Part 90
The proclamation of redemption completed, and the ground prepared for the birth of the saviour, John awaits his proper time and the spotlight now falls on Jesus alone.
The use of the past tense in the hymn's proclamation of redemption has sometimes been felt inappropriate at this point in the story and so has been seen as evidence for Luke's having taken the hymn from a source. This, however, is to forget the function of the infancy narratives as the prologue rather than the first chapter of Luke's story. They sum up the whole event of Jesus and look at its beginnings in terms of its end. Mary's song is less one that would have been appropriate for her at that point in time than a hymn of praise which, through her, expresses the response of the ideal Israelite who had become a Christian disciple to God's whole work in Jesus.
(2:1-7) The Birth of Jesus As at the beginning of chs. i and 3, Luke is anxious to set the events of God's salvation through Jesus within the context of secular history. Though this has caused some to criticize him for reducing the eschatological dimension of Christianity and for making it into an event within world history (Conzelmann 1960), this relating of the gospel to the world in which it is acted out, and the more positive approach to that world which this displays, is a fundamental instinct that underlies Luke's understanding of Jesus and his work. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of his sortie into world history at this point does not measure up to his reasons for making it. Luke's notice of the census raises many virtually insurmountable problems. We have no evidence for an empire-wide census under Augustus and the likelihood of this including the land of a client king such as was Herod the
(1:59—80) The Naming of John The circumcision of Jewish male children on the eighth day marked their incorporation into the people of God (Gen 17:11-12; Lev 12:3). It is not clear that naming necessarily occurred at the same time. Though
929 LUKE
16:11), and later tradition emphasized the graciousness of the action (2 Sam 7:8). After the Exile, the shepherd's task became devalued and, outside the biblical period, was despised. Luke's story does not reflect that belittling, but it does picture them as outsiders, apart from the general ordering of society that was taking place at the time of the census. It is to them that the announcement of Jesus' birth is made.
Great is remote. Indeed, the census held when his son was deposed and Judea was incorporated into the Roman system was seen as such a novelty that it provoked a rebellion (Acts 5:37). Though there is some evidence from Roman sources in Egypt that participants were required to register in their own homes, this meant their present rather than their ancestral abodes. Herod died in 4 BCE and Quirinius was not governor of Syria until 6-7 CE. (See the balanced discussion of the evidence in Evans 1990.) Attempts to reconcile the differences have not met with widespread endorsement. A suggestion that Quirinius served an earlier term as an official in our area and that he was then involved in the census lacks real evidence. Perhaps the best attempt at harmonization is that which suggests that the Greek can be translated to read, 'This registration happened before Quirinius became governor of Syria' (Nolland 1989-93). It is not, however, a natural reading of the Greek and has about it something of the air of desperation (Fitzmyer 1981).
Jesus is revealed as 'Saviour', Messiah', and 'Lord', three terms that sum up what the infancy narratives have said about Jesus and what the gospel as a whole will unfold and justify. The OT spoke frequently of God himself as saviour of his people, the one who would rescue them from their enemies and restore them to a relationship with himself (Ps 106:21; Isa 43:3; 60:16). Occasionally it spoke of his giving a saviour to his people (Judg 3:9; 6:14; 2 Kings 13:5). Jesus now brings the salvation of God himself (1:69). For Luke, it is all-important that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and that he fulfils OT expectations of him (24:26, 45). 'Lord' is his most characteristic term for Jesus, which sums up his exalted status, his universality, and the devotion he receives from his followers. Proclaimed at the birth, these three terms express the Christian response to Jesus which his career and exaltation will evoke (Acts 2:36; 13:23). The song of the angels recalls that of Isaiah in the temple (Isa 6:3) though now it is Jesus rather than the temple that realizes God's glory and enables it to be reflected on earth. As people on earth receive his 'good pleasure', they share in a 'peace' which, much more than an absence of strife, is a wholeness of person and unity with others. (This represents the reading of the majority of the Gk. MSS. Some have 'peace, goodwill among people'. This reading however destroys the parallelism of the song and tends to make 'goodwill' a human response rather than one derived from a relationship with God. The whole outlook of the infancy narratives centres upon God's outreach to his people and the new possibilities he brings them.)
Luke, in contrast to Mt 2:21—3, ^as Nazareth as the home of Joseph and Mary. The census is used by him as the means of enabling Jesus to be born at Bethlehem where the tradition on which he bases his proclamation places the birth. That, however, does not exhaust the significance he sees in it. The census is of'all the world'. Jesus is born at the time when all the world is on the move at the behest of one who, given a divine name, allowed himself to be addressed as Son of God and was regarded as having brought security to the world. Jesus, rather than the Roman power, however, is the real means of salvation from external oppression and the guarantee of unity to mankind. The timing of Jesus' birth proclaims his universal significance. The Roman power which, by the time Luke wrote, was uncomprehending of Christianity, often suspicious, sometimes hostile, and always threatening, unwittingly enabled Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, the place of David. The final power belonged, not to it, but to God.
Jesus' birth was nevertheless hidden, ignored by the world in its quest for security. Jesus, cared for by his mother, is placed in a 'manger', which could be either a feeding trough or a cattle stall, because 'there was no room in the inn'. Luke uses the same word at 22:11 for the 'guest chamber' where the company is to eat the last supper. Jer 14:8 (LXX) uses the word when it laments that God is a stranger, like one who stays in a guest chamber for but a night. For Jesus, there is not room even in the guest-place; his birth points forward to the life of one who has nowhere to lay his head (9:58). No doubt the scene is infused with ideas taken from Isa 1:3. (2:8-21) The Shepherds At the heart of Luke's understanding of the redemption wrought by Jesus was his knowledge that in him the excluded had been included; the outsider had been brought within the people of God. His story will tell of the inclusion of tax-collectors and sinners, of women, of the poor, of the marginalized, and, ultimately, of the Gentiles. So it is right that his infancy narrative should tell of the message of angels to shepherds and that it should be they, rather than the Gentile sages of Matthew's gospel, who should visit the infant Jesus. David was called to Bethlehem from minding the sheep in order to receive anointing at the hands of Samuel (i Sam
v. 19 (cf v. 51) has sometimes been used to support the view that these parts of the infancy narratives rest upon reminiscences of Mary. There is in fact little to support this for we have seen that the annunciation story is shaped by literary rather than strictly historical influences. Mary is vitally important for Luke for she represents the ideal Israelite who becomes a disciple. Mary treasures the shepherd's witness and 'pondered it in her heart'. This last expression has sometimes been interpreted as coming to a right understanding of its significance. More likely, however, in Luke's narrative it retains the idea of puzzlement. Here and in the episode in the temple, Mary has not yet come to a complete understanding of the significance of Jesus. Her greatness was to accept in obedience of faith the divine call, the full implications of which she had yet to enter into. (2:22-40) Jesus Presented in the Temple This episode allows Jesus to be seen as acknowledging the Jewish religious tradition which was focused in the temple and which ultimately made possible God's final redemption in him. It also enables the temple to make its witness to him. Once more, Luke's purpose in recounting the story controls the way in which he tells it. Here, it has resulted in a slight confusion about the
LUKE 930
(19:45—6). Though the teachers in the temple were 'amazed at his understanding and his answers', their wonder has the potential to turn into hostility. For his parents, too, it represents a learning situation. Jesus rebukes them, though the significance ofthe rebuke is not entirely clear. NRSV margin suggests the most literal meaning, 'Did you not know that I must be about the things of my Father?' Tn the things of can mean 'in the house of. Either way, it represents a challenge to acknowledge him for what he is—son of'my Father'—and to accept that he is not bound to them or bounded by their expectations. Faithful Israelites are challenged by Jesus to raise their sights and to acknowledge that he cannot be constrained by their own preconceived understandings. He must be allowed to transcend these and move out to the Gentiles.
