Part 91
(Acts 16:17). Jesus exercises a power over the demon that makes him reveal his name, 'Legion'. A legion was a unit in the Roman army of something around 6,000 men. The use of the term witnesses to the severity of the possession. The state of the man, his being held in chains and shackles, may well suggest something of the burden of the Roman occupation. The story may have been handed down with the intention of associating Jesus' throwing out of demonic powers with the expectation of the overthrow of the equally oppressive political authorities. The local citizens may well have been understood by Luke as asking Jesus to leave their area because they regarded him as a threat to stability. This would be seen by Luke as one with the situation that he describes frequently in Acts (16:39; J7:I4; 20:1).
(9:1-50) Climax in Galilee The climax of Jesus' time in Galilee begins with the sending out of the Twelve which, though close to Mark's account (6:7—13), differs at significant points. Luke, unlike Mark but like Mt 10:10, has Jesus refuse them the use of staff or sandals (22:35). All three evangelists record Jesus' command to extreme simplicity, which goes beyond both the normal requirements of a journey and the dress of the cynic wandering preachers which the evangelists would have encountered in the cities of the Roman empire. Whether Jesus saw both himself and his travelling disciples in terms of these cynic preachers (Crossan 1991) is disputed. The extreme simplicity is most likely a contrast even with them and reflects rather his belief in the challenge and nearness of the kingdom of God. Luke differs more significantly from Mark over the contents of the mission. For Mark, they proclaim that all should repent, and therefore repeat what he understands to be at the heart of Jesus' own preaching (1:15). Luke, who does not have this summary, tells rather of Jesus' proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 9:11), and it is this that the disciples also preach. Repentance, though important
Jews regarded pigs as unclean, so the request of the demons to be allowed to enter them was one of self-preservation. However, their plea, though accepted, was of little use. The pigs rush down to the sea and the demons are pushed back into the abyss. The previous episode showed that this was not outside the control of Jesus. Jesus does not allow the healed man to go with him. In contrast to his not infrequent commands to silence, Jesus tells him to return and spread 'how much God has done for you'. It was not the 'Most High God' whom Jesus served but the God of the Jews. The Gentile mission had in effect begun.
This healing of a Gentile is quickly followed by an even greater wonder performed for a Jew, 'a leader of the syna-
939 LUKE
failure to move forward into the new outlook that Jesus is bringing. Jesus then asks the disciples to express their own perception of him and their level of commitment. Peter responds,'The Christ of God.'All three evangelists report Peter's response in terms that express either their own understanding or that of their church (Mt 16:16; Mk 8:29). Luke's form expresses his own belief that Jesus' messiahship fulfils OT expectations when these are rightly understood (24:25), and emphasizes his function as the agent of God. Jesus issues a stern command to silence for, though the confession is right as far as it goes, the content of Jesus' messiahship has to be filled with suffering. It is that alone that is to make it a reality.
for Luke (4:32; 15:7), seems to arise out of redemption rather than being understood as a condition of it (7:47). He does not have Mark's statement that Jesus sent them out two by two
(6:7), but keeps that for the mission of the seventy (10:1). This seems to be because, unlike Matthew and Mark, he does not see the mission of the Twelve as a pattern for later work which he reserves rather for his account of the seventy. For Luke, the twelve are a distinct group whose work is not extended into that of later disciples.
Mark at this point has an extended account of the death of John the Baptist which Luke does not take over. Luke will later omit an account of Paul's death and, though he will tell of Stephen's, he will emphasize, not that, but the preaching which is his primary witness (Acts 7:55). He will not isolate the death of Jesus as the moment of redemption (see LK 23:32— 48). He records Herod's perplexity, however, for it makes a fitting prelude to w. 18-20. Herod himself (unlike Mk 6:16), is not said to believe that Jesus is John risen from the dead. He rather contrasts Jesus with John and wishes to see him (cf 23:8 and see also Acts 26:27-32). The return of the disciples, as in Mark, leads into the story of the feeding of the five thousand. Moses had fed the Israelites in the desert (Ex 16; Num 10) and Elisha had fed 'the people' enabling them to have more than they required (2 Kings 4:42-4). Jesus as the fulfilment of both these prophets would perform a feeding the wonder of which would exceed theirs. At the heart of the story is the dialogue between him and the Twelve. Their perplexity at Jesus' command, 'You give them something to eat', shows that they have not yet come to appreciate his real nature. Luke uses the miracle as a point of disclosure for the disciples. For him, it is the event that enables their growing perception of Jesus to be realized and brought to the level where Peter can make his declaration of Jesus' messiahship (9:20). It becomes an anticipation of the messianic banquet. Like all the evangelists, he seems to be viewing Jesus' actions as having eucharistic overtones though the verbs he uses to describe Jesus, words over the bread and fish do not make this explicit.
There now follows (w. 21—7) the first of three predictions of the passion (9:43—5; 18:31—4). Jesus says that the Son of Man must be rejected, killed, and 'on the third day be raised'. He must get the disciples to understand the necessity for his death, and to believe that this will lead to his vindication by God. This prediction is of supreme importance for all the evangelists and reflects a belief that was fundamental to the early church (i Cor 15:3-4). The cross made the resurrection possible and was therefore seen as part of the determined plan of God. It was early given saving significance. How far Jesus himself was actually conscious of the necessity of his death is disputed. The Gethsemane scene suggests that he was not necessarily certain of its inevitability. That he was aware from the beginning that his task was very different from what was expected of a messianic figure, and that his understanding of God's redemption made a clash with Jewish religious susceptibilities inevitable, meant that his rejection and death were a real possibility. But that he went up to Jerusalem deliberately in order to die is much less certain (Moule 1977). The gospels say that the empty tomb did not quickly lead to an understanding that Jesus was raised, and this suggests that his prophecy of a resurrection was far less unambiguous than these passages maintain. These passion predictions have certainly been shaped by the early church, and it is hard to know just how far that shaping extends.
Jesus' revelation of the path of suffering for himself is followed immediately by a call to his disciples to follow the same way. They are to 'deny themselves', the word used of Peter's denial of Jesus, and to take up the cross 'daily'. The last word is a Lukan addition and is sometimes thought to play down the absolute demand that the challenge might otherwise make. Luke demands a daily pursuit of the way that led Jesus to the cross rather than a once for all abandoning of the world. It reflects his more positive approach to the world and also his refusal to make Jesus' own cross into a point of atonement. For him, it is rather one with, though the climax of, his whole life which led to it and which thereby becomes not merely the means of resurrection, but also the means of God's redemption. Luke's version of the command is not a watering down of its absoluteness; it is rather a demand to be remade daily in the image of Christ. It reflects just that concern for daily life that his addition of the same phrase to the bread petition of the Lord's prayer makes obvious
Luke's story of the five thousand, unlike those of the other evangelists, leads immediately into Peter's acknowledgment of Jesus as Messiah. For him, there is a strong connection between the two events. Mark has a whole series of stories, including another feeding miracle, between the two and in thisheis followed by Matthew. Luke, ifas seems mostlikelyhe is using Mark as his primary source, has chosen to leave them out. They show a Gentile concern which he will not pursue until his second volume, deal with a question of eating meats which he will resolve in Acts 15, and reveal the disciples in a light less favourable than his own. Once more, as on important occasions, Jesus is at prayer. Mark names the place as Caesarea-Philippi. Luke omits this for he would not have regarded Gentile territory as a suitable context for what was in the first instance a necessary and essentially Jewish recognition. The responses of the crowds are inadequate for, in defining Jesus in terms of a return of John, Elijah, or one other of the prophets, they are not merely undervaluing him but are seeking to keep him and the work of God through him within the terms of their own expectations. Though a less hostile response than that of the religious leaders, it ultimately amounts to the same thing (11:14) and shows an equal
(11:2).
