The Teaching Method of Jesus

As Presented in Luke

Introduction:

This material is gleaned from the Gospel of Luke. It is not a full commentary on the Gospel but an examination of what we could learn from Luke about teaching and what the important issues to teach are. An attempt will be made to see how truth is communicated in Luke’s Gospel to learn how to better communicate and teach ourselves and to decide what to emphasis in regards to content.

It is this author’s belief that Luke has captured much of what Jesus of Nazareth did when He taught. Approaches to communication that were used by Jesus of Nazareth seem to have gone deep into Luke’s soul and infiltrated into Luke’s very methods of presenting his material about Jesus. The Gospel of Luke is not unique or significantly different in its presentation of Jesus as a communicator from the other three canonical Gospels. They all, in one way or another, present to their readers a remarkable Person that had a very striking way of giving truth to His audience. Though much of what will be described as Luke’s view of Jesus’ manner of teaching and what He taught can be found in Matthew, Mark or John our investigation will be limited to Luke.

I. The Forming of a Teacher: Luke 1:1-4:13

A. The Beginning: Luke’s Introduction. Luke 1:1-4

Luke is aware that others have spoken of Jesus (Luke 1:1); however, Luke claims he has done some careful investigation, and that it seemed good to him to write an account for a certain Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4). The term “Theophilus” literally means “lover or loved of God.” Whether Theophilus was an actual individual by that name or a term to designate who would be an appropriate reader (one loved of God or who loves God) is hard to determine. Since we do not know anything about the historical circumstances of Theophilus (if such a man existed), or Luke’s immediate audience, perhaps it is appropriate to focus on what we do know. We do know that Luke had a goal to his writing. His stated goal was to establish strength in his reader: “so that you may know the certainly of the things you have been taught” (1:4).

Therefore, it would be appropriate to see if we could become like the early leaders of the church: establishing strength in those we deal with and serve. What Luke had in mind for Theophilus (this lover of God) is what is implicit in much of the New Testament writings. The goal of establishing one’s readers in the love of God is not merely pious words, but the same goal that the other Spirit-animated leaders of the New Testament had.

An example would be the Apostle Paul. He seems to be in sync with Luke when we look at his stated goals in his letters. For instance, he prayed that the Colossians might “be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Colossians 1:9). Paul told the Philippians that his goal for them was that their love would “abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight”… so that they might “be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ” (Phil 1:9-10). Finally, He told the Ephesians (1:17-18) that he was asking God that they may be “given the Spirit of wisdom and revelation,” so that they may know Him better and that the eyes of their heart may be enlightened in that they might know the hope to which they had been called.

I Peter seemed to have the same goal, “I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it” (5:12), or in II Peter which says, “I have written…to stimulate you to wholesome thinking (3:1)…that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (3:17-18). Teaching for the New Testament authors had the goal of establishing people in their position of being the “loved by God” or “being lovers of God”. This was a lofty goal, but Luke will show us how it was done by Jesus of Nazareth Himself.

B. The Credentials of the Teacher: 1:5-80, 3:1-23

When I first began this investigation, I started with Luke 4:14 where Jesus began His public teaching ministry. However, the more I thought about it, I began to see that we would miss something starting there. Teachers do not just appear out of a midst and walk in a class room and begin teaching. Their public teaching is the result of what happened before they stepped into a class room, or pulpit or any type of teaching setting. So we will start where Luke started. In essence, before the first “stepping into a class room” can begin, the teacher usually begins by obtaining credentials.

Luke seemingly throws us off in how he begins his Gospel. He did not start with Jesus teaching, nor with Jesus’ birth, but rather with the birth of John. Luke’s goal was to establish us in the love of God and how he began could have some meaning for us as teachers. Luke began with John. Perhaps, this is because when we first learn of God we are introduced to God or the things of God by someone we know or respect. God has often chosen to begin our knowledge of Him by introducing Himself though the agency of another person in our lives. John would introduce Jesus (God) to the world.

John would later characterize himself as “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’” (1:15-17). Many times before God can come directly to us there needs to be some preparation, and it is often done by an obedient believer.

In this particular case, the beginning started with two believers; it started with John the Baptist’s parents (Luke 1:5-25). John’s parents experienced the “in-breaking of God” in a tremendous but domestic manner. John was to be born to parents much like Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Samuel and Sampson. His parents were, at first, incapable of having children. This would signal to any Old Testament reader that God had begun His work to bring salvation to His people. Often in the Old Testament, the salvation of the community began with a special birth. So Luke was signaling that God was at work to bring salvation and in Jesus’ case the process began before Jesus was born and even before the one who would announce Him was even born.

I believe Luke told us the story of John’s birth, which the other Gospels do not, in order to pick up a key element in “teaching truth”. It concerns the role of an individual like John and how we could become like him. It concerns the role of becoming an effective vessel to do the work of “preparation” for others to see and receive God. How are such people formed? I believe the answer began in verse 1:15: “He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.” Two things were spoken of here: discipline and empowerment. John would be raised in the ancient Israelite tradition of the Nazirite vows. These vows were usually taken for one or two years. However, John would be similar to Sampson or Samuel by taking a life-long vow with restrictions that were normally temporary ones. He would have long term special strictures on his life-style; he would live under a life-long extra measure of discipline.

John was to be disciplined but more than his efforts would be involved. God would give him His Spirit from birth. This signals to the reader that empowerment from the Spirit is necessary. In addition, the fact that it came to John before he was born or before he made any decisions shows being filled with the Spirit is a work of God’s sovereign grace. Those who prepare others best to be ready for an encounter with God are disciplined and given the Spirit of God. The one is our effort and the other is an act of grace from God.

1. John the Baptist and the Spirit of God.

This brings us to one of Luke’s methods of doing theology. Luke’s method will be one that he would later display Jesus using: truth or theology must be incarnate; it must be “in the flesh”. Theology is taught by looking at it in the very push and pull of life as we experience it. It could be that Luke knew Jesus used this method or he might be unconsciously following this pattern. In either case, an example of this “method” is Luke’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Before Jesus’ public ministry begins Luke will teach his audience much about the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He will define theologically who the Holy Spirit is, what being filled with the Holy Spirit means, and what would it look like if it happened to others. Luke did not do this by giving his readers a series of carefully crafted propositional statements, but by describing the Spirit in action. The method is based on the belief that the best way to understand someone is not to hear propositions about them, but to see them in action. From chapters 1-5, and 11, Luke will refer to the work of the Holy Spirit. So, let us go forward and see what it is the Spirit of God does and what His presence in the life of believers would look like. We can also look at an example of the “method” often employed by Jesus.

a. The Holy Spirit recognizes God’s presence: 1:15, 41, 2:25-27.

The first mention of the Holy Spirit in Luke is that the Spirit was in John the Baptist from his birth. However, this becomes significant when viewed with what followed in the report of Mary going to visit Elizabeth, John’s mother. Mary was pregnant with the Messiah (with the Son of God in her womb), and “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (1:41). Then Elizabeth knew what the baby already knew. Her Lord was present. John, filled with the Spirit, leapt for joy in his mother’s womb, and Elizabeth as an adult, verbalized what caused the leap of joy: that Mary was the mother of her Lord. Mary carried the source of joy for those filled with the Spirit and the Spirit within them causes them to recognize the presence of God. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of recognition. In addition, the Holy Spirit is a source of joy for righteous people.

This theme of recognition continued in Luke in the second chapter when the venerable old man Simeon who was awaiting the coming of the messiah had the Holy Spirit upon him (2:25) and the same Spirit had revealed to him that he would not die until he had seen the Lord’s anointed one. So directed by the Spirit, he went into the temple where he recognized who the child was. There were, no doubt, many priests and many other worshippers present that day in the temple, but none of them recognized that the Lord of the Temple had come in the flesh into His own Sanctuary. They missed what was taking place in their presence, but the old man did not because he was filled with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit gives people the ability to see the Lord at work in their presence and to help them recognize who is also filled with presence of God.

b. The Spirit reveals God’s will: 1:67 and 2:26-27.

The birth of John the announcer was given by Luke and then Luke reported that John’s father who has been struck dumb because of his hesitancy to believe what the angel had said to him was freed to speak again. Zechariah quickly obeyed the direction given by the angel and then “was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied.” This is similar to the example of Simeon. Simeon was filled with the Holy Spirit and was led by the Spirit to the Temple, and he obeyed the Spirit’s prompting. He too, began to prophesy. The Spirit of God enables men to speak forth the will of God, or in other words, to prophesy. It allows a human being to instruct others in what they have seen. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Revelation. This same theme will be repeated in Luke 4:18-19. There Jesus characterizes His ministry as one of revelation that is empowered by the Spirit. “The Spirit of the Lord is on me…to preach….”(4:18).

c. The Spirit brings judgment: 3:16.

There is another mention of the Holy Spirit concerning prophecy in Luke, and this time it was put into the mouth of John the Baptist. John was not impressed with the praise of men, but shared with others what God had revealed to Him. The Spirit had revealed to John his own unworthiness and the greater power of the One coming. He knew he was to baptize, but his work was one of preparation for the One who would come and would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

This parallelism of the Spirit with the metaphor of fire is intriguing. The metaphor of fire was usually equated with judgment in the Old Testament and the verse that followed (3:17) clearly stated that motif: “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn.” The Holy Spirit when present would cause judgment. When an individual had the Spirit, it would cause a separation (the wheat from the chaff or the worthy from the unworthy) and judgment would follow the separation (gathering the wheat and burning the chaff). The judgment would be based on who that person was. When the Spirit was present and given to men it caused revelation (whether they were chaff or wheat) and then who they were would set into motion what would happen to them: judgment would take place. John saw Jesus as the baptizer in the Spirit and saw the operation of the Spirit as causing judgment and separation among men. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters in Genesis 1 and then creation is largely presented in Genesis 1 as an act of separation (Genesis 1:4, 6, 7, 14, 18). The same Spirit was present. Judgment and separation preceded the creation of life, and it preceded the creation of the “life-giving” Kingdom of God.

d. The Spirit begins the life of the Son of God in humans: 1:35.

Earlier in chapter 1, Mary was puzzled by the angel Gabriel’s announcement that she would bare a child without her being married. In response to Mary’s question, the angel instructed Mary as to how she would give birth: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (1:35). It is the role of the Holy Spirit to birth the Son of God in human beings. The Spirit is the cause, (the cause is not our resolutions, religious actions, devotion, or any of our efforts) but the Spirit alone is the cause of the life of the Son of God being formed in sinful human beings. Mary became honored because of what she bore and because she had “believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished.” The Holy Spirit was seen by Luke as much the same as the Old Testament saw the “Spirit of the Lord”; the Spirit was the Spirit of new birth (i.e. Ezekiel 37:1-14).

e. The Spirit empowers ministry and establishes our identity. 3:22, 4:14, 4:18-19 and 5:17.

The final time John was mentioned in connection with the Spirit of God was at Jesus’ baptism. Jesus obeyed and was baptized (there is a constant theme of obedience in connection to the Holy Spirit working in human beings), and as He prayed the heavens were opened and the Spirit descended on Jesus in the form similar to a dove and a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased”. The Spirit confirmed Jesus’ identity and inaugurated Jesus’ ministry. (We learn in the next verse that Jesus began His ministry.) The Spirit is the inaugurator of the effective ministry of men.

So often the church is tempted to think it is programs, education or effective personalities but Luke says it is something else. It did not appear that Luke saw the ceremonies or rituals of men accomplishing this but rather it was the sovereign will and work of the Spirit. Therefore Jesus’ ministry was formally begun in 4:14 with Jesus coming into Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” and in 5:17, it says the “power of the Lord was present for Him to heal the sick.” In similar fashion, the first sermon Luke recorded of Jesus’ preaching (4:16-27) was tied to the action and desires of the Spirit of God (quoting Isaiah 61:1-2). The Spirit anointed or empowered Jesus to preach and accomplish deliverance for those in need. The Spirit of God empowered ministry seen as powerful deliverance. It appeared that Luke saw the Spirit, and the power to do ministry and accomplish effective communication as connected with one another.

There is an addition side light to the baptism of Jesus and the function of God’s Spirit. Jesus was also affirmed in His identity. He was told who He was: Jesus was God’s son. In addition, Jesus was told of His standing and relation with the Father: God loved Him and was pleased with Him. The Holy Spirit is the revealer of our identity and confirms our worth and standing with God. The Spirit reveals who the believer is when God is pleased. As those in ministry understand, getting a firm and solid grasp of who we are is vital to balance and health when one enters the difficulties of ministry or teaching.

f. The Spirit leads us into difficulty: 4:1

Luke has told us of Jesus’ baptism, and he has told us that His ministry began when He was 30 years old (3:23). Then what followed the description of the Baptism was Jesus’ genealogy in 3:23-38. Robert Alter says genealogies often function in Jewish narrative technique as punctuations (Alter). Jesus was baptized and His ministry began in chapter four, but there was punctuation or a pause and the genealogy seemingly was placed where it was to create that pause. However, in addition to the pause between Jesus’ anointing by the Spirit and the actual ministry of Jesus is another hiatus.

The ministry did not begin at the beginning of chapter 4 but rather 4:14. After the punctuation caused by the genealogy, but before the ministry of Jesus began, Jesus was taken into the desert to be tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-13). It is here that Luke introduced a surprising aspect to his readers about the work of the Holy Spirit in the beginning of chapter 4. Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” seemingly connected with His baptism at the Jordan, but was then led by the same Spirit into the desert where for over a month He fasted and was tested by the devil.

The Spirit of God is connected in these verses with leading Jesus into the desert or into the wilderness. The motif of “wilderness” is a prominent one in the Old Testament. The wilderness was a place of sparseness, dryness, bleakness; it was a place of deprivation. Moses was sent into the wilderness for 40 years before his ministry, Elijah came from the wilderness before his ministry began, and David was placed into the wilderness for nearly a decade before he became King. The writer of Lamentations reminds us: “It is good to wait quietly for the salvation of the Lord. It is good for a man to bear the yoke while he is young” (Lamentations 3:26-27). Even the Apostle Paul, was sent into the desert three years after an initial period of success. It seems the work of the Spirit of God is to prepare teachers for great ministry by prefacing their ministry with difficulty or dryness. It is the Spirit’s work. It is the will of God. It would be hard to top the ministry of Moses, Elijah, David, Jesus and Paul and so it would be dangerous to not recognize the necessary step Luke is presenting to his audience for those interested in teaching or doing ministry. “It is good to bear the yoke….”

