark intend to end at 16:8? Many have felt that an ending at this point is unsatisfactory and extremely difficult to conceive. Grammatically, 16:8 ends very abruptly and clumsily in Greek (with a conjunction). More important perhaps is the question of substance. The very existence of the alternative endings in some MSS testifies to a feeling by later scribes that the gospel was incomplete; and even Matthew and Luke, in some sense Mark's first interpreters, both clearly believed that Mark's gospel needed completion by the addition of accounts of resurrection appearances. Many modern scholars have felt the same, and hence have argued that Mark's gospel was not intended to end

Moreover, it is an existence that is perhaps permanently characterized by human failure. Just as the disciples have failed during Jesus' lifetime, the women have failed even during the apparent success of the era of resurrection; so the Christian readers of Mark may assume that failure will be a constant feature of Christian discipleship. But equally, as Mark's story implies (but does not state explicitly), failure can be and is overcome. The power of forgiveness and

LUKE 922

restoration is in the end greater than human failure and its consequences.

Brown, R. E. (1994), The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday). Burridge, R. A. (1992), What are the Gospels? (Cambridge: Cambridge

Mark's abrupt ending violently shifts attention away from what some of his readers may have expected (and from what some of his later readers such as Matthew and Luke evidently did expect). The era of the Christian church for Mark is not one of power and glory which nullifies the previous suffering and death. Stories of appearances of the risen Jesus might give that impression, and Mark does not recount these. As with the messianic secret in the earlier story, Jesus' true identity is to be seen as the crucified one; Jesus' divine sonship is seen most clearly and starkly when he dies (cf. 15:39). If Jesus is risen, he is risen as the crucified one. The gospel for Mark is thus the good news about Jesus—but it is Mark's Jesus that Mark's gospel is about, and for Mark, Jesus is supremely the Son of God seen most clearly in his suffering and death. Further, Mark's narrative may be only the beginning of the gospel (see i: i). The rest of the gospel is to be completed by the reader, but the reader can only complete the story by following as a disciple of Mark's Jesus, and that means going to Galilee, being prepared to follow in the way of discipleship as spelt out by him, i.e. the way of the cross. There, and only there, will Jesus be 'seen' and experienced. There is then no happy ending to the gospel. There is certainly no objective account of the reality that informs Christian existence for Mark, namely the presence of the risen Jesus with his people: such would be inappropriate for Mark. Maybe Mark's gospel is indeed unfinished. But perhaps that is deliberate. It is up to the reader to supply the ending—and that is the perennial challenge of this gospel to all its readers today.

University Press). Fowler, R. M. (1981), Loaves and Fishes (Chico, Calif.: Scholars

Press). Hengel, M. (1985), Studies in the Gospel of Mark, ET (London: SCM). Jeremias, J. (1963), The Parables of Jesus, ET (London: SCM). Luz, U. (1983), 'The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology', ETin

Tuckett (1983), 75—96. German original, 1965. Marxsen, W. (1969), Mark the Evangelist, ET (Nashville: Abingdon). Raisanen, H. (1982), 'Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark

7.15', JSNT 16: 79—100, repr. in Raisanen, Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 127-48. (1990), The 'Messianic Secret'in Mark's Gospel (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark). Sanders, E. P. (1985), Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM). Tannehill, R. C. (1977), 'The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a

Narrative Role', JR 57: 386-405, repr. in W. R. Telford (ed.), The Interpretation of Mark, 2nd edn. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), 169-95. Theissen, G. (1978), The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis

of the Earliest Christianity, ET (London: SCM).

(1992), The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition, ET (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark). Tolbert, M. A. (1989), Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-

Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress). Tuckett, C. M. (1983), The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK).

(1992), 'Synoptic Problem', ABD vi. 263-70. Weeden, T. J. (1971), Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fort-

ress).

59. Luke ERIC F R A N K L I N

A. Luke among the Synoptic Gospels. 1. As one of the three

they are interwoven. Jesus is linked firmlyto Israel's prophetic line whose mission he fulfils. Born while all the world is on the move, he is ignored except by a number of Jewish outcasts who alone receive the divine announcement of his birth. Taken to the temple, however, he is recognized by true representatives of its piety who acknowledge that he will cause divisions in Israel but will become a light to the Gentiles, whose response will rebound to Israel's glory.

Synoptic Gospels, Luke's story of Jesus has much in common with those of Matthew and Mark. Based on the same outline of his ministry, it includes a large number of episodes common to all three and puts emphasis upon many of the same things. It shares with the other two the same overall perspective from which Jesus' life is described and its significance assessed. Jesus is presented as the one who announces the arrival of the kingdom of God, his exorcisms and miracles are interpreted as witnessing to its presence in him and his teaching, often given by way of parables, explains its implications for those who would receive it.