Jewish practices it describes. Three ceremonies are included, those of the purification of the mother, the redemption of the firstborn, and the presentation of a child to the service of God. 'Their purification' is a misnomer, for the ceremony involved the mother alone. After forty days the mother of a male child offered sacrifice as an act of cleansing. Mary makes the offering ofthe poor (Lev 12:6—8). The redemption of the firstborn is a separate ritual (Ex 13:2, 12-13) though there is nothing to suggest that it could not have happened in the temple and at the same time. Five shekels were paid to the priest. The third element is that ofthe dedication ofthe child to God. This was closely related to the redemption ofthe firstborn, though Luke gives it an emphasis which is no doubt determined both by his understanding of Jesus' significance and by the account of the dedication of Samuel (i Sam 1:21—8) whose mother's song has already been used as a pattern for Mary's.
Luke is perhaps here thinking of the conflicts in the early church which had difficulty in coming to terms with the Gentile mission. Like Mary and Joseph, the Jewish-Christian community had to learn not to constrict the freedom of the outreach which God's action in Jesus demanded. This freedom did not, however, mean a lessening of ties with the Jewish people. Jesus lived with his parents at Nazareth 'and was obedient to them'.
It is in the temple that Simeon, who is presented not merely as the ideal observer ofthe Jewish covenantal obligations, but also as one who is led by them to look for God's further action, comes and acknowledges Jesus as Christ. In the final song of the infancy narratives he makes what for Luke's gospel is the climactic declaration ofthe wide embrace ofthe redemption to be worked through Jesus. In words that reflect the Servant
Jesus in Galilee (3 :i-g.150)
Song of Isaiah 49:5-6, Jesus is proclaimed as having a significance for 'all peoples'. He is a 'light' to reveal God to the nations. God's glory which is to be made known to them is to be seen in the child he holds in his arms whose birth in a manger causes the expectations of the earlier songs to be realized in an unexpected way. The salvation of God is to be achieved, not through naked power, but in the surrender of his Son. That salvation will make for the 'glory' of Israel. Her glory will be real but it will come about only as her expectations are confronted and re-formed. Jesus will cause the 'falling and rising of many in Israel' as he challenges their security and questions their confidence. Many will oppose him, but that will reveal the limited nature of their response to the God who has made them his people. Even Mary, the true Israelite, will be pierced by the sword, not only of suffering, but also of judgement as she herself is called to move into a deeper understanding ofthe implications of Jesus. To be real, the grounds ofthe confidence expressed in her song have to be reviewed in the light ofthe babe who confirms it and makes it possible. Finally, Anna makes her witness to 'all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem'. Jesus is the one through whom it will be accomplished, though again not in the manner that they will be expecting. Jerusalem will reject him and will instead follow a way that will lead to disaster
In this section ofthe gospel Luke's narrative takes on a shape and outlook which, in spite of its distinctive aspects, are closely aligned to those of Matthew and Mark. Luke shares with them a common understanding of Jesus' time in Galilee. After his baptism by John and the Baptist's forced removal from the scene, he begins a ministry that proclaims the advent of the kingdom of God and reveals this in exorcisms and miracles. His understanding of this new approach of God to Israel brings him into conflict with religious leaders, though crowds follow him; in the main, however, without having a real understanding of him. He gathers a band of disciples and out of them chooses twelve apostles. These come to appreciate his messianic role without as yet, however, perceiving that it is focused upon a way of suffering that is to climax in a cross.
(3:1—20) The Ministry of John the Baptist Once again, Luke sets God's saving work within the context of world history. Though its details are not easily unravelled, its general impact is clear—Jesus' ministry was a real event which brought God's redemption into both the Jewish and the wider world. 'The fifteenth year of... Tiberius' would be 28-29 CEPontius Pilate was governor of Judea 26-36 CE, being in the succession of Roman prefects who were appointed to rule Judea after Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled Galilee until 39 CE. 'His brother Philip' was tetrarch (ruler of one ofthe four parts into which Herod the Great's kingdom had been divided) ofthe region to the north and east of Galilee into which Jesus made an occasional sortie. Abilene was an area near Damascus. It does not serve as a setting for any part ofthe gospel story. 'The high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas' is more difficult. Joint office was not permitted. Annas was high priest from 6 CE until he was deposed by the Romans, 15 CE. Caiaphas was in office 18-36 CE. Annas appears only in the Lukan and Johannine writings (Acts 4:18; Jn 18:24).
(19:41-4). They will seem forsaken by God, but Anna is a reminder that the disaster is not God's last word: Jesus remains for Jerusalem a sign of hope.
(2:41—52) Jesus at Age 12 The last episode in the infancy narratives stands rather apart from the rest and forms something of an anticlimax. It fits Luke's intention to write a narrative, however, and seems to be influenced by the episode ofthe child Samuel, which also forms a bridge between his dedication and the ministry he is to exercise (i Sam 3:1—14). It has the character of a legend but is used by Luke to point to Jesus' natural authority and home in the temple, a point that he makes in his account of Jesus' final visit to Jerusalem
931 LUKE
at this point is rather to serve Luke's Christology. As he does so often, Luke sets significant points of Jesus' career within the context of his prayer. After he is baptized, Jesus prays in an act of surrender and dedication to what his baptism has signified. It is his response to what he has recognized as God's call. The descent of the Spirit and the divine voice of approval come in response to his response. Luke's Christology is one which, emphasizing the divine initiative, points to Jesus' response which is then sealed with God's approval. What is set in motion now will climax in the death and resurrection (Acts 13:34). So the Holy Spirit descends upon him 'in bodily form', that is fully, actively and powerfully. The symbolism of the dove 'remains baffling' (Evans 1955). Most probably it is connected with Gen i where the Spirit of God broods over the waters and Gen 8:11 where the dove becomes the harbinger of the covenant God makes with Noah. But these maybe guesses born of exasperation. The voice from heaven bestows the divine approval of the course he has entered upon. It probably reflects ideas of Ps 2:7, Isa 42:1-4, and, perhaps, Gen 22:2,16. A number of MSS of Luke have instead the whole of Ps 2:7. Though the genealogy which follows and which traces Jesus back to Adam may suggest the appropriateness of this reading, Luke elsewhere quotes Ps 2:7 in relation to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 13:33). It is therefore likely that he himself did not use it of the baptism. Nolland (1989-93) notes that 1:35 would make its idea of a begetting or adoption into sonship inappropriate for this point in time.