Perhaps, it is worth noting that in Luke 4:15 as Jesus began to teach and to take the role of instructing others in the ways of God, He initially received praise from every one. Praise for successful ministry can be a dangerous thing to the spiritual life of a teacher. The history of the Bible and the history of the Christian church are filled with those who began well and began with the endowment of the Holy Spirit but did not finish well. Think of Saul or Solomon who were both highly gifted by the Spirit but did not end their lives serving God or helping their fellow human beings. Solomon did not have the rough times his father David had, not did Saul struggle like David did in the beginning. What is learned in the desert can focus the teacher and guide them when the stresses and distractions (which can be praise) that accompany teaching begin.

g. The Spirit is given to Humans: 11:13.

Finally, Luke saw the Spirit of God not only as a description of the action of God, but something that could be given to men and women. The teaching in Luke 11 on prayer and the Spirit was addressed to disciples. Luke says they were merely to ask for the Spirit. It was something good (11:11, 12) that would be given to men for the asking (11:9, 10). It was given to Simeon, John and Elizabeth to enable recognition, gave revelation to Zechariah, Elizabeth, Jesus, created life in Mary, empowered Jesus’ ministry, was the Producer of judgment and difficulty, but it was good and to be asked for. Jesus was filled with it, as was John, Jesus’ precursor.

2. John’s Message of Preparation:

Luke will tell us that Jesus’ credentials were not the most impressive. He was born poor, was not educated in prestigious schools, etc. It might be thought that all recognition by people of importance should be shunned. It could be deduced that all a good teacher needs is the anointing of God’s Spirit. However, there is another credential that Luke reported to his readers that Jesus as a teacher possessed: John’s witness. The work and witness of the Spirit and the voice of other men are not necessarily in tension with one another. Clearly, John gave validity to Jesus’ teaching and person, but John was filled and directed by the Spirit to perform this task.

John the Baptist was one of the most influential individuals of his day. True, he did not hold public office, nor did he possess wealth or political power (a politician would later kill him), but he was widely known, deeply respected, more respected in spiritual matters than anyone alive at that time. Many thought him to be the messiah or certainly a prophet. He fit the prophetic mold and which had, by that time, become highly regarded by the people. His endorsement of Jesus was tremendous. He prepared the way and gave Jesus spiritual accreditation of the highest nature.

He was a “voice of one calling in the desert, prepare the way for the Lord, and make straight paths for Him” (3:4). Luke saw him as a fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5. The preparation was not political and the endorsement was not what much of modern secular society would regard as important. The preparation was spiritual. It could not be acquired by human effort, academic degrees, denominational or religious connections or ministerial talent. It was granted by God. God prepared and sent John. Perhaps, it is more important to be vouched for by deeply spiritual men and women than to hold positions or degrees.

C. Mary’s prophesy or paradigm: Luke 1:46-55

Humility dominated Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ beginning. Before His remarkable public life began, Luke recorded a song that Mary sang. Mary was pregnant out of wedlock and therefore in a despised social position in her community. Yet she was chosen to declare the model of Jesus’ ministry. Her song became the master paradigm for those chosen or anointed. John’s witness was public and Mary’s song was private, but it is on her lips that Jesus’ ministry was characterized. Again, she was not an “impressive” figure, but rather a humble young woman (no doubt a tenn-ager) with an impugned reputation.

She was much like an earlier mother in Israel named Hannah. Hannah’s shame came from a different source (not being able to bear a child in her case) but both women gave birth because of the direct hand of God (I Samuel 1:19 and Luke 1:34-35). Both women sang a song when their shame was lifted. Hannah’s song was not only after she gave birth to a son (the soon to become famous Samuel) but after she made the decision to give up the son (by great faith) in obedience to keeping her vow. For Mary it came when she was affirmed by the wife of a priest, her relative Elizabeth and when she was praised as an obedient believer (1:42-45). Both singers had to have faith/obedience: Hannah in giving up her sign of dignity in having a child at all by giving up the cherished son and Mary but being willing to have a child when she was not yet married and thus losing her dignity by the birth. Both songs of these obedient women have similar aspects. They both:

Praised God: Luke 1:46-47; I Samuel 2:1a

Gave the reason for their praise: God’s deliverance in dire need: 1:48,49a; 2:1b

Spoke of God’s holiness: 1:49b; 2:2

Described His work in the world as a reversal of expectations:

Mary’s recount opened with God’s mercy extended toward those who fear Him, followed by a celebration of God humbling the proud and exalting the weak and ended with the declaration of God faithfulness to the nation and His covenant with Abraham. The largest section was the middle where God reverses the fortunes of the proud and the humble (1:51-53).

Hannah’s recount opened with a warning to the proud and that God judges according to one’s deeds and then this was followed by a celebration of God humbling the proud and exalting the humble or weak (2:4-8) and Hannah’s song ended with a promise that God would guard his saints or anointed one, but judge those opposed to Him. Hannah’s song had a phrase in verse 9 that summarizes much of both songs: “It is not by strength that one prevails.”

Though there are some differences, especially in the endings, they both are parallel in praise of God for personal deliverance, recognition of His holiness and declaration of His proclivity to do acts of reversal. We know the remaining chapters of I and II Samuel act out what Hannah prophesized. God chose the unlikely eighth son, David, to be king or the unknown Samuel to act as judge in Israel and most of the strong throughout the books of Samuel did not prevail. Her song was a paradigm for Israel’s experience of God’s work in their midst.

In Luke, the theme of praise rings through out the Gospel as does the theme of reversal. As we go forward, it will become apparent that Jesus’ ministry acted out the principle of lifting the humble and shaming the powerful. Jesus was good to foreigners, prostitutes, and sick people, etc. He humbled the proud religious Pharisees in debate, or blind politicians, etc. When Luke recounted his version of the Sermon on the Mount this motif of reversal dominated his version of the Beatitudes. It contained 2 sets of 4 statements that were carefully placed in reverse of one another. For example: “Blessed are the poor, but woe to the rich”, etc.

Luke saw Jesus as being in the tradition of the great leaders of the Old Testament and in the role of how Yahweh acted with Israel. It was the God of the Old Testament that selected the second son Jacob instead of the first born Esau, and chose a slave race to be the “elect of God”, picked unlikely leaders in Judges, designated David, the eighth son (again, not the first born), to be the greatest king of Israel, etc. It was this God that again acted in Bethlehem through a humble girl.

D. Humble Beginnings: Luke 2

John’s birth was witnessed by the congregation, and it filled the neighborhood with awe. The phrase: “What then is this child going to be?” went through out the region (1:66). They knew the Lord’s hand was with this child. However, Jesus’ birth was somewhat different. His birth stories were equally remarkable, but were filled with a different tenor, they were filled with humility.

Joseph had to travel with his pregnant wife and be on the road during the final stages of her pregnancy. The result was she gave birth to the Son of God in a stable. There was no room at the inn. Oriental stables were not the picture we present today. They were dirty, filled with animal excrement and in some cases, not much more than a cave. For a bassinet, He was laid in the feeding bowl of barn animals. What was worse was the woman Joseph was traveling with and who was pregnant was not even his wife, but his fiancé and she was pregnant but not by him. It was not a glorious beginning by human standards: born in filth and under the suspicion of being illegitimate.

There were guests who welcomed the child at His arrival on earth, but they were hardly drawn from the social elite. True, angels of God did announce the arrival of the Savior but the announcement was made to low blue collar workers. Shepherds were faithfully and honorably at their task in Luke 2:8, but shepherds were never considered in ancient times to be high on the social scale and neither are they now considered such. The angel that announced John’s birth spoke to a priest (1:5), but the angel that announced Jesus’ birth spoke to a teenager (Mary was no doubt 14-15 years old) and to shepherds. What was said to each was glorious (Luke 1:30-33 and 2:10-14), but their witness would hardly have impressed anyone had they attempted to give credibility to Jesus in a public manner.

As mentioned above, when Jesus came to the Temple to be circumcised (in obedience to His Father’s commandments) He was not recognized by the priests or Temple authorities, but by two unknown and non-influential individuals: an old man (Simeon: 2:22-32) and an old widow (2:36-38). To be sure, they were wonderful people, but would not be seen as such by many who lacked a spiritual nature.

We often place great store in credentials and what prestigious name is behind our degrees or which prestigious school or denomination or organization has endorsed us. Luke says it is not our human credentials but rather who we are that is important. Jesus “grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him” (2:40). Grace and wisdom, so necessary for true teachers of God’s Word do not necessarily come from prestigious institutions or human social endorsement.

Jesus’ humble beginning in regard to His birth and first Temple visit were designed for Him by God, but He followed the pattern set for Him. When Jesus went to the Temple at age twelve and confounded the teachers and amazed them with His understanding and answers, He was not just showing off. Luke mentioned that He sat among the other teachers listening to them and asking them questions (2:46-47). He was discussing truth, not trying to seemingly impress.

What is more, when His parents found Him they were at first upset, but later astonished. They did not know where He had gone and had searched for the young boy for three days. He had caused them worry, and so they properly rebuked Him. His response was interesting. He did not back down and apologize for what He had done, but explained He was about His Father’s business. However, what was equally remarkable was that Jesus returned with His parents to Nazareth and was obedient to them (2:51). Jesus’ obedience to His parents fit the motif of obedience that is throughout these early chapters, and consistently portrayed as a necessarily complement to Spirit-anointing. Jesus was obedient to the authority of His parents and thus the text says He “grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men” (2:52). Those with true spiritual precociousness, says Luke, grow healthy, wise and relationally strong by obedience to their parents.

E. The Preparation of the Teacher through Temptation.

1. Methodology: the Teacher must be the message.

Before Jesus’ public ministry began, Luke gave his readers one more section that followed the genealogies (that conclude chapter 3). He recorded the “wilderness experience”. Perhaps, Luke’s reason for doing this is that elsewhere in the Gospel Luke will repeatedly focus on the inner health of the teacher. Later in Luke 9 and 10, he will show how Jesus was carefully aware of what would happen to those on whom the role of a teacher fell and would show us what He did to help the developing new teachers (His disciples) deal with such a dangerous position of power. However, Luke first introduced one of his key points in teaching methodology: the teacher is often the most effective aspect of the teaching, or the “teacher is the message”. Before Jesus will show His disciples how to deal with the difficulties of being used by God in such a powerful way from which miracles flow and the destinies of human’s souls are decided, He will first travel such a path in His own experience. He will act first and become what He teaches others to do. He went to the desert, as mentioned above, by the Spirit’s direction. He went into rough times in preparation for teaching, as going to the desert seems necessary.

2. Temptations:

a. Challenged to Prove His Identity by Use of the Gifts:

Jesus began His time in the desert by fasting and fasting for a long time. This parallels the ministry of John who was a disciplined man following the disciplines of the Nazirite vows. What is interesting is that discipline does not forestall or eliminate temptation, but can even provide a context for it. The first temptation came in relation to Jesus’ discipline of fasting. Because Jesus was hungry from fasting, the Devil seemingly began his efforts in that quarter. The temptation though is not one of fleshly desires or unsatisfied appetite, but rather one that appealed to Jesus’ pride. He was asked to prove who He was. Satan’s opening words: “If you are the Son of God…” called for Jesus to prove Himself and to prove that what was said at His baptism was true (3:22). To prove ourselves to ourselves as competent in our field is an enormous drive that accompanies our role as teachers and ministers much of our lives. Inwardly, our doubts accuse us as incompetent and the temptation to dispel such doubts arise. Luke says it comes from the devil.

The temptation for Jesus was to prove His identity by using His giftedness for Himself. He was prodded to do a miracle for His own needs. He was tempted to make bread for His own hunger created by His own life of discipline. He will later prove to quite competent with bread (9:12-17). He would later feed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish. The ability was not the issue, but rather how the ability was to be used. Paul would later say the gifts of God are for the common good of the church (I Corinthians 12:7). The gifting God gives to teachers is not to validate themselves to themselves, but to bless others. Jesus would make bread, but He would do so for others not Himself. He refused to validate Himself.

The Devil could have begun his attack by noting Jesus’ hunger and the small stones in the wilderness that looked like the small loaves of bread commonly made then. Jesus’ answer was a demonstration of a significant teaching tool. Jesus seemed to answer by turning a metaphor around. Bread was a metaphor for sustenance and representative of the neediness of all human beings. Our human existence has to be sustained. Our bodies are not evil as they were made by God (Genesis 1), and we must nourish them. However, though Jesus did not deny this, He turned the metaphor into something deeper. The metaphor was then employed not an example of what He was in need of, but what He was committed to. His adaptation of the metaphor of bread had diverted attention to something else. In addition, He modeled how one fights such temptations and how one positively focuses on what God truly desires in ministry.

He turned the metaphor, by focusing on the fact that our need for nourishment goes beyond the physical. True teachers do not teach mere information but nourishment for the soul. True ministers do not merely do good social work and teach true doctrine, but must feed the spiritual needs of their congregation. “Man does not live by bread alone” (Deuteronomy 8:3). In the stories that follow, Jesus repeated showed that He learned this lesson by the remarkable choices He made as He began to teach publicly. As we investigate 4:14 through 6:19 there will appear multiple examples of this understanding. Man needs more than physical wellness. It is good and proper to want and receive health for our bodies, but we need more.

Jesus seemed to say by His response, “Do not prove yourself, but rather focus deeply on the full or complete needs in your audience”. It is by seeking the higher agenda, by seeking out how to see what complete needs should be met, that Jesus combated the need to prove oneself. Healthy teachers focus on the complete needs of their students or audience to combat the need to authenticate or validate themselves in their own self esteem. In contrast, Satan wants to distract one from their focus for others by tempting one to focus on themselves and using their anointing to validate themselves. Satan wants to take away the insightfulness of humility. If one is continually dominated by the need to validate oneself, then the wisdom of how to use abilities wisely can be compromised. This is similar to the parent or teacher that needs affirmation from their child or student (being liked) so much that they do not stay aware of the greater needs of the child or student.

The context for this lesson was not found in a rabbinical school by reading or hearing good teachers but by the difficulties of the desert. Formal training has its place. However, it vital, according to Luke, that one must be first stressed and forced to choose to have proper priorities. Where learning comes in for the beginning teacher is that the choices are based on the knowledge of Scripture. Jesus’ handling of Deuteronomy and His exegetical skills were remarkable. He not only knew the words of Deuteronomy but perceived their depth and meaning. Both ingredients are necessary for the teacher’s education. Both knowledge of God’s truth and the pressure of sparse and difficult times need to be part of a teacher’s training.

b. Challenged to Place the Ministry or Teaching Over God.

Jesus was then taken to a High Place. Whether this was in His mind’s eye or in a vision we are not told. Jesus was shown the kingdoms of this world, and He was promised them by Satan if Jesus would just worship him. Jesus was offered the kingdoms of the earth which was the very reason He came to earth. However, He had to violate the most important commandment in the Scriptures, the first of the Ten Commandments: loyalty to God. Jesus’ response was to answer with the reciting of God’s will which for Jesus was to quote Scripture, and He again selected a portion from Deuteronomy (6:13). Jesus was tempted to accomplish God’s will by violating God’s will.