(b) Luke's narrative introduces Jesus' Galilean ministry with an account of a rejection at Nazareth which Matthew and Mark have much later in their gospels where it becomes Jesus' last visit to a synagogue. Luke's story includes a sermon in which Jesus proclaims himself as the fulfilment of Isaiah's hopes for Israel. He virtually compels his rejection but justifies it on the grounds that no prophet is acceptable to his own. His lack of works at home is defended by pointing out that both Elijah and Elisha gave attention to foreigners. When the townsfolk rise up against him, their attempt to kill him is thwarted and leads only to a furthering of his progress towards his goal.

2. Within this common framework, however, Luke's gospel includes many episodes which are peculiar to it and a significant number which, paralleled in one or both of Matthew and Mark, appear in his gospel in a different form and give a particular distinctiveness to his narrative. Among the most important of these are:

(a) Luke's infancy narratives, though agreeing with Matthew's on a number of important points, are, in the story they tell, quite other than his. Preparations for the birth of John the Baptist form a prelude to those of Jesus which they closely parallel—though in a less dramatic way—and with which

923 LUKE

B. Luke's Narrative. 1. Whilst these distinctive episodes serve as a valuable tool in the quest for determining the nature of Luke's work and his purpose in writing, what can be learned from them has to be supplemented, and in part determined, by what the author himself says in his preface (see LK 1:1-4). This is unique in the gospels and in it Luke sets out his aims. His work is offered as an addition to an unspecified number of 'narratives' which have purported to give a basis for an adequate understanding of Jesus. His careful research into the traditions (probably both oral and written) that were available to him results in an 'orderly account' that deepens and maybe even corrects theirs at points. Just what claim he is making for his 'orderly account' is not clear. It is certainly one of providing a firm basis in hard events for the response of faith that Luke hopes to evoke. Luke believes his narrative to be grounded in real history.

Whereas Matthew covers it in two chapters and Mark in only one, Luke devotes some ten chapters to it. Its beginning is marked by a verse of exceptional solemnity (9:51) and frequent references to it remind the reader of its importance. The concept of a journey is obviously significant for Luke. The great majority of its episodes are peculiar to him whilst its contents as a whole offer different aspects of his own particular understanding of Jesus.

(d) Whilst Luke's account of Jesus' teaching in Jerusalem and of his conflicts with the religious authorities there are paralleled in Matthew and Mark, once the passion narrative proper begins with the account of Jesus' last supper, the distinctiveness of his story is apparent. His account of Jesus' actions at the supper is not easily accommodated to theirs and he includes a significant discussion with the twelve which they lack. The agony in the garden and the arrest resemble theirs (though with significant differences) but his story does not have their account of the night examination of Jesus by the Jews. He has but one single session of the council in the morning. No actual condemnation of him to death is made but all is rather regarded as a preparation for the accusations they are to make against him before Pilate, whose unwillingness to accede to their demands is emphasized by a threefold declaration of his innocence. Pilate's favourable judgment is supported by Herod who in Luke alone is given a role in the drama at this point. Eventually, Pilate delivers up Jesus 'to their will' and the Jews take a leading part in bringing him to the cross. His crucifixion scene presents a different picture from that found in Matthew and Mark. Their starkness is mellowed and Luke's, though having the same general contours as theirs, is given in colours that in many ways come closer to those used in John. The cry of desolation is not included and Jesus is serene throughout. He forgives his persecutors, receives the acknowledgment of the penitent thief and promises him a place in paradise, and commends himself into his Father's hands. The picture is of a death which reveals the characteristics that determined the life. What follows can only be a completion of what is now happening. Jesus' cxodos, to which 9:31 pointed and which was to be accomplished at Jerusalem, is in the process of being realized.

2. The gospel's presentation of events, however, is not controlled by historical objectivity. Luke's story of the rejection at Nazareth owes it place at that point in the narrative less to a historical concern than to a desire to make it an introduction to the ministry as a whole. The details of Luke's crucifixion scene suggest that he wants to make it conform to what the gospel says about Jesus' stance during his life. The death sums up the life and reflects what happened in it. Resurrection appearances were all placed in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem because, in the events that happened there, the eschatological hopes of Israel were seen as actually being realized. The mission to the nations of the world had to reach out from there and start with the remaking of the Jewish people (Acts 2:1—13). Luke's desire to present an account of'the things that have been fulfilled among us' could be achieved only by bathing the events themselves in a light that enabled their full reality, as the author understood it, to be seen. The 'order' of his account was determined less by a concern that asked 'What actually happened next?' than by a desire to unfold and justify the overall movement in Jesus' life that effected the achievement of his status. Luke's gospel becomes the step by step unfolding of his thesis that Jesus is both 'Lord and Christ' and that it is through him that God has fulfilled the promises of redemption that he had made to Israel and, through her, to the world.