The strong demand is justified by an eschatological urgency. Those who refuse to line up with Jesus and his words will find themselves refused by him 'when he comes in his glory'. This verse can hardly refer to anything other than the
LUKE 940
follow Deut 18:15, enjoins them to give him their trust and obedience. The three disciples are given a glimpse of the glory that is rightly Jesus' and are themselves therefore strengthened to follow him on the way to his cross and glorification. What they have now seen anticipates both the empty tomb and the ascension, where two men in white will again interpret the events they witness (24:4; Acts 1:11). In Mk 9 and Mt 17, as they come down from the mountain, Jesus commands them to silence about what they had seen until after the resurrection. This is absent from Luke as befits his telling of the story in a way that brings out its divine witness to them. They did, however, keep silence 'in those days'. Perhaps Luke implies that they will use it at an appropriate time which will be—not as in Mark after the resurrection—but at the passion.
parousia for it points to the revelation of a glory that had previously been established at his exaltation (24:26). v. 27 brings this urgency to a climax. Unfortunately, the meaning of that climax is not entirely clear. Mk 9:1 speaks of the Kingdom's coming 'with power' and Mt 16:28 suggests thathe read this as a reference to the parousia. Luke's omission of 'with power' has sometimes been taken as suggesting that he changed the reference to make it apply, not to the parousia, but to the gift of the Spirit or the growth of the church. However, this is unlikely. Luke expressly associates the Spirit and the mission he enables with 'power' (24:49), and it is precisely this powerful reality of the present Kingdom that makes Luke drop 'with power' from his reference to the return of Jesus. The Kingdom in power does not await the parousia for its establishment. Already established in heaven, the return of Jesus will reveal its reality on earth (see LK 17:21). Luke, in common with the vast majority of early Christians, anticipated the speedy return of Jesus. Whether this represents a misunderstanding of Jesus' own outlook is a matter that takes us beyond the limitations of this commentary (see Borg 1994; Allison, 1998). Luke (like Matthew and Mark) links these sayings to the transfiguration by a time reference that is unique in the gospels outside the passion narrative. Some have suggested that this is because the evangelists believed that the promise of v. 27 is fulfilled in its mysterious happening. This, however, is wholly unlikely. Luke presents the transfiguration not as the fulfilment of a promise, but as the anticipation of something greater. The time link is to relate it firmly both to the warning of imminent suffering and to the promise that out of it will come a future glory. The transfiguration becomes a guarantee of that. Luke has 'about eight days after these sayings' in place of Mark's 'after six days'. This may mean little more than a different way of calculating time and like Mark would seem to have Ex 24:15—18 in mind. It may also be mindful of Lev 9:1, a passage that, also concerned with the glory of God, speaks of that glory appearing to Aaron. Luke emphasizes the impact the event has upon the disciples. They 'saw his glory' (v. 32, cf. Lev 9:6) and actually 'entered the cloud' (v. 34). Peter's response, though not a valid one, is regarded as less arbitrary than it is said to be in Mark. His attempt to perpetuate the vision, which is what his request to make 'dwellings' suggests, is less derided than in Mark.
The incidents following the transfiguration show, however, just how much these three, along with the rest of the disciples, have to learn. Luke, unlike Mark (cf. Mk 9:14), places the story of the disciples' inability to expel a demon on the following day and thus does not exclude the three from its failure (v. 37). Again, their failure to understand Jesus' prediction of his suffering and their refusal to ask him about it shows how little they have learned (v. 45). The contrast between what Jesus is saying and their inability to enter into it is further strengthened by their discussion about their relative greatness (w. 468) and by the attempt of John, one of the witnesses of the transfiguration, to remain exclusive (w. 49—50). It is possible, of course, that the exorcist was using Jesus' name in a magical way rather than expressing a genuine response to Jesus. This appears to be the import of a similar situation in Acts 8:14—24. Here, however, in this particular context it seems that Luke is thinking not so much of an opportunist as of one who was not 'following with us', namely a disciple from that wider group that did not travel with them on the road but was influenced and moved by Jesus. Jesus' answer looks for a greater openness and is a rebuke of all exclusiveness. The disciples clearly have much to learn as they follow Jesus on the road.
The Journey to Jerusalem (cj-.^i-icj-.zj)
With 9:51, a verse of exceptional solemnity and loaded with biblical imagery, we enter upon a new section of the gospel that takes Jesus to the very gates of Jerusalem. Though the sense of movement is not always obvious, references to his progress occur from time to time (13:22, 33-4; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11) and show that it is the journey motif which holds this long section together. Geographically, these notices make little sense and together point to a meandering which appears to make little headway. For Luke, their significance is theological rather than factual. They keep Jerusalem as a goal in the reader's mind and point to that city as the climax and focal point of Jesus' ministry. In the light of the infancy narratives, they seek to present that ministry as the climax of God's workings in Israel. With Jesus' movement to Jerusalem, the whole of Israel's history is caught up and brought to a climax in him. In what happens there, Israel is reconstituted and the gift of the Spirit, which his exaltation makes possible, proclaims her eschatological renewal.
Luke puts emphasis upon the appearance of Moses and Elijah. They also (only in Luke) appear 'in glory'. These two have a strong typological significance for him because, not only were they prophets who suffered greatly in bringing God's redemption to Israel, but Jewish tradition said that both were taken up into heaven. They therefore speak of Jesus' 'departure' (Gk. exodos) which he was 'about to accomplish at Jerusalem'. From the beginning of the ministry, Luke has pointed the narrative towards Jerusalem where its purpose is to be achieved (4:9, 30). From the end of the time in Galilee, this movement will become even clearer. At Jerusalem will occur the events that will accomplish not only Jesus' glorification but also the redemption that God wills for his people.