A teacher must be his message and the task is not more important than the One who gives us the task. Jesus’ ministry was not more important than God Himself. Loyalty to God trumps loyalty to the mission or task. The pressure to succeed is enormous in any culture and the temptation will always come to put the success of the task for God over the will of God Himself. Many ministers and youth directors as well as teachers can violate the clear teachings of Scripture under the guise of accomplishing God’s will. Is not what is really motivating the teacher/preacher though something much more subtle?

In addition, it would have been easier to worship Satan to gain the kingdoms of this world than to suffer and go to the cross. Jesus refused to take a short cut that would have excluded pain. Repeatedly in the early chapters of the Gospel, Luke will show how Jesus would not take any short cuts. The time in the desert would show itself repeatedly in the stories to come. Jesus would gain the kingdoms of this world, but it would not be done by a short-cut. The early church sang a hymn about this and we think we have the words in Philippians 2:5-11. Had Jesus chosen “praise over the cross” the world would have died in our sins. His followers need to love people, not seek their approval nor seek power over them. Nor should they seek the praise that comes from success in their particular task or occupation. The proper type of praise will come in its time as Philippians 5:9-11 shows. Praise must be preceded by the cross and obedience (5:7-8).

c. Challenge to Prove His Special Relationship to God.

Jesus had been quoting Scripture, so then the Devil quoted Scripture as well in the third temptation. He referenced Psalms 91:11, 12. Again, Jesus was challenged to do a public miracle and to use the gifts for the sake of displaying His favored position with God. The temptation opened with the same words as the first temptation: “If you are the Son of God….” The drive justify oneself when self-esteem is at stake is strong. The temptation to satisfy that drive is often presented in the context of following Scripture. It is always easy to find some spiritual justification for our actions if we are not careful and are not fully focused.

Had Jesus leaped from the Temple Mount (no doubt the most prominent place in the country), He would not have been accosted so rudely in the controversies that each Gospel records. His opponents would have been afraid if such a display had been known of or witnessed. Jesus humbly dialogued and debated His religious critics demonstrating for us our need to be willing to face critique. He also taught us how to handle and how to answer the challenges that come to a true teacher of the Word. The great prophet Jeremiah was not allowed to escape ridicule and critique (for instance Jeremiah 28) as he faithfully delivered God’s will to his people. Jesus did not try to escape this either.

The temptation to silence in some manner or bully our audience into submission instead of meeting them on a human plane will often present itself. The need to logically and passionately seek to persuade them of the truth will be our task. We often do such bullying with titles (letters in front of our names like Dr. or Rev.), lists of publications or our position as professor or pastor, our reputation or our charisma that comes from repeatedly being up in front of a group. However, how close we are to God and how true our message is will often come in retrospect, not in the heat of debate. Students or parishioners will often go back to review both our answers and our willingness to serve by being willing to be questioned. We have all experienced the “put down” from a minister or teacher that refused to be questioned. We have all then subtly knew they were not completely in the truth. A good teacher avoids this short cut as well.

Again, many of the stories in Luke 4-6 go back to each of these three temptations. This will be noted in the discussion of those stories, but before proceeding it might be good to see two contrasts in these temptations. First, Jesus always responded with God’s Word. He interestingly enough always quoted Deuteronomy and perhaps that is because the Israelites who crossed the Red Sea never learned to have faith in the desert and so only their children inherited the Promised Land. The first hearers of Deuteronomy had not seen the miracles of the Exodus as adults, but only known the desert. Deuteronomy was given to the children of those who came out of Egypt, and it was given outside of the Promised Land. In essence, while they were still in the desert, they were given the chance to learn. Those who had experienced the miracles of the plagues of Egypt and the miracle at the Red Sea (the Sea of Reeds) died in the desert and did not learn from their experience of the miracles. Their lack of understanding was proved by their lack of faith when the desert hardships began.

It is true that hardships alone do not make a good preacher/teacher. The choice to learn in them and through them must be made. Jesus did learn and did work through the difficulties, and it prepared Him for work back in the Promised Land when He left the wilderness. Second, Jesus did not quote Scripture as if it was a charm or technique, but rather He focuses on what God truly wanted and therefore contradicted what would be easy for Him. Scripture was not used as a talisman but seen as something to be probed, pondered and used as the basis for obedience. Jesus submitted to the direction of the Word. We are not told by Luke how Jesus learned or studied the Old Testament, but His familiarity and insight into it was extensively demonstrated in Luke’s Gospel. His success in the desert was tied to the fact that this material was known and understood.

Jesus reversed the Fall of mankind as portrayed in Genesis 3. Mankind was tempted to decide what was good and what was evil through the tempting of Satan. Jesus decided to let God decide what was good and what was evil and that is shown to us in His use and submission to the Scripture’s intent. The key verse of Deuteronomy is 6:4 “Hear O Israel….” The word “hear” in Hebrew is also the Hebrew word for “obey”. Jesus obeyed the Word of God. He truly heard it. He would then call others to obedience but this was something He had already been doing. He was already following the message He would give to others. John would later say “The Word became flesh….” Luke’s way will be to show us that the very message they needed to hear from God was being acted out in the flesh before their very eyes. He truly was the message. He was the Word of God. This is exquisite communication.

The desert experience is part of that preparation and therefore a necessary part of to become a good communicator. Teachers cannot call others to the Word of God unless it is first part of their own experience. It appeared that testing and temptation in difficult circumstances was the necessary prerequisite for the “incarnation” of ministerial truths. Early in Jesus’ public life He faced the temptation to “prove Himself” and thus get derailed from the agenda of salvation.

This early battle would bare fruit. In the last moments of Jesus’ public ministry before His resurrection He would face again the temptation to “prove Himself”. In Luke 23:33-43 He would be taunted three times to come down from the cross and prove Himself the Chosen One (23:35), King of the Jews (23:37) or the Messiah (23:39). He never even responded to the taunts as He had settled that issue in the sparse desert. He had already won that battle in the wilderness of Judea. Instead, He focused, not on His own needs, but on the needs of others (23:34, 43).

II Public Ministry until Jerusalem: Luke 4:14-19:27

A. The first Sermon: in the Nazareth Synagogue. 4:14-6:16

1. The Sermon in Nazareth: Understanding the poor. Luke 4:14-30.

a. The Sermon and its Results.

The first mention of Jesus’ public ministry began with His work in Galilee. Luke 4:14-14 is a general summary. It stressed four things. First, Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit. The same Spirit that drove Jesus into the deprivations of the desert now seems present to empower His ministry. Second, its effect was startling as the news about Him spread throughout the area. We are not told specifically what caused news to spread but from 4:23, the implication was that He did miracles or healing. Third, Jesus was teaching in their synagogues. This is the first time that the word “teaching” is used in connection with Jesus in the book of Luke. Fourth, the teaching was well received. He was praised by everyone. Praise is delicious and addictive, and it can dilute our nerve to teach and confront tough issues, but if you have been in the desert…. Often it is the desert that shows the teacher that success is not the key but rather loyalty to God. Jesus has already faced this in the second temptation.

We notice that He spoke in their synagogues. He used the normal, established venues open to Him for communicating truth to His culture. Luke 4:16 tells us He went to the synagogue often and as visiting Rabbis’ would be asked to teach, He took advantage of this practice (4:15). What followed this brief description was a particular teaching session and no doubt selected by Luke to demonstrate what sort of message and manner of teaching Jesus was practicing in verses 14-15. This particular session took place in His home town of Nazareth in 4:16-30. It would be reasonable to assume that the pressure to succeed in front of the home crowd was enormous. He stood up to read (as He was a visiting Rabbi), and they handed Him the scroll of Isaiah. He turned to and read Isaiah 61:1, 2. Then He sat down. He had their complete attention and while all eyes were fixed upon Him, He claimed the text applied to Him. This was bold and alarming.

The Isaiah reading that He selected let His audience know what He considered to be the source of His teaching: the Spirit of God (4:18a or Isaiah 61:1). The reading also made clear what the reasons for His teaching were: to set free those whose blindness had made them captive and bound, and those to be set free were the type of people that many would not bother with (4:18b-19).

Jesus’ teaching came from the anointing of the Holy Spirit. It came not just when He rose to teach, but had been operative already in His life (Luke 3-4), and it empowered what He did. What was also clear was that the Spirit desired to help those nobody cared about. It wished to give good news to the poor and to set free the blind. Many focus their ministry on a different part of the population, a more elite audience, one that can tithe, or pay tuition, but the will of the Spirit of the Lord was expressed in what Jesus read.

The goal is not to gain a positive response from the audience but to give to those who are oppressed good news, to announce freedom for those who are captive, to clear up their perception of truth, to release the oppressed and to speak such freedom into existence because it was spoken in the Name of God: it is the work of God’s grace.

The time had come; it was the time He has decided to extend favor. It was time, Jesus said to act as God had always acted: to release His grace on those least expected to receive it. God, long ago, called the people of Israel out of Egypt and made them the elect of the earth. He selected a slave race, He selected the poor. It is the true story of the Master Instructor. The Law of Moses is best translated “the instructions of Moses”. Moses was a teacher of God’s will and God’s great Law or instruction was intentionally given to a poor audience: a slave race.

The response to Jesus’ teaching moved in three waves Luke tells us. First they were deeply interested. All eyes were fixed on Him; He had their attention (4:20). Second, Jesus was seemingly successful at first. “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from His lips.” They wondered how a home town boy could turn out so well. They wondered how a local young man, the son of the carpenter Joseph, could speak so well (4:22). Jesus has the audience in the palm of His hand. Then “He closed His hand.” An impressive preacher or teacher who is well thought of has not accomplished anything if all the audience does is praise the speaker/teacher. The work of freedom or release has yet to begin, and so Jesus began.

He referenced the previous miracles they had heard about or whatever He had done in Capernaum (4:23), knowing they would like to see some of the same. They would like to be further impressed. He seemed to indicate that such was not the bread they needed (4:4). They did not need the bread of healing (as necessary as it was at times) but the bread of God’s Word. He then predicted that they would not like it (4:24). He refused to perform for them in such a way as to please them. He did not need to prove Himself although the pressure must have been great to look good in front of those He grew up with. Instead, He turned to the familiar stories of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha and began to point out a feature in their lives they no doubt had not attended to. He knew they needed more than “bread alone”; they needed freedom, spiritual freedom. Jesus had great respect for the Scriptures and their ability as the bread of heaven, as the Word of God, to heal and sustain the soul.

He told the story of the widow who was miraculously saved through the blessing of Elijah (4:25-26). She was given continual bread in the midst of her hunger or desert, much like the Israelites were given bread by Moses in the desert. Jesus then pointed out that she was not an Israelite and that no doubt there were many Israelite widows in need but the prophet was sent to none of those. She was a poor Gentile and had the good news of the nature and love of the God of Israel revealed to her. She had become the elect of God as Israel had. He then proceeded to relate how Naaman was a Syrian (a military captain of Israel’s enemies) and though there must have been many with leprosy in Israel in those days, the prophet was sent only to the foreigner who had leprosy (4:27). Naaman experienced the miracles of God much as the early Israelites had in the desert wandering. He had become the elect of God and the proof was in the provision of God for his need (his leprosy was cured).

The third response of the audience was quite different than the first responses. They were furious and drove Him out of town and decided to throw Him off the cliffs on which the city sat. They tried to kill the teacher. Jesus had ruined His position of popularity. He deliberately threw it away because He loved them more than wanting to please them. He confronted them in their tribalism or racism. They were captives and could not see the truth of their own history. They were to be the “light of the nations”, not the self satisfied narrowly introverted people they had become. They were angry at Him for attempting to help them where they did not want help. They were in synagogue (or in church), and in the synagogue the Word of God was read and commented on, but they only wanted to hear certain things. God’s Word comes from the Person of God and if it is “left a text” that can be used only to bolster our prejudices, then it has ceased to be the “Word of God”; the revealed Will of God.

b. His Teaching Method: confidence, O.T., courage, and glitches.

Four addition comments would be appropriate on the manner of Jesus’ teaching. First, Jesus was bold, directive and courageous, the result of being in the desert. Courage is a by-product, if allowed it to be, of being in the desert or a by-product of the Spirit’s work. Facing difficulty early in life or ministry makes one stronger to face it when it comes after one has begun to serve in public and formal service.

Second, He knew how to use the Scriptures. In Luke 4:4, 8, 12, 18-19, 25-26 and 27 Jesus quoted or alluded to the Old Testament. He knew how to properly use the Scriptures and saw the Word as coming from a living God. He had learned well the techniques of the Devil using Scripture in the desert. He did not see the Word as a lifeless set of words than could be used at the whim and will of the reader. The Scriptures were not a text to be operated upon but a living Word to operate upon the reader or listener. The Word came from a living God who was still present via the Spirit, and was now present in their midst in Jesus. For example, Jesus saw the Gentiles as the weak and the poor. In our world, they are the non-churched and are not to be despised or feared but to have the good news preached to them (4:18). The Spirit was active and the Spirit had spoken in that synagogue at Nazareth. It did not set well with the preconceptions of His audience, but some preconceptions can imprison us and Jesus knew through the Spirit which ones they were. He used the Word to reveal their poverty.

Third, this was the first time Luke has shown us Jesus encountering hostility as a teacher. It would not be the last time. Could it be that Luke wanted us to see that, at times, encountering hostility is part of good teaching? Many of those who wish to minister are shy of stirring controversy or of encountering hostility. If we are to truly love people we must be willing to encounter such pain. We naturally fear hostility, but perhaps, the cure of such fear is the decisions made in the desert.

Finally or fourth, Jesus used a technique here in this sermon that will be repeated in the next five sermons (and is part of the essence of most of the parables). He deliberately upset His audience or said something unexpected to them. His first sermon was a classic example of it, and He would do it repeatedly in the next four extended examples of His teaching. He seemed to be duplicating an aspect of Old Testament narrative technique found so often in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, there were glitches placed deliberately into some of the narratives that caused the hearer to be jolted and disturbed (or upset). This was done deliberately. Our common practice is to smooth out such disturbances, (or delete them from consideration as unworthy of our more advanced theology) but the narrators were highly skilled and knew they were upsetting their audience.

To give an example from the narratives of Moses might help make this clearer. It is appropriate to choose one of these narratives since we have seen parallels to Jesus’ ministry and that of Moses’ efforts. The chosen example comes from the story of when God tried to kill Moses on his way to Egypt after arguing with him to accept the task of delivering his people for most of Exodus 3and 4. Moses finally obeyed, and then the glitch appears in Exodus 4:24-26. Yahweh tried to kill the agent of His plan of salvation. In our passage, Jesus announced His messianic role and had the audience positively impressed and then threw in the glitch about dealing with foreigners (gers). Jesus was completely in line with the Spirit of the Old Testament by using this technique of startling his audience (i.e. as in Exodus 4 when Yahweh trying to kill Moses). Both the reader of the Exodus 4 passage and the audience of Jesus’ day were startled. Why was this done?

