Part 92
(16:1—13) The Dishonest Steward Ch. 15 has revealed a clear standpoint which is developed in a unified manner. Ch. 16 is very different. Though not as disconnected as is sometimes suggested, the overriding concern with riches does not permeate the whole chapter, and the parable of Dives and Lazarus (w. 19-31) is not wholly exhausted by this one theme. If the final parable in ch. 15 is one of those with obvious relevance, the first in ch. 16 is noteworthy for its obscurity. It is not evident that Luke himself does justice to it.
Commentators are uncertain of the extent of the parable, for a number of injunctions about the use of money have been appended to it. Because they relate in different ways to the events in the parable itself, they are likely to come from various occasions in Jesus' ministry and to have been brought together by Luke in a somewhat artificial manner, w. 7, 8a, 8fc, and 9 have all been suggested as endings of the original parable. That v. 9 is part of the parable is unlikely. It uses the same Greek word, translated 'dishonest' in NRSV in both instances, in a way that is different from its use in v. 8. The servant is 'dishonest' in our understanding of the term. All mammon (NRSV wealth), however, is called 'dishonest' in the sense that it is material possessions understood as the things in which one puts one's trust and that therefore encourage an acquisitive attitude and a self-reliance; it separates one from God (hence 'unrighteous' is probably a better term). 'The meaning is worldly wealth as opposed to heavenly treasure' (Marshall 1978). If v. 9 were part of the parable, it would be encouraging us to use our wealth gained dishonestly in a way that brought us some benefits: it would be virtually condoning dishonesty! On the other hand, it is unlikely that the parable stops at the end of v. 7. The reason this is sometimes suggested is because of the problem of v. 8. Why would 'his master' commend one who had actually defrauded him even if he had acted shrewdly? The Greek of v. 8 has simply 'the lord' and, since this is the term that Luke uses frequently in the journey narrative to refer to Jesus, the verse is then accepted as a comment by him on the parable. Such a view, however, leaves the parable too open-ended and avoids the
Luke has the parable addressed to disciples. In its context, they would include those whom Jesus' table-sharing was receiving into the Kingdom, the tax-collectors and sinners. Their reception needed a response and this parable confronts them. v. 9 tells them to 'make friends' by a right use of 'unrighteous mammon'. These friends may be the poor who will inherit the Kingdom; more likely, it is the heavenly court who will then receive them when the things of this world come to an end. Faithfulness with 'unrighteous mammon' means using it in the service of the poor (v. n). They must free themselves from its shackles. They cannot be slaves to God and to mammon. Luke's use of the parable has reduced some of the eschatological urgency of the original. It shows how parables can be used outside their original context, but it shows too that such a use can all too easily evacuate the parable of some of its shock and challenge.
(16:14-31) Reply to the Pharisees Pharisees ridicule Jesus' challenge to the tax-collectors; they obviously do not expect them to give up attitudes of a lifetime. Luke calls them 'lovers of money' but this charge should not be seen as a considered historical evaluation of them. It is determined more by the demands of the narrative than by historical fact. They are seen as self-reliant, self-satisfied, and, therefore, as dismissive of others. Jesus, however, justifies his call to the tax-collectors. It is true that his coming marks a new age when the grace of the
949 LUKE
difficulty. The Greek text has a number of variations in attempts to have it make better geographical sense. It may be that Luke's knowledge of the geography of Palestine was hazy; certainly, he was controlled more by literary than by geographical concerns. The odd geographical reference is determined by the need to have a Samaritan leper and Jewish lepers together meet Jesus as he journeyed to Jerusalem. All ten were cleansed, but it is only the one who returns to give thanks who is 'saved' (the Gk. has this significance for Lk 8:12, 36, 50). He is a Samaritan. Like Luke's characterization of the disciples as 'the poor' (6:20), he is an outsider who has been brought in. Christians must retain that sense, and the thankfulness that should go with it, if they are not to become like the Pharisees and cease to act as those who live out of grace.
Kingdom is proclaimed and people are rushing into it (v. 16). But that does not mean the end of the law's demands (v. 17). The tax-collectors must adopt a new attitude to the things of this world. Jesus was also criticized for receiving the sinners too freely. Again, however, that does not mean an end of the righteous requirements of the law. At the heart of its commandments about sexual morality was its high standard concerning marriage and divorce. Jesus said little about sexual attitudes, but he did talk about marriage. Luke therefore includes this saying where he actually intensifies the law's demands. His free acceptance of sinners did not mean an indifferent acquiescence in their standards. Grace exposed and recreated those who responded to its gentle outreach.
Luke includes the parable of Dives and Lazarus, for it continues the theme of the dangers of riches and the selfcentredness they encourage. It makes its point by taking over a tale that was widely disseminated in the ancient world. Luke himself possibly found it in the source from which he has taken the parable of the dishonest steward. Proclaiming the reversal of fortunes in the future age, it judges those who neglect the poor. Luke has Jesus direct it to the Pharisees, and it may be this parable that has encouraged him to call them lovers of money'. Its final verse (31), which is an address of Abraham to Dives, would seem to contain Christian thoughts about the resurrection of Jesus. This widens out the meaning of the parable beyond its concern with money. It becomes a comment on the Pharisees who fail to respond, not only to Jesus himself, but also to the Christian proclamation about him. If they had really understood Moses and the prophets, they would, like the loyally devout Jews of the infancy narratives, have responded to him. As far as Luke is concerned (as he will make abundantly clear through his picture of Paul in Acts), Christianity is the fulfilment of the Jewish faith. A responsive Jew will embrace Jesus as Christ (Acts 26:22—3). At 16:31 a section of the journey narrative which began with 14:1 and which is largely concerned with the tragedy of the Pharisees' rejection of Jesus is completed. (17:1-10) Teaching for the Disciples Ch. 17 begins the last section of the journey narrative. As befits a journey that ends with the disciples greeting Jesus as he enters Jerusalem
(17:20—18:8) Eschatological Urgency The passage 12:32—53 had warned the disciples to be alert for the return of Christ. This section takes up this theme and expands upon it, this time, however, climaxing not so much in the warning as in a pointing to the event as an object of hope.
Some Pharisees ask Jesus 'when the kingdom of God was coming'. There is not a straight fit between their question and Jesus' answer for, whereas the former is concerned with the timing of the Kingdom, the reply talks rather about its nature. What is meant by the reply is not easily determined, however, for, as the translations make clear, the meaning in the Greek of its crucial term entos human is not unambiguous. Most naturally, it means 'within you' and would seem to suggest that the Kingdom is an inner disposition, attitude, and quality. This however would give to the Kingdom a meaning which would be unique in the NT. Elsewhere, the Kingdom is understood as corporate, an activity of God, something which is being established either on the earth or in heaven and which embraces the whole person. Whilst an inner disposition might do justice to the thought of'receiving the Kingdom', it does not express the idea of 'entering it' or of its visible manifestion in power. The term should therefore rather be understood as 'in the midst of you'. Jesus' refusal of'things that can be observed' refers to unambiguous signs that enable the coming of the Kingom to be deduced, calculated, and guaranteed. 'Look, here it is', or 'There it is', are responses to observable facts that give irrefutable witness to its coming. They guarantee its certainty. Jesus denies this possibility but says that, even if they cannot see it, the Kingdom is already present 'in your midst'. As with 7:22,11:20, and 16:16, it has to be acknowledged in situations in which it can be discerned but which nevertheless remain less than irrefutable demonstrations of its presence. Jesus answers the Pharisees' question which, though its underlying outlook is quite different, has presuppositions that are not far removed from those of the disciples at 21:7. The different answers meet the different stances of the questioners. Pharisaic scepticism has to be countered in a way that is different from the quieting of disciples' understandable fears.