At the conclusion of the visionary appearance, the voice that earlier came to Jesus (3:22) now addresses the disciples. It expresses the divine approval of Jesus and, in words that
Recognizing the importance of this section for Luke, commentators have sought to discover an overarching scheme
941 LUKE
law's demand for care of parents. If it refers to more than fulfilling long-term obligations and is to be taken literally, then it demanded the neglect of what was regarded as the most solemn of all obligations. Luke sees that on which Jesus was now engaged as the climactic point of God's redeeming activity, which, in the benefits it brings, overrides all other acts of piety and natural ties. Less stark, the final call contrasts the present time with that of Elijah and Elisha (i Kings 19:20).
which gives some coherence and unity to a collection of material that does not easily reveal either a logical development or an easy progression of thought. Schemes which put forward some form of chiastic structure have not been able to account for the order of all the material in the section. The suggestion that Deuteronomy provided the pattern, though attractive, again falls short of clear demonstration (see Nolland 1989-93; Evans 1990). There are, however, clear links with that book and these are such as to suggest that it is Deuteronomy that gives an insight into the way the material in this section is to be read. Luke has already presented Jesus in terms of the prophet Moses. Clearly visible at the transfiguration as an influence upon Jesus, his experience on Mount
(10:1-24) The Mission of the Seventy Luke alone has the mission of the seventy—or is it seventy-two? The MS evidence is fairly divided and it is not easy to conclude what Luke actually wrote. Both numbers are linked to the two OT episodes that might be reflected in Luke's story. Gen 10 has a list of seventy nations of the world, though LXX has seventy-two. Num ii speaks of Moses choosing seventy elders upon whom a portion of the spirit that was upon him would rest, but since two others shared the gift, this could be taken as seventy-two. Which of these two episodes influenced Luke's telling of the story is not certain. That they were sent 'before Jesus to every town and place where he himself intended to go' suggests the situation of the world-wide church as it preached and witnessed in anticipation of the return of Christ. On the other hand, the woes against the Galilean towns of w. 13—15 point to Jewish perversity which was not wholly other than that which caused Moses' appointment of the seventy elders. The episode is certainly related to the continuing mission to Israel and the varied response that this caused. Luke probably sees it as a pointer to the missionary experiences of his contemporaries as they challenged both Jews and Gentiles.
Sinai has already been used to shape the events around the choice of the twelve and the delivery of the inaugural sermon (6:12-49). In Deuteronomy, Moses addressed Israel on the way to his 'departure' (which in Jewish tradition became an assumption into heaven) and their movement into the promised land. Deuteronomy was seen as his farewell address, which became a contemporary exhortation to every future generation. It spoke about the nature of their God, his own withdrawal, their life in the future, and their attitude as they faced disobedience within Israel and temptations from without. What Deuteronomy does for Moses and historical Israel, the journey to Jerusalem does for Jesus and the community of eschatological Israel that he calls into being. Whilst in this section, Luke tells of a past movement and of the learning situation of those who journeyed with Jesus to Jerusalem, he enables him to speak now as the exalted Lord to those who would travel with him in the present (Moessner 1989).
The message they are to preach is that 'the kingdom... has come near', though its embrace ('near to you', v. 9 but not in v. n) is limited to those who respond favourably to them. This latter fact suggests that the Kingdom is a present reality and that its nearness is likely to be spatial rather than temporal. Yet it hovers over them rather than actually including them; there is an apartness about it, an otherness which means that their relationship to it is as yet tangential; they are not yet actually within its circle. When the missionaries return (v. 17), and rejoice that they have had power over the demons, the Lord bids them to raise their sights and to see that what has happened on earth is a reflection of, and a pointer to, something even more sublime in heaven; T watched Satan falling like lightning from heaven.' What is ultimately real and final takes place in heaven and it is this, as it is reflected on earth, that enables the world to be more open to God's rule. Luke has a strong sense of the transcendence of God's kingdom. It is the victory in that sphere that enables Jesus to bring about God's redemption on earth. They are to rejoice that their names are written in heaven (v. 20).
(9:51—62) Eschatological Urgency 'When the days drew near' does little to convey the true awesomeness of the Greek, which is better rendered, 'As the days were being accomplished'. The wheel is turning full circle and coming to its appointed fulfilment. Jesus' being 'taken up' is achieved not merely by the ascension but also by the resurrection and passion—and indeed by the movement to Jerusalem. All is included within the embrace of this eschatological perspective. Jesus is already being seen in the light of that exaltation. To 'set his face' is often used in LXX of a threatening action. Luke however does not follow it with 'against' but rather with an infinitive of purpose. The servant in Isa 50:7 'sets his face like a solid rock' in obedience to the Lord's will and it is this imagery that is uppermost in Luke's mind.
Samaritans refuse him precisely because his goal is Jerusalem and her people. The time of the Samaritans will come, but it will not be until Acts 8:4 when it will happen as a result both of the renewal of Israel and of the disobedience of many of her people. Jesus, unlike Elijah in 2 Kings i, has no need of the vindication of a miraculous sign. James and John, in wishing to follow in the way of Elijah, reveal just how much they have still to learn.
The success of the mission and Jesus' vision of triumph in heaven cause him to 'rejoice in the Holy Spirit' (some MSS have simply 'in spirit' and so point rather to his ecstatic state), and to make a thanksgiving to his Father who has brought about this success. In keeping with the Jewish understanding of revelation which thinks in terms of hiding as well as revealing, he points to God's hiding these things from the wise and revealing them to those who are open to receive
The new stage of God's action in Jesus, and its contrast with the preparatory nature of all that went before, is shown in Jesus' refusal to allow would-be disciples to act in accordance with the outlook of that earlier age (9:57—62). Discipleship now meant journeying with the Son of Man who had nowhere to lay his head. His call required a response that cut across the
('babes'). God's redemption passes by the self-sufficient but is grasped by those who are looking for it. Now follows (v. 22) a
LUKE 942
For Luke, the parable is an indictment of the lawyer's attitude. Some have seen this as evidence of his alleged antiSemitism (J. T Sanders 1987). It reflects criticism, however, rather than hostility. It challenges rather than condemns. The Jewish religious leaders, the priest and the Levite, are there not as objects of attack but as examples of the deficiencies of the best in Judaism. Their proper consideration of the purity requirements of the law (for contact with a possible dead body would have prevented them from functioning in their proper tasks) led them to make a decision which the action of the
saying in which Jesus reveals himself in terms that, going beyond what is usually found in the Synoptic Gospels, comes close to his self-revelation in John. The Father has 'handed over all things' to the Son to give him an authority that is close to his own. That authority is centred on the act of redemption. The Father alone is the one who really knows the Son. Equally, it is the Son alone who really knows the Father. Such is his knowledge of the Father that he is able to make him known to anyone he chooses. Revelation of God through Jesus is not an idea that is elsewhere embraced in Luke. The section ends by pointing out how blessed the disciples are to have shared in this revelatory moment. The whole section has emphasized the reality of the heavenly Kingdom and its influence upon and future presence in the world.
Samaritan showed to be wrong. As with the lawyer and his question, the attitude inculcated by the law in the end hindered the exercise of that love which it so clearly enjoined. In his infancy narratives, Luke has already shown just what a leap forward was required if the priest was to move into the new outreach of God. Nevertheless, it was in the temple that that outreach began (1:5-20).