Perhaps, the deliberate attempt to startle the audience at such a high cost (they attempted to murder Jesus) should lead us to ponder and carefully note what agenda was being pushed. It should lead us to see how important that particular issue was to Jesus. In similar fashion the glitch in Pentateuch demonstrated what was extremely important to Yahweh, when applied to the story of the Torah’s greatest positive example of leadership, namely, Moses. What is our glitch here in Luke 4? It is: who were the poor or prisoners or oppressed that needed to hear the proclamation of the Lord’s favor? He first applies it to Gentiles (not at all what was anticipated by the Jewish community when Jesus announced His being the messiah). It shocked them, and this shock would continue throughout Luke as the narratives that follow will show. This was an important agenda to Jesus. Who are the proper recipients of the Lord’s favor?

Here perhaps is the rule about glitches or startling statements or actions: the glitch is a pointer to an important truth. When there is a startling glitch in a sermon or parable it is parallel to similar glitches in the narratives of the Old Testament narratives.

To develop further our O.T. example, Moses was extremely important to the Torah as a mode for leadership. He was the necessary tool; it appears, to the salvation of the elect of God and to the giving of the “Law”. God had preformed a miracle to keep him alive at his birth, gave him the best education (the son of slave could have), and pushed him into the desert for forty years (much like Jesus’ forty days). However in Exodus 4:24-26, God seemed to be willing to start over and eliminate the chosen vessel: He sought to kill him. The passage is quite alarming; it contains quite a glitch. However, Moses would become the “law giver” par excel lance. His job was to not merely deliver the people from their slavery to Egypt but from sin as well. They were to be the elect of God and to be that they needed to know God’s will. They needed the Torah, the Law. How could the “law giver” be a true law giver if he did not follow the law himself? The Israelites had at that time one distinctive law and that was circumcision. Moses had not circumcised his son. The law giver also had to follow the law. Or put in other words: Moses had to be the message, not only teach it. This was not a minor issue to God but a major one. He was willing to eliminate Moses if Moses was unwilling to be the incarnate message of God’s will.

In the following narratives in Luke it can be seen how Luke illustrated the glitch’s main point. Just as the main meaning to the story in Exodus 4:24-26 was not quite apparent until one saw the rest of the Exodus story and Moses moved from being a deliverer to a law giver. So we, as readers of Luke, must watch to see what it means to be an anointed teacher and who the poor or captive are. There are roughly 10-12 sections that will follow the sermon in 4:14-30 (depending on how you group them) and before the second sermon in 6:20-40. In the middle are seven stories that will define or explain the “glitch” about whom He was sent to.

Luke seemed to pick up at this point two organizing teaching motifs: How did time in the desert affect His equilibrium as a teacher and how does one define the “glitch” of who are the intended recipients to whom He was sent to proclaim “the year of the Lord’s favor”. Luke defined in what followed the first sermon both the intended audience of the “anointed teacher” and why “wilderness experiences” are so necessary for the health and success of a teacher.

2. Immediate Response and definition of the word “poor”. 4:31- 44.

In the immediate aftermath are three vignettes (4:31-44). The first story is about His ministry in Capernaum of Galilee (4:31-37). There are several observations that could be made about His teaching. He was still using popular convention by teaching on the Sabbath in the synagogues. This is the second (4:31) and third reference to Jesus teaching the people (4:32). This time we are told not about His popularity with the crowd but about the amazement that seized them because His message had authority.

This success causes us to ask some questions. What did these people sense? Did the authority they recognized from the desert? Do we not listen to the counselor who has been through what we have been through? Is not the former cancer patient much more likely to speak with authority to others dealing with cancer? Is this similar to what we all have noticed that some men or women have within them a positive authority, and it is often born of struggle or hardship?

In this first story after the synagogue at Nazareth event, He did similar things. He attacked the Devil’s stronghold of racism in His home town, and then He attacked the Devil’s control of this poor man (4:33-35). This man was bound, oppressed and a prisoner and Jesus announced his deliverance. He did not want demonic praise (see Acts 16) but He insisted on the demonic obedience and got it. He spoke with authority and demonstrated that authority. Again all the people were amazed by the authority and power of His teaching. The news spread everywhere. The Holy Spirit may cause sparse times for the bearer of the Spirit (4:1), but it also brings power and authority over evil and freedom to those oppressed. He healed many (4:36) and made them the first definition of who was to have pronounced upon them “the year of the Lord’s favor”.

The second story was away from the public nature of a synagogue service and took place in the home of Simon (4:38-39). Again, He demonstrated power with just a word and healed Simon’s mother-in-law of her fever. Anyone who has entered a Middle Eastern home would know of the great shame Simon’s mother-in-law would have faced by being unable to attend to her guests, especially this special Rabbi. She was freed now to retain her pride and dignity and be a good host. Who was favored of God in this story? The private healing of an older woman was who Luke wished to point out to us. Many would only want such power displayed where it got proper public exposure. Jesus did acts of power privately and to meet a seemingly common or domestic need.

The third vignette comes in the evening as people now come to Simon’s home. These were not important people, powerful people, rich or highly prestigious people but those with various kinds of sickness and those demon-possessed. He touched them all, and they were healed (4:40). They received the Lord’s favor. He again refused the testimony of demons. He could be refusing the spectacular witness to His deity much like He refused to jump off the Temple Mount (4:41).

Our story has an interesting ending that is quite instructive for teachers who are anointed by the Spirit. He stepped away from where He was popular and successful. As He threw away popularity in the first sermon, He then announced His intention to leave the location of where He has been popular and accepted by the people due to His performance of miracles. People were looking for Him and tried to keep Him from leaving, but He spoke about priorities. They, no doubt, wanted healing, but He knew their long term need was for the “greater bread”. Jesus knew teaching/preaching would save for the long term and that the word and not healings or physical blessings had long term effect. Man does not live by bread alone, and Jesus learned that well in the desert. Meeting physical needs was well and good and Jesus did it, but “man does not live by bread alone”.

There are two interesting issues that Luke is consciously presenting to us. The first concerns the crowds. He was popular with them in 4:15, but as Luke begins to assign verbs to the “crowds” he shows they do not get it. They are fascinated in Nazareth (20 c), amazed (22); furious and attempted to murder Him (28-29), amazed in Capernaum (32) as well as in (36), and tried to stop His purpose for coming to the world (42). Luke showed us Jesus loved the crowds, but did not try to please them or order His agenda around their expectations (4:23) or desires (4:42).

The second issue is that of private prayer. Jesus will show us repeatedly that we need to be an incarnation of our message and so He did that in teaching us about prayer. Time alone with God preceded His public ministry (4:1-13), and after spectacular success he went back into a solitary place to pray (42). He showed how to regain a proper focus and not get caught up with success. He would do this several times that Luke took the time to tell us about. He was highly successful in chapter 5:12-15 due to the public healing of the leper but He again retreated to the lonely places and prayed (Luke says He often withdrew to such places: 5:16). Finally, before the presentation of the second sermon in Luke 6:20 Jesus engaged in some hot debates about how one should do ministry in light of the prevailing customs (6:1-11). His actions culminated in the religious and powerful leaders becoming furious and the second plot was made for His death (6:11). Luke then reported that Jesus went to a mountainside to pray and spent the night praying to God (6:12). The threat against His ministry and against His life did not cause Him to cower or stop His work, but rather after a night in prayer He made efforts to expand the ministry and selected the twelve apostles (who were going to be “sent-ones”). He modeled for us prayer before public ministry, after public success and after rejection by the powerful and before an important decision was to be made. Prayer seemed to keep success or rejection from distracting Him but rather guidance (6:13-19) or proper focus (4:43-44) was given through prayer. His prayer times seemingly brought Him back to what He purposed in the desert.

3. Defining the word “Poor”. Luke 5:1-39

This chapter has four parts: the call of Peter, the healing of the man with leprosy, the healing of the paralytic, the call of Matthew which would bring to the surface questions about the nature of Jesus’ ministry and a resulting parabolic answer. The four parts are called the “Call of Peter”, the “Healing of the Leper”, the “Healing of the Paralytic” and the “Call of Levi”. However, all four contain “calling” and “healing”. Jesus heals but gives more than physical healing to each of the four individuals (man does live by bread alone). All four are “called” to a particular and specific task; each task appropriate to the individual. The teaching of Jesus involved commitment or calling to a specific physical task, and it involved healing of the very soul.

Jesus would continue to answer the question as to whom the “year of the Lord’s favor” was announced (the four vignettes could be seen as the 2nd through the 5th definition). He would call Peter to ministry, a blue collar worker and Levi, a hated tax collector. They are alarming selections, but they are typical of who Yahweh selected in the Old Testament. Yahweh selected the second son when He selected Jacob over Esau, the eighth son in David, and the choice of the judges was, by in large, in this same manner. The celebrated judges were an unusual lot: a bastard (Jephthah), a woman in the man’s world of warfare (Deborah), a coward (Gideon), and an undisciplined man (Samson). In similar fashion the choice of a left handed man (Ehud) was clearly symbolic. The very selection of a slave race to be the elect of God, the recipients of the Torah and the bearer of the messianic line ran in this same vein. The Old Testament nature of what Jesus was doing dominated Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ value system and procedures.

a. The Call/Healing of Peter: 5:1-11

There are always problems in teaching and preaching. Sometimes these problems are logistical. Physical location is important for optimum communication. Anyone who has ever taught in a room that is too hot or has poor acoustics can relate. In the opening teaching situation of Luke 5, the crowd was large and was pressing in on Him, no doubt because of the healing, and He wanted to teach. He saw an opportunity. As a teacher Jesus was adaptive and creative. He seemed to have sized up the problem or situation and then creativity came up with a solution. He got into one of the boats He saw and requested of Peter that he push off a little way from shore. It would be culturally inappropriate to refuse the request of a Rabbi and so Peter complied. He not only provided Jesus with a solution to the pressing crowds, but gave Jesus a seat and a form of magnification to his voice for sound travels quite well over water. This arrangement did something else; it guaranteed a captive audience in the person of Peter.

A good teacher sees and solves logistical problems that work against good communication and does so with the help of others. Every teacher has experienced the affect of asking the more unruly student for aid in collecting pencils or doing some manual act of aid and the resulting openness of that student to listening to the teacher. Simon was invested now in the ministry of Jesus, the use of his boat had already made him part of Jesus’ efforts to teach.

What was rather charming was that Jesus then offered to pay for the use of the boat. Involving Peter’s boat had a double edge to it (it helped Him logistically and got a fisherman involved) and so in similar fashion this offer to pay for the boat’s use (5:5-7) had a double edge to it. They were fisherman and needed to catch fish for a living. Jesus had taken time from their work and so repaid them in the currency they could understand and appreciate. By miracle He filled their boats with fish. Obviously, they were paid for the use of the boat and paid substantially (5:6) as it needed two boats to haul in the catch in Peter’s nets and then both boats almost sunk.

The second issue was not for Peter’s financial benefit, but for his soul. Peter was asked to fish again after he, as a professional, had not caught a thing. Simon Peter, at this point was asked to do something tangible or physical to gain spiritual insight (5:4-5). Peter was asked to cast out his nets when every good fisherman of the day knew that the request was a foolish one. To gain from Jesus, however, Peter had to obey by doing something with his body. This concept of demanding physical response in the process of spiritual insight or change would dominate much of what Jesus did to help people see God. We will see in the next chapters that repentance or faith will always include a physical aspect. This particular action was a risk, Peter has just cleaned the nets, and he was asked to trust or risk that the Rabbi should be obeyed. The risks a good teacher asks of a student must come from something they are already familiar with and Peter knew fishing, so the risk or act of faith involved fishing. The large catch had its intended second affect: it awakened Peter’s soul (5:8). He received true bread.

Peter recovered his sight for he was blind. The miracle (or theophany if you please) revealed to Peter who he was. He saw his sinfulness. The miracle had opened Peter’s eyes to the divine activity present before him, and Peter then used a different title than in verse 5 (“Master”), and called Jesus: “Lord”. The action of reveling Peter’s sinfulness was not to dominate him or control him, for Jesus quickly follows with: “Do not be afraid”. The prohibition to not fear was the same one addressed to the shepherds, Mary and Zechariah. All those mentioned above had experienced a powerful religious event and were involved in the divine plan and similar to them Peter was told that he too would be part of God’s saving activity. Repentance was not to lead to low self esteem but was the precursor of being entrusted with God’s task (Isaiah 6:5).

Luke saw Jesus as being in the Old Testament tradition in many ways and here was another. Peter’s call is interestingly very similar to the prophet Isaiah’s call (Isaiah 6:1-8). He too experienced or saw God and this experience revealed to the prophet his own sinfulness. He was cleansed by God, and then the prophet overheard the need and chose to be God’s spokesman

Like Isaiah, the task had to be chosen. Peter had to choose to be a “fisher of men” as Isaiah had to choose to be God’s spokesman and so Luke recorded that Peter left everything behind. To get to the will of God requires that one leave their past and embrace a new future and follow God. The leaving for Peter was the leaving of his security, his job. The immediate financial gain of the fish created the situation that caused him to give up fishing, the very means of financial gain.

As Peter left, so did some of his fellow fisherman. They too saw the miracle and Peter’s obedience affected and involved them (as they no doubt learned much trying to pull in all the fish and probably heard the sermon from the shore). One individual’s obedience or involvement can open the doors for others.

b. The Healing/Call of the Leper: 5:12-16

In the next story, the man was said to be covered with leprosy, and he was aware of his lowly position and so bowed to the ground and called Jesus: “Lord”. He then proclaimed his belief that Jesus could heal him if He so desired. Jesus said the words: “I am willing”, but He communicated His willingness before the words and therefore the words had a double effect. He touched the man. Jesus, as a teacher, communicated with body language. He asked others to commit themselves physically, but did so first with His actions. He was willing to get down and dirty. It is questionable if a minister or teacher is anointed by the Spirit of God if they are not willing to physically demonstrate what they say.

Jesus communicated the willingness of God to deal with diseased human beings (and therefore unclean human beings), but man does not live by bread alone. Jesus did not leave it there. He then followed with instructions (Torah). Moses delivered the people from Egypt, but that was not enough. He gave the Israelites instructions or Torah. In this instance the man had received from God and then he was given a chance to obey or respond. As by grace the Israelites had been given salvation from Egyptian oppression and then were given a chance to respond or obey when they were given the Law. The Law afforded them the opportunity to respond to salvation, and Jesus was the new Moses.