(19:37-8), the teaching of this last section is aimed at them. Other characters and incidents are included, butthe lessons to be learned from them are directed primarily to the disciples who are travelling on the road to Jerusalem with Jesus and who will, in relation to the twelve, become the nucleus of the renewed people of God.
The section begins with four disparate sayings which talk about life in that community. 'The little ones', that is, its vulnerable members, will inevitably be caused to stumble by the actions of some of their fellow-Christians. They will even be made to lose their faith. The punishment of the one who is responsible for this will be great. The sinner within the community must be rebuked, but forgiveness must follow repentance. Individuals must be constant in their forgiveness of those who ask it of them. They must strive after faith, but must avoid all sense of superiority that arises out of the attitude that God is obligated to them. (17:11-19) The Ten Lepers v. n points to Jesus' continuing journey to Jerusalem in terms that have caused considerable
It is those fears, however, that Jesus now addresses. The disciples will long to see 'one of the days of the Son of Man' and will not see it (v. 22). The use of the plural here is strange. It is used again at v. 26, though there it may simply be occasioned by the use of'the days of Noah'. Elsewhere in the passage, the single 'day' is used (w. 24,30) and this suggests that the plural
LUKE 950
oneself rather than in God would be overstretching the meaning, for this is not what is suggested of the Pharisee in the parable and it is unlikely that Luke read it in this way. The phrase serves as a foil to the 'despising' of others. This, for Luke, is a very strong term and is used by him of Herod's mockery of Jesus (23:11). An attitude that expresses disdain is every bit as bad as open physical mockery. Who, though, are the ones whom Luke sees as addressed by the parable? It is certainly not limited to the Pharisees, but are they included within the addressees? This is, in the end, unlikely. To address it directly to a group that included Pharisees would seem gratuitously offensive and would be in danger of encouraging its other hearers to regard them with something ofthe outlook that the parable itself condemns. It would not have fitted a Jesus who was often at meals with them. Jesus, rather, uses this parable to address the crowd of disciples, and the incident ofthe children which follows it actually illustrates the need. Disciples were themselves in danger of becoming as excluding in their way as the Pharisees were in theirs (cf. 9:59-60).
may have no special significance but simply refers to the period after the initial revelation of the Son of Man in glory. On the other hand, it is possible that it has more significance. If this is so, Luke may be using it to refer to those occasions when, in the ongoing life of the community, a glimpse of the
Son of Man is allowed. Luke tells how Stephen has a vision of the Son of Man in glory (Acts 7:56), and it may be that he is thinking of moments like this.
The disciples will long for the revelation of the Son of Man in glory and, in their urgency, may be tempted to fix their hopes on false substitutes. By the time Luke wrote, some disciples were saying that the parousia could be accepted as a present inner experience which had already taken place and which gave them an esoteric understanding and a licence to behave in a way that was unconstrained by the ethical standards of the present order. Paul, in i Corinthians, may be combating such an outlook. Luke here has Jesus warn against these untrue, but alluring, substitutes. Disciples must not be led into the false sense of security that they promised and must not enter upon a life of self-indulgence that was based upon nothing other than delusion. Just as Jesus had to suffer and be rejected, those who are his must follow the same path which cannot be avoided (v. 25). The day ofthe Son of Man will be devastatingly obvious to all and will result in a judgement as severe as that which befell the inhabitants ofthe earth at the time ofthe flood and of Sodom at the time of Lot (Gen 19:24— 6). The disciples' final question, 'Where, Lord?' (v. 36) seems still lacking in understanding. Its purpose would seem to be to allow the warnings to come to a climax with the proverbial saying of v. 37. Its cryptic but vivid imagery, as anyone who has thrown a piece of bread to gulls on the seashore knows, points to the suddenness of an appearance, the tumult it occasions, the fierceness ofthe event, and the inescapable certainty that something has happened.
The Pharisee stands apart, 'by himself. This seems the most likely translation, though the Greek is again ambiguous and could mean 'prayed to himself. This would then mean that he prayed silently; again, however, it should not be pressed to suggest that his prayer stayed with him and did not ascend to God. The grounds of his confidence are his keeping the rules of his group which, going beyond the requirements ofthe law which did not require regular fasting, sought to express a purity which exceeded that of most people. He also tithed beyond the requirements of the law. These actions are not condemned. Disciples of John fasted and Luke reports how Jesus accepted the practice for members of the Christian community (5:35). It was the attitude of this particular Pharisee (and it is not suggested that he was typical of all Pharisees any more than it maintains that the one in the parable stood for all tax-collectors) that let him down. His thanksgiving was genuine and was certainly not portrayed as hypocritical. It is an extension of that outlook that is found in the Psalms and expresses a genuine piety (119:65—72). But it has its dangers. Here, the primary one is the separation from humanity as a whole which, in the thanksgiving for one's own acknowledgement by God, denies it to others. So, the tax-collector went away 'justified rather than the other'. His acknowledgment of his sin and his call for mercy make for a bridge between himself and God that the other's attitude did not allow. He was justified, that is, acknowledged by God and open to his reconciling power. Whether his prayer can be counted as penitence is more doubtful, for there is no suggestion that he was turning aside from his actual way of life (cf. the response of Zacchaeus, 19:8). Yet it is precisely this that gives the parable its starkness. He, whilst remaining a sinner, was actually more open to God than was the Pharisee. 'Justified rather than the other' should probably be read as 'more than'. This is how Luke uses the phrase at 13:2,4, and it makes the startling contrast without either denying entirely the prayer of the Pharisee or approving completely the lifestyle ofthe tax-collector.
Warning gives way to hope, for it is that which, for Luke, expresses the main significance ofthe parousia. The parable ofthe importunate widow (18:1-8) teaches that the disciples should pray for its coming and that they should not lose heart. If even an unjust judge is moved to respond to a widow's cry for vindication, how much more will the just God vindicate those who set their hopes on him? He hears their cries and will vindicate them 'speedily', v. 8a has sometimes been translated 'suddenly' in support ofthe theory that Luke did not expect an early paraousia, but the use ofthe term at Acts 12:2, 25:4, as well as the sense ofthe parable itself, is against this. The verse promises a speedy vindication of those who long for it, and the sense ofthe passage as a whole means that this cannot refer to anything other than the parousia. v. 8fc, of course, does allow enough time for a loss of faith but, as at 12:35—48, this is already happening. One of Luke's purposes in writing was to combat this.