This historical reference firmly includes John within the action of God to which its sonorous tones point. 'The word of God came to John' uses recognized biblical language to enhance its affect (i Kings 16:1; 18:1). As far as Luke is concerned, the adult John has as important a part to play as the infancy narratives have already suggested. John proclaims and administers a 'baptism of repentance which issues in the forgiveness of sins'. John himself points to the difference between the effects of his baptism and those brought about through the 'one more powerful than I'. Nevertheless, though Luke is quite clear that his has a preparatory role, the importance of that preparation could hardly be greater. Luke alone of the evangelists includes an account of John's ethical teaching. The crowds who come for baptism are to 'bear fruits worthy of repentance' and specific teaching is given to a number of particular groups. Seemingly rather haphazard in their selection, they nevertheless reflect important ethical requirements of groups of people who were particularly open to exploiting their fellow human beings. Those well provided for are to share their resources, tax-collectors are not to abuse their legitimate authority, soldiers are not to exploit their powers. Contentment with their wages means that the land in which they serve will not be further denuded of its produce for their benefit. John is here made to share that strong social concern which is so evident in Luke's gospel. His further importance is that, by putting forward these demands, he gives a place to ethical obligations which might seem to be overlooked in the free acceptance by Jesus of those whose lives are not always put under scrutiny. John here really acts as a forerunner for Jesus and becomes an important part of God's action in him. He fulfils Zechariah's expectation that he would 'turn the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord' (1:17).
It is at this point that Luke includes the genealogy which, in view of the biblical attitude to genealogies and its differences from Matthew's, was designed to be of theological rather than factual significance. Matthew's three groups of fourteen generations is obviously meant to point to a climax in Jesus (Mt 1:17). Luke's does so less obviously. Seventy-seven generations represent eleven weeks, one week short of the twelve which marks finality. Of more significance is the way Luke traces the genealogy back from Jesus via David and Abraham to Adam who is, somewhat surprisingly, designated 'son of God'. Jesus is effecting something for David—the restoration of the people of Israel; for Abraham—the fulfilment of God's promise to him of a wider salvation (Gen 12:3); and for Adam—the restoration of universal sonship which was lost at the Fall. Luke here pictures Jesus as the Second Adam, the restorer of the human race, the means of re-establishing the relationship with God that Adam lost, and the remover of the shackles that had afflicted creation since then (i Cor 15:20-5; Phil 2:5-11). Matthew and Mark both have stories of the testing of Jesus by the devil, Mark picturing something of a battle between them, and Matthew telling of a testing of Jesus' Sonship. Luke is closer to Matthew though, like Mark, he has a testing that extends over forty days. The earlier voice from heaven had approved of Jesus' response to his baptism and had proclaimed his Sonship. Now, however, he has that initial reponse tested. He must make a determined entry upon a way that will really establish his Sonship and enable the restoration of the image of God in people which Adam's disobedience had lost. Our usual understanding of the event is made by following the order of temptations found in Matthew. Luke's account, however, has a different order and climaxes in one to jump down from the pinnacle of the
(3:21—4:13) The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus Luke's mention—for it cannot be called an account—of Jesus' baptism is surprising and parts company with those of Matthew and Mark whilst sharing some similarity with John (which is also a mention rather than an account). The story of Jesus' having undergone a 'baptism of repentance with a view to remission of sins' obviously caused some embarrassment to the early church (see MT 3:14—15). Yet Luke's reason for his surprising treatment of the story goes deeper than embarrassment for he does not attempt to deny the fact. Jesus is baptised 'when all the people were baptised'. 'The people' is a loaded term for Luke and is used as shorthand for 'God's true people'. Those who underwent John's baptism are identified as God's own people awaiting his redemption; they have been marked out as his. Jesus identifies himself with them: he unites himself to them so that he can incorporate them into the age of the Spirit.
Conzelmann (1960) saw Luke's handling of the baptism as evidence that he was separating out John and Jesus, identifying John with the age of Israel that was now passing away as Jesus brought a new period of God's action into being. Such an explanation, however, ignores not only the infancy narratives but also Luke's account of John's own ministry. John and Jesus are brought together in the closest possible way and as two players, though in no way equal in God's final act of redemption. The reason for this separation of John and Jesus
LUKE 932
composite one, taken from the LXX version of Isa 61:1—2 into which is fitted a clause, 'to let the oppressed go free', from Isa 58:6. Luke's Jesus presents himself as the fulfilment of Isaiah's Spirit-filled prophetic figure who proclaimed God's eschatological redemption. What Isaiah's prophet anticipated, Jesus brings into being for, not only is he the final proclaimer of the saving act of God, he is actually realizing it in his own preaching and actions: 'Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your own hearing.' He proclaims 'good news to the poor', that is to those who, marginalized in the present, are looking for God's redemption (see LK 6:20-6). The 'year of the Lord's favour' is here. What was anticipated in the year of Jubilee, which took place (at least in theory) every fifty years, when 'you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants' (Lev 25:10), is now becoming a reality. The bonds that oppressed God's people are being broken. It is noteworthy that Luke has Jesus leave Isaiah in the middle of a sentence without including 'the day of vengeance of our God'. As in the infancy narratives, Luke understands Jesus' work primarily as one of redemption.
temple. The three temptations tempt Jesus to leave the way of the servant on which he has determined, and which the divine voice has approved, and to assert his Sonship in a different way. That to command a stone to become a loaf of bread is to assert his authority and make use of his status, that to worship the devil is to follow the way of the world and exercise his power, that to jump off the temple's pinnacle is to force God's hand, to leave the way of service and humble obedience and go instead for a dramatic demonstration that would compel recognition of his status. All three temptations would have meant his following in the way of Adam for they would all have involved an exercise in self-assertion. The climax for Luke was that to jump from the temple. It was the complete contrast to the course of action which God's call placed upon him—a way of humble obedience and service leading to a cross which was the necessary prelude to exaltation. The third temptation points to the end of Luke's gospel and its account of Jesus' exaltation which installed him in the Sonship which was his. To have succumbed to the third temptation would have destroyed his Sonship; victory over it set him off on the way that established it. Matthew and Mark both record how angels came to minister to Jesus after his defeat of Satan. Luke does not, for the victory is only beginning to be won. He tells how the devil departs from him 'until an opportune time'. That time will be Gethsemane.
The people of Nazareth respond favourably; his 'gracious words' impress them. Ts not this Joseph's son?' expresses approval and local pride. Yet it has within it the seeds of misunderstanding and it is but a limited response. So Jesus quotes a proverb (rather more emphatically than the version found in Matthew and Mark) that points to the inevitability of a city's rejecting the prophetic message of one who is its own (v. 24). Familiarity limits expectations and resents challenge. It presumes upon the relationship and assumes that any message of good news must include natural associates within its sphere (v. 23). It fails to recognize the strength of the challenge that is actually being made. Jesus elaborates on the situation and, in doing so, hardens his stance.