As will be demonstrated throughout Luke, Jesus was not against the Mosaic Law. He told the man to tell no one, but go and show himself to the priest for a testimony so that they could either see the works of God or so he could be pronounced clean and thus able to reenter society. Perhaps, both were intended. We are not told what he did but we do know the news about Jesus spread everywhere.

The ending demonstrates how to handle success. A good teacher is not to lose their focus on the real needs of people. Man does not live by bread (physical healing) alone. By focusing on the man’s greater need and demanding that he immediately went to the priests Jesus focused on the man’s need instead of His success in curing leprosy. He refused to garner praise but rather demanded response from the man much like He did with Peter (5:4-5, 10).

As mentioned above, the freedom from the temptation of success must be fought for. Jesus showed us that we must make an effort for balance in our lives. With crowds everywhere Jesus withdrew to lonely places for prayer (5:16).

c. The Healing/Call of the Paralytic: 5:17-26.

1) The story: Interruption and Teaching.

The following story is one of perception in the midst of interruption. Most teachers have experienced interruption and a good teacher knows how to handle them. The next story opened with Jesus doing what He intended to do which was to teach (see 4:43). Jesus was teaching in a home and surrounded by the teachers of the Law. Then, as now, it might help to remember it was particularly important to teachers/preachers to be accepted and appreciated by their peers as it was in any profession. How our peers perceive us has great affect upon us.

There was a curious addition to our setting to the scene in this episode that Luke chose to give to us. He added that the power of the Lord was present for Him to heal the sick. Does this mean that it was not always present, or is Luke reminding us that Jesus is truly what we should be as a teacher? Is Luke saying that the power should be present? Could Luke also be saying that because this power was present and others knew of it, then not everyone wanted to hear teaching and what they wanted was healing? Perhaps, this latter situation is in Luke’s mind because he immediately mentioned that some men came with their friend on a stretcher and could not get their friend into the presence of the Healer.

The men with their friend interrupted Jesus’ teaching by tearing up the roof in order to get their paralyzed friend to the front and center of Jesus’ attention. Jesus’ response was highly instructive. Instead of being frustrated or angry, Jesus used the interruption of His teaching to teach. He did so, Luke says, because He was perceptive. He did not see an interruption, but perceived faith (5:20). He was not angry for He called the man “friend” and then forgave the man’s sins.

This set off a fire storm of protest from the religious leaders (5:21), and Jesus must have known it would. There would not have been the controversy had Jesus healed the man and gone on teaching. However, the religious leaders were scandalized because Jesus seemed to usurp what belonged solely to God: the forgiveness of sin. The text says Jesus was aware of their reasoning and so proceeded to ask rhetorical questions to lead their reasoning process into a more productive stream. He asked which was easier to say: “you are forgiven or you are to rise up and walk.” Then He helped them make a logical deduction about who He was by telling them before He did it that they were to see that both powers resided in the Son of Man.

2) Jesus’ Teaching Method.

Jesus clearly taught them something. They were instructed through the interruption about the nature of who Jesus was. Jesus had turned the interruption into a perfect opportunity to teach them a vital truth. The presence of God was right before them.

Just to do healings or do the miraculous accompanied by teaching does not often produce long term positive effect. Power and the Word are not enough. Without commitment on the part of the receivers of the healings or teachings Jesus knew His long term effect would be minimized. Typical of Jesus’ method of teaching truth was to demand a response on the part of the hearer or receiver. His demands were not always the same but were appropriate to the particular audience addressed. On the part of the religious teachers it was to make logical deductions (5:22-24, it would have been revolutionary if they had done it), and on the part of the ill man on the stretcher it was to do something physical. He told the man to get up and walk which was the very thing the man could not do (5:24). After all he was lowered through the roof because of that very inability.

The sick man did respond and potentially led the way for the religious leaders by his obedience and reception of God’s blessing. Like Peter was to the two sons of Zebedee, the paralytic was also a catalyst for others in the room. They were all filled with awe and reported verbally that they had seen remarkable things that day (5:26). It appears good teachers produce leaders not teachers’ pets. Jesus produced a leader in Peter (Peter’s friends followed him) and in the paralytic (everyone was enlightened through his obedience/healing) and seemed to have tried to do so for the leper (the command to go to the priests). This aspect of the production of leaders will continue into the next pericope or story about the tax collector Levi.

In all four of these stories about the attempt to produce leaders: Peter, the leper, the paralytic and the tax collector there was an oddity. These are hardly the pool most teachers would draw from to develop leaders. However, Jesus continued to define who was to have proclaimed to them the favorable year or the time of the Lord’s dynamic saving action. It is easy to see in the leper, the paralytic and in Levi that these particular men were prisoners of various sorts.

d. The Calling/Healing of Levi: 5:27-38.

As Jesus took a risk in touching the diseased individual and risked contracting the man’s illness and certainly becoming defiled with ritual defilement, and as Jesus risked the theological disapproval of the religious leaders by pronouncing forgiveness on the paralytic, Jesus then risked social defilement by His acceptance of Levi as a follower. Jesus was aware of what He was doing in all of these cases. He was aware of the risks. He told the leper to become ritually clean (5:14), and He referred to Levi as one needing a doctor, someone who was not filled with the health of righteousness, but was indeed a sinner (5:31-32). A teacher has to get his hands dirty if he is going to get to the people he wishes to reach. To stay safe is not an option. I still remember the English teacher I knew at a conservative Christian college whose groupies would include those recovering from alcohol, etc. Whom he associated with taught me volumes about the understanding of what made a real teacher or a real Christian and a great man.

As different as Peter and Levi were they also had some similarities: they were both at work, not at church. When they were called, Levi was doing evil work (tax-collecting for an oppressive foreign government) whereas Peter was doing acceptable work. However, both were at their place of employment when Jesus called them. Perhaps, being “on their turf” in some regard is vital to teaching effectively. This aspect of Jesus’ teaching will be repeated several times.

They have other similarities in their learning about God. They both left their occupations (5:11, 28). They both left the past behind. Radical decisions are necessary for those from good homes or acceptable employment as well as bad homes or occupations. Peter was called after a teaching session (5:4) whereas the teaching followed the call of Levi (5:31-38). Calling and teaching are intertwined in both episodes.

The criticism of Jesus calling Levi to follow Him was due probably not to the call for Levi to leave his detestable occupation but that Jesus truly meant the part about following Jesus literally. Levi was asked to associate with Jesus (5:27). Levi was no doubt thrilled with this change of events and so threw a party for other tax collectors (they were his associates). Jesus attended. To eat with someone is to commune with them. This sparked the criticism. Jesus was ruining His image or reputation.

The criticism was directed to the disciples not directly to Jesus Himself. However, Jesus took this question and dealt with it. Good teachers tackle the tough questions given to beginning students. Then the students can learn, watch and then later imitate.

In response to the criticism, the answer showed the disciples on later reflection that their master knew intimately what He was doing. One has to understand well what he is doing if one is able to define the action with a clever and accurate metaphor. The metaphor was far reaching. It not only met the requirements of the situation but defined philosophically the approach of Jesus. He knew the criticism was against His action, and He owned that action deliberately.

We are not told how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus’ proclaimed ministry focus, but it is reasonable to think they did not like it. They follow their first criticism with a second: the lax nature of Jesus’ disciples. They and even the dynamic John the Baptist taught their disciples to fast and pray. Perhaps, they are reaching here but are do doubt upset with the feast or banquet that the disreputable Levi has provided. Reaching out and teaching those who really need teaching can bring criticism. What was remarkable about the criticism in this instance was that it seemed to miss the point. The issue was not fasting but salvation. The leaders were not excited that a tax collector had been rehabilitated. They were not interested in salvation for the ones that Jesus, under the direction of the Spirit, had brought health to. This clear hard-heartedness would be emphasized by Luke in his next two vignettes (6:1-11).

Luke told us that John, Elizabeth, Simon, and Anna recognized the presence and activity of God because they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Luke told us who recognized Him at the Temple when He was a child and subtlety that there were those who did not recognize that God’s messiah was present. Luke was explicit in this story that these leaders do not perceive the activity of God and the deduction to be drawn is that was because the Spirit of God was not in them. Others were learning and growing into being leaders of faith, while these men were obstacles to God’s work of salvation.

Jesus did not address their hard-heartedness. He took the fasting agenda in another direction, actually, in two other directions. First, He patiently showed that He did not disagree with religious discipline or fasting being appropriate at the proper moment. His disciples would have their times of religious discipline ahead of them. (Jesus did not mention His own 40 day fast. A good teacher does not brag.) The reason for the delay of their fasting was His very presence. He was the bridegroom. He taught them about Himself (as He did with the interruption in 5:17-26). Fasting was inappropriate because of who He was. He was present and that made fasting inappropriate. He was the bridegroom, and the wedding of souls was taking place and that should be cause for joyous celebration. Perhaps, fasting should take when that is not taking place. Perhaps, our churches should fast because the lost are not getting married to the bridegroom.

Second, Jesus moved on to define the nature and impact of His presence on those He was bringing to salvation. Again, He knew what He was doing so He could put it into metaphors or parables (5:34-39). He told them two similar parables from situations all of them could relate to (5:36-39). As Jesus instructed Peter about the nature of his sin and his future commission in terms he could understand (namely fishing) Jesus would use metaphors that could be understood by this particular audience.

Jesus went on to define His ministry and did so by means of contrasts. He knew His ministry was similar and not similar to what had gone before in these communities. He also knew it was controversial. Certainly, wanting to deliver the Israelites from Egypt was controversial to Pharaoh. Therefore, Jesus spoke of not mixing the new with the old. It would ruin both. One could not correct the old (garment) with the new (a new patch). The non shrunken patch of new cloth would shrink when washed and thus in that process tear away from the old garment making the rent larger.

In the same fashion, one could not mix the new dynamic converts to salvation (the still fermenting and still young wine) with the old forms (the old wineskins). Those procedures (old wineskins) would not deal properly with the new converts (new wine). Jesus’ presence and ministry was not different in nature from what was given by His Father in the Old Testament (both were garments, both were wine). The constant respect and use of the Old Testament by Jesus clearly bore this out. However, to mix the revived lives of those lost or sick with those who did not consider themselves lost or ill would not work. It would hurt the new wine (new converts), destroy the old forms and new the converts would not be appreciated by those used to the old. The old tried to eject (and commit murder which would clearly violate Torah) in 4:28-29 while those who were sick did not want Jesus to go away but to stay near them (4:41). Clearly, good teaching is controversial to some and attractive to others.

4. Prelude to Rejection and Expansion: 6:1-16

a. Two Controversial Sabbaths: 6:1-11

1) The first Episode: defending the Disciples. 6:1-5.

Luke continued to describe Jesus as a teacher/communicator in chapter 6, but in a different tone. There is a subtle shift that begins in chapter 6. We have hinted from the first sermon that good teaching is often controversial teaching that produces negative reactions in the audience indicating their rejection of the content of the teaching. What was surprising was the source of the tension that would fill the next two vignettes (6:1-11). The attack came from the very place, which one would least expect: which is the leadership of God’s people. In addition, the locality of the attack was in a place where one would least expect the attack to come against the Son of God: in the church of that day. It is also surprising that these episodes demonstrated His opponents were not up against the reaction of a young man to the conservatives of his day, but were against someone who was actually more conservative than them.

The issue in this story and the one that would follow was concerned with what was lawful to do on the Sabbath. It was the Sabbath, a concept going back to the very understanding of the creation of the world that helped give God’s people a small cycle that gave them rest or relief from a life of toil. It was a discipline though, one that blessed those that followed it, but a discipline none-the-less. God’s people demonstrated each week their submission to God and acknowledgement of His lordship in the Covenant as well as His lordship over creation because as Creator He rested on the seventh day. However, every religious act, however good, can be corrupted and misunderstood. Jesus was not against the Sabbath, but rather against its misunderstanding. He was not against a conservative position, but a false conservative position.

The first story about the Sabbath had a seeming double function and had a tie back to some of the stories in chapter 5. Some of those stories were tied to a typical element in Jesus’ teaching, namely the making and calling of disciples (see 5:1-11 and 5:27-32). The call of Levi had already raised some questions in the minds of the local leadership and the actions of the disciples in not looking pious in partaking of the feast of Levi drew Pharisaic fire about the nature of Jesus’ mentorship. His followers did not seem as disciplined as their own disciples and John’s disciples (5:33-39).

Jesus defended His disciple’s actions in 5:34-35, and He did the same in 6:1-5. We will later see Jesus redirect, challenge and correct His staff (or disciples) but here He protected them. Good teachers protect their disciples or as a great teacher once told me: “A teacher should always be willing to die for his students but never allow his students to die for him.” Here Jesus took ownership of their action and shielded them from the criticism (as He did in 5:33-34).

In the first pericope (6:1-5), what caused the criticism seemed rather trivial, but it was caused by Jesus’ disciples or staff. As the disciples traveled through the grain fields, they picked some of the heads of grain and with their hands they cleaned away the husks and ate the kernels. Some Pharisees saw this as an unlawful act because the disciples worked on the Sabbath. They were harvesting by the actions of their hands rubbing the grain husks free from the kernels and therefore disobeying the Torah. They were not stealing. Deuteronomy 23:24-25 clearly says people may assuage their hunger if they take from a field as they pass through only what they need and can pick with their hands. The law protected property rights but was merciful and practical. It was the rubbing of the hands together that constituted their supposed error and caused the controversy.

Jesus did not buy their critique, or seemingly their understanding of Sabbath laws and proceeded to instruct them from a text in I Samuel using King David and the High Priest of that day. Jesus began to display again His great ability to handle exegetically the Scriptures. He did not reject tradition, but corrected their understanding of it. The story of David clearly showed that hunger trumps ritual as David was never criticized by the narrator of I Samuel and was given permission to eat bread reserved for priests. The decision to give David bread was made by the High Priest himself. The High Priest knew the law and its intent.

Luke ended the episode with a quote (6:3-5) from Jesus but recorded no response from Jesus’ detractors. Jesus’ speech had two parts the long rhetorical question and the statement in verse 5. Jesus had won the debate in verses 3-4. He asked a rhetorical question that basically showed their understanding of the sacred text needed to be reviewed. However, Jesus did not stop there but cryptically added: “Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”. What did Jesus mean?

On the one hand, did Jesus mean the obvious in taking the phrase “son of man” to mean what it means in Ezekiel 1: son of humans or a human being (or a mortal)? Was Jesus saying that the Law was designed, as creation was (Genesis 1, 2), to be a blessing for the humans? The humans were not designed for the Law but the Torah was designed for the humans. Jesus was not abrogating the Torah as He was quoting it as authority in the defense of His disciples. He was teaching the very nature and heart of the Old Testament Law. Man was to submit to Torah but the Torah was designed to bless the humans who followed it. Authority in the Old Testament did not emphasize domination, but blessing.