(10:23—37) The Parable of the Good Samaritan At this point we meet the first of the many parables which are such a feature of the central section of this gospel (Bailey 1976; 1980). Luke links the episode firmly to Jesus' revelation of himself (v. 25). A lawyer who would no doubt have claimed that he 'saw', seeks to 'test Jesus', to determine his credentials. Matthew and Mark have a similar confrontation (where Matthew also has 'test') during Jesus' last visit to Jerusalem (Mt 22:34—40; Mk 12:28—31). Luke does not have that episode for, in some way, he sees its purpose satisfied here. Some interpreters believe that he has taken it over as a setting for the parable for which the original context in the life of Jesus was forgotten. This they believe would account for the twist that occurs between the lawyer's question and Jesus' reshaping of it; the parable itself does not follow on from the lawyer's question. On the whole, it is likely that this exhibits undue scepticism. That Jesus was only tested once in this way is not a necessary assumption. The twist between the lawyer's question and Jesus' answer is entirely in keeping with Jesus' radical stance: he was making the lawyer rethink his presuppositions and telling him that the assumptions with which he started out and which determined his question—'What bounds do I draw around my acceptance of others as my neighbour?'— had to be revised in a radical way. Neighbourliness knows no bounds and must proceed from an attitude of spontaneity and self-forgetfulness. The parable was remembered in its setting which actually gave depth and direction to it.
(10:38—42) Martha and Mary The Jewish lawyer had to learn to listen to the law which on his own understanding was meant to foster the love of God and humankind. It required a spontaneity of action that went beyond that which could be finely calculated and be seen to be under his own control. Earlier, as the journey was about to begin, the disciples had had to learn to give up status and become like children, to accept outsiders, and to eschew quick retaliation (9:46—56). Now, the fundamental requirement of discipleship is illustrated through the story of Martha and Mary. Two sisters welcome Jesus into their home, the one distracted by the burden of hospitality whilst the other, almost oblivious to its demands, sits listening at Jesus' feet. When Martha complains, Jesus rebukes her and, in the most likely reading, says, 'only one thing is necessary', namely, 'the better part' which Mary has chosen and which will not be taken away from her. Though the 'one thing' has sometimes been taken as suggesting that Martha is overdoing the hospitality, it rather refers to Mary's role of listening to Jesus. This is what had been commanded by the voice at the transfiguration (9:35) and the disciples had already shown how hard it was to do this. Martha, like them and the lawyer before her, wanted to be in control. The whole journey section of the gospel emphasizes the need for listening to the Lord. Only so will disciples be able to follow him on the way.
This, of course, does not mean that Luke has not shaped the episode as we now have it. That the commands to love God (Deut 6:5) and neighbour (Lev 18:5) were joined in this way before Jesus is disputed. Luke's concern to point to the strengths of the Jewish faith may have made him put into the lawyer's mouth a belief that originally was said to have been expressed by Jesus himself. It would then have made a way for his statement that the lawyer attempted to 'justify himself, an attitude that for Luke was largely responsible for the tragedy of the Jewish rejection of Jesus. As Luke sees it, the parable overturns the lawyer's stance and puts before him the challenge of emulating that of a Samaritan who was prepared to go to the aid of one who despised him. The parable in its setting calls for an abandonment of all status, privilege, and exclusiveness, that is, of just those things which for Luke stopped the Jewish people from responding to the outreach of Jesus.
It is hard not to have sympathy with Martha, for Jesus' rebuke is certainly stern. Some recent readings have pictured Martha's as a leadership role which has been questioned in the story, as it was told by the early church, in favour of a more passive one such as is exercised by Mary (Schiissler Fiorenza 1983). Luke would almost certainly not have taken it in this way. For him, it expresses the absolute necessity of the priority of obedience to the call of Christ which is itself understood as a radical challenge to that self-sufficiency that characterized the outlook of those who refused Jesus or who were not easily open to his call.
(11:1—13) Teaching on Prayer Following a statement of Jesus' own prayer (v. i) and the commendation of Mary's listening to him, it is an appropriate place for Luke to include teaching about prayer. The disciples' request for such teaching becomes the opportunity for including the Lord's prayer. Its
943 LUKE
would not allow a hope of deliverance but would rather witness to Satan's triumph, any petition for deliverance from his power would be superfluous.
Lukan form is shorter than Matthew's (6:9-13) and interpreters are by no means united in determining the relationship between the two. Matthew's shows clear signs of use within the Christian community and is most probably the form that was prayed in his church. Luke's is also sometimes thought of as that of his church. This, however, is less likely for it certainly shows his hand and reflects his own theological understanding. It expresses a response to Jesus' teaching that brings out what Luke believes are the essential features of it. 'When you pray, say:' allows for no flexibility. It lays down a standard that must be expressed in all prayer: it says what prayer is about. 'Father' is the direct, confident approach to God that Luke sees as characteristic of Jesus' own prayer (22:42; 23:34, 46) and which his exaltation made possible for those who would follow him (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). God's 'name', in accordance with OT imagery, is his very nature which is expressed especially in his merciful outreach to humanity (Ex 33:17—19). To pray for its hallowing, therefore, is to pray that his true nature may be acknowledged by them and his redeeming activity be effective in the world. To pray for the coming of God's kingdom, which for Luke is already a reality in heaven (10:11), is to pray that it may be realized in the world. That for Luke will be at the parousia when what is real in heaven will be revealed to the world and will embrace it (17:24; 8:8). The request for bread (Luke adds 'each day'), which on the surface seems to be the most obvious and immediate of the petitions, is not easily understood. The meaning of the Greek word translated 'daily' is wholly uncertain. The claim that it appeared in a text with the meaning 'daily rations' is not open to verification and therefore can carry little weight. It might mean 'essential', though whether it is then to be understood in a physical or spiritual sense is not clear. It might mean 'bread for the coming day' and have some pointer back to the Israelites in the wilderness and their gathering of the daily manna (Ex 16:4). In the light of the eschatological nature of the prayer as a whole, and following on from the plea for the coming of the Kingdom, many would see it as a prayer for a taste in the present of the eschatological bread of the future Kingdom. May we live daily out of the power of the Kingdom. On the other hand, the following petition about forgiveness and forgiving is wholly about the present. Luke's hand is visible here, for its plea for forgiveness of 'sins' breaks the parallelism of our forgiving of 'debts'. Matthew has 'debts' in both parts of the petition and, because Jesus elsewhere talks of sin as 'debts' (7:41), it is likely that Luke has rephrased it here to make it more intelligible to his non-Jewish readers. The conditionality of the clause seems to owe its severity to Jesus himself and would fit the emphasis of the evangelist's version of Jesus' foundation sermon (6:2049). Luke's version of the prayer ends with the petition, 'Do not bring us to the time of trial' (peirasmos). This translation would certainly represent Luke's own understanding of the petition's significance and does more justice to its meaning than the weaker 'temptation'. For him, the 'time of trial' was that point when a person is open to the ultimate of Satan's onslaughts such as was expected before the final revelation of the Kingdom. Whereas at Gethsemane, Matthew and Mark see the disciples open to the pdrasmos when they fall asleep, Luke regards it as a future fall when they would abandon Jesus and enter into the grip of Satan (22:46; cf Mk 14:41). Since it
For Luke, the prayer has a strong eschatological orientation. It is one for the open manifestation of the Kingdom and a plea that, meanwhile, the disciples should live under its shadow and out of its strength. So the parable, which talks of the need for urgent and insistent prayer, pictures this under the guise of a determined petition for bread. The parable talks of contrasts. God, who wills to answer the disciples' petitions, is contrasted with an earthly person who is indifferent to his friend's pleas, and a request for physical bread is contrasted with the pleas for the Kingdom's food. If the plea for earthly benefit produces a response, how much more will God respond to those requests for things that are in accordance with his will. The parable says that God is not indifferent, and any suggestion that he is arises out of a misreading of the signs of the times.