(4:16—30) Rejection at Nazareth Luke's story of Jesus' ministry begins with his distinctive account of the rejection at Nazareth, which all commentators on his gospel agree plays a programmatic role for him (cf. Mt 13:53—8; Mk 6:1—6). The infancy narratives have already hinted at the divisions Jesus' ministry would cause in Israel and, by the time Luke wrote, the people of Israel as a whole had rejected not only Jesus, but also the proclamation of the gospel. The problem this caused for the early church is reflected in the NT as a whole but perhaps nowhere with more urgency than in Luke's writings. For him, that rejection was a tragedy but it raised the questions, not merely of why it happened, but also of the nature of God's response. Did the Jewish rejection of God's Son mean a rejection of them by God? Was it even determined by God and did it come about as a result of God's decision to abandon his ancient people in the making of a new people? Was he establishing a new covenant that brought about the end of the old? Luke's writings certainly wrestle with these questions, though they are seen in their full intensity in his story in Acts. They come to the surface from time to time in his gospel and nowhere more obviously so than in this episode which is written up as a commentary upon the event that is recorded in Matthew and Mark (not however without their own different interpretations of the reasons behind the rejection). Luke shapes this story in the light of the events that have happened down to his own time. It expresses his own understanding of the tragedy. However, though commentators on Luke are all agreed on the importance of this episode, there is a wide variety of opinion on what he was actually saying through it.
Having spoken of the inevitability of rejection by his own, and therefore of his own inability to perform deeds for them, he uses the instances of Elijah's dealings with the widow of Zarephath (i Kings 17) and of Elisha's with Naaman (2 Kings 5) to show that earlier prophets worked among outsiders even to the seeming neglect of their own. This elaboration has often been seen as a rejection of his own people in favour of a movement out into the Gentile world. It has been understood as an expression of Luke's belief that the ministry of Jesus meant a new action of God which virtually drew a line under his covenantal dealings with the Jewish people. He was establishing a new Israel that now inherited the earlier promises made to the Jews.
Another reading of the significance Luke saw in the references to Elijah and Elisha is, however, possible and is one which does not make such a sharp departure from the positive attitude to the Jewish people expressed in the infancy narratives: the proverb of v. 24 explains the inevitability of the rejection and, indeed almost justifies it; regrettable though it is, it is an understandable response. The OT incidents are used, not to support a rejection of the local people, but to show that prophets of Israel worked outside her borders, that they were often unsuccessful at home and that their lack of success denied neither their calling nor their continuing commitment to Israel. Jesus had not turned aside from Israel, any more than had Elijah and Elisha. The nation's rejection of him had
(For an interpretation which is quite different from the one given here, see J. T Sanders 1987.)
Jesus, in the synagogue on the sabbath day, uses an OT passage to explain both himself and the nature of the salvation that God is bringing through him. The passage is actually a
933 LUKE
has had some dealings at least with Peter. He describes it in a scene which has close links with a post-resurrection episode in Jn 21:4-8. The 'lake of Gennesaret' is the sea of Galilee, Gennesaret being the district to the south of Capernaum. The episode centres upon Peter and is really an account of a marvel which becomes for him a moment of disclosure. The unexpected catch offish points to the nature of the one who made it possible. He discerns the presence of God in Jesus and is moved to make a response that equals that of the prophet Isaiah when in the temple he had his vision of God (Isa 6:5). James and John share in the amazement of those who saw the marvel, though it is not said that they share Peter's discernment. Though the episode, like that in Matthew and Mark (cf FGS F), describes the call ofthe inner group of disciples, Luke's narrative focuses upon Peter. For him, Peter has a very special role which is determined, not merely by that which he is given in the general gospel tradition, but also by the part he plays both in the Acts account ofthe incorporation of Gentiles into the new community and also in the maintenance of its unity
not resulted in its own rejection—either by him or by the God who stood behind him.
Whatever the implications, the sermon provoked a furious response on the part of the listeners who set out to kill Jesus. His challenge to established certainties made them determined to stone him as a false prophet (Deut 13:1) (v. 29). They were unable to destroy him, however, but he, 'passing throught the midst of them, went on his way'. Here, Luke uses a favourite verb to express Jesus' movement to his goal (9:51; 13:53). The rejection by his own, so far from destroying him, furthers God's purposes.
(4:31—44) A Preliminary Ministry Luke here seems to be following Mark who begins his story of Jesus' ministry with a quick survey of what has been called 'a typical day'. Mark has described the temptation of Jesus in terms of a battle with Satan and this 'typical day' presents him as throwing back the power of the demonic world (Mk 1:21—2:12). Having at Nazareth presented Jesus' work in terms of bringing freedom from oppressive powers, Luke now takes over some of these healings and exorcisms. They show the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus. In the synagogue at Capernaum 'his word is with authority' and this is substantiated by his power over an unclean spirit. The confrontation is real; the demon (or demons, for v. 34 has the plural) uses Jesus' name and mentions his status in a real effort to unmask him and so constrain his power. But Jesus' authority—that of the 'Holy One of God'—overwhelms him. Luke alone adds, 'having done him no harm', for the freeing power of God really is redemptive. The witnesses recognize the marvel and ask, 'What kind of word is this ?' 'The word' is a favourite term with Luke, which he uses, as here (w. 32,36), to point to the effective power of the gospel.
(Acts 10-11; 15). Luke claims Peter as the protagonist of his own understanding ofthe significance ofthe event of Jesus. He is aware of Peter's weakness but he minimizes it. Jesus does not accept Peter's declaration of messiahship (9:20) but, in the third gospel, Peter does not try to deflect him from his path of suffering. At the last supper, Jesus tells how he has kept Peter from Satan's clutches and that he will be the one to restore his fallen brethren (22:31—4). Luke therefore softens both the failure ofthe disciples at Gethsemene and the denial of Peter (22:39-46, 54-62). It is to Peter that Jesus appears first after the resurrection (24:34). The original theophany that Peter experiences makes an impression upon him that, in spite of his failings, never leaves him. It enables him to play the leading role which Luke will later ascribe to him.
The healing of Peter's mother-in-law follows and leads into a general ministry of healing and casting out of demons. Luke once more emphasizes that the demons recognize his divine Sonship and acknowledge his power. Jesus, however, would not allow them to speak 'because they knew that he was the Christ' (v. 41). This presents more than an exercise of power; it forbids them from giving a false impression of him. What makes him 'Christ' for people will be an acceptance of his way of the cross. Without that acceptance, any ascription of messiahship would be useless.
(5:12-16) Healing of a Leper The next few episodes where Luke is very close to Mark point to the growing tension between Jesus and the religious leaders in the persons of the Pharisees and teachers ofthe law. The story ofthe cleansing of the leper emphasizes Jesus' willingness to perform the cure in the face ofthe leper's own doubt about it. Jesus is bringing precisely that release which the Nazareth sermon promised. It was necessary for a priest to pronounce him free from leprosy before he could take his place again within the community. Lev 13—14 described the sacrificial ritual that effected the restoration. Whatever is meant by 'a testimony to them', Jesus is calling attention to himself. The episode's place at the beginning of a section that points to a growing hostility climaxing at 6:11 suggests that Luke understands Jesus to be already challenging the finality ofthe Jewish religious institutions. He points the leper into the way of observing the law but from the position of one who already transcends it.