3. The Graeco-Roman outlook to which the preface links its author, and the biblical mould in which he casts his work, come together to make his narrative the expression of a faith that itself determines not only the perspective from which the events are described, but also the way they are actually perceived to have happened. Luke's preface makes claims that are both more convoluted and at the same time more profound than one to historical exactitude.

(c) Whereas Mark expects Jesus' resurrected appearances in Galilee, and Matthew describes his final scene there, Luke's narrative leaves no room for such episodes. At the empty tomb, instead of Mark's promise of a future Galilean happening., Luke has a reference to a past event. All the appearances of the risen Jesus take place in or around Jerusalem. The theologically charged story of the journey to Emmaus is followed by the most materialistic of all the NT resurrection stories. What sets out to show that Jesus really is raised from the tomb becomes the setting for his farewell discourse, which justifies the events as those expected of the Messiah. It grounds in the Scriptures the universal mission that it enjoins. It sees its success as reason for believing in Jesus and as proof of the Spirit's presence in the community. Luke alone has a separate ascension event which both brings the resurrection appearances to a close and also accomplishes Jesus' glorification.

C. The Question of Sources. 1. The gospel's preface speaks of its author's search for traditions and of his knowledge of other narratives with which he could compare his own. All these contributed in some way to the work, though commentators are by no means agreed upon either their number or the extent of their influence upon the gospel's final form. Conclusions reached are to a considerable extent determined by their advocate's study of the gospels as a whole and what this suggests about the freedom with which their authors handled the material at their disposal.

LUKE 924

sis as an indispensable tool, for comparison of his episodes with their parallel forms in Matthew and Mark allows the contours of Luke's stories to be clearly seen; understanding of his stance is helped. Firm conclusions based upon any particular theory of how the gospels are related must, however, be avoided. Though these may make for a sharpened approach, their hypothetical nature must be recognized. To build too much upon them is to construct an edifice upon shifting sand.

2. The majority view is that Mark is the primary source of Luke's work. The actual manner of its use, however, remains something of an open question. Many of Luke's episodes differ in varying degrees from their parallels in Mark. At what point the differences are such as to make the move from Mark to another source a distinct probability is a matter of fine judgement. Some commentators are so impressed by the unity of the final work that they will maximize Luke's creativity. Others, impressed by what they regard as foreign elements in the gospel (e.g. LK 1:67; 4:23; 11:49), see these as strong evidence for sources. If the latter look to Luke's preface for support, the former regard Luke's creativity as largely determined by his concern to write up his narrative in a biblical mould.

D. Luke the Evangelist. 1. Luke's preface suggests that the evangelist writes himself firmly into his narrative. Other gospels do not point to their authors in this way and, though perhaps each leaves a hint of his presence, search for the gospel's setting and the reasons for its production focus primarily upon the community with which it is related. Though some interpreters have approached our gospel in this way, reading it as something of a mirror-image of the community with which it is thought to be associated, the gospel itself does not obviously suggest this approach (though see Esler 1987). It must, of course, make contact with a community of some sort, but it is addressed to it and is the author's response to a situation which is perceived through his own eyes rather than through those of the community itself. Luke's is a personal offering and the address to a person, whatever that may mean (see LK 1:4), suggests that it is the person of the author which determines what is included and the stance which is adopted. His gospel has something of the character of an epistle.

3. The position espoused by this commentary is that Luke most probably used Mark as his primary source and that, where they have parallel episodes, his are the result of a relatively free handling of what is found there. The use of supplementary sources to influence the final shape of Luke's episodes cannot be ruled out. So his reporting of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth is seen as determined by the basic pattern of Mark's episode. Its ending is written up as a commentary on Mark's scene which enables it to further the thrust of Luke's gospel. The speech expresses an understanding of Jesus which makes him the fulfilment of OT expectations and justifies his career on the basis of earlier OT prophetic activity. That Luke is here using a source to supplement Mark must be acknowledged as a possibility, but its function as the expression of ideas which are fundamental to Luke's narrative as a whole makes it more likely to have been the evangelist's own composition. The whole episode, shaped and in part created by him, is put at the beginning of the ministry to serve as its statement and the justification of its course as Luke describes it.

2. The author does not give his name but, from the second century, our gospel has been attributed to Luke who, in Philem 24, is called Paul's 'fellow-worker' and in Col 4:14 is described as 'the beloved physician'. The author of the gospel also wrote Acts and the most obvious reading of his use of the first person plural at various points in the second half of that volume (16:10-17; 2O:5-I5; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16) would seem to be that on these occasions he was a companion of Paul.