(18:9-17) Parable of a Pharisee and a Tax-collector and the Incident of the Children Luke has Jesus tell the parable to some who 'trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt'. 'The ones who trusted in themselves' are those who, when they engaged in selfexamination, concluded that they were overall acceptable to God; they had a basic confidence that God would look favourably upon them. To suggest that it expresses a trust in
Luke follows the parable with the episode ofthe disciples and the children. By not having the Markan reference to Jesus' blessing of them (Mk 10:16), he makes the whole point ofthe story focus upon the rebuke ofthe disciples. It is to 'such as
951 LUKE
these therefore who are themselves rebuked by Jesus' action in stopping his progress in order to respond to the pleas of the blind man and heal him. The blind man follows Jesus 'glorifying God', a response that is used by Luke on occasions he deems significant (2:20; 7:16; 23:47).
these that the Kingdom belongs'. It is to those without status and without self-sufficiency that the Kingdom is offered and, indeed, given. It is pure gift and therefore cannot be received unless one takes on the stance of a little child. This should not be seen as simplicity, or innocence, or some other idealistic outlook. It is something much more demanding, namely a consciousness of need, of a total lack of selfsufficiency, and a recognition of one's dependence upon others and so upon God. It is an abandoning of all concern with status. The Kingdom is something that in the end can only be received. Any striving for the Kingdom that is enjoined (12:31) must be exercised only as a conscious response to grace.
(19:1—10) Zacchaeus 'Chief tax-collector' is not found elsewhere in the NT and probably not outside it. It seems coined by Luke to make this episode climactic in Jesus' dealings with the tax-collectors. For the same reason, he describes Zacchaeus as 'rich'. The cards are stacked against him but his response to Jesus is met by a request, not merely to eat with him, but actually to stay with him. Those who hear it 'grumble', the same response that the Pharisees have earlier made
(15:2). Now, it is made by 'all', which must include the disciples who are accompanying Jesus. They complain that Jesus has gone in to be 'the guest of a sinner'. Zacchaeus's words in v. 8 are sometimes understood as descriptions of his present actions: they report his current lifestyle, and Jesus' reply is then taken as an acknowledgement of this. Such an interpretation, however, fails to do justice to Luke's previous stories of Jesus' dealings with tax-collectors. Zacchaeus's response is rather a declaration of intent. Jesus proclaims that it makes him a true son of Abraham and means that he is included within God's saving act which fulfils his promises to the patriarch (1:55, 73). (19:11-27) Parable of the Pounds Luke says that Jesus told the parable in order to combat the belief of some that his arrival in the city would trigger the appearance of the Kingdom. Just what is meant by that, however, is not easily determined for, as the parable stands, it does not point to a delay. The introduction therefore suggests that Luke himself saw the parable as a means of meeting the disappointment caused to some of his contemporaries by the delay of the parousia; Jesus himself did not expect it to be immediate. The parable as Luke tells it is likely to have developed from the one which is included at Mt 25:14—30 where it is also given an eschatological setting. Luke replaces talents with pounds which were coins of much smaller value; he does not differentiate between the disciples' gifts of grace (cf. 8:8), and the ten stand for everybody. He nevertheless deals with only three of the servants. Luke's version of the parable is made more complicated by the addition of a subplot in which the nobleman goes away to receive a kingdom and, on his return, acts as a monarch. Though it is usually read as an allegory of Jesus' ascension and parousia, this is not really obvious, for it is unlikely that Luke would have presented Jesus as a claimant to his throne. He sees his kingship rather as bestowed on him by God because of his obedience and surrender; Jesus certainly does not claim it (3:9-12). The story-line owes much to the events of 4 BCE, when Archelaus went to Rome to claim his father's throne and encountered strong resistance. To picture Jesus in terms of such an incident would be extremely odd. That the nobleman-become-king stands for Jesus is made more unlikely by the third servant's wholly unflattering description of him (v. 21) as rapacious and a fraudster, an assessment that the king does not deny (v. 22). If his reply were to be taken as an accommodation to the servant's assessment of him, that in itself would seem to confirm the judgement. It is more likely, however, that he is described as acknowledging the
(18:18—30) The Very Rich Ruler Luke's is a sympathetic version of the story that is found also in Matthew and Mark. At Mk 10:22 the man is so shocked by Jesus' call to dispose of his goods and follow him that he goes away grieving. Jesus' comments about the snare of riches are addressed to the disciples. In Luke, he is saddened by Jesus' reply for, since he was 'very rich', the demands being made upon him are severe. But he does not immediately go away. Jesus looks at him' and tells him about the difficulties that face the rich man's entry into the Kingdom. Luke's version of the story presents a continuing challenge to the ruler. It does not underplay the snares of riches, but, in keeping with what Luke's narrative has said earlier about the tax-collectors (16:1—13) (and with its reporting of the Zacchaeus incident, 19:1-10), it does not rule out the ruler's future response. The suggestion of its impossibility is countered by Jesus (w. 26—7). Peter's assertion that they have done what the ruler seems unwilling to do is met by the promise of compensation in this age and eternal life in the age to come. They serve as contrasts to the ruler's refusal. That they have not yet perceived the real nature of the demand, however, is made clear by the stark contrast between Peter's outlook and that of Jesus as this is revealed in the following episode. (18:31-4) The Third Passion Prediction In Matthew and Mark, this prediction occurs at the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem. Luke has now resumed an order of events that is close to theirs, but, because of his long central narrative, this prediction occurs near journey's end. A number of things are significant in Luke's version and show clear evidence of his hand. The events that are to take place are in 'accomplishment' of all the prophetic witness to the Son of Man (the same verb that is used of Jesus' time in Jerusalem at 13:32). Nothing is said (as at 22:66—71) of his condemnation by the Jews. At the conclusion of Jesus' disclosure, Luke alone points to the twelve's total lack of understanding (cf. 9:45). Luke could hardly have given this a greater emphasis. They still have much to learn. Even though he treats them less harshly than Mark (e.g. he does not have the incident found next in Mk 10:35-45), he continues to show how much understanding they lack (cf. 22:24-7). (18:35-43) The Blind Man of Jericho In order to accommodate the story of Zacchaeus that Luke uses as a climax, he puts this episode at the approach to Jericho rather than at its exit as the other evangelists suggest. Those who rebuke the blind man are disciples who are at the front of the procession and it is
LUKE 952
truth of the servant's description. The king is not a pleasant character.
sense. Because Jerusalem rejects this and follows her own determined path, her destruction is inevitable. Though this is described in terms which are taken from the OT, it suggests knowledge ofthe Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jewish rejection of Jesus and his way of peace leads them into confrontation with Rome with its inevitably disastrous results. Though the biblical language catches these up into the purposes of God, the description as a whole does not suggest that the events are understood by Luke as actually determined by him. Israel is the cause of her own ruin.