The section therefore ends with a further contrast, yet one that this time depends on what actually links God and the best of family life. Earthly parents for all their imperfections ('being evil' is a typical Semitic exaggeration which is used to make the point) give good gifts to their children. How much more will God give the 'Holy Spirit' to those who ask him. For Luke, the Holy Spirit is God's power and strength which enables a response to him and a witness to his Kingdom
(Acts 6:10; 9:17, 31). His presence is a sign of incorporation into the eschatological people of God and a guarantee of inclusion in his Kingdom which is to be revealed (Acts 1:8, n). Though it remains most likely that Luke himself wrote the petition for the Kingdom at 11:2, the few MSS that read, 'May your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us' would not be out of keeping with his thoughts.
(11:14—36) The Beelzebul Controversy Exorcism played a large part in the ministry of Jesus and, indeed, in that of the early church. Demon possession was widely believed in at that time and, as this episode makes clear, Jesus was by no means the only exorcist around. His opponents do not attack him for performing exorcisms, but rather question his motivation and the power by which he was able to do them: he was accused of casting out demons 'by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons'. Beelzebul appears in some ancient Canaanite texts as 'Baal, Lord of the Heavenly House', a local or Syrian deity who was treated by Hebrew thought as an alien power, hostile to YHWH. 'Beelzebub', which appears in some texts, is a corruption of this, meaning 'Lord of the flies'. With a growing appreciation of the power of YHWH, these other gods were undeified and then treated as hostile agents of Satan. Jesus, therefore, is here accused of being an agent of Satan. On what grounds would they make this charge? Unlike any comparable Jewish exorcists, he did not use prayer or claim to draw on the strength of the Jewish tradition. He acted on his own authority and outside the covenant. Moreover, in his sitting loose to the law and its demands, he could be seen to be despising the covenant itself. All this could make him open to the charge of being a godless person.
He points to the basic nonsense of the charge, for Satan was unlikely to be wishing to destroy his supporters. And were their associates also to be charged with being agents of Satan?
LUKE 944
do not mark the end of any relationship with them. There is still a dialogue. Jesus' dealings with the Pharisees were often confrontational, for his approach to purity, which was a major concern of theirs, was quite different from their own. Here, when Jesus is invited to dine with a Pharisee, he does not use the water provided to join in the ritual washing that would have been expected of those who were guests. He meets his host's disapproval with a determined attack upon his group. Their inner attitude does not measure up to their concern for externals. Tithing laws were complicated but Luke's point is that the Pharisees expended too much energy on little things such as tithing herbs which would have been better spent on more important commandments such as justice and love. They are like unmarked graves which actually defile people who come into contact with them.
This is basically a non sequitur for, though their activities might look no different from those of Jesus, they themselves presumably still worked within the law and so were not subject to the complaints that were being made against him. More important is his understanding of the significance of his exorcisms. 'The finger of God' is a phrase used in Ex 8:19 by the men of Pharoah to describe Moses' wonders in Egypt; they were worked by God. If Jesus was doing his works by the finger of God—if he could be acknowledged as a man of God, reflecting his character and his goodness—then his exorcisms, far from witnessing to his service of Satan, witness rather to his being the agent of the kingdom of God. They show that, through him, 'the kingdom of God has come to you'. The translation of REB reads 'has already come upon you' and by allowing for the Greek preposition, epi, does more justice to it. The Kingdom has 'come upon' us, that is arrived to hover over us, to cast its glow over us, to be an effective power out of which we can now live. It is not yet here in its fullness, though we are already living within its embrace. (Cf further FGS I.)
A 'lawyer', who is a professional exegete of the law of Moses and who, by addressing Jesus as 'teacher' appears to acknowledge an affinity with him, resents these attacks but is in turn himself accused. The Pharisees' interpretation of the law puts undue burdens upon people. It is hard to see how their building tombs for the prophets actually continues their predecessors' persecution of them. It would seem to suggest the reverse. Their actions, however, do not really amount to a dissociation of themselves from the outlooks of their ancestors. They are seen rather as hypocritical. The attack is used as an entry into the final charge (11:49) that 'this generation' (which includes those who are contemporary with Luke) will bring to a climax their predecessors' harassment of God's servants by persecuting and killing Christian prophets and apostles. 'The Wisdom of God said' (11:64) is an unusual expression and, if it means more than 'God in his wisdom', reflects a saying of the early church. Abel was the first victim of jealousy (Gen 4:8). Zechariah is usually identified with the priest who was stoned by the people (2 Chr 24:20—2).
If this verse serves as an important witness to Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom, it is equally important as a witness to his understanding of the significance of his exorcisms. They do not prove him, they do not even authenticate him. It is rather he who authenticates them and can enable them to be seen as signs of the presence of the Kingdom. So Jesus sees himself as overpowering Satan. The urgency of the contest is such that a saying (v. 23) is used in a manner that reverses its meaning at 9:50. The same sense of urgency controls the interpretation of w. 24—6. If it is to endure, Jesus' saving work demands a positive response from those who receive it.
So, when a woman in the crowd extols him by way of his mother, Jesus replies by declaring the blessedness of those who not only hear God's word, but actually obey it. If it is to achieve its pupose, grace must be met with a response.
This passage, like that in Mt 23, has caused considerable disquiet for interpreters of the NT because it serves as a basis for that understanding of Pharisaism which, by presenting it as hypocritical in the extreme, is wholly unjust to that religious movement within Judaism to which in many ways Jesus was most closely related. In spite of some claims to the contrary (E. P. Sanders 1985) it is likely that Jesus did engage in disputes with them, but the stories of these conflicts have come down to us by way of the early church and reflect the growing hostility that later history encouraged. By the time Luke wrote, Pharisaism and the young church were engaged in a battle for the soul of Judaism. Our gospels reflect the heat this engendered and present a picture of Jesus' dealings with them which is coloured by these experiences.
Those who accused him of being in the pay of Beelzebul would not acknowledge what was before their eyes. Jesus himself now accuses those who demand a sign, that is an irrefutable demonstration of proof of his status. Instead, they are offered only the sign of Jonah when he preached to Nineveh (Jon 3-4). The people of Nineveh recognized the force of Jonah's preaching and the justice of his challenge to them. The queen of Sheba recognized the wisdom of Solomon and acted (i Kings 10). Jesus' contemporaries are able neither to discern nor to respond. The final part of the section uses a saying about a lamp, not this time to talk about a future revelation of what is now hidden (8:16), but to warn that light must be allowed to do its work. It can easily be reduced to ineffectiveness.