At daybreak Jesus leaves that place to go on his way. Crowds try to stop him. They act virtually as the continuation of the temptation. Jesus resists. His exorcisms have to be set in a wider context, that of proclaiming and therefore enabling 'the kingdom of God' (v. 43). The freeing activity of Jesus which this preliminary work has revealed should be seen in the light of his teaching about the nature of the God who does this and of his relationship with humankind. Only then does it reveal the life of the Kingdom. Jesus must go forward and proclaim the Kingdom even if, by living it himself, it leads him to a cross. It was for this reason that he was sent. So, says Luke, 'he continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea'. The latter word here is to be taken as meaning the 'land of the Jews' as in 1:5; 6:17. It does not suggest an extended ministry in Judea proper.
(5:17-26) The Healing ofthe Paralysed Man In this episode 'the power ofthe Lord [which] was with him to heal' (a distinctively Lucan phrase) is to face its first real challenge: 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?' The story raises some difficulties. In the first place, it seems to associate a person's sickness with his or her sin, a position which the OT itself, in such writings as the book of Job, questions. Secondly, Jesus seems to be appealing to his ability to cure sickness as proof of his greater claims (v. 24). Finally, v. 24 itself reads badly and
(5:1-11) Call of the First Disciples Luke postpones the call of the first disciples, which Matthew and Mark describe as the first act of Jesus' ministry, to this point, that is until after Jesus
LUKE 934
required if it was to be accepted. New material could not be made to fit in with the old: to use it as a patch to complete the old would not work, for not only would it tear the new garment and in effect destroy it, but it would also not match the old. Likewise, new wine needed new bottles. For all his understanding of God's approach in Jesus as the climax of what he had done in Israel, Luke was aware of its radicality and of the jump that was required if members of the covenantal people were to receive it. v. 39, which is peculiar to him, gives his reason for the Jewish failure to respond to Jesus' new challenge. (6:1-11) Sabbath Controversy Luke writes up these two stories, to be found also in Mark and Matthew, in a way that, though having Jesus less critical of the sabbath than he is in Mk 2:27, nevertheless presents him firmly as the sabbath's Lord. Jesus' disciples break the sabbath law, not only by reaping, but also (in Luke only) by threshing. When 'some' (a Lucan addition that mellows the story's opposition to the Pharisees) object, Jesus reminds them that David himself broke the law (though not the sabbath law) when his followers as well as he were hungry. Luke (unlike Matthew and Mark) adds nothing else but goes straight to what was for him the significance of the story: 'The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath'. David showed his superiority to the law: the son of David who is Son of Man, being greater, has an even greater superiority. A further story strengthens the point. Jesus on a sabbath teaches in the synagogue when a man with a withered hand is present. In the light of the previous story, scribes and Pharisees watch to see whether he will compound his refusal to be bound by the law's requirements. He refuses to be intimidated by them. His action raises one further dimension of his attitude to the law. Was the sabbath designed for the benefit of humankind or for its oppression? Admittedly, his question, 'to save life or to destroy... ?' (v. 9), puts the alternatives over-sharply and in a way that goes beyond the particular issue. Nevertheless, it makes the point clear and, though maintaining Jesus' freedom concerning the sabbath, makes his action one neither of blatant disregard nor of naked power. The result, however, is their fury and a determination to confront Jesus. (6:12-49) Jesus> Sermon It is at this point, when opposition is forming and confrontation becomes a certainty, that Luke places his account of Jesus' call of the twelve and follows it immediately with his sermon given to 'a great crowd of disciples' in the presence of a 'great multitude of people' from all over the area. As on other important occasions, Jesus spends the night in prayer. From his disciples, he chooses twelve. Luke's list differs from those of Matthew and Mark in that he has 'Judas son of James' in place of Thaddaeus and describes
suggests some haste—perhaps even, as some have suggested, a joining up of two sources. Why, when asked to heal, does Jesus say, 'Your sins are forgiven'? The most likely explanation seems to be that he was encouraging those who were requesting his help to raise their sights and to put the physical need within the wider context of their whole relationship with God. Jesus had earlier left the crowds when they threatened to overwhelm him and confine his mission (4:42-4). Here, he was meeting the need but was setting it in a larger framework. He proclaimed a restoration of a relationship with God that included physical redemption but was not exhausted by it. Physical healing came from the restoration of the kingdom of God. The physical ills of the world pointed to the restriction of God's sway. The prophet Isaiah looked forward to the day when wholeness and harmony would be restored (Isa 35:3— 10). The scribes and the Pharisees recognize Jesus' action and his interpretation of it as a claim to be acting on behalf of God.
Strictly, of course, he was saying that God was forgiving the man, but the point was that he was acting with the authority of one who had the mind of God and could speak for him. Jesus is here for the first time called 'Son of Man', his favourite selfdesignation. Just what he meant by it, however, has produced a lively and still inconclusive debate. Discussion of it would take us far outside the confines of this commentary. More important for our purpose is the Synoptic Gospels' own understanding of it in which Luke shares. Probably influenced by Dan 7:13, it sees Jesus as an earthly figure, authoritative yet unacknowledged, suffering, vindicated, and exalted to heaven from where he will return in glory. Luke emphasizes the amazement of the bystanders, their 'glorifying God', and their awe. For him, the story makes a true witness to the person of Jesus. (5:27-32) Jesus and Levi Jesus now calls Levi to join his inner group of disciples. He is 'a tax-collector', that is, one of a group of minor officials who were employed to collect indirect taxes, mainly tolls. Working for an alien power and widely extortionate, they were regarded with hostility and were marginalized. Luke has Jesus take a special interest in this group. Levi gives a great banquet for Jesus in his house even after Luke has emphasized that he had 'left everything'. The Pharisees and their scribes complain, for tax-collectors and sinners were those who had opted out of the covenantal people of God; by living outside the Mosaic law, they had excluded themselves from any share in God's future rule. A meal, of course, had sacral significance and Luke sees its function as an anticipation of meals in the kingdom of God. In this perception, he was probably correctly interpreting Jesus' own understanding of his actions. Here, Jesus points to his particular concern to call those whose lives are judged unhealthy by current religious requirements. Luke alone adds 'to repentance'. Though his gospel is one which emphasizes the divine initiative in Jesus and the outreach of God's grace, he is aware that this outlook could lead to an abandoning of ethical principles and play down the need for a response. He therefore points out that Jesus' outreach did lead to repentance (cf. 15:7,10).