The parable therefore is unlikely to be an allegory, but is rather, in the words of Evans (1990), 'another of the risque parables... in which the central figure is a reprehensible character'. In pointing to the demands made by the manner of the Kingdom's appearing in Jesus, Luke has used this device, not only in the parable of the dishonest steward (16:1-9), but also> and with a close parallel, in that of the importunate widow (18:1—8), where one is encouraged to pray for its coming, and the friend at midnight (11:5—8) where one is told to ask to live out of its power. All these use unlikely characters to point to the crisis which the coming of the Kingdom brings to those who would be ready to receive it. Their use emphasizes the radicality of its demands. This does not mean, however, that the third servant is to be admired as someone who refuses to play by the lord's corrupt rules (Herzog 1994). He made a wrong response to the demands of one whose character he had rightly assessed and whose service he had entered into. His lord required of him a commitment and a willingness to venture all which he was not able to meet. Fear and self-protection held him back. For him there might be some excuse. There is none, says the parable, for those who have willingly committed themselves to discipleship in the service of him who is not to be feared but loved and whose treasures do not consist of unrighteous mammon but of the life of the Kingdom itself. Disciples must risk all for the Kingdom and not let its gifts come to nothing either by acquiescing in the present or by despairing of its future (17:22-18:8).
(19:45—8) Jesus and the Temple In Mark, what is usually described as Jesus' 'cleansing' ofthe temple is pictured as its rejection and, at his trial before the Sanhedrin, false witnesses accuse him of saying that he would destroy it. In Matthew Jesus takes possession of it and it is there that his messiahship is acknowledged; at the trial, false witnesses say rather that he claimed to be able to destroy it. Luke's episode is much shorter. Jesus drives out the money-changers and complains about the temple's misuse. There is no reference at the trial to any threat against it. In the light ofthe way Luke has reported Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, it seems that he wishes to dissociate Jesus from the destruction of the temple which he knows has already happened by the time he writes. He does, however, share Matthew's picture of Jesus' taking over the temple. It witnessed to him at his infancy and, as a boy, he was already showing his authority there (2:25—51). Now, he reasserts that authority and teaches daily in it. From there the leaders ofthe nation seek a way to kill him but are as yet helpless because 'the people' (a favourite Lukan term denoting God's covenantal community) were 'spellbound' by what they heard. The temple acknowledges him, the leaders reject him; the people are spellbound by him. At Nazareth earlier, when their expectations were not realized, their wonder soon turned to hostility (4:21-30). Luke's narrative begins to unfold the inevitable progression to the cross.
Jesus in Jerusalem (19:28-24:53)
(19:28-44) The Entry into Jerusalem All four gospels tell of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Luke's narrative has a number of distinctive features. He emphasizes the connection of the event with the Mount of Olives which stands some 2 miles east of Jerusalem. Like Matthew and Mark, the story begins on the approach to the mount (v. 29) but, unlike them, he has the acknowledgement of Jesus take place on the top of the mount itself, just as Jerusalem is coming into view (w. 37—8). In Acts the ascension takes place there and, in view of Acts 1:11, this is where Luke expects the return of Jesus (cf. Zech 14:4). In keeping with the last section of the journey narrative, Jesus is acknowledged by the disciples alone (w. 36,37). Jesus' reply to the Pharisees (v. 40) suggests that Jerusalem's inhabitants are silent. The disciples stand for her true people and, if they had kept quiet, the stones of the city would have had to respond to Jesus because Jerusalem herself could not have allowed him to enter her unacknowledged. The response, as Luke tells it, addresses Jesus as king but does not have Mark's reference to the coming Kingdom. It stresses Jesus' messianic entry into his inheritance (Zech 9:9) but, in a revised version ofthe angels' song (2:14), emphasizes thatthis is first realized in the heavenly realm which is all-important for Luke. What is to happen on earth follows from what happens there (cf. 10:18). Luke alone tells how Jesus weeps over the city (w. 41-4). This is the time of her 'visitation', a term which, though in the OT can be one of either judgement or redemption, in the light of 1:68, 7:16, is here to be understood in the latter
(20: 1—47) Controversies in the Temple In common with Matthew and Mark, Luke now has a number of incidents in the temple where Jesus is in conflict with the leaders of the Jerusalem community. Unlike them, however, he does not include Pharisees in these hostile incidents and he also has Jesus continuing to teach 'the people' who are still presented as favourably disposed to him. As they now stand, these incidents reflect the experiences ofthe early church and the attitudes these engendered. The first controversy story (20:1— 8) concerns the authority of Jesus. Elsewhere, when Jesus is questioned, and even when the question is motivated by hostility, he deals with it seriously (10:25; I7'-2°)- Here, he engages in a form of one-upmanship that would seem to be shaped by later Jewish—Christian debates. The logic behind the appeal to the Baptist is not obvious though the general Christian acceptance of him as a new Elijah (in which however Luke does not share, see LK 1:5—25) might mean that Mai 3:1 forms a link. The parable of the wicked tenants (20:9-19) is the only parable to appear in all three Synoptic Gospels in the same setting. Comparisons of the three versions, however, show that it has been strongly shaped by the beliefs of the three evangelists as well as by the oral traditions which lay behind
953 LUKE
(Acts 17:6). Jesus' reply (v. 25), though not unambiguous, left room for a conflict of interests for it said that both God and the state had legitimate claims on the coin and what it stood for. This made for an inevitable tension which could be resolved only by denying the legitimate sphere of one party or by compartmentalizing their claims in a way that did less than justice to the overarching concerns of God.
their gospels. Much of that shaping has taken the form of a more thorough allegorization to enable it fully to reflect both the life of Jesus and the history of Israel. Added allegorization, however, has only carried on what was latent in its beginnings. Jesus told a parable that spoke of his place in God's dealings with Israel and which reflected his understanding of his relationship with her. Luke, like Mark, has the vineyard owner send one servant after another in a generous, but ultimately unrealistic, attempt to bring the tenants to a recognition of their responsibilities. In Luke, however, they do not kill any of the servants. This, rather than Matthew's confrontational groups of servants, is at one with the action of sending the son in a last, desperate attempt to bring them to their senses, v. 13 recognizes the wishful thinking that this involves but which is made inevitable by the father's desire to commend rather than impose his authority. Recent interpreters have pointed to the father's change of outlook that is brought about by the killing of the son, and have wondered how far this reflects early church elaboration since it appears scarcely consistent with one who before was unwilling to take revenge. It almost suggests that the father regarded the servants as expendable in a way that the son was not. Certainly, the three evangelists present the father's reactions in different ways. Luke's inclusion of the people's 'God forbid' (v. 16) to the threatened destruction may point to his belief that it was not inevitable, v. 17 with its quote from Ps 118:22 pictures the vindication of Jesus as the climax and he could have seen this fulfilled at the resurrection and ascension. Luke has a reference (v. 18) to Isa 8:14 which is also found joined to the quotation from Ps 118 at i Pet 2:8 and occurs again in some versions of Mt 21:42. Individuals who are opposed to Jesus or who merit his wrath will be dealt with firmly. Acts shows how Luke sees this happening (Acts 1:18; 5:6; 12:23).