4. Apart from this material parallel to Mark, Luke has some 200 verses, mainly of Jesus' sayings, that, in varying degrees of closeness, are found also in Matthew. The majority of commentators assign this to a source, usually designated Q, which was used independently by the two evangelists (see FGS). Those who take this view tend to believe that Luke has introduced it into his gospel in a relatively unrevised form. That he handled what is accepted as a secondary source with such restraint, however, is unlikely if he used Mark, his primary source, freely. Some, impressed by this argument, therefore accept some form of the Proto-Luke hypothesis which, less favoured than it was, holds that the basis of Luke's work is not Mark but a blend of Q and some other sources into which he fitted a number of episodes which he took from Mark

3. Recent years, however, have seen a widespread questioning of this relationship (Vielhauer 1968). The picture of Paul in Acts differs appreciably from what Paul says about himself. Not only is it hard to fit Acts' biographical details into what Paul maintains, but it suggests a different approach to some of the issues that were at the heart of Paul's beliefs. The author's obvious enthusiasm for Paul is not felt to be equalled by his understanding of him.

4. Luke's description of Paul in Acts has sometimes been defended on the grounds that the apostle's was not always such a rigorous position as his more polemical utterances suggest (Marshall 1980). It is hard, however, to resist the conclusion that it is an interpretation of Paul's own outlook (Wilson 1973). The question is whether it is an illegitimate interpretation or whether it represents a legitimate one by someone who knew Paul, who had learned from his deepest insights, but who did not fully share the implications Paul himself drew from these. He presents Paul as he himself had learned from him, and writes his gospel to reflect this understanding (Franklin 1994).

(Caird 1963). This, however, would seem to do less than justice to the unity of the final work. A minority of commentators, impressed by this unity, would actually doubt the existence of Q and would account for the material common to Luke and Matthew by suggesting that Luke knew that gospel and actually made use of it in the composition of his work (Goulder 1989). This suggestion would make Luke an extremely free handler of his sources and would emphasize his creativity to an extent that most interpreters of his gospel would be unwilling to allow.

5. From Paul, Luke learned of God's wide outreach in Jesus, and he received from him his wonder at the gracious inclusion of Gentile outsiders within the people of God. Whereas

5. Questions about Luke's sources must remain unresolved. Any serious student of his gospel will regard a synop-

925 LUKE

Paul, however, emphasized the newness of God's act in Christ and saw its otherness from his earlier dealings with both Jews and Gentiles, Luke saw it as continuous with his earlier and, indeed, his wider actions. Luke himself was almost certainly a Gentile and was most probably one of that group of Gentiles— the Godfearers—who, though greatly honouring the Jewish faith, shrank from circumcision and therefore remained excluded from the covenantal people of God. In Christ he found that inclusiveness which had previously been denied him, and it was this that determined his own picture of God's redemption in Jesus. A student of the Scriptures, he presented Jesus as the fulfilment of their promises.

resurrection, for, in contrast to the unbelief of the men, they accept the witness of the two angelic messengers at the tomb (24:1—12). Luke's is the only one of the Synoptic Gospels to mention Samaritans and to present them in a favourable light (10:25-37; 17:11-19)- The poor are blessed and, though Luke uses the term as a designation for the disciples as a whole, the sociologically poor are the special objects of God's redemption (1:46-55; 4:18-19; 6:20-1). Their situation demands God's concern and is seen as making them potentially responsive to his outreach. Conversely, riches are for Luke a burden for they encourage an attitude of self-sufficiency, self-satisfaction, and manipulation of others (16:1-8, 19-31). Mammon is tainted (12:13-34; I6:9-i5), its possession is a hindrance to a response to God's call. On the other hand, the rich man, though he resists Jesus' command to follow, is not simply dismissed (18:18-27). The tax-collectors must use their money in the service of others; it is not said that they have to become paupers (5:27—32). Discipleship, however, is not easy. Disciples are to take up their cross daily, to be alert, to be open to the demands of the hour, and to use their gifts in the service of their Lord (9:23-7; 12:35-59; 16:1-9; 17:20-18:8; 19:11-27).

6. Luke probably wrote his gospel around 80-5 CE, not far from the time Matthew produced his work. They responded to a common situation when the vast majority of the Jewish people had rejected the gospel and when its future seemed to lie with the Gentiles. Jewish refusal raised real problems for anyone who saw Jesus as the fulfilment of the promises contained in the Scriptures. These were probably compounded by the continuing hiddenness of Jesus and the indifference, issuing in occasional hostility, on the part of the Roman power. It was this situation, and probably also some local tensions which are now beyond our ability to describe, that caused Luke to put pen to paper. But his gospel transcends these immediate issues to present to his fellow-Christians a proclamation of God's strange work in Jesus which is set to raise their sights and justify a faith in him as both Christ and Lord (Maddox 1982).