Simon the Cananaean as 'the Zealot'. This term probably refers to a religious rather than a political zeal. Whereas Matthew and Mark say that Jesus chose the twelve in order to send them out to preach and heal, Luke records no reason for the choice. Instead he simply says, 'He chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles'. For Luke, the Twelve are not merely a distinct group as in Matthew and Mark, their distinctiveness is found in their being 'apostles', a title which he limits to them. Their importance lies not in what they do but in what they are, namely the foundation pillars of the
(5:33—9) New and Old Having shown God's new approach in Jesus and the challenge this made to the Jewish religious tradition, this section emphasizes the move forward that was
935 LUKE
one which lives out of the life of the Kingdom which Jesus established and which the community's life itself anticipates. The sermon's demands are therefore radical. The disciples are to become like their master (v. 40): they are not to try to outdo his non-judgemental attitude. Their good fruit must reflect a 'good treasure of the heart'. The true disciple of the Lord hears his call and acts upon it (cf. 8:15).
restored, eschatological Israel that Jesus is bringing into being. So, like Moses before him (Ex 24:1, 3, 12—14), Jesus
goes to the mountain, takes with him the leaders of Israel, and comes down to form the people of God. The twelve stand alongside him, witnessing to the nature of the community that is being brought into being as he delivers a sermon that defines its essence. The sermon as Luke gives it has long suffered in comparison with Matthew's (w. 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount presents a demand for an ethical righteousness the radical nature of which far exceeds that of the law. The demands of Luke's sermon are equally radical but are more focused. They home in upon the need to recognize the nature of the community that Jesus is calling into being and therefore upon the necessity for members of it to respond with mutual love, toleration, and acceptance. The radical demands are seen, not in a high moral tone, but in the overriding concern for love (w. 27-36), a non-judgemental attitude (w. 37-42), a life of integrity (w. 43—5), and a total response to Jesus' call
(7:1—10) The Centurion's Slave This episode, not in Mark, is found also in Mt 8:5-13 (cf. FGS H). Comparison of the two accounts brings out Luke's particular perspective. In his gospel the centurion does not meet Jesus but instead sends elders of the Jews to intercede on his behalf. Their plea for him is based on the fact that he was favourably disposed to the Jewish people and that he was instrumental in the building of this group's synagogue. He was a Gentile, perhaps a Roman officer who, in Galilee, would be in the service of Herod Antipas. He was probably a God-fearer who, though linking himself to the Jewish community and joining in some part of its life, being uncircumcized remained an alien and outside the covenantal people. Jesus accedes to the Jews' request and begins to go with them to the centurion's house. On their way, however, the centurion sends friends to Jesus to make two points on his behalf. The centurion can make no claims on Jesus; that is why he would not presume even to approach him. Even now, he cannot expect him to enter his house. But, secondly, as a man both under authority and also exercising authority, he recognizes the nature of the authority that belongs to Jesus. A word from him is all that is required. That is all he dare ask, but it is enough. Jesus marvels at his faith and says for all to hear, 'Not even in Israel have I found such faith.' The difference from Matthew's version of Jesus' wonder makes clear the significance Luke sees in the story. Mt 8:10, 'in no one in Israel have I found such faith', can be heard as pointing to a lack of faith in Israel, whereas Luke's version rather emphasizes the exceptional nature of the centurion's. The centurion's slave is healed as a result of Jewish faith which has actually made the centurion's own faith possible. In the end, however, that of the centurion outstrips the faith shown by the Jews. His lack of all claims enables the wonder of Jesus' full redemptive power to be freed. The healing takes place from a distance.
(w. 46-9).
The Beatitudes which introduce ittherefore have a different stance from those found in Matthew (cf FGS G). Whereas his provide a standard after which members of his community can strive, Luke's state the nature of the new community. They address the disciples directly (NB the second person) as the poor, the hungry, the weepers, and the excluded. Not all are in fact these, though many within the community are. All however are to share in the attitude that characterizes these groups—their looking for God's future and their lack of satisfaction with the present. They look for the Kingdom to redress the inequalities of the present. In the OT the poor are seen as the special concern of God, and the authors of the Psalms of lament can picture themselves as poor in attitude and so as looking for God's vindication (40:17; 86:1). People like these are to be deemed 'blessed' for God can and will vindicate them.
The converse of this is that the rich, the full, the satisfied, and the easily accepted are challenged and made to face the consequences of their lot. This leads to a self-satisfaction and self-sufficiency which is not merely in grave danger of shutting them off from the grace of God but which also encourages a manipulation of their fellow human beings. At a number of points in his gospel, Luke will reveal his strong suspicion of riches and the challenge he believes they present to would-be disciples (14:33; 16:1-15,19~3I; 18:18-30).
(7:11—17) The Raising of a Widow's Son Only in Luke, this story seems to owe its position here to Jesus' appeal in 7:22 to his raising of the dead. The story has strong overtones of Elijah's raising of the widow's son in i Kings 17:17—24 and has echoes in Peter's raising of Tabitha in Acts 9:36—42. For Luke, Jesus, like John before him, is foreshadowed by Elijah, the archetype of OT prophecy, as he is by Moses. Luke uses 'The Lord' frequently in his references to Jesus when they, as here, point to his role as Christians understand it. Whilst acting in the past, he is revealed as the community's source and strength, and the one who is the object of its devotion. As Lord, Jesus brings the weeping of the woman to an end (6:21). 'Fear' is the response of awe in the presence of the numinous. They 'glorify God', a phrase that Luke uses to introduce significant responses to the actions of Jesus (2:20; 13:13; 23:47). Jesus for Luke is 'a great prophet', indeed the eschatological prophet. In him, 'God has looked favourably on his people'. The same verb is used in Zechariah's song (1:68) to speak of
Luke's version of Jesus' foundation sermon, then, challenges the community he is bringing into being to be one which, seeing itself as the eschatological people of God, lives out of grace and in hope of God's redemption. It is to be a sign of that hope. Whereas Leviticus called upon Israel to reflect God's holiness which it saw as the defining character of God (Lev 19:2), and Matthew called his community to a perfection which reflected God's own (Mt 5:48), Luke's Jesus calls rather for mercy because it is that which for him lies at the heart of God. The sermon does not judge a section of the community as does Matthew's (Mt 7:21) but rather somewhat wistfully has Jesus exclaim to all: 'Why do you call me "Lord, Lord", and not do what I say?' Luke does not share Matthew's concern to relate the ethical standards required by Jesus to those demanded by the Law (see MT 5—7). He pictures a community formed by a response to the grace of God revealed in Jesus and
LUKE 936
John's baptism that prepared them for their acceptance of Jesus. Those who were to reject Jesus were also the ones who rejected John.
God's redemption of his people. The true in Israel recognize him.
(7:18-35) Jesus and John Luke's infancy narratives have brought Jesus and John together in the closest possible relationship but have, at the same time, shown how the redemption Jesus brings is in some tension with the OT expectations that John expresses. Baptized by John, Jesus sets out on a course of action that is less obvious than John might have expected. He has embraced a way of surrender and, in his sitting loose to the law, has reached out in a manner that appears to do less than justice to John's prophecy of one with a 'winnowing-fork in his hand' (3:17). John therefore sends two of his disciples to ask whether Jesus really is the one who fulfils the OT hopes and whether in him the final action of God is being realized. Inv. 21 Luke points out the wonders that Jesus 'at that time' had been doing. The basis for his response to John is secure. So Jesus appeals to his actions in a list that freely quotes from Isa 35:5-6 and 61:1. For those who have eyes to see, they make his case. v. 23 contains a challenge to, and perhaps a criticism of John. The presence of Jesus demands a willingness to have established beliefs questioned.