The Sadducees then put something of a trick question to Jesus (w. 27—40). Members of the religious and political establishment in Jerusalem, they were conservative in both areas. Using the Mosaic rule of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5) to make their point, they question the sense in which life after death can be meaningful. Jesus' reply points to the newness of God's eschatological, recreative act. It is not simply the continuation of what now is. w. 35-6 give to Luke's reporting of Jesus' answer a deeper dimension than that found in the other gospels as he struggles to express whathe sees as its meaning. This is true also of his handling of the use of Ex 3:6 ('the story about the bush') where he adds v. 38/7 to what is presented as a typical piece of scribal reasoning which ignores the original meaning of the quotation. The scribes, however, are impressed by this exegetical tour deforce. Jesus has outwitted his opponents.
In the light of this victory, Jesus, using the same scribal methods, himself goes on the attack. Psalm 110:1 plays a large part in NT apologetic (Mk 14:62; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3; i Pet 3:22). It gives biblical justification for believing in the exalted nature of Jesus. For Luke, the passage exercises a great deal of control over his presentation of Jesus, as Acts 2:34 makes clear. 'Lord' is perhaps his most fundamental title for describing Jesus' relationship to both God and his disciples. Its basis in Ps 110:1 means that he can retain Jesus' subordination to the Father as he describes his role in terms that remain largely functional. Though the passage reflects the usage of the early church, this does not necessarily mean that it was not used by Jesus of himself in an attempt to enlarge his contemporaries' limited expectations about the nature of messiahship. Whether it is believed to reflect his use, however, is ultimately determined by the wider question of whether Jesus himself thought in terms of his own messiahship. On this, there is little scholarly consensus. As though himself dissatisfied with the pedestrian nature of this reasoning, Jesus is said to have gone on to attack the scribes who were responsible for its use (w. 45-7).
Jesus' message about the coming of the Kingdom may not have been overtly political (though this is disputed), but it certainly had strong political and social implications. The question about the legitimacy of paying taxes to Caesar (w. 20—6) recognizes this and is asked in an attempt to descredit him in the eyes either of those who looked for the overthrow of Rome or of the civil authorities who were quick to act against political agitators. Mark's statement that it represents a combined attack of Pharisees and Herodians suggests a fairly even-handed approach. Luke's introduction, on the other hand, shows that he regards it as a deliberate attempt by the Jewish authorities to make Jesus espouse a stance that would enable them to denounce him to the Romans as a threat to the state. This is precisely what they will do later (23:2) when they hand him over to Pilate. Luke sees Jesus' answer as a slick side-stepping of the trap. It gives them no grounds for their later charge which is exposed as perverse and fraudulent. Recognition of this has often led interpreters of Luke's work to suggest that it was written with the aim of rebutting the charge that Christianity was a threat to Rome; claims that it was are seen to arise out of Jewish hostility. Whilst this is true in so far as no Roman official in Acts ever condemns Paul, Christianity is often regarded by them as a threat to Roman stability, and both Jesus and Paul are judicially executed by the Roman power. Luke knows that Rome was perplexed by Christian claims and was always in danger of acting against them. Christians are those who 'turn the world upside down'
(21:1—38) Jesus' Apocalyptic Discourse All three Synoptic Gospels present this extended discourse as the conclusion of Jesus' ministry and the immediate introduction to the passion narrative. On the one hand, it brings to a climax Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom, the hostility this provokes, and the challenge it makes to the disciples, and, on the other, it acts as the backcloth against which the passion and resurrection of Jesus is to be viewed. It brings all these happenings into relation with the future experiences of the disciples as they face the problems of maintaining faith in the midst of a hostile world. Past and present will together issue in the open revelation of God's kingdom which the appearance of Jesus as Son of Man in glory will establish. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus have revealed his ultimacy. In the light of this faith, the present of Luke's readers can be seen as contributing to
LUKE 954
This quotation from Dan 7:13 has been altered by Luke so that the 'cloud' in the singular may bear reference to the ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:9, n) which for him is both a pointer to, and guarantee of, the parousia. He has no mention of the gathering together of the elect at the parousia (Mk 13:27) for he does not emphasize it as a time of negative judgement upon the world. For him, it is the time of'redemption' (v. 28) and, since the people are not excluded from Jesus' audience, the hope that this offers is not denied to them. v. 31 (peculiar to Luke in its particular emphasis) sets 'these things'—including the trials and the fall of Jerusalem—against the backcloth of the reality of the Kingdom that has been established through Jesus. Though this present heavenly reality must be their primary compass point for determining their attitude to all that happens, it does not do away with a lively expectation of the appearing of the Son of Man. v. 32 includes that within the events expected in 'this generation'. Luke stretches that to include the period of his own contemporaries, but there is nothing to suggest that it could be extended much further. Meanwhile, they must pray for a faithfulness that will enable them to face his return with confidence (v. 36) (cf. 18:8).
the final revelation of him and of the Kingdom that he guarantees.
Three interwoven strands run through the chapter and determine its structure. These talk about persecutions which the disciples will face in the world and in which they must maintain their witness, historical events whose turmoil will bring a perplexity which is, nevertheless, not devoid of hope, and the expectation of the coming of the Son of Man in glory. History, myth, belief, and imagery come together to create a vision the strength of which is not in its details but in the overall impression it conveys as it takes up the whole event of Jesus and views it from the perspective of the finality and ultimacy that it believes it to be.
Luke's introduction (w. 5—7) differs substantially from those of Matthew and Mark in that, whereas they have the discourse delivered away from the temple and in some sense over and against it, Luke has Jesus give it in the temple itself and as part ofhis general teaching to the people (v. 38). He has Jesus pay more attention to the destruction of the temple for its own sake and does not see it as the inevitable prelude to the end of the age (v. 7, cf Mt 24:3; Mk 13:4). The historical events have an importance in their own right and are not to be seen purely as signs ofhis coming (v. 8), for the end is not an immediate event (v. 9). Nevertheless, political catastrophes will be preludes to natural ones (v. n). w. 12-19, however, break this interconnectedness to concentrate upon the witness of the disciples when they are persecuted and brought to trial because of their allegiance to Jesus and his saving work
Luke's is a free handling of the tradition which he most probably took over from Mark. Though it is often maintained that he reduces the expectation of an early parousia, there is little in this chapter to suggest it. What he does is to separate out a number of events that Mark sees as leading directly into it. The fall of Jerusalem will have happened by the time Luke wrote and he could look back on times of persecution. The parousia remained his ultimate hope, however, and this continued to impinge directly upon the present. The confidence with which he could proclaim it came from his belief that Jesus, now exalted to the right hand of God, guaranteed the Kingdom as a present reality. Its very nearness in spatial terms meant that its open revelation would not be long delayed in time.
('my Name', cf. Ex 33:17-19). These are not merely a prelude to his future revelation but are an inevitable part of their discipleship. Though he may seem absent, Jesus himself is actually present then, seeking to inspire their witness (v. 15) (cf. Acts 7:55). Whereas 13:13 points to their vindication atthe parousia, Luke places it in 'the gaining of their souls' (v. 19), that is, in a heavenly life into which the present leads (20:38; 23:43). It is in this sense that the promise of security in v. 18 is to be understood; no part of their real being will be lost or be brought to nothing. Once more we see how the heavenly dimension is very real to Luke and how the ascension of Jesus enables those who follow him to enter into it.