2. Luke's understanding of God's redemption as bringing a reversal of fortunes means that the rich, the religiously secure, the proud, and the exclusive will face judgement (1:46-55; 6:24-6; 18:9-14). All these groups are essentially satisfied with where they are, and so remain closed to the opportunities and challenges that Christ brings. They are not open to his radical message of the grace and outreach of God. This is especially true of the leaders of the Jewish people whose rejection of Jesus was for Luke the ultimate tragedy (20:41— 4). He can present Jesus as harsh towards the Pharisees (11:37-54) and in his parables Jesus is highly critical of them and of the religious system of which they are a part (10:25-37; 15:1—32; 18:9—14). Yet he remains in dialogue with them and explains their perversity and that of the Jewish nation at large (4:16-30; 14:15-24). His crucifixion is brought about by the religious/political leaders of Jerusalem with little support from them. Yet the rejection of Jesus by the Jews forwards the purposes of God and results in a wider mission (24:46—9). Caught up in God's plans for the world, it can even be seen to have a positive function. In spite of the critical situation, the Jewish nation is not finally rejected by God, and Gentiles have not taken over the place of the Jews in his covenantal people (4:16-30; 13:34-5; 21:14; 23:34; 24:47). The promises of the infancy narratives will not be brought to nothing, for the inclusion of the Gentiles will ultimately rebound to the 'glory of Israel' (2:32, 38).

7. Tradition associates Luke with Antioch, and Acts at any rate could suggest connections with that city. He might have written there under the patronage of Theophilus who could as a private person have been impressed by him and have commissioned his work. On the other hand, he could have written, perhaps to that city, from Rome. Luke's work is best understood as written from faith to faith. Directed in the first place at those who were already Christians, it addressed outsiders only indirectly. It set out to give his fellow-Christians a firm foundation for the hope that was in them.

E. Luke's Story. 1. Luke's presentation of the redemptive work of God accomplished through Jesus is controlled by his understanding of its gracious outreach and wide embrace. Jesus' work is one of redemption, of release, of the overthrow of all that holds people in the clutches of powers that restrict the fullness of life that God wills for them (4:18-21; 1:68-79; 6:20-3; 8:26-39; 13:10-17). His God is above all merciful (6:36), reaching out to people in an acceptance that is creative (7:36-50; 19:1-10). The initiative of grace itself creates a response which can, though it is not guaranteed, issue in repentance (15:1-32) and a newness of life that is born out of the disclosure that God's outreach makes possible (8:42—8; 17:11—19; 23:39—43). The Jesus of Luke's gospel is presented as having a special concern for those who are on the fringes of society and of religious respectability. Jesus is said to have made a habit of eating and drinking with tax-collectors and sinners (5:29—32; 7:34; 15:1—2; 19:1—10). Women have an important role. They accompany Jesus and his disciples on the way and provide for them out of their means (8:1-3). They are

3. For Jesus stands as the climax of God's redemptive work in Israel. He is the culmination of her servants of God, one with them and the fulfilment of their hopes. Luke pictures him in terms of the OT categories, as eschatological prophet, Messiah, at one with Moses, Elijah, the Servant of DeuteroIsaiah, and John. Like them, he is Spirit-endowed (1:26-38) though, being more than them, is wholly possessed by the

Spirit. Jesus is the agent of God, the climax of the old order of servants but, by reason of his complete obedience, exalted by way of death to be at God's right hand and to exercise that Lordship to which the psalmist pointed (20:39—44; Acts 2:32— 6). The kingdom of God is now a reality in heaven, and the community on earth lives out of its power (11:1-13) and in the

representative disciples (10:38—42). They are present at the cross, watch at the burial, and are the first believers in the

LUKE 926

they were added at the conclusion, if not of the two volumes, then at least of the gospel. They are best understood as the prologue to Luke's whole work, summing up its message, proclaiming it, and giving it a firm basis in Israel's story. To pass from Luke's preface to his infancy narratives is to move into another world. The tight, carefully constructed sentence is followed by a piece where the expansive craft of the storyteller is supreme. Graeco-Roman literary sophistication gives place to a biblical style that makes a fitting vehicle for episodes that in their outlook and atmosphere are one with some of the most characteristic of the OT accounts of God's approach to humankind. They are a pastiche of OT words, sentences, images, and ideas and are formed by a conscious imitation of incidents taken from various parts of Israel's story. The coming of Jesus into the world is the fulfilment of—and of one kind with—that which was begun in God's earlier activity. The narratives exude the spirit of joy, of wonder, and of worship—though also of a certain puzzlement. God's final redemptive work has been brought about through the life, death, and resurrection of the child whose birth these stories celebrate. That is the faith they express. (1:5-25) The Annunciation to Zechariah The infancy narratives begin in the temple with the promise of the wondrous birth of John the Baptist who was in Luke's eyes the last and greatest of the Hebrew prophets and the immediate herald of the Messiah. His parents are both of priestly stock and represent all that is good in the temple and its piety. Following all the commands of the moral and ritual law, they were 'righteous before God', accepted and acknowledged by him. Law, temple, and prophecy together were to produce John who, while yet in the womb, would acknowledge his Lord and witness to him (1:44). Zechariah was a member of one of the twenty-four orders of priests who twice a year for a week officiated at the temple services. On this occasion he was within the sanctuary itself where the altar of incense stood immediately before the holy of holies. At this holy place, the angel of God appeared to announce a new climactic stage in God's redeeming work. The main emphasis is upon the task assigned to John. OT tradition looked for Elijah to return to restore a people within Israel who would be acceptable to God when he came to establish his righteousness among them