The final component in this section takes up the earlier attack upon the Pharisees to characterize their basic outlook as 'hypocrisy'. 'Leaven' in the Bible is frequently used as a symbol for a hidden but pervasive corrupting influence (i Cor 5:6-8). Pharisaic hypocrisy will, however, be uncovered. Meanwhile, the disciples must not fear those who persecute them. Everyone who acknowledges Jesus before human beings will be acknowledged by Jesus as Son of Man before the heavenly host (cf Acts 7:56). Denial, on the other hand, will bring denial; 12:10 seems best understood as underlining this warning. Everyone who speaks against Jesus is open to forgiveness (cf. Jesus' first word from the cross, 23:34). Bias-
(11:37—12:12) Jesus and the Pharisees Jesus in this central section of the gospel is often at meals which for Luke, as probably for Jesus himself, are seen as anticipations of the Kingdom of God. By his teaching, Jesus shows how they reflect or fail to reflect the Kingdom. This passage contains his harshest criticisms of the Pharisees. Much of its criticism is found also in Mt 23 where it is actually heightened and, addressed to crowds and the disciples about the Pharisees, becomes a climactic attack upon them. In Luke, since his criticisms are made at a meal and are given face to face, they
945 LUKE
(v. 32), that God is anxious to give the Kingdom to them. The urgency of the response demanded is controlled by the greatness of the gift that they are promised. The promise is real, and this suggests that it will not be long delayed. The element of delay points not to the future but to the past. Time has gone on. Luke's readers are in danger of losing hope and that preparedness that characterized the earliest Christians (i Thess 4:13-18).
phemy 'against the Holy Spirit', however, is Christian denial of the truths revealed to them by their possession of the Spirit. Seen supremely as apostasy, it is extended to include a denial of the community brought into being through the Spirit (Acts 5:3). People are not to worry about what to say when they are brought to trial for being Christians. The Holy Spirit will himself direct their witness at this point (Acts 4:8; 6:10). (12:13-53) Alert for the Kingdom Whilst a large number of interpreters have suggested that Luke no longer believed in the imminence of Jesus' return (Conzelmann 1960), there are a number of sections that suggest otherwise, and here we meet the first of them (cf 17:21). It begins with a request for Jesus to take sides in a dispute over a family inheritance, and this enables Luke to include some teaching about the dangers of riches and of the attitude that concern for material things can encourage. To illustrate the point that one's life 'does not consist in the abundance of possessions' he includes the parable of the rich fool whose concern for material things and his confidence in them made him forget both the fragility of life and its deeper obligations, 'rich towards God'.
So, in w. 49—53, Luke includes a passage that points to the need for disciples to respond to the urgency of the times even at the expense of causing divisions within their own families, w. 49 and 50 contain singularly difficult sayings of Jesus. Set in the context of a particular stage of his ministry, they nevertheless are directed to Luke's contemporaries. What is the fire that Jesus came to bring? In the prophets, fire can be a symbol of purification (Isa 4:4) and, more frequently, of judgement (Am 1:4). Jesus here seems to be referring to the work of the Spirit (Acts 2:19) especially through baptism into the Christian community (3:16). That activity will come about as a result of his own 'baptism' which would be achieved by way of his death and exaltation. A saying at Mk 10:38 understands Jesus' death in this way and links it to the suffering of the disciples. Luke is probably using the same ideas, though, in keeping with his refusal to isolate the deaths either of Jesus or the disciples, he extends its meaning to embrace Jesus' whole way of life which makes his exaltation possible. Luke's readers must be prepared for difficult times. (12:54-13:35) Jewish Refusal of the Signs of the Times In Palestine, rain clouds come from the west, the Mediterranean, and dry winds from the south or east. People, adept at reading these signs, remain totally insensitive to other signs that are around them. Crises in their lives are settled speedily and before they bring irreversible disasters, yet the greatest crisis of the present is ignored. Luke uses two otherwise unknown episodes to point to the reality of the crisis facing them. Some Galileans were killed by Pilate's men in the temple and some other people, staying in Jerusalem, died when a tower in the city walls collapsed. They were no worse than the people Jesus is addressing who face an equal fate if they do not repent (see LK 21:20—4). ^ is now the climactic hour. In a parable, Jesus talks of the last, desperate measures to produce fruit from an unfruitful tree and of the severity of the response that a further failure to produce will bring. 'If it bears fruit next year, well and good; if not, you can cut it down.'
Jesus then turns from this more general teaching to address the disciples. They are 'not to worry about' their life (v. 22) Whilst this might mean 'put no effort into' and thus commend an eschatological detachment from the world, more likely in Luke's context it means 'do not be unduly concerned about'. The parable has pointed out that one has but limited control over one's future, and the teaching which follows stresses God's care. Undue striving for the things of this life actually leads one into the way of the 'nations of the world' which becomes a forgetfulness of God and of the things of the Kingdom. As Evans (1990) expresses it, 'The question then at issue is when a proper concern has become an improper anxiety'. Modern life would suggest the importance of the question, though the ongoing existence of the world and its responsibilities might place the move from one to another at a different point from Luke. Luke sees undue concern for the things of the body and of'life', that is the business of living in the world, as a definite hindrance to striving for God's Kingdom. Though it is God's 'good pleasure' to give the Kingdom, entry into its sphere demands considerable effort on the part of men and women. It certainly does not allow for one's primary drive to be in the direction of the things of this world. Luke sees a definite either/or, though his challenge to exclusiveness is undermined by his inclusion of Jesus' promise that striving for the Kingdom will bring with it the bonus of these material benefits 'as well', v. 34 gives the rationale of the antithesis which dominates the whole passage.