The confidence of the early church that emphasized the hope of the imminence of the parousia was doomed to disappointment (2Pet 3:8—10). The beliefs that determined the apocalytic images in which those hopes were expressed had to be reassessed as the full significance of God's action in Jesus came gradually to be understood. How far Jesus himself used that imagery, what he meant by it if he did, and how much its use in the Bible depends not on him but on the outlook of the early church, remain important, though hotly disputed, questions. All a commentary on this one gospel can say is that Luke's handling of it shows that he was aware that he was dealing with images that could be reshaped to express new outlooks. Nevertheless, as a first-century man, he did not evacuate them of all historical content or undervalue the radical nature of what they were proclaiming. Luke still looked for a direct and powerful intervention of God in the world and he did not expect it to be long delayed.
At v. 20 Luke, in line with Matthew and Mark, brings the destruction of Jerusalem, which by the time he writes will have already occurred, into relation with the programme of the last things. Unlike them, however, he does not invest it with the dimension of apocalyptic mystery (Mk 13:14). For him it remains an event that is important in its own right. As with 19:41—4, he describes the historical events of its fall in biblical terms which present them as the fulfilment of prophetic expectations (v. 22). This verse is his closest approach to expressing a belief that God was involved in its destruction; Luke generally does not make this assertion (23:31). The fall of the city begins 'the time of the Gentiles' which is to go on until the point at which its purpose is completed. This suggests an end to Jerusalem's captivity and a restoration of her by God. He has not turned his back upon her but has used even her destruction to further his purposes which will rebound to her ultimate good (2:32). The period of her desolation (which is not necessarily short) will lead into the time of the imminent end when cosmic disasters will occur that will climax with the ' "Son of Man coming in a cloud" with power and great glory'.
(22:1—38) The Last Supper The apocalyptic discourse that bases all its thought upon the reality of the Kingdom leads directly into the passion narrative that shows how it was established. Luke alone of the synoptic writers (22:3, 31-4, 43, cf. Jn 13:2) sets the earthly events of the passion in the context of an eschatological battle with Satan. He emphasizes that it is the passover meal that Jesus shares with the apostles
955 LUKE
response to the way of obedience upon which he embarked when he rejected the blandishments of Satan (4:1—13). Satan is decisively active at this point and is about to release his power against the apostles. Jesus has interceded for Peter (w. 31-4) and, though he will slip, his faith will not desert him. When he has recovered, he is to strengthen his brethren. Luke will present Peter as the first witness of the resurrection (24:34) and will portray him in Acts positively as the one who will lead the church into its universal witness. Now is the eschatological hour, the time of crisis which calls for a different stance from that which characterized their earlier work for Jesus (9:1-6; 10:1-12). The episode of the two swords (w. 36-8) is peculiar. Luke is aware of the tradition (which he uses) of some violence at the arrest (22:5) and he is emphatic in his presentation of Jesus as crucified in the midst of evildoers (23:32). He presents Jesus as the fulfilment of Isaiah's suffering servant (Isa 52:13-53:12). v. 37 contains Jesus' only direct quote from there, and the disciples' possession of swords is seen as a part of that passage's witness to him.
(22:i, 7, 8,13). This obviously has some important significance for him (9:31).
Discovering the meaning he gives to it, however, is complicated by the fact that Jesus' interpretative words over the bread and cup(s) are given in two versions with the shorter of them ending at iga, 'this is my body'. After a period of nearuniversal espousal of this shorter text, interpreters have moved decisively in favour of the belief that Luke himself wrote the longer text that ends with v. 20 and that one manuscript tradition shortened it (though cf REB and Evans 1990). In spite of this growing consensus, however, and the weight of manuscript evidence in its favour, there is much to be said for the view that Luke himself wrote the shorter text. The longer version bears all the marks of a hybrid resulting from the contributions of many hands to bring Luke into some sort of conformity with the general eucharistic traditions of the early church. The shorter text is the more distinctive and, indeed, more difficult reading and, if Luke himself is not responsible for it, it is hard to see why anyone should have shortened what he wrote to arrive at this unusual and not easily explained interpretation of Jesus' actions. Its ending reflects the Markan 'bread' word which Luke appears to be following at this point. His earlier description of the beginnings of a passover meal (w. 15-18) has been influenced by Mark's version of Jesus' eschatological statement that forms the climax of his account (Mk 14:25). The passover meal itself already gave expression to this dimension, and it is this eschatological emphasis that Luke sets at the heart of his narrative. Whether Jesus eats and drinks or abstains (the former being more likely)—for the text is again doubtful—he brings the meal into close relation with his entry into the Kingdom which will be established by his exaltation (w. 16, 18, cf. 22:69). Luke has one cup (v. 18) to which he gives this eschatological significance. It binds together those who share the meal in an anticipation of their part in the Kingdom. He distributes the bread to 'the apostles' (v. 14, cf. Acts 1:3) and calls it 'my body', 'me', not broken in death, but his living presence that enables them to live out of his life. Luke does not give sacrificial significance to either the bread or the wine, for he does not understand Jesus' death as itself the point of atonement. His narrative of the crucifixion will present it otherwise. In Acts, the eucharist is the 'breaking of bread' (2:42), and the Emmaus episode shows that Luke finds its significance in the way it enables those who participate to share with Jesus in the life of the Kingdom.
(22:39-53) On the Mount of Olives Luke's story of the agony in the garden is shorter than those given elsewhere, not, it seems, in order to reduce Jesus' distress, but to play down the ineptitude of the disciples. Peter, James, and John are not singled out, and Jesus finds them asleep only once and 'because of grief (v. 45). 'The trial' that they are to pray not to enter becomes, not their time in the garden, but rather what is yet to happen (v. 46). It is a time when Satan is wholly rampant and they are unable to escape his clutches (cf. 11:4). The result of this shortening is to throw all the emphasis upon Jesus' prayer that his will may be aligned to the Father's. The prayer itself expresses confidence in his own constancy, w. 43-4 are absent from many MSS though they are found in some early writings. Recent interpreters have tended to regard them as additions to what Luke wrote (Nolland 1993). Though doctrinal considerations could have been responsible for either their inclusion or omission, the latter is more likely and they are not out of keeping with Luke's belief that this incident represents the focal point and climax of Jesus' obedient surrender to his calling. Their mention of an angel now brings to mind the absence of angelic succour from Luke's temptation narrative, and his expectation of a renewed struggle with Satan (4:13). This emphasizes the 'stress' that Jesus expected to accompany his 'baptism' (12:49) and» if it fulfilled it, would account for the move into that quiet confidence that characterizes Luke's account of the arrest and trial, and the crucifixion itself.
Judas breaks this eschatological unity and is wholly condemned. The disciples are in danger of doing so by reason of their seeking after positions of glory (w. 24—7). Luke gave no place to an earlier instance of this outlook which the tradition contained (Mk 10:35-45), presumably not to spare their blushes but to save it for this dramatic context. In place of that tradition's reference to Jesus' death as a ransom (Mk 10:45), Luke sees his saving work accomplished through his service, climaxing in the cross and controlled by it but, nevertheless, not actually isolated in it. From such a perspective, Jesus can bestow upon the apostles a share in the Kingdom which his father has conferred upon him (w. 28-30). They will judge Israel and those who are associated with her when she is restored, that is when Jesus' Kingdom is revealed.