hope of its future revelation (21:29-30). Luke does not expect that revelation to be long delayed. (For a development of these themes, see Franklin 1975.)

Preface (1:1-4)

This highly-stylized sentence places Luke's writings firmly in the Graeco-Roman world. Just what genre it suggests, however, is not easily determined. Biographies did not often have prefaces and those of historical writings were usually much longer. It has been suggested (Alexander 1993) that it is like those that introduced semi-popular scientific and technical treatises and which were largely designed to hand on the traditions of their particular disciplines. Others ('many' may be for stylistic effect) have written 'narratives', that is purposefully ordered accounts, and Luke joins his own to theirs, not without a hint that he is offering an improvement. The subject of these narratives is 'the events that have been fulfilled among us'. They are not disinterested accounts but their contents are viewed as the outcome of God's purposes and, probably, as the fulfilment of earlier expectations. The sources for these narratives were 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word', most probably a single group who handed down their witness in the service of the gospel. Luke is not claiming to have been their contemporary: his own 'orderly account' rests rather on careful research.

Theophilus ('lover of God') to whom Luke addresses his work is most likely to have been a real person of some standing and may have been Luke's literary patron. It has sometimes been suggested that he was a Roman official, that he was not a Christian, and that Luke was writing to make a case for Christianity and its political innocuousness. If so, the 'instruction' he had received was false, or at least biased, and Luke was seeking to give him the true picture. Luke—Acts as a whole, however, does not suggest that it was written for nonChristians: it contains too much Christian reflection for that and its stories of the trials of Jesus and Paul express little confidence in Roman justice. Theophilus is more likely to have been one who was knowledgeable about the Christian faith (Acts 18:25) and wh° was in fact already a Christian. In giving him 'the truth', Luke was seeking to offer him a firm foundation for his beliefs, to confirm them, and perhaps even to strengthen them when they were undergoing some trials. Luke's work is, of course, meant for public consumption and, through Theophilus, he is addressing every reader.

(Mai 4:5-6; Sir 48:10). John, having been made a nazirite (Num 6:3) from the womb to show his permanent dedication to God, will do this 'in the spirit and power of Elijah'. Both Matthew and Mark picture John as Elijah returned (Mt 7:12; Mk 1:6). Luke actually avoids saying this. John, as Elisha before him (2 Kings 2:15) would be like Elijah rather than a new Elijah. This is probably because Luke saw Jesus himself in terms of Elijah and did not wish the Elijah typology to be exhausted in John (4:25; 7:15; 9:57-62).

Infancy Narratives (1:5-2:52)

The narratives of the infancy stand in some tension with those of the rest of the gospel. Jesus is accorded a dignity otherwise not bestowed on him before the ascension, the Spirit is active in people in a way which in the narrative proper does not happen until after Pentecost, and Jesus and John are brought together in the closest possible manner which seems to belie their sharp separation later. These differences led possibly the greatest interpreter of Lucan theology of the twentieth century to leave them out from his exposition (Conzelmann 1960). This was undoubtedly a mistake though it remains likely that

Agents of God in the OT were often said to have been empowered by the Spirit in order to do their work (Judg 6:34; i Sam 11:6; Isa 61:1). As the climax of God's agents in Israel, John would be 'filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb'. His was no temporary commission; it was a full endowment to be exceeded only by that of Jesus who would actually be conceived by the Spirit. Yet Zechariah demurs. Even for a faithful servant of the covenant, going forward into its climax in Jesus is not easy and he had to receive a

927 LUKE

John's, was actually to be conceived through the Spirit. His whole creation, his very being, was itself the work of the Spirit. For Luke, the Spirit is essentially the agent and sign of God's eschatological redemptive activity (Acts 2:17-21,10:44). Jesus» as the one to realize that, is wholly one with the Spirit. The Spirit is associated with God's power (Acts 1:8) which is here said to 'overshadow' Mary.

demonstration of its truth which was at the same time a judgement on his lack of trust. Elizabeth conceives but remains hidden for five months, rejoicing alone at the sign of God's favour. The note of time binds her part into that of Mary and means that when Mary comes to visit her, the babe is formed enough to acknowledge the one who is carrying his Lord. (1:26-38) The Annunciation to Mary By placing it 'in the sixth month' Luke binds the annunciation to Mary into that to Zechariah. The parallelism of the two accounts serves not only to join the events together, as part of God's final coming to his people, but also to put the climax on that to Mary for which the angel's visit to Zechariah is but a prelude. The fulfilment of its promise guarantees that those to Mary will not fail. The annunciation scene to Mary outstrips that to Zechariah in the wonder of the birth, the status of the child, the nature of his work, and the response of the one addressed.