On the other hand, did Jesus mean the phrase was to be taken with Daniel 7:14 as referring to a divine being that the Daniel text makes mention. If the phrase “son of man” was to be taken in the sense of Daniel 7:14 then Jesus implied that God was Lord over His own laws? What is more is that Jesus often referred to Himself by this title. Was Jesus subtly claiming deity? Jesus could have meant both and this double meaning to a word or phrase was typical of how much of the Old Testament was written. It was not an ambiguity but rather a double richness, a double richness in theology. In later years the church was to review these texts and declare what has become termed “orthodoxy”. It declared that Jesus meant both: He was vere homo, vere dios, i.e. Jesus was completely human and completely divine. Did Jesus mean both or just one of the two? Luke did not tell us, nor did Jesus seemingly tell His audience.

What does this tell us about teaching? Should we learn the great technique so prevalent in the Old Testament of using a word or phrase with two meaning so it can function in both and thus render a richer meaning? This seems to be the case as Jesus would deliberately incorporate some familiar word plays they were used to hearing in later chapters (for example 11:28 and the play on the word “hear” or shamah). Was Jesus being coy with the blind Pharisees? Was Jesus setting up a saying in the memory of the disciples that would continue to instruct as time rolled on? Luke did not tell us. We do learn a bit though about Jesus’ understanding of teaching tradition: understand intent. Know why laws were given by God and know why they were to be followed.

2) The Second Episode: Healing on a Sabbath. 6:6-11.

a) The Story.

The second vignette also took place on a Sabbath and this time inside of a synagogue. In this instance, the text plainly tells us Jesus was formally teaching. Present in the audience was a man with a withered hand. Whether the man was planted there or whether the situation was created because the man with the shriveled hand just happened to be there is not told us, but his presence during the teaching became of intense interest to the religious leadership. They wondered if Jesus would work on the Sabbath because they seemed to have regarded the strain or effort to heal as work. The situation could be a troublesome one for Jesus. He could offend the Pharisees by healing or show none of the compassion He normally showed. This man was maimed in such as way as to compromise his ability to work and therefore to have self esteem and maintain his family and his dignity.

Luke told us Jesus was aware of what His audience was thinking (but did not tell us how). The response of Jesus is highly instructive. He responded aggressively. He did not avoid the problem but actively pursued it. He could have told the man He would contact him on the following day and help him. He could have challenged the man to return and his act of returning the following day could have been an act of faith (which was so dearly prized by Jesus). However, Jesus opted to demand the act of faith immediately in a very tension filled atmosphere. He charged the man to come forward and the man did respond. Then He asked the audience the purpose of the Sabbath with a rhetorical question (to do good or to do evil). He then asked the man to do what was impossible and that was to stretch out his hand (which was the problem because the hand was shriveled). The man did respond to the challenge and received healing.

b) Teaching Method: Demanding Involvement, Double audience.

What was Jesus modeling for us as far as teaching goes? First, we can clearly see that He did demand active participation of the man. This was something He repeatedly did. In addition, the man was learning by doing how to contact God again for himself: obey the challenging words of God.

Second, more disturbing was Jesus’ deliberate involvement with controversy. Does good teaching imbibe of such a technique? Jesus clearly could have avoided the trouble by healing the man on the following day. It appears Luke wanted us to see another side to Jesus than mere compassion for the sick. He also had compassion on the misinformed and was willing to do the dangerous work of properly informing those religious people who wanted no correction (for example: Proverbs 12:1). Jesus was seemingly teaching two different audiences two different messages at the same time. He was teaching the man how to have faith and the Pharisees that God saw the Torah differently than they supposed. They could now be seen, along with the man in need of healing as objects of need for the proclamation of the year of the Lord’s favor. These could be the 6th and 7th examples of commenting on the “glitch”. They were in need, as the miracle proved that God approved Jesus’ interpretation. This was something the Torah had clearly taught them about signs (see Numbers 16). They missed it because they too were captive and in need of healing just as much as the man with the withered hand was.

The Pharisees missed the intention of the Law by focusing on a narrow, legalistic (in the negative sense of that term) interpretation of how to deal with Sabbath. They objected to Jesus’ healing, because it was work, but ironically enough He healed the man by merely speaking (which should have reminded them of Genesis 1) and not exerting a lot of effort. They spoke on the Sabbath, and so were they also out of compliance?

What was remarkable was that any one would object to helping a man regain his dignity or ability to work and become a useful member of society. They seemed to have missed the purpose so clearly taught in the Torah or in the Prophets or Wisdom Literature that the purpose of power or a leadership role was to serve the people (Proverbs 11:17, 25). It was also remarkable they were not awed by the miracle itself and see that the source of the power was the very God who had given them the teachings found in their tradition. They had seemingly separated the text from the Giver of the text and Jesus, using the text in the first story and the clearly implied teaching of the Old Testament in the second tried to reunite the two for them.

c) The Conclusion: Demonstrated Compassion brings Rage.

Their response was rejection (as was the response in the synagogue in 4:29). They were filled with rage and began to plot what to do with Jesus. They would eventually succeed and kill Jesus. Luke is laying the foundation for what good teachers could experience. Jesus had healed a man and made him useful to himself and society but that was not focused on. He had stepped on their toes and that was all they saw.

b. Response to Criticism: Prayer and Plans for Expansion. 6:12-16.

What was even more remarkable was Jesus’ response to their response. He defended a true reading of the Word of God and was rejected for it. However, Jesus separated the religious leaders in His mind from the God they supposedly served. We find Luke telling us that Jesus was praying to God in verse 12. He modeled for us that the proper response to disappointment from corrupt leadership is to pray all night. The threat did not seem to unnerve, discourage, or frighten Jesus and this is proved by His response. His response was to pray and prayer could have given Him direction on not only how to handle the past but in what manner He was to proceed in the future. The actions recorded in verses 13-16 were clearly forward looking. Though, no doubt, concerned with what had happened in the earlier episodes on the Sabbath before the prayer, the prayer seemed to have a primarily forwarding looking effect to it. It appeared it was some days later (12a) after both the disturbing incidents and the time of prayer that the selection of the twelve disciples took place.

In 6:12, Luke clearly indicates that before an important decision is made in the life a teacher it should be bathed in prayer. It also seemed that some of the content of the next large sermon (6:20-48) was dominated by a theme that could only be possible when someone has spent extensive time with God in prayer. They plotted to destroy Jesus for being good to someone and yet Jesus chose the theme of loving your enemies to be the focal point of the next sermon. When they are first rejected, so many young teachers have their idealism crushed and get bitter. They would hardly preach a sermon after such an experience that contains 6:27-49.

The disciples around Jesus are many, and Jesus selected some to be apostles in 6:13-16. It is interesting they were not called “close ones” but “sent ones”. In light of the death threat implied in 6:11 Jesus did not form a body guard, and He never would. In the end, He would continue to protect these “sent ones” as they were the future and not peons for His immediate use. Maybe His prayer did this as well. After success in 5:12-15 Jesus spent time in prayer, and it focused His priorities and so in rejection it was also prayer that kept His priorities alive.

Jesus was not seemingly consumed with fear for His life. Instead He chose to expand the ministry by acquiring more assistants. So many in the clergy or academic world are not known for their courage but prayer could be an antidote to threats that could supersede tenure at a school, or denomination guarantees of employment for ministers.

B. The Second Sermon: On the Plain. 6:17-7:58.

1. The Sermon on the Plain: 6:17-49.

a. Introduction to the Sermon: 6:17-19.

The disciples descended with Jesus from the mountain, and Luke says there were a large number of them there along with great number of people from many of the surrounding regions. The crowd had a double motivation to come to Jesus: to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases. Exorcisms were taking place and the crowd wanted to touch Him because power was coming from Him and healing them. He would not do miracles in His own behalf because “man does not live by bread alone”, but He would do miracles in the face of other’s needs. It appears the miracles were a draw but once there He did more than give them the physical bread but gave them the divine Word as well.

It is a very uncomfortable observation to make but the two are tied together from Luke: teaching and healing. From the present, common, Western Christian perspective this seems to be something we cannot do. We can teach but we cannot heal with power but only with resources that our wealth has allowed us. The Western Church has tried to deal with discrepancy in a variety of ways. What is more galling is that the new churches growing so rapidly in the poorer countries of the globe are experiencing some of the balance that is portrayed in the Gospels. The source of this missing power will be discussed in future chapters by Luke. However, when Jesus called His disciples, the first sermon Luke recorded that was deliberately addressed to them did not address the issue of miraculous power. It had another center.

Before we examine the second sermon (the so-called Sermon on the Plain) it might not be too much a stretch to claim that Jesus was speaking again to a double audience. What was said was clearly to the disciples (see 20a “looking at his disciples”) but was also to be heard by the crowd. Jesus did not have secret, hidden words for the elect or chosen few, but what He said to them could be heard by all. Luke 6:20-49 could help a disciple understand the nature of the Kingdom and their role and responsibility in it but also help someone decide whether they wanted to be a disciple. By the way, we will call this the second sermon but it is really the 11th sample teaching Luke presents. Jesus had preached the two sermons in 4:18-27 and 6:20-49, but He had also preached 9 times by actions: 3 in chapter 4, 4 in chapter 5 and 2 in chapter 6.

b. The sermon itself: 6:20-49.

1) Defining Blessedness and Woe: the glitch 20-26.

Or How to love God.

The sermon opened with a very rhythmic and stylized rhetorical form drawn from familiar material His audience was accustomed to listen to: the psalms and prophetic woe oracles. It was a use of wisdom and prophetic literary and verbal forms similar to those in the Old Testament. Later in this sermon Luke will show that He borrowed or adapted many literary forms from a variety of locations in the Old Testament: wisdom, legal and prophetic forms or genres. It was wise to draw from the proverbs, poetry and the verbal and literary forms familiar to that culture. To connect with what someone already knows is helpful to bridge over to what they need to learn that is new.

Though Jesus opened with a familiar sounding cadence, He loaded the very first line with a glitch that must have caught his listeners by surprise. He used familiar forms, but tweaked them. As there was a glitch in the first sermon on whom the messiah would announce favorable tidings, this glitch followed much in the same path. Who was blessed and who would have woe pronounced against them? Again, it was not whom His audience would have expected.

The section from verse 20 to 26 opened with a positive four-fold description of whom was blessed and why they were blessed followed with a negative four-fold description of who would have a woe oracle aimed at them and why. The form was simple and had two parts: who was blessed and the reason and who was cursed and the reason.

Blessed is…for….

Woe to you who…for….

The disciples were beginning a new chapter in their lives. They were the specially selected group that was to be sent out. It is very possible that they felt pride in being part of the selected group. They, no doubt, felt blessed. It is this light that it appears that Jesus wanted them to know who was truly blessed of God and who was cursed. To understand this concept appeared to be imperative for those entering discipleship.

As noted above, the manner in which He taught this key thought was rather surprising, but that would be expected of a great teacher. Those in the blessed category were a surprising lot: the poor, the hungry, those who wept and those who were hated by men. Those in the woe category were just as surprising: the rich, the well-fed, those filled with laughter and those who were well spoken of. This seemed to be contradictory to common sense. No one raised a son hoping they would be poor, racked with hunger, filled with sorrow and rejected by society. No one in their right mind writes a Christmas letter today claiming calamity for their family as a sign of a blessed year. This was truly alarming. We would be happy if we were successful financially, with all we could eat, filled with joy and filled with the esteem of our community, church or family (this usually makes the Christmas letter).

a) The Blessed Ones: Luke 6:20-23.

Most people in the audience probably did come from the category of the poor, of those with sorrows, hungry (many were hungry for food, or needed healing or cleansing from demons), and not from the ranks of those high in their community’s esteem. What did they feel when they heard these words? We are not told by Luke. Were they encouraged, or puzzled? The crowds must have certainly been surprised and perhaps given hope. I believe the disciples were primarily puzzled.

Most people wished they could be financially blessed and saw those who were as blessed of God (no doubt stemming from the general teaching of Deuteronomy and the Proverbs). If you are wise, diligent and loyal to Torah then God would bless you. The great ending chapters of Deuteronomy (29-33) or the teaching of the Wisdom teachers in the book of Proverbs clearly drove the Israelite population to be intelligent, disciplined and aggressive in their day to day lives and to live with a high self esteem as the elect of God who had covenanted with the Almighty at Sinai. If they were not blessed it could be that they had broken the covenant and spilled its potential blessings out of their own hands. If they did not have the blessings of the covenant then maybe they had violated its terms and thus sinned. Unconsciously we still think the same way.

In Jesus’ four-fold pronouncement of blessing the second part of each blessing was easier to grasp than the first. The “reason” why someone was blessed that began with the word “for” was easier to understand than the opening statement of what category was blessed. What was alarming to Jesus’ audience and is still so to us is that the first of the four-fold blessings was tied to poverty.

In the first pronouncement, you were blessed if you were poor because it was to you that the Kingdom of God would belong. How the two relate was hard to understand, but what the second part meant was a bit easier to understand. What was the Kingdom of God? Perhaps, simply this: to be under the reign of God. God has come to be your king, and you are on good terms with that king. Certainly one is blessed to be in the Kingdom of God or under the reign of God.

If we return to the difficulty of how being poor was blessed and how it could relate to the Kingdom of God, it seemed that Jesus had cut across and differed from the standard understanding of reality encased in the Old Testament. He seemed to deny Torah, or did He? He clearly understood the depth of the teaching in the Old Testament and that was evidenced in the two encounters about what was lawful earlier in the chapter (6:1-11). Those examples are easier to understand and Jesus’ statements helped us to understand His actions. Why did Jesus not explain this present riddle while He was teaching? He left His audience hanging.

What did He mean when He said blessedness was decreed upon those hungry? The “reason” or phrase starting with the word “for” was again more understandable. It is understandable that one would feel blessed when they were satisfied and the pangs of hunger had therefore ceased. Who has not enjoyed the ending of hunger pangs or any type of physical pain and then counted themselves at the moment extremely blessed? However, why was it blessed to be found in the state of hunger, and was it not best to skip the experience of pain altogether in the first place? A good parent is one who provides for His children, not one who stresses them from not providing them with their daily sustenance. Is God (or Jesus) less good than a good parent? Again, Jesus did not explain.

The third announcement of a state of blessedness was much like the second. You were blessed when weeping because the weeping would end. Would it not be better to not weep at all?

Finally, blessed were those who were hated, excluded, insulted and who have had their reputation spurned as evil. They were commanded to rejoice in that day and to rejoice with exuberance (leap for joy). Again, the reason to be happy was understandable: your reward will be great in heaven, and you will be counted with the elite of heaven, the great prophets. They were horribly treated but though the prophets suffered much in their life times they were now the heroes of the nation and the loved of God. The people of that day understood this. The prophets (and Moses being the chief among them) were the foundations of Israel’s understanding of reality and of their elect status. To be classified with such an august group was quite an honor.

It is in this fourth announcement of blessing that Jesus began to give a sense of how to understand all of them: timing (the ability to wait) and motivation. All knew that the prophets were first hated, insulted and rejected because they had the courage to “wait upon the Lord”. They proved heroes because they could delay gratification and because they were loyal to the will of God. This issue of timing seemed to dominate the curses too.

b) Defining the State that Brings Cursing from God: 6:24-26.

It seems that the reason that those who have a Woe Oracle pronounced against them was primarily due to timing. The stress was upon when these four states were entered upon: wealth, satisfaction from hunger, joy and public esteem. In the first three instances all of that which we would normally prize was seen as negative because of when they were received (and therefore a state of Woe is entered upon). The positive states came first. This does not necessarily make sense. Why is it wrong that a child is well fed when young or has a happy childhood? Or does the Old Testament in some fashion subtly agree? Is the writer of Lamentations 3:26-27 giving us a hint?

Again, the final cursing again is helpful to understand the riddle Jesus had proposed. One had entered a state of Woe when one was well spoken of because they were like the false prophets of old. Did not the false prophets sell their souls and their nation’s fortunes with their grasping for popularity and acceptance? They wanted self esteem but they would not wait for it. The good prophets did wait and did receive.

But what else did Jesus mean? He did not tell us. He will speak another 23 verses in this sermon but not go back and explain further what He meant or what He wanted His audience to do about verses 20-26. Perhaps, the key can be found in two items. First, Jesus was primarily speaking to disciples. The sermon would end but not their educational process. They would soon embark on a series of journeys with Him as He continued to teach and interact with people. He knew He had frustrated them, and He seemed to have done it deliberately. It would not be the last time He did it. The answer to the puzzle would come, but come in the next chapter. Jesus would solve the riddle and explicate the puzzling statements in a way they would never forget. The explanation came later. This seemed to have been done deliberately.

There are four puzzling statements. They were important to Jesus and we know that because they were repeated in a negative form after first being formulated in a positive one. The Hebrews always repeated what they considered important. It was their way of writing an exclamation point and Jesus used His culture’s forms of communication. Jesus saw this issue as vital to discipleship. Whatever He wanted them to know was extremely important to being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Second, it needs to be made clear that Jesus was not one to complain of sour grapes. He was not complaining about His own poverty, hunger, sorrow or experience of rejection. True, He was not a rich man in a financial sense. He would die with only the clothes on His back (23:34) and would be designated with the great prophet Isaiah’s prediction as a “man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”. However, just to take the last of the four statements about public acceptance, Jesus had had His fair share of praise if we stay just with what Luke has already told us. It is complex, for Luke showed us that He had already been criticized in 5:30, 6:2 and 6:7 and been hated or raged against in 4:28 and 6:11, but He had also been publicly praised in 4:15, 4:22 and had amazed the crowds in 4:32, 33, and 5:26. He had also attracted huge crowds in 5:1, 5:14, and 6:17. Finally, some men had left everything to follow Him in 5:11 and 5:28. He had experienced both the praise and admiration of others and their scorn and hatred.

He was focused and Luke wanted us to see that the battle of compromising in the area of public esteem had been fought and won in the wilderness. Jesus was not complaining of the costs of being loyal to God but rather He was teaching us how to get blessed and how we could avoid a pronouncement of woe or experience judgment in our lives.

To Him it was absolutely vital to understand who God would bless or curse as one entered upon discipleship or how one could enter into discipleship if one was so inclined. In the first sermon Jesus surprised us with “who He was anointed to preach good news to” and in this sermon He surprised us again. The surprise in Luke 4 peaks our interest and surprised us with His action and Luke continued to surprise after the sermon with the stories that followed explaining who the objects of His anointing were destined to serve. It was the stories that followed that helped us understand in a fuller way how to gain the alarming perspective He had towards who should be ministered to. In similar fashion, the stories that would follow the second sermon would explicate the alarming statements in how one was blessed. But before Jesus would explain Himself, He started a new agenda and taught on another topic. The explanation of 20-26 would have to wait.

2) Defining How to Bless Others: 6:27-49

Or How to Love Your Neighbor

It is my opinion the sermon has only two major divisions: 20-26 and 27-49. The opening section was concerned with who was blessed by God and that the rest of the sermon falls under one rubric: forgiving your enemies. How did an individual obtain God’s favor (6:20-26) and then how did one extend the favor of God to others (in this case one’s enemies in 6:27-49). The disciples were taught to acquire God’s blessing and then how to give away that blessing. They were being trained for leadership. Luke tells us that good leadership and good teaching is receiving and giving.

This sermon has great similarities to the summary of the Mosaic Legal sections: the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The Ten Commandments have two natural divisions: love God (the first four) and love your neighbor (the last six). It appears that in similar fashion, Luke has arranged this sermon in two groupings.

Jesus opened this second section on forgiveness with another four-fold statement in 6:27-28. This was not a description of blessedness but pointed the way of how to bless. Each of the four statements in these opening two verses was a repetition of a similar theme (6:27-28) and then the rest of the sermon (29-49) was an attempt to motivate or persuade His audience to comply with this most difficult of tasks. Perhaps, to be a disciple who can forgive those who harm them was so important to Jesus that it was given extensive space and must be placed right along with the definition of how to be in a state where God called you blessed. This latter part of the sermon did not contain glitches or puzzling riddles as the first did. The subject was difficult to convince an audience to do (as anyone who has tried has experienced), but it was very clear what Jesus wanted. What Jesus demonstrated, so as far as teaching goes, was that difficult subjects must be pounded home with creative and persuasive repetition.

A word before this section is started. This is the first fairly long discourse that Luke gives us of Jesus’ teaching. We are therefore afforded a good look at many of His techniques in these 30 verses. We will look at how He approached it piece by piece and then recap what He had done as far as His teaching method is concerned.

a) The Basic Instruction: a four-fold command: 6:27-28

The opening words were prefaced with the phrase: “to those who hear”. In Hebrew a disciple hears and a disciple obeys. One who could hear could be a disciple and one who heard was one who did what he heard. The Hebrew word behind our English word “to hear” doubles for the concept “to obey”. They used the one word “shamah” or to “hear” to signify two meanings. Again, this was a common Hebrew teaching technique.

If they were to hear (and obey) Jesus they must love their enemies (6:27a). They were to love those they did not like. Love (ahav) in Hebrew was not mere feeling but was an act of will so it was natural that the next phrase followed with a definition of love: to love someone was to do well to them (6:27b). It was clearly to move beyond spontaneous feeling.

In addition, what is interesting is that the formulation here of these two statements has similar roots in the Torah. A good example is found in the Covenant Code in Exodus 23:4, 5. The Torah taught how to treat your enemy well when he was in need (to do well to them) in Exodus 23:4 and then followed with the command to be sure to help the person who hated you (Exodus 23:5). We were to love those who we saw as enemies and do well to those who from their perspective saw us as their enemies. In both the covenant code and Jesus’ sermon the point was made from the two perspectives of who regards who as an enemy. In addition, they were not encouraged to bless their enemies in Exodus 23 but were commanded to do so. Jesus agreed with the Covenant Code.

The third imperative was to bless those who have already displayed negative attitudes and acted upon them: they have cursed you (6:28a). Cursing was a verbal act so Jesus covers the issue more extensively and said to pray for those who have mistreated or acted against you (6:28b). It was one thing not to curse back, but they were told to positively ask God for their well being.

In all of these instructions there is a way to learn how to approach an enemy. Love them, do good to them, bless them and pray for them. In a sense, Jesus has given a check list of what to do with such distasteful people, and it can be a list that would not only guide the disciples but it could reveal to them whether they truly loved their enemies. It is one thing to say we love our enemies and another to do positive good things for them or their property (Exodus 23:4, 5), bless them and pray for them.

Finally, in all four commands the disciples were to be actors (i.e. aggressive) and not re-actors. They were to have a different value system and perspective and so no matter what others do they do not define what the disciples were to do. They were not to control them or dictate to them by their behavior what they were to become. Jesus was subtly teaching an interesting form of gaining freedom from the negative people they would all encounter. He, of course, would later demonstrate such behavior. It is only Luke that gives us the sayings Jesus uttered on the cross: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34). Jesus was not a victim, but rather in complete control, and He wanted similar freedom for His disciples.

b) Motivation for Forgiving Your Enemies: 6:29-49

(1) Aggressive Goodness. 6:29-36.

The issue of freedom that comes from forgiveness was practically applied in the two areas that cause people most often to hate those who were their enemies: their causing them to lose money and their pride. So Jesus anticipated what issues would be most pressing. The teaching was in an “If…then….” It is typical of Old Testament legal forms (for example see Exodus 22:1). It is sometimes called “case law” (and with a variety of other names as well). Case law understood that the “case” was to function as a precedent for other similar situations. In a sense, the turning of the cheek was to stand as a type or example of the principle as was the giving of the tunic after the taking of the cloak. The metaphor was to function not in a literal fashion but as a “type” to be applied in a variety of situations.

If a disciple was struck on the cheek (and insulted them) then they were to turn to them the other cheek. If someone took their cloak (defrauded them in some financial manner), then they were to let him take their tunic as well. The issue was: “do not retaliate”, but rather hold on lightly to your pride and possessions. The issue of aggressiveness was also present. The disciples were not to just “take the abuse”, but to decide to take charge of the situation and initiate action. They took control when the “turn” of the other cheek was made.

When someone takes from a disciple via fraud or violence their money or their inheritance then they would naturally want to get them back. If insulted then it is natural to want revenge. Jesus said think this out and the forgiveness of enemies must be present in these two areas.

If we are honest though, this is neither easy to do, nor something we naturally want to do. Jesus was aware of this and knew motivation was needed. It will soon follow.

When an individual believer was defrauded and thus cheated financially or their reputation was impugned, it was very easy to apply the maxim: “cheat me once and shame on you; cheat me twice and shame on me.” Jesus disagreed. They were to give to “everyone” who asked of them and if they were stolen from they were not to demand it back. If someone took their reputation away and then asked a favor of them and it was right to do such a favor, then they should do it (30). They were not to demand first that they returned their dignity.

The famous Golden Rule (31) was seemingly in a different setting than in Matthew but I do not believe that is the case. In both textual situations the Golden Rule was in the context of “tension with others”. In Matthew 7:12, it was in the context of praying for those we would like to judge (7:1-5) and in Luke it was in the context of those who hate a believer and have treated them as enemies. The disciples were not to be like them but to be like what they wished others would be like in their treatment of them. They were not to be passive but to obey the teaching in this verse requires that they thought out how they would really like to be treated in this situation and then go aggressively make up their minds and let their thinking direct their steps. They were to re-direct their thinking away from their own reception of poor behavior and focus on what was good behavior and let that guide them.

The decision to treat others well is easy when thinking of a good friend or those who treat us well. Jesus applied it to enemies as the following verses show. He then asked three Rhetorical Questions. As we will see, typically of Jesus, He wanted His audience to think and to see the reasonableness of His instruction. The first two questions asked His audience to ponder whether it was a credit to love, or be good to those who were similarly disposed towards them. He assumed there is not much credit given because even sinners do that (32-33). The third Rhetorical Question followed the same line of thinking but Jesus applied it to the realm of finances. In effect, Jesus said if one thinks about it, it would be clear to them that there was no credit or positive reward for loaning to those from whom they expected full payment.

Jesus went on to say that they were to love and do good (35a) in the manner in which they would define goodness (31) and apply that behavior to their enemies, and He wanted them to lend to those who might not pay them back. They were to be good because they thought good behavior was what they would like to receive.

Rhetorical Questions ask the listener to think and usually to ponder the obvious and thus they make a point. If we are honest these Rhetorical Questions are not as obvious as they appear. If we are honest, we do think it virtuous to love and treat well those who have loved and treated us well. We are just. We also, if we are honest, think it virtuous to lend to those who are honest or well enough disposed to pay us back. We naturally want justice. Jesus was not trying to dull or abrogate our sense of justice: doing that which is appropriate is how our word justice is defined in Hebrew. Jesus though was working from a more complex perspective when addressing His disciples on this issue. He saw the issue from a perspective that was greater than the human-to-human plane.

Oswald Chambers says, “We need to figure with God in the equation” (Chambers). Jesus taught that obeying such behavior as He was encouraging all through verses 27-49 brought God into the situation. The motive clause for such loans and positive behavior towards enemies as mentioned in the first part of verse 35 was that they would get paid back, and they would receive justice, but it would come from the hand of God. Jesus believed there was a God, and He was an active God in the affairs of men in this life and the life to come.

Jesus went even further with His motivation at the end of verse 35: “You will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.” Jesus was aware that those the disciples loved or lent money to might forget the kindness they extended and act wickedly. They were to obey Him because they chose to be like Him. They were given the opportunity to be “godly”, in essence to be like God. Godliness now has been put within the reach of all: not merely into the realm of the clergy or the amazingly pious, but to those who have enemies. This was accomplished by directing the focus not on getting justice on the human-to-human plane but by faith believing God would reward the effort because they were trying to imitate Him. Jesus then finished with the capstone statement: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” The disciples were to re-direct their focus from their own need to receive justice from the hand of their enemies or those who hated them to focusing on the fact that they had the opportunity to imitate God who will give them the justice they so deeply desired.

Jesus was trying to motivate His disciples to love their enemies and those who hated them, do good to them, bless them and pray for them so that they would be free of the burden of their pride and possessions and could become a truly godly person and indeed a son or daughter of the Almighty. They were given the key to how to directly please and imitate God in the push and pull of everyday life. What is more, as He would model such behavior for them in how He handled His enemies, His Resurrection and future glory would be fulfillment of what He promised would be the end results of their forgiving their enemies.

(2) Do Not Judge, but Pardon Receive. 6:37-38

When we have been treated unjustly it is natural to judge the people who have perpetrated the injustice. Jesus however, demanded that his disciples did not judge and did not condemn but rather forgave. His motive here for doing so though was different and has moved partially back on the human plane. If His disciples would not judge or condemn but rather choose another approach which was to forgive then they would receive freedom from their deserved judgments (their deserved condemnation) and positively receive forgiveness. They were asked to give mercy because God did in 36 and now they were to give mercy because they would need mercy. I say this is partially on a human to human plane. God is still involved as He would guarantee and implement the result of forgiveness that humans so desperately need as sinful human beings.

Jesus went one step further (38). They were to give forgiveness in the measure that they would like to receive it. If they gave bountifully it would be bountifully returned and even more (and running over). The teaching is formulated in the positive, and so the verse is brimming with promise. This promise has often been taken to mean finances but in the context it is here applied to the realm of receiving forgiveness or grace. Anyone who has experienced the “running over” of the grace of God knows how much more valuable a promise this would be.

As the recipients of injustice or maltreatment we often feel like victims, but Jesus promised His disciples that they could turn their situation into one of blessing. They could be in control of the situation by choosing to submit to His instruction. They could move from the realm of victims or the realm of being the recipient of injustice to the realm of a recipient of grace. What is more they could control the amount of what they would receive by their actions. Jesus taught forgiveness brought freedom. One moved from a victim to an aggressor, aggressively acquiring good things.

(3) Leadership Leads by Example: 6:39-40.

It must always be remembered that all of these teachings were in the setting of instructions for disciples who would be leaders. It was also in the context of forgiving enemies. Jesus continued to pound away in a variety of ways to get this particular behavior deep into His disciples. Here we see Him appealing in a different manner: the way to gain insight and benefit for others and to be like Him. This time His approach was to stir the nobleness that can reside in humans in two greatly prized virtues: helping others and being loyal.

He opened with another Rhetorical Question in verse 39. He asked His audience to ponder the obvious and make a logical deduction. If they were blind, how could they lead others from the dangers that are present in life? One of the most destructive things in human relationships is an attitude of revenge or a heart full of resentment for wrongs suffered. It is a deep pit. Good leaders can help others avoid such pits, but they cannot be involved in such a noble task if they themselves are blind. If the disciples were to lead others into freedom from the injustice they had received at the hand of hateful and wicked people then they must first be free themselves. Forgiveness, Jesus implied, would bring insightfulness and such insightfulness would be for the benefit of others.

However, in contrast to the verse above (38) it was not formatted in a positive manner but in a negative manner. This negative formulation amounted to a threat. If the disciples did not forgive would they not become blind leaders of the blind? Jesus threatened His followers with blindness and loss of being helpful to others if they did not obey 6:27-28.

When the Hebrew prophets attempted to persuade their followers to avoid disaster and gain blessing they would motivate positively and negatively. They would threaten and promise (in similar fashion to Deuteronomy 28). A large number of the motive clauses in the prophetic literature take this form, and so it was very familiar to Jesus’ audience. We use it still today. A teacher can promise insight and learning to those who will study, but it also helps students to threaten them with a low grade to make students make the most of their educational experience. The threat of verse 39 is followed with a promise in verse 40. If we forgive we can become like our teacher, who in this setting was Jesus. They were thus both promised and threatened and thus doubly motivated.

Jesus did not first offer His disciples power and super abilities if they followed Him. They had seen them demonstrated in 6:18-19. He later will offer them such power in 9:1, but He first offered them something more essential. He offered the way of discipleship which was to imitate character. The healings of 6:19 could have had a sinister element to them if the healer was not one whose character resembled Jesus’. We have all seen things given to people to manipulate, control and eventually harm them, but good things coming from good people is a different thing. God was kind to the ungrateful and wicked (6:36) and no doubt some of those healed in 6:19 were horrible people. It was the teaching that followed the healing that could heal their wicked hearts. God had given freely to them, and now they were shown the way to give back and become like the One who had given to them. Jesus wanted to lift them up the level on which He dwelt. Good teachers wish to empower and develop their students and good teachers show their students not merely how to improve their abilities, but also how to improve their character.

(4) Be Free and Then Insightful. 6:41-42.

The teaching given by Jesus about pulling the speck from their brother’s eyes was also in parabolic form. He wanted to persuade by use of a picture and a picture that they could all relate to. All of us have gotten something in our eye. In addition, Jesus used hyperbole or overstatement to make His point. It is hard to imagine having a plank actually in one’s eye but one can imagine what it would look like. It is a bit comical and overdrawn but that is part of the point: we are blind to help others with their faults if we do not see our own. The point is made not only in a parable form and with hyperbole, but in Rhetorical Questions. He then followed the two Rhetorical Questions first with a stinging title of address (you hypocrite) and then a command to correct their own behavior and that was concluded by a promise. The promise was how to gain the ability to see clearly so as to help their brother.

The promise was the hint that Jesus was giving procedure for leaders who wish to avoid harming others (nothing is as harmful as a hypocrite) and to gain an insightful perspective to help others remove their harmful behavior. All of this was in the context of forgiving enemies. So how does one bless his enemy or do well by him? The procedure was plainly given: clean the lumber out of your own eyes or forgive others yourself. All of us have been turned off by leaders who pontificate and show us our errors, but some of us have been remarkably helped by those who have made similar mistakes and show us the way out of the damning behavior. They have openly tried to clean up their own act. Their success at that, or the fact that they have conquered gave hope, and they know the way out because they have already traversed the path.

The motive to forgive their enemies and not judge them (as wrong and as stupid as they may be) was to gain insightfulness for the very brother they wished to condemn in judgment. Choosing to not judge them and to judge themselves first was a choice in and of itself to forgive them. The freedom from the judgmental attitude that becomes so deadly to disciples was gained by re-directing one’s energies to their own faults.

Jesus did not call them to not think or to be dead to injustice. The form of the Rhetorical Questions at the beginning let them know Jesus wanted them thinking about justice and injustice. He did not want them to stop pondering the fact of injustice but to re-direct that effort onto themselves. We are naturally disposed to understand and naturally disposed to be affected by injustice. Our way of or procedure for not letting it destroy us was given here.

(5) You are a Leader. 6:43-45

In the context of teaching disciples Jesus hammered away once again on the theme that the leader, “was to be their message”. The parabolic statements or metaphors Jesus used to communicate His point stressed the aspect of pulling up from within. A leader produced what was inside. Thus the good tree bore good fruit meant a good tree was a leader that had internalized the teaching on forgiving one’s enemies and others who were lead by that person could see the results. In similar fashion, a good man brought forth good treasure and an evil man brought forth evil treasure because that was what was within them. Jesus capped off these two metaphors with a proverb: For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth spoke.

Leaders could be known by what they did or said and thus the leader could watch themselves and learn from this teaching who and what they were by watching what came out of their mouths. It was a helpful self-corrective procedure. It was also a challenge to realize that what they would give to people as leaders comes from what they were. Mc Cheyene, the great Bible expositor of the19th century was known to say, “The best gift I can give to my parishioners is a holy life.”

It is hard to believe if we are honest with ourselves that we have a plank in our eye or that people will know what is truly in our hearts. If we are honest, we have confidence in our ability to hide such things. Therefore, it takes faith to believe there must be self-judgment first. It takes faith to believe that we will harm others or that we could bless others (again Jesus used in verse 43-45 both negative and positive examples) in the manner in which we forgive. It takes faith to believe that others will somehow know the nature of who we are by how we deal with this issue. Those who have obeyed the injunction to take care of their own faults first slowly see that there was a lot more (fault) lumber that resided in their eyes (perception of the situation) than they were ever aware of and by grace have been shown that their very words were laced with traces of hidden bitterness from past wrongs. It is by faith that the disciple would act then experience a tremendous insightfulness about themselves. If we have a hard time believing what Jesus said was true, then He followed with two final motivations to help His disciples forgive their enemies.

(6) The Test of Discipleship. 6:46
Jesus cut to the heart of the issue of teaching leaders and disciples and says if they wanted to know if they were a disciple then the test be a simple one: “Do what I say”. So many in the Christian world think their own profession of faith was the deciding issue. Jesus dispelled that notion with one quick blow. The phrase, “Lord, Lord” was an ancient profession of faith drawn from the Old Testament. The phrase in the Hebrew Bible would sound like this: Adonai Yahweh. It literally meant: Yahweh was lord. The word for “lord” (one who was their master and whose words were obeyed) in Hebrew was Adonai. However, by Jesus’ time, the Jewish community had grown so worried about taking the Lord’s name in vain which was the third commandment of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7 or Deuteronomy 5:11), that they had stopped saying the divine name (Yahweh, Yahve, or Jehovah). When they wanted to refer to Yahweh (or the divine four consonants or the Tetragrammaton) they piously used the word “Lord”. This practice is found in most English translations of the Bible. When Yahweh is translated into English we usually translate it as capital: L, O, R, D. Thus when we read the phrase “Lord, Lord” what the ancient listeners were hearing was an ancient profession of faith: Yahweh was lord. In the early church (many scholars think) the first profession of faith among Christians was Kyrie Jesu. Literally, “Lord Jesus”, but understood as “Jesus was Lord” in imitation of “Lord, Lord”, or “Yahweh was Lord”.

Therefore, what Jesus was saying here was those who said “Lord, Lord” and did not do what He said were really not His disciples. They said they were His disciples but their actions proved that their profession was a false one. If they did not forgive their enemies then Jesus was not their Lord, no matter what profession of faith they had made or believed they held. The proof of discipleship was in the forgiving of their enemies. The lack of forgiving their enemies invalidated their profession of loyalty.

(7) Building a Solid Foundation for Times of Trial. 6:47-49

The so-called “Sermon on the Plain” ended with the same parabolic statement or metaphor that concluded the Matthew version or the “Sermon on the Mount”. I believe Jesus must of have used this metaphor in a variety of settings. In the Sermon on the Mount the net was cast wider to include multiple teachings, but here it is more narrowly applied. It was a final attempt at persuading His disciples to forgive their enemies. The metaphor had both a threat and a promise to it, similar to earlier formulations. He opened with the positive example of the house built on a solid foundation withstanding the storm because of its foundation and concluded with the threat that inadequate foundations in a human being’s life ended in disaster. The entire context of 29-49 has been one of how to forgive enemies and so the final metaphor was given so that if you wished to make it as a disciple during times of trial or stress then the foundation to their faith was their obedience to His commands to forgive those who had treated them poorly or who hated them.

This final metaphor of the house build either on the rock or on the sand is so familiar that it could run the risk of being unhelpful. However, seen in the context of 6:20-49 being addressed to disciples and 27-49 seemingly being all about forgiveness of enemies this metaphor takes on an added nuance. If believers in Jesus Christ did not forgive their enemies, then their spiritual lives would collapse when rough times came. Similarly, if they did forgive then when rough times came they would stand firm. Most of us as teachers or preachers have witnessed those who started out well in the things of the faith or in the role of a teacher or preacher, but did not stay healthy spiritually. Jesus said one of the key and necessary elements for spiritual survival was forgiving enemies. In addition, the metaphor the house foundation could also refer to the agenda found in 6:20-26, but what that means has yet to be made clear.

To see in a chart form the various types of teaching method employed by Jesus in this sermon (6:20-49) see the chart designated as chart A.

2. The explanation of the glitch in the Sermon on the Plain. 7:1-50.

The sermon on the plain was followed by four short stories in Luke 7. They were related to Luke 6:20-26 that also had four puzzling parts repeated twice (6:20-23 and 6:24-26). These four statements were not completely clear and Jesus seemed to have deliberately spoken about the blessing of being poor, weeping, persecution and hunger and the curse of being rich, well-fed, laughing, and being well regarded without fully explaining all that He meant. Sometimes, it is best to tease your audience. Get them thinking with challenging statements that are not fully explained. The goal is not to be vague but to stir their curiosity and the answer to the riddle is to come later. When the answer is finally figured out the lesson stays longer.

It takes great courage to teach this way for people often do not like to be left hanging until later. A speaker/teacher can often fill the tension in the room if the audience has been stirred and the answer to such stirring is not given. However, Jesus modeled some thing for us that good teachers can do. First of all, the bulk of the Sermon on the Plain was clear enough: in 6:27-49 they had to forgive their enemies to be a disciple. Second, the unclear parts were put in memorable form. They were put in familiar poetic form and repeated. The teaching was hard to fathom but memorable. Third, the sermon was addressed to the disciples and they were not yet dismissed from class. For the disciples the understanding of Luke 6:20-26 was to come in Luke 7. The answer did not come in another sermon or in propositional statements about the meaning of being poor, hungry, etc. but in actual experiences they were to have as they went with Jesus day by day. They were to see the answer in the very actions of Jesus and in the very push and pull of life. The disciples were to literally “see” the message, not just hear words. Jesus’ teaching was not mere religious concepts, but actual descriptions of life.

The first explanation came when they changed towns: “When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.”

a. Blessed are those who hunger. 7:1-10.

The story opened with a description of a certain military officer in the army that occupied the Jewish lands against the will of the Jewish people. This “centurion” would have his modern day complement in a captain or any military officer who was posted in a foreign country and his government “occupied” the region against the will of the people. The description of the centurion began with his relationship to one of his servants whom the officer highly valued and that servant was sick and about to die. The centurion heard about Jesus and sent word to Jesus through the local elders of the town asking for Jesus to come and heal his servant. Luke says the elders “pleaded earnestly” with Jesus because this particular officer was well liked by them. He loved them, they felt, and the proof was that the centurion had built them a synagogue.

A curious statement was made by the elders: “This man deserves to have you do this.” Is anyone worthy of grace from God? Does any foreigner “deserve” a miraculous healing? Jesus’ response was to go and acquiesce to their request. He started on the way to the home of the Roman officer. This decision to acquiesce speaks volumes about Jesus’ humility.

The next speech in the story was on the lips of the centurion who did not come in person (which he would later explain) but sent “friends” with the instruction that the Master was not to trouble himself in coming to his home. He felt he did not “deserve” to have Jesus under his roof. Of course, this was an expression of utter cultural sensitivity. Jews regarded going under the roof of Gentile to be an act that defiled them. The man did not see himself as even worthy to come into the Rabbi’s presence and so sent friends, no doubt, to protect Jesus’ reputation of being associated with the enemies of the Jewish people. If Jesus had come into the home or even publicly interacted with the centurion, there would be a negative reaction. The man was considerate, but the man was also hungry, and so he pressed on.

He told the Rabbi of a foreign culture and religion, “just say the word and the healing can happen.” He explained from his own understanding of his position in life what authority was. He saw Jesus as having extraordinary authority. Actually, the centurion, whether consciously or not, understood Genesis 1 quite well. God created the world by His voice. In addition, all through the Old Testament, a priest or prophet could speak words of power that acted dynamically in the actual world if they came from God. He told Jesus, through the emissaries, that just Jesus’ words were sufficient to heal his servant. Either the man believed because he deduced from his own life-experiences that authority over evil was possible because good should have such authority, or he truly believed the teachings of the Jews and had the faith that what he had heard of Genesis and the stories of the prophets were indeed true. In either case, the man had extraordinary faith.

Jesus’ responded in an even more extraordinary manner. He heard and was amazed. It is quite a feat to amaze the heart of God, but this man accomplished that. He then spoke, not