Jesus acknowledges John's part by comparing his contemporaries to children at play. They are like those who fail to respond to all efforts to entice them to take part, whether it be a call to mourn or dance. John challenged them with the demands of God and they accused him of misanthropy. Jesus, on the other hand, presented them with the freeing grace of God and they cast him as a libertine. They will not respond to the challenge found in either proclamation. The section finishes with v. 35 which acts as a counterbalance to the rejection of which w. 31—4 speak. 'Wisdom' in the OTcame (alongside Spirit and Word) to be personified as the expression of God's outreach to humankind in which he made himself known and united them to himself (Prov 8; Wis 7). This verse takes up this thought. God's way is 'vindicated' (the same Gk. verb is used in v. 29), that is acknowledged and praised by all those who through the ministries of John and Jesus have experienced God's embrace and so have recognized his work both in them and in themselves.
Jesus now talks to the crowds about John and his relationship to himself. He begins with a compliment. When they went to hear John, they knew he was not one who would bend with the wind or be ensnared by the power or luxuries of the court. Luke has already told his readers that John had been wrongly put in prison by Herod because he had rebuked him for the evil he was doing (3:18—20). Had they gone out to see a prophet? Jesus gives John a higher status in God's plans than that. He applies to him a mixed OT quotation from Ex 23:20 and Mai 3:1 which, by a slight adaptation of pronouns, makes John the immediate forerunner of himself. He brings this to a climax with a further compliment which is, nevertheless, something of a backhanded one. No one in the world has arisen greater than John, 'yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he'. As it stands, this says that John is as yet outside the Kingdom. He still works from within the old expectations. He has not yet come to appreciate the radical challenge Jesus brings to these and the new perspectives from which they have to be viewed. However, this interpretation has been challenged ever since the time of Tertullian. Because the Greek in v. 28 uses comparatives ('lesser', 'greater'), the saying has been taken to refer only to Jesus and John and to their places in the Kingdom. Jesus is younger than John, perhaps originally a disciple of John, perhaps even a servant figure unlike John. He is nevertheless the greater in the Kingdom, though this interpretation would not suggest that John himself was not yet in the Kingdom. This, however, is not the most likely interpretation of the usual NT usage. John has not embraced the outlook of the Kingdom and as yet remains outside it. Those who have acknowledged it are already living within its embrace, out of its grace. They await its future revelation. For John, that embrace awaits the future (13:28).
(7:36-50) Jesus and the Woman who was a Sinner All four gospels tell of Jesus' anointing by a woman (Mt 26:6—13; Mk 14:3—9; Jn 12:1—8) though all three others link the anointing to Jesus' passion and record a complaint about the waste of money. Whereas Matthew and Mark have an anointing of Jesus' head, Luke, like John, tells of the anointing of his feet. Only Luke speaks ofthe woman as a 'sinner'. The significance Luke sees in the story depends on the actual meaning of a number of verses which are not easily interpreted. Simon, a Pharisee, invites Jesus to a meal; a woman comes into the room, as was possible on semi-public occasions, bathes his feet with her tears and dries them with her hair. She publicly kisses his feet and anoints them with ointment in an extravagant display of affection. Simon feels that Jesus' acceptance of such affection from one who was a sinner was not consistent with a prophet come from God. Jesus replies by telling a parable of two debtors which makes the point that one who is forgiven much is likely to respond more warmly than one who is forgiven little. So much is clear. The difficulty is in determining how it applies to the two characters. The woman is demonstrating her love. Is this because she has already been forgiven which is what the parable would imply? 'The woman's actions can only be accounted for by reference to something the story does not itself contain' (Evans 1990). On the other hand, v. 47, on a first reading at any rate, does not appear to support this but rather suggests that she has been forgiven because of her love. This is how RS V translates the verse. More recent translations, assuming a consistency in the story as a whole, take the Greek hoti to mean, not 'because' but 'with the result that'. So, REB translates, 'Her great love proves that her many sins have been forgiven.' v. 48 then proclaims her forgiveness which such a translation assumes has already been pronounced to her.
The part of John in God's redemptive act, however, is emphasized in Luke's comment (w. 29-30). 'All the people', that is those true Jews who had come to respond to Jesus and so be included within God's redeeming action, 'acknowledged the justice of God', his work of redemption that began through
Perhaps however we are trying to force into a time sequence something that cannot be so easily ordered. The woman hears of Jesus and of his proclamation ofthe outreaching redemption of God. God's recreating acknowledgement of the outsiders is being enacted in him, the one who accepts the title of
937 LUKE
gift of the Spirit (Acts 1:14). He has no appearance of the risen Jesus to them as does Mt 27:9 and Jn 20:18, but this would seem to be because of his concern to have Peter be the first witness of the risen Lord (24:34).
'the friend of tax-collectors and sinners'. She responds with love and a warmth which is accepted. The story says nothing about her penitence in any formal sense and to assume this is to assume too much. What she brings is rather a response to a lack of condemnation, to an outreach, to a recognition. It is that response of love that Jesus acknowledges, accepts, and meets with a declaration that God has forgiven her. 'The woman does not love because she has been forgiven, but vice versa' (Lampe 1962). She loves, because in Jesus she meets with acceptance. In turn, her love receives the forgiveness for which he stands.
It is in this setting of Jesus' preaching ministry that Luke places the parable of the sower which for him, as for the other synoptic evangelists, becomes an image of the varied success of the preaching, not only of Jesus, but also of the early church. Jesus tells a parable about a sower and his method of sowing which actually appears to sow seed where there can be no hope of a harvest. A waste of much seed becomes inevitable because of the nature of the ground on which it is allowed to fall. The distinctive feature of Luke's parable when it is compared with the versions given in Mt 13:3—9 and Mk 4:3-9 is his statement that all the good seed yielded 'a hundred fold'. All his good seed produces, if not a spectacular harvest, then at least a bumper one. The reason for this becomes clear in his version of the allegorical interpretation. Before that, however, he includes, as do the other evangelists, a statement in which Jesus is heard giving his reason for the use of parables. It is 'so that looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand'. Though this softens Mark's parallel statement (Mk4:n-i2), it shares something of his belief that Jesus' parables were meant to discriminate, to cause discernment in some and to harden others. Jesus' parables were not easy (to imagine they are rather helpful teaching aids is to do them total disservice), and the early church tended to find their challenge difficult to comprehend. This led them to think that they were deliberately obscure and that the key which they used to unlock them was meant for only the chosen few. It is usually accepted that the interpretation of the parable of the sower that follows (w. 11-15) owes more to the early church than to Jesus himself. Whereas the parable itself is about a sower, the interpretation concentrates not upon him (for he is not even mentioned) but upon the seeds, or rather upon the soils into which the seeds fall. The soils become the hearers, and their attitudes that are described are used to account for the success or failure of the seeds. Most of the seeds are destroyed by the various deficiencies of the soils. Yet the seeds as a whole do not fail. The good soil becomes a symbol for those who exhibit the qualities that the Gentile Luke can appreciate (v. 15). These bear fruit a hundredfold. Luke, in Acts, will go on to show how 'the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed' (Acts 19:20). w. 16 and 17 promise that future, v. 18 warns of the need to hear 'with patient endurance' and discrimination.