This total endowment with the Spirit marks Jesus as unique. He is 'holy', that is embraced within God's outreach and reflecting him (Lev 19:2), and 'Son of God'. Though 'Son of God' means the same as 'Son of the Most High', its climactic place here in Gabriel's message suggests that it pushes out beyond the boundaries of the OT imagery. Luke appears to see Son of God as more than a messianic title and endows it with something like Paul's declaration in Rom 1:4 (22:70; Acts 9:20).

In this passage, Luke uses the narrative to present a careful declaration of the nature of Jesus and his work. At the same time, through his presentation of Mary and the relation this has to that of Zechariah in the previous episode, he is able to show the ideal response of the faithful in Israel and to give some picture of discipleship.

Luke is emphatic that Mary, though betrothed to Joseph, was a virgin. Betrothal meant the entering into the legal contract of marriage though consummation did not normally occur until the time when, probably around a year later, the bride left her father's house to join her husband's. The angel's greeting, 'Rejoice', may have overtones of Zeph 3:14—17 and Zech 9:9 where God announces redemption to Jerusalem and her people. Mary is 'the favoured one' in that her life has revealed a response to God that suggests that she will respond faithfully to his further approach to her. She will conceive and bear a son whom she must name 'Jesus' ('the Lord saves').

Luke insists that Mary is a virgin, and it is this belief that enables the narrative to move to a climax. The declaration of Jesus' sonship does not, however, rest upon that but depends rather upon his total possession of the Spirit which unites him to God. The virginal conception witnesses to his possession of the Spirit rather than being the cause of it. Though Luke's narrative expresses a firm belief in the virginal conception, it is unlikely to present the basis in history for that belief. To focus a young betrothed girl's consternation on child-bearing rather than upon the wondrous nature of the child she is called upon to bear suggests literary and theological concerns rather than strictly historical ones.

The declaration of Jesus' status is unfolded in two stages. Gabriel's initial announcement is made in terms of a reading of the OT account of God's promises to David (2 Sam 7:11-16; Ps 132:11-18). Though these passages said that the promise was to be fulfilled in an ongoing line rather than in a single person, the Psalms tended to apply it to an individual king (Ps 2:7; 110:4) and these were later read as referring to a messianic figure. Jesus is to be the recipient of the promises for he will inherit David's throne, will reign over Israel ('the house of Jacob') for ever, 'and of his kingdom there will be no end'. This last part of the promise suggests a rule wider than over Israel alone. 'Son of the Most High', though found in the GraecoRoman world, reflects biblical usage where God is addressed as 'Lord of Hosts' (Isa 6:3). Luke uses it more than any other NT writer (1:35, 76; 6:35; Acts 7:48). 'Son of God' could be applied to angels (Job 1:6), to the Davidic king (Ps 2:7), to the individual faithful Israelite (Wis 2:12—18), and, later, to a messianic figure (Dead Sea scrolls). It meant that the one addressed was thought of as having a special relationship with God. Just what the nature of that relationship was, however, it did not specify.

Justification of Mary's response on the grounds either that she mistook the announcement for one of an immediate conception or that she had already entered upon a vow of virginity is to import external considerations into the story

(Brown 1977). Rather, in it we have Luke's response to the tradition that he shared with Matthew. Luke gives us little help in assessing the historical basis for the tradition. What he has done is, in the light of the traditions he received and of his belief in the OT's witness to Christ, to present in narrative form his proclamation of the significance of Jesus and to see it summed up in his birth. (1:39-56) Mary Visits Elizabeth Luke binds the lives of John and Jesus together in this episode which enables the child in Elizabeth's womb to acknowledge the status of the one in Mary's, allows Elizabeth to greet Mary, and makes a setting for Mary's song. Mary remains the ideal disciple even as she is acknowledged as 'the mother of my Lord'. 'Lord' is Luke's most characteristic title for Jesus and his favourite address to him. Breaking out of the nationalistic overtones of Messiah

Mary demurs, not like Zechariah demanding some sign to back up the promise, but rather questioning its possibility. This enables a further declaration of Jesus' status which actually strengthens Gabriel's initial statement. God will be wholly operative in Jesus' conception. Whereas earlier agents of God's activity had been possessed by the Spirit to perform a particular task and John had been filled by the Holy Spirit from the womb, Jesus, whose status far exceeded that of

('Christ') it points to the universality of Jesus' sway (Acts 10:36). Since God is also called 'Lord' (2:45, 46), it points to Jesus' close relationship to him though, because its main influence in Luke's usage is provided by Ps 110:1 (Acts 2:34), it retains that subordination and instrumentality that is so characteristic of Luke's Christology.