The nature of the problem with the Jewish nation is illustrated by an incident in the synagogue. Jesus, on the sabbath, heals a woman who for eighteen years had been crippled with some spinal injury. The one who had general responsibility for ordering the life of the synagogue objects on the grounds that, since the illness was not life-threatening, the people, who presumably were understood as encouraging Jesus to respond to the need, might seek such healings at times other than the sabbath. In reply, Jesus points out how this attitude denies the rational approach which they in fact exercise in relation to the sabbath law. More seriously, it fails to acknowledge just what is happening in Jesus' ministry. It does not recognize that what is taking place here is nothing less than the defeat of
Jesus now (v. 35) warns the 'little flock' to be alert and ready for their master when he returns from the wedding banquet. 'The wedding banquet' would seem to be a symbol here for Jesus' enthronement in heaven and points to his return at the parousia. The whole passage carries two convictions. First, the disciples must be ready for a return of Jesus at any moment (v. 40). Secondly, they must allow for a delay that must neither reduce their expectancy nor impede their preparedness (v. 38). Peter's question at v. 41 makes it clear that 'the Lord', that is Jesus as he is worshipped and believed in by those whom Luke addresses, is speaking directly to Luke's contemporaries. The warning is directed to them, in the light of the belief, however
Satan and the establishment of God's rule (13:16). Two further
LUKE 946
parables make this point. The Kingdom to which the miracle witnesses is like a mustard plant. In its beginnings, it is small and insignificant; when it is grown, however, it becomes a tree that, like that of Dan 4:21, is strong and embraces the nations of the earth. The parable of the yeast makes the same point. What begins as insignificant and virtually unseen, permeates three measures of flour. Gen 18:16 connects such an amount with Sarah's feeding of her godlike visitors. It has been suggested that in ordinary circumstances, the amount would feed more that one hundred people. In any case, the point here is the power of that which seems to have but little beginnings, and the contrast between the beginning and the end. Something strange and not easily comprehended is happening in Jesus' ministry.
time with far less severity than his prevous attack (11:37—53). Here, they watch him not with hostility as in 6:6, but with an interest that rises above mere suspicion. To Jesus' question, Ts it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not?' their silence, though not assent, acknowledges the correctness of Jesus' stance. His further question (v. 5) would seem to recognize that. Sabbath meals in particular take on the character of anticipations of those in the Kingdom. Jesus now gives reasons why their meals fail in this respect. They reflect pride rather than humility (he records the same deficiency on the part of the disciples at the last supper (22:24-7) )• They are exclusive rather than outreaching (w. 12-14). At this point, a guest proclaims the blessedness of those who will share in the banquet of the Kingdom. He no doubt assumes that he will be one of those, and it is to this attitude that Luke directs Jesus' parable of the rejected invitation which is found, in a different setting and with significantly different details, in Mt 22:1-14. The meaning Luke sees in the parable depends upon the view taken of the 'excuses' which almost certainly express his own ideas. What is suggested of the attitude of those who make them? Do they regard them as legitimate reasons for their non-attendance or are they put forward as excuses born of indifference? Commentators who accept them as reasons suggest that the business deals needed to be completed before the end of the day and that inspection of the merchandise could take place after the deal itself had been agreed. The excuses reflect those of Deut 20:5—7 mat all°w reasons for not answering the call to take part in a holy war. However, though this might be suggested of the third excuse, it bears little relation to the first two. The parable itself would appear to take them as excuses rather than reasons. Yet the first two are given politely and point to the necessity of the tasks they go to perform. The third, though sometimes seen as less polite, is not really so but, relating to Deuteronomy, assumes its validity. It seems that the excuses appear valid to those who make them. They assume that they will be acceptable to the host. His reaction, which is severe, no doubt caught them by surprise. Where did they go wrong? Their mistake was to presume upon the relationship that demanded more response from them than they realized. They failed to acknowledge the urgency of the summons.
So, Luke reminds his readers of Jesus' journey (13:22), of the urgency it proclaims, and the response it demands. The message of the section is summed up in a further parable where people, invited to enter but failing to respond, will not discern the reality of the situation until it is too late (13:25—30). Their pleas of affinity will carry no weight. Jesus' contemporaries will see the patriarchs and the prophets included but they themselves left outside. Their founding fathers will be joined, not by themselves, but by those from the nations. Those who consider themselves first will in actuality be last.
Such is the challenge of Jesus.
The first half of the journey comes to a climax (13:31—5) with a challenge to Jerusalem that actually prefigures the events of Palm Sunday (19:29-44). Some friendly Pharisees warn Jesus of his danger. Jesus' reply in 13:32, 33 allows Luke to give his understanding of the significance of the journey and its conclusion. They carry forward what he has already expressed at 9:31, 51. Jesus in his exorcisms and healings is already sowing the seed of the Kingdom. That will happen 'today and tomorrow' and will lead into 'the third day' when Jesus will 'finish his work'. In the light of 9:31, 51, what completes his work is the cycle of events in Jerusalem—the passion, resurrection, and ascension—which will enable both his exaltation and the gift of the Spirit on his people. That may well involve his death, but there is the divine necessity about it. The actual words of 13:32 are T am being perfected', which uses the divine passive and means 'God is perfecting me'. Jesus, for Luke, is the eschatological prophet of whom Moses spoke (Deut 18:15) and, since he is the agent of God's renewal of Israel, he must like so many of the prophets suffer, and that nowhere other than in Jerusalem. Luke's gospel begins and ends in that city.
The giver of the banquet reacted fiercely. The invitation was issued to the outsiders of the city and then to those who inhabited the country, to those who rested along the lanes. This double invitation reflects Luke's interest in both the Jewish and the Gentile missions of the church. 'Compel' expresses the urgency of the task. As in 13:22—30, those originally invited will be excluded. Their attitude makes it a selfexclusion. The Jews, the people of God, were failing to see either the truth in Jesus or the urgency of his call. As was suggested in the Nazareth sermon (4:23—4), their confidence in their relationship with God was misplaced. (14:25-35) The Cost of Discipleship Discipleship may be a response to grace, as Luke's story of Jesus emphasizes, but it makes demands which mean that it should not be entered upon lightly. The requirement to 'hate' is Semitic exaggeration and may reflect an idiom which means 'love less than' as Mt 10:37 correctly interprets it. Luke is certainly emphatic, and the references to 'wife' and 'life itself may be due to him.
Jesus now (13:34) laments over the city, as he will do when he enters it (19:41—4), for he sees her rushing onwards to complete her history of refusal of God's agents. She will choose instead to follow a path that will lead to her own destruction. Jesus is often understood here as speaking as God's wisdom who reaches out to Israel with a tenderness that expresses her feminine concern (e.g. Wis 6:12-20). He reflects her gentleness and desire to draw humanity into relationship with God. Jerusalem rejects him. When he enters the holy city, only his disciples, and not her people, will acknowledge him (19:37-40). Her acknowledgement must await another day. (14:1-24) A Sabbath Meal with a Pharisee Jesus, at a meal with a Pharisee, is again critical of the assembly, though this
947 LUKE
So these shorter parables lead into that of the prodigal son. Its significance has been variously assessed, depending upon which character is thought to be the central means of giving expression to it. This in turn depends upon how those characters are perceived and how their various actions are understood. Recent interpreters have emphasized the outrageous conduct of the younger son. His initial request of the father has been seen as one which totally disregards the fifth commandment (Ex 20:12), his realizing ofhis assets as giving little heed to the Jewish belief in the land as God's gift to his people
Disciples are to 'carry the cross' in a manner of life which reflects that of Jesus and in a discipleship that goes with him all the way to Jerusalem. They are to recognize the true cost of discipleship and are not to enter upon something that they do not have the resources to pursue. Otherwise, they are in danger of being in the ridiculous position of one who sets out to build a watch-tower—which may be either for the protection of personal property or, more grandly, part of a city's defence—and does not have the resources to complete the operation. A king will not go to war without first realistically assessing both the demands of the task and the resources he needs to meet it. v. 33, like 12:33, expresses the Lucan emphasis upon the complete renunciation of possessions (though see LK 16:9—13). Salt is 'good' in biblical thought for giving taste where there is none (Job 6:6) and for preserving what otherwise would perish (Num 18:19). Whether salt can lose its flavour has been much debated. The point here of course is the contrast in this respect between salt and discipleship. What is difficult if not impossible for one, is relatively easy for the other. Discipleship which loses its commitment is worse than useless.