The time of the disciples' trial begins, even while Jesus is still speaking (v. 47). It is at this point that the atmosphere of Luke's narrative moves away from Matthew's and even more from Mark's in the direction of John's (cf. FGSK). Jesus is more in control, not obviously as in John, but with a gentle confidence of one who has had his struggles and now moves serenely to complete what has been given him to do. Jesus addresses Judas before he kisses him, stops any resistance, heals the harm done, and sets the actions of those who have come to take him—who in Luke include the chief priests and elders themselves and not merely their officers—within the context of eschatological evil (v. 53). What is happening is invested with cosmic significance. Jesus is fully aware of the
Before Jesus can enter his Kingdom, however, he must undergo his final act of surrender and make his climactic
LUKE 956
than 'Christ'. It recalls the second part of the angel's declaration to Mary (1:35) and foreshadows the preaching in Acts (9:20; 13:33). In the light of Mt 26:64, Jesus> reply seems to be an acceptance of the implications of the question and a witness to their recognition of them. Their perversity however makes them disown him and refuse their own insights. Their accusations before Pilate reveal just how great that perversity is (23:2).
shift in aeons that is taking place. Everything he has done has led up to this moment. There is no mention of the disciples' flight (Mk 14:50). (22:54-65) The Evening Wait Luke has no night session of the council (Mt 26:57-68; Mk 14:53-65) which does not meet, either formally or informally, until the morning. This has the result of removing the mockery of Jesus, which took place during the night, from the members of the council and also of lessening the contrast between Peter's weakness and Jesus' steadfastness. The failure of Peter is made less drastic in both Matthew and Luke by the inclusion of only one cock-crow. The reference to Peter's 'going out and weeping bitterly' (v. 62) is absent from at least one MS. Whilst later hands may have added it to Luke's narrative, it is more likely to be his own conclusion to his dramatic mention of Jesus' glance (v. 61). It marks the beginning of the Lord's rescue of Peter and the preparation for his strengthening of the others (w. 31-2).
(23:1-25) Before Pilate Luke's version of this episode emphasizes Pilate's reluctance to act against Jesus, brings out, therefore, the Jewish initiative in the crucifixion of Jesus, and introduces an appearance of him before Herod. Luke alone has Jesus appear before Herod (w. 6-12). As an event in history, it makes strange reading for, though it is possible that Roman justice could allow a man to be tried in the place where he lived (Acts 23:34), to hand over responsibility to a non-Roman would be unusual. Pilate, however, seems to be associating Herod with his own involvement rather than handing over the case to him. The purpose of this remains entirely obscure and the incident is therefore best interpreted as a Lukan story occasioned partly by the influence of Ps 2:1-2 which is quoted at Acts 4:25-6 where it is seen as fulfilled in the actions of Pilate and Herod, partly by the appearance of Paul before another Herod (Acts 25—6), and partly by Luke's earlier references to Herod's interest in Jesus. At 9:7-9, Herod is both perplexed by and interested in Jesus, and at 13:31 is reported as being hostile to him. By including him, Luke (since he leaves Pharisees out of the hostile actions in Jerusalem itself), is able to present what is happening as the outcome of the whole career of Jesus and, at the same time, to emphasize the perversity of the Jerusalem authorities whose insistence brings about his death, not, however, without their contributing to the divine plan. The Roman power unwittingly enables God's plan to be fulfilled at the death of Jesus just as it did at his birth. Herod does not even have that dignity. He himself joins in the mockery of Jesus. Yet his encounter does not leave even him unaffected (v. 12).
Members of the council are spared the indignity of being involved in the horseplay with Jesus. The cry of mockery, 'Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?' is often pointed to as one of the most important agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Goulder 1989). It has been accounted strong evidence for the belief that Luke knew Matthew and used him in the composition of his gospel. On the other hand, it has been used by others to support the theory that Q contained a passion narrative. Its taunt is appropriate for the Lukan assertion that it was made by the guards who were holding Jesus. Mt 26:68, on the other hand, has it made by the council to a Jesus who is not blindfolded. (22:66-71) Jesus Before the Council In Luke's gospel, the council meets formally in the morning when the examination of Jesus takes place. It has less characteristics of a trial than have Matthew's and Mark's night session, however, for there are no witnesses, no formal accusations, and no condemnation of Jesus. Whilst this might reflect a greater historical awareness, little can actually be built on it for the differences may simply be the result of theological rather than historical concerns. Luke's gospel gives little basis for any suggestion that Jesus was hostile to the temple which rather acknowledges him as its lord. On the principle of there being no smoke without fire, therefore, he would not want suggestions of Jesus' hostility to the temple to be recorded (cf Acts 6:1314). The council rather addresses directly the question of Jesus' status: Tf you are the Christ, tell us'. Jesus' reply has two parts, w. 67/7—8 point to their total perversity. They will neither believe, nor even acknowledge, the truth. They will not accept him as Christ in the manner that they should, but they would like to hear from him a declaration of messiahship which could be reported to Pilate as subversive. Jesus refuses to fall into their trap but answers in a way that defines his status in terms which transcend their categories. From this point in time (emphatic in Luke), he will be exalted to the right hand of God. As opposed to Mark's version of his reply, Luke makes no mention of a future, visible coming (Mk 14:62). Jesus' exaltation will be for the eyes of faith alone. It is that event which forms the contents of both his claims and the disciples' belief. The council acknowledges the significance of the declaration, however, and 'all of them' ask, 'Are you therefore the Son of God?' This for Luke has a deeper significance
When Pilate asks him if he is 'the Messiah, the king of the Jews', Jesus' reply is probably meant by Luke to be taken in the affirmative, for it is as such that he is crucified (23:38). Pilate, like the Jewish leaders, has completely misunderstood the implications of what he mouths. Yet he three times declares Jesus innocent (w. 4,15, 22) of the charges they bring against him, for Luke is at pains to show that Jesus' role was not a political one. All is to be kept on the level of the religious. Pilate succumbs to the Jewish pressure but his surface acceptance of their charge (v. 38) shows the incredibility of it and, unwittingly, witnesses to the truth.
v. 13 reintroduces 'the people' who have been absent since 21:38 where they were presented as favourable to Jesus. Now, however, their mood changes and they are included among those whose 'voices prevailed' (v. 23). The people share in the perversity of their leaders but they remain dignified with that term and, even as they contribute to the fulfilment of the divine plan (Acts 4:27—8), they avoid the excesses of their leaders (23:35) and remain dissociated from their more grotesque actions (23:27, 48).