LUKE 928

Luke records a similar pattern of events for Jesus, he is not wholly reliable in his information about Jewish customs as they were practised in Israel itself. The story furthers Luke's interest in the fulfilment of prophecy and adds to the wonders surrounding the child. In challenging what Luke regards as the usual practice about names, it points to the new demands of Jesus; there is not an easy progression from the old to the new. The publicity surrounding John contrasts with the total obscurity that marked Jesus' birth. John will later question Jesus and will wonder whether his ministry measures up to what he expected of the figure for whom his own ministry was a preparation (7:19). In the light of these later events, Zechariah's witness in his song takes on an added significance.

Luke brings the episode to its climax with the song of Mary. This has much in common with that of Zechariah which follows closely upon it and a number of commentators would see both (together, perhaps, with that of Simeon in 2:29-32) as incorporated by Luke from some source. It is pointed out that they sit only loosely to their contexts, that this is emphasized by a few MSS attributing Mary's song to Elizabeth, that they are not wholly appropriate for their respective singers, and that they are not particularly closely related either to Luke's theology or his vocabulary. However, though full value must be given to these opinions, it remains more likely that Luke himself was responsible for them. They are in fact an appropriate expression of Luke's outlook. Mary's song is strongly influenced by that of Hannah in i Sam 2:1—10 which, celebrating the birth of the young Samuel, sees the wonder of God's action in this event as an illustration of the nature of his whole work for his people. Hannah's piety makes her a fitting forerunner of Mary, and Samuel's role as prophet and leader under God in Israel makes his work a type of that of Jesus. In choosing Mary as the mother of his son, God has rewarded her lowliness' and lifted her high. His dealings with her become a paradigm of the redemption that he effects through Jesus. The militaristic imagery of w. 49, 51, and 52 is taken over from Hannah's song and is used by Luke, either of God or of Jesus in 24:19; Acts 13:17; 19:20. It is not out of place in a psalm-like canticle that celebrates God's powerful act of redemption through Jesus in biblical terms. The theme of reversal, taken over here from i Samuel, is particularly amenable to Luke who has already, in his two annunciation narratives, focused God's work in Jesus upon his approach to those who, out of a piety which looks to God for fulfilment and hope, are open to receive his redemption. As in the Lukan form of the Beatitudes (see LK 6:20-6) this redemption is centred upon the sociologically marginalized for, in accordance with the biblical tradition (Ps 34:6; 72:12), it is they who are thought likely to exhibit this outlook. The reverse side of the coin is that those who are 'proud', 'powerful', and 'rich', and who therefore maintain and exploit their self-sufficiency, are unlikely to be open to God's future. In Jesus, that self-sufficiency has been shown to be foolish and blameworthy (12:13-21; 16:19-31). Luke knows that it is those who are dissatisfied with the present who have responded to the gospel whilst those who have felt already fulfilled have missed out on its challenge and therefore on its redemption.

Zechariah's song is essentially a witness to God's action in his Messiah, and the preparatory role of John is emphasized. Like the song of Mary, it comments upon the scene in which it is set only to transcend it and to view the actions of which it is a part in the light of the whole event of Jesus on which Luke looks back. It serves to sum up the significance of Jesus within the setting of God's actions in Israel, w. 68-75 proclaim these as the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel. Through Jesus and the events surrounding him, God comes to establish his presence with his people and to confirm his covenantal promises. He has 'visited and redeemed his people' and has raised up a 'horn of salvation'. 'Horn' is a symbol of strength. Ps 132:17 talks of a horn sprouting up for David, and the song sees this fulfilled in Jesus who is presented as the consummation of God's promises to Abraham, the ancestor of the whole Jewish people and the receiver of God's unconditional commitment to her. As 'prophet of the Most High' John becomes the preparer for him who is Son. He will 'go before the Lord' who here is really both God and Jesus. Through 'bringing forgiveness of their sins' to the people, he will prepare them to receive what is essentially God's redemption in Jesus who is 'the dawn from on high' who will bring 'light', 'life', and 'peace'. So, in the narrative proper, John will be pictured, both through his baptism and his firm religious and ethical teaching, as preparing the way for Jesus' proclamation of the visitation of God in himself and in redemption.

↑ Back to top