The parable is addressed to Simon and is looking at them both from Jesus' own point of view whilst engaging with
Simon's own stance. It is a condemnation of his judgemental attitude and of his lack of openness. Is it suggesting more and saying that he was discourteous to Jesus? On the whole, this is unlikely. Though the lack of provision for the washing of feet is 'surprising' (Evans 1990) the other omissions would seem to be additional courtesies rather than requirements of the host. The story does not suggest that Jesus was singled out from the other guests; that would have meant a hostility that Simon's address to Jesus (v. 40) does not imply. The contrasts are caused by the woman's actions rather than by Simon's discourtesies. What the contrast emphasizes is Simon's lack of response to Jesus and his message of the gracious approach of God. Simon feels no great need but is rather, if not content, then at least comfortable with the position at which he has arrived. Comparatively, he does need to be forgiven little, but it is that little need that has made him miss out on Jesus' message. He actually needs to learn from the incident.
(8:1-21) Proclaiming the Good News After a fairly static period, Jesus now resumes his itinerant role of proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God (cf 4:43; 9:6). The Twelve are with him and some women 'who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities'. They had been psychologically or physically distressed. Mk 15:41 mentions a group of women who had come to Jerusalem from Galilee with Jesus. Luke brings the mention forward to this point so as to link them with the Twelve in their accompanying Jesus. Mary Magdalene is mentioned first, probably because of her role at the tomb which is noticed in all four gospels. Jesus had cast out 'seven demons' from her—a witness to the severe nature of her illness, though not a pointer to any immorality; she is not to be brought into connection with the woman of the previous episode. Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, a woman of some social standing, is also mentioned at the tomb. Susanna is not found elsewhere. With other women, they provided for Jesus and the Twelve out of their resources. Women of means are found frequently in Acts. The most significant instance is the mention of Lydia who in Acts 16:15 acted as host for Paul and his companions at Philippi in the first of the 'we' passages in Acts. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Luke himself lodged there and perhaps even stayed there after the rest of the party had left (Acts 20:6). Luke may have been looking at the part women played in the ministry of Jesus in terms of his own later experience. He is anxious to point to their presence at the cross (23:49), the burial (23:55), the empty tomb (24:10), and when the community waits for the
The final episode in the section introduces Jesus' mother and brothers. They come seeking him. When Jesus is told of their presence he answers in a way that, unlike Mk 3:31-5, does not exclude them from the relationship but extends it. All those who 'hear the word of God and do it' are to be accounted Jesus' mother and brothers. Translations of the saying that make Jesus claim that his natural relations are the ones who are already doing this depend upon a somewhat forced reading of the Greek (Fitzmyer 1989). Mary and Jesus' brothers are, however, in Acts (1:14) among the earliest disciples waiting for the gift of the Spirit. The last episode in the infancy narratives suggests that Mary too had to face a learning experience. This was realized in her response to the life, death, and resurrection of her son. In this way she
LUKE 938
gogue'. Within that story, however, Luke, as Matthew and Mark, inserts the episode of the healing of the woman with a haemorrhage. Lev 15:25-30 tells how such a tribulation was not merely a physical misfortune, but that it virtually excluded her from her place within the people of God. Anyone touched by such a person was regarded as unclean. Jesus notices that 'power had gone out from me'. This has sometimes suggested to commentators that Luke still worked within the idea of Hellenistic magic that regarded Jesus as possessing a kind of impersonal force that was not entirely under his control (Hull 1974) (cf 5:17). It should perhaps rather be seen as his oneness with God that becomes a channel of God's outreach to people. Whereas in the OT what was conveyed was the holiness of God that overwhelmed those with whom it made contact (2 Sam 6:6-11), it was the redeeming outreach of God that was bestowed. Luke is perhaps less influenced here by Hellenistic magic than by the admittedly impersonal ideas of God and the Spirit that play a large part in the OT. Jesus' word to the woman raises the impersonal to the level of faith, and the Greek shows that the wholeness that is given, 'made you well', is interpreted at the deeper level of salvation, 'has saved you' (cf. 17:19).
lived up to the infancy narratives' picture of her as the ideal disciple.
(8:22-56) Redeeming Works All three Synoptics tell of Jesus stilling the storm (Mt 8:23-7; Mk 4:35~41)- It is the sign of Jesus' power over 'the deep', which was for them the ultimate symbol of chaos and the home offerees alien to God. Gen 1:2 told how the Spirit of God tamed the waters at creation, whilst Ps 89:10 made use of the old myth that saw the sea as the abode of the monster of chaos, Rahab. Isa 51:9 associates the same myth with God's victory over the sea at the Exodus. Moses and Elijah were associated with command over seas and rivers (Ex 14; 2 Kings 2:8). Jesus, as God's final act of redemption, now reveals his total power over the deep. All three evangelists regard the action as a point of disclosure to the disciples. In Mark, they awake Jesus with rough words; in Matthew they treat him with great respect. Luke takes something of a middle position; Jesus' rebuke is delivered after he stills the storm and their response is made in its light.
Jesus now arrives 'at the country of the Gerasenes' on the other side of the lake from Galilee. The actual name of the place varies in different MSS and all present problems. The really important thing is that the event takes place in Gentile territory. For Luke, who usually avoids having Jesus make contact with Gentiles, it provides a concrete example of an anticipation of the Gentile mission at which he has hinted so strongly and which he will go on to record in Acts. The story should not be pressed for answers to modern questions that were outside the concerns of its tellers who recount it in terms of symbols that were highly significant for them. The tormented man calls Jesus 'Son of the Most High God', a pagan title that is also used by a spirit-possessed slave girl at Philippi
Before he gets to the house, news is brought that the child had died but, when he arrives, he says, 'She is not dead, but sleeping.' Though sleep is a familiar biblical expression for death, so that this passage can be used as a pointer to a Christian understanding of death in much the way that the Johannine story of the raising of Lazarus can be so used (Jn n), Jesus' words are recounted, not for this, but to point to the nature of the miracle he works. It is a restoration of the girl to life from death. To make this clear, Luke adds the reason for their laughter at him: 'knowing that she was dead'. Whether v. 55, 'Her spirit returned, and she got up at once', reflects the idea of the survival of the soul or spirit through death, or whether it does no more than use i Kings 17:22 is not easy to say. Perhaps, in view of 23:43, it is the former. Luke, any more than the rest of the NT, has no clearly worked out pattern of belief about the afterlife. The message of the story is that Jesus brings life from death.