(i Kings 21:3), his squandering ofhis money as a sign ofhis loose living, and his hiring of himself to a Gentile as a witness to his contempt for the covenantal people. This assessment would not appear too negative. The story builds up his offences in a spectacular way to make him a strong foil to the actions of the father which demand some evaluation and on which the point of the story depends. More open to question is the motive which brought about the prodigal's decision to return, v. 170 has sometimes been claimed as a Semitism which carries the meaning 'to repent'. This, however, is by no means clear. The Greek can rather mean 'starting to think straight', that is to stop being in despair and to be logical, v. lyb bases his rethinking on self-centred considerations, and it is these that determine the words ofhis approach to the father which could as easily give expression to calculation as to genuine penitence. Some interpreters would see a change of heart at v. 21 and think that this is brought about by the father's initiative. This appears to be more in keeping with the story as a whole, though a genuine repentance remains a possibility rather than a certainty.
(15:1—32) At Meals with Tax-Collectors and Sinners Jesus has already been shown at a meal with tax-collectors and sinners (5:30), and 7:34 has called him their friend. Tax-collectors (rather, 'toll-collectors') and sinners were those who, by their lifestyle, had deliberately opted out of membership of the covenantal people of Israel. They were outsiders. Now, the Pharisees and scribes complain that he not only receives them, but is in the habit of eating with them. They acknowledge that, by this action, Jesus is anticipating their inclusion within the kingdom of God. Not only is Jesus claiming to have God's authority to do this but, in his easy acceptance of them, he is from their point of view belittling the holiness of God. In bypassing the law and its standards in this way, he is in danger of denying the righteousness of God and the very outlook on which the Mosaic covenant was grounded. Luke was very conscious of this complaint, that was addressed not only to Jesus but, later, to the early church and that was in fact a subject of disagreement within the young church. In reply, he brings together three parables of Jesus which may or may not originally have been directed specifically to this issue.
If this is the reading of the younger son which the story demands, it has implications for an assessment of the father's actions. It is generally agreed that the father's act of running to meet his son and the manner of his embrace would be regarded as demeaning for a Near-Eastern parent. A Jewish parable, often compared with that of the prodigal son, portrays a father who, though equally concerned for his son and anxious for his return, takes an initiative which is nevertheless consistent with his own honour (quoted in Young 1998: 149— 50). The father of our parable seems peculiarly indifferent to it. It is not at all clear that those who later join the festivities would have approved of his actions and would not have thought that these were going wholly over the top. It is in the light of this that his earlier dealings with this son have been examined. Jewish law made provision for his actions in dividing his 'living' (the Gk. in I2b is a stronger term that that used in I2» and really suggests 'his means of living'), though
Compared with Matthew's version of the parable of the lost sheep (Mt 18:12-14), Luke emphasizes the shepherd's responsibility for the loss (v. 3), the unconditional nature of the search, and the fact that the joy was brought about by the sinner's repentance. Repentance is emphasized in Luke's gospel (5:32; 7:47) but in this parable, as at 7:36-50, it is the outreach of God that is primary. It is his searching and finding which bring about repentance. The move to restore the relationship enables the repentance even though it cannot compel it. The initiative of God and his part in bringing about restoration is further emphasized in the parable of the lost coin. Again, talk of'repentance' does not quite fit the stance of the parable. It appears to have been introduced, not because the movement of the parable itself required it, but because Luke was sensitive to the charge that emphasis upon the gracious outreach of God could underplay the necessity for response on the part of those it met.
Sir 33:19-23 warns against it. A safeguard was possible which, by the use of the phrase, 'From today and after my death', guaranteed the future gift but allowed no use of it until then (see the discussion of the parable in Scott 1989). The father ignores this safeguard. He has acted generously, even foolishly, towards his son's demands.
Luke's use of the parable as the climax of Jesus' reply to the Pharisees places the emphasis upon its last part. Whilst this has sometimes been seen as a Lucan addition—for it certainly serves as a true expression of his understanding of God's relationship with the Jewish people—there seems little reason to demand this. The story of the elder brother serves as the climax of the parable which loses its cutting edge without it. It
LUKE 948
shock that is at the heart of so many of Jesus' parables. The real challenge is the master's commendation of the steward. What does this say, not only about the steward but also about the master?
is this which encapsulates what would seem to be Jesus' own challenge to those who opposed his stance. But how is the elder brother to be assessed? He has often been seen as hard, dutiful but unloving, ungenerous in his actions and dismissive in his judgements both of the brother and his father, w. 29—30 certainly portray anger, fury even, and resentment. Whilst not meant to present him in a good light, it should not be assumed, however, that they express an outlook that merits instant condemnation. No doubt already critical of his brother, and, indeed, of his father's indulgence of him, he hears of the latest happenings from a servant after a day's work in the fields. Festivities are happening because of events that concern him fundamentally, and he is left to discover them for himself. The father's indulgence of one son amounts to a seeming indifference to the other. But appearances are wrong. The father is as concerned for him as for the other, and all that he has is his (v. 31). He is faced nevertheless with a radical challenge. If he does go in, the learning experience for him will be almost as great as it must be for the younger brother. He will have to see himself and his relationships with both his father and his brother in a wholly new way.
It is sometimes maintained that the master's commendation of the steward does not present a problem. In order to bypass the biblical prohibition of usury, when a loan was made the interest was often added to the capital as a single figure. It is this final figure, that would have included not merely the master's interest but also the steward's legitimate commission, which was being reduced. The master was not being harmed but was actually being made to appear generous to the debtors. Ingenious though this explanation is, it does not account for the parable's description of the steward as 'dishonest'. Moreover, it does not allow for the fact that Jesus' parables are not simple, realistic stories, but rather tales of unusual situations which challenge so much of the accepted and natural order of things.
It seems then that the parable proper ends at v. 8a with 8fc being Jesus' own comment on the story, v. 9, 'And I tell you', marks Luke's introduction to the further, but not necessarily related, sayings of Jesus. Read thus, the parable tells a story of an inefficient (v. i) steward who, facing dismissal for his indolence, meets the crisis with uncharacteristic vigour and ingenuity. The master, though defrauded, recognizes the initiative and, himself working fom the perspective of 'unrighteous mammon', actually commends the steward's shrewdness. There is nothing to say that he reinstates him, but sharing in his worldly stance, he can appreciate a sensible move, indeed an ingenious one, when he sees it. Tf only', says the parable, 'the sons of light had the same appreciation of the crisis confonting them in the drawing near of the Kingdom, and the same energy in meeting it.' It is a parable on a par with those of ch. 12.