v. 25 brings the scene to an end with a Lukan comment on the magnitude of the tragedy. The Jews as a whole (v. 18) asked
957 LUKE
promise is determined by the difference in the shared circumstances of the one to whom it is made and of the one who makes it. To suggest that it points to a new situation brought about by the saving cross (Fitzmyer 1985) does less than justice to Luke's distinctive understanding of the place of the cross in the redeeming work of Jesus. For him, the cross is the climax and determining fact of Jesus' whole ministry which, taken up at the ascension, becomes God's outreaching redemptive act. He does not isolate the cross to make it the point of atonement or to suggest that something is achieved by it in itself. As earlier (16:19-31; 8:55; 20:38; 21:19), Luke seems to allow for the continuity of life through death. 'Paradise', originally meaning a park or garden, came to be regarded as a perhaps temporary abode of the righteous departed after death. For Luke this is appropriate, for he regards the ascension as the point of Jesus's entry into his kingdom.
for a murderer to be released and to be given Jesus to do with 'as they wished'. It is they who crucified him (Acts 3:13—15); the representatives of the political power do not come to the surface again until 23:36 when they join in mindless mockery (cf 22:63-4; 23:II>-
(23:26—49) The Crucifixion Luke alone of the evangelists has a Jewish crowd accompany Jesus to his execution. 'A great number of the people' follow him, including some women who, perhaps taking on a role that was not uncommon on such occasions and which may originally have had some quasi-religious significance, lament on behalf of the one who was going to his death. Addressing them as 'daughters of Jerusalem', he speaks to them as representatives of the true among the people of that city. They are to lament the future, for a time of great distress is coming (Hos 10:8). What that occasion is can be determined only from the cryptic saying of v. 31. If it is to be given a specific reference, that is most likely to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Compared with Jesus, Jerusalem and her people take on the characteristics of a dead tree. 'They' who will treat her harshly will be the Romans or, perhaps more likely, a combination of the powers who together brought Jesus to his cross. Luke has earlier twice brought the suffering of Jerusalem in relation to both Jesus' own and those of the disciples (19:41-4; 21:20-4). Jesus himself remains the true son of Jerusalem.
With v. 44, Luke (as Mark) moves into the final stages of Jesus' crucifixion. However, there are big differences at this point. Like Mark, he has the three hours of darkness which signifies the awesomeness of what is taking place. He places the tearing of the temple's curtain before Jesus' last cry rather than at his death (Mk 15:38). The temple's holy of holies gives place to Jesus' whole life rather than to what is achieved through death alone, for it is that life as a whole which becomes the place where God is known. Jesus' crying 'with a loud voice' (v. 46) is not, as in Mark, one of desolation (see MK 13:33—6), but of confidence. Jesus quotes, not Ps 22:1, but Ps 31:5. The agony, which is real, is caught up into the obedience that enables a secure confidence. The compulsion that has driven Jesus has allowed him to maintain the certainty of God's vindication. His last cry expresses the surrender born of the knowledge of a course well run. Like Mark, Luke has Jesus 'breathe his last'. He records a real outpouring, a complete emptying of himself.
Luke's crucifixion scene is distinctive. Whilst this might be the result of his use of special sources, the overall unity of outlook between this scene and the gospel as a whole suggests that any sources that he did use were handled freely so as to become effective vehicles for the expression of his own particular insights. What happens at the cross, as Luke tells its story, is completely at one with his gospel's presentation of Jesus as he moved determinedly towards it.
In Luke, unlike Mark, where his response is to the death of Jesus (Mk 15:39), the centurion witnesses to 'what had taken place', that is to the whole demeanour of Jesus as he hung on the cross. By his response, he 'glorifies God', that is he makes what Luke regards as an appropriate witness to the significance of the event which causes it (7:16; 18:43). NRSV and REB both give his witness as 'This man was innocent'. This is without doubt a translation that does less than justice to Luke's meaning (Doble 1996). The Greek is dikaios, a word that Luke has used earlier to describe the status of the true in Israel who, being open to God's ways, acknowledged Jesus as the redeemer of his people (1:6; 2:25). The word as used by Luke witnesses to a religious rather than a judicial status. It is a word with strong LXX influence. Used in the Psalms of the righteous person who is the taunt of enemies but who is vindicated by God (Ps 37, cf. 5:12; 34:19; 55:22; 118:20), it is developed in Wis i—6 to give a picture of the persecuted righteous one who is vindicated by God, lives through death, and will witness the discomfiture of his enemies (2:12-20; 3:1-9; 5:15—20). Closely aligned with this picture in both Psalms and Wisdom is that of the suffering servant of Isa 53 who is called dikaios and is said to be both justified by God and the one who serves many well (LXX). Luke's picture of Jesus on the cross recalls that of the servant in that he is clearly set with the transgressors, makes intercession for his captors, serves those who are crucified with him, and awaits God's vindication
Jesus' plea for the forgiveness of his persecutors (v. 34) is textually doubtful and, on the textual evidence alone, would most likely have to be regarded as an addition to what Luke himself wrote. It would then be seen as either included because of the availability of a tradition unknown to Luke, or added as appropriate in the light of Stephen's response to his persecutors as this is found at Acts 7:60. It is just that response, however, that makes it most likely that Luke himself included Jesus' prayer. He describes Stephen's martyrdom in terms of Jesus' own, and it is wholly unlikely that he would have had him outstrip Jesus in that merciful outlook that he has earlier declared to be of the essence of God himself (6:36). Acts 3:17 also suggests ignorance as a mitigating factor for the Jews and, since Jesus' prayer is in Luke made primarily on their behalf, Peter is there again drawing on Jesus' example. The plea is virtually demanded by Luke's overall presentation of Jesus.
The story of Jesus and the criminal (w. 39-43), which Luke alone has, is again wholly at one with Luke's total picture. To call the criminal 'penitent' goes further than the story itself suggests. His plea is rather a recognition of that which in Jesus has drawn the outsider to him in a response of hope which, in turn, was always acknowledged and included in a greater work (7:36-50; 8:43-8; 17:11-19). This episode is entirely in keeping with those earlier stories of Jesus' open acceptance of the outsider. The new dimension in Jesus'
LUKE 958
significance of the resurrection, nor appreciate the full import of his life. The resurrection appearances become points of teaching and convincing. In themselves, they are 'something of a half-way house' (Evans 1970).
which will make him the vindicator of others. Luke does not take over the idea of the servant as sinbearing nor that of his death as vicarious, but the close links with that picture make Jesus more than an example. He will actually make many like him.
The Emmaus story (24:13—27) tells of Jesus' appearance to two otherwise unknown disciples who, somewhat apart from the rest, are making a 7-mile journey from Jerusalem. It plays the part in the resurrection narratives that the mission of the seventy plays in the body of the gospel (10:1—24). Like that episode, it roots actions which will be at the heart of the life of the Christian community in the life of Jesus. To ask how two people could walk 7 miles without recognizing someone who was not only familiar to them but was also at that time in the forefront of their concerns, is to misread the nature of Luke's story, which is told, not so much as to describe a past encounter, as to show how the eucharistic meals of his church unite them to the living presence of the risen Lord. Acts will put the 'breaking of bread' at the heart of the life of the young community (2:42). That formed the climax of the action of Jesus at the last supper as Luke tells of it (22:190), and it is that action that realizes and discloses his presence after the resurrection
Luke pictures Jesus as more than the first martyr and as more than an example. He is the redeemer who in Acts, through his name and through the Spirit, reproduces his likeness in those who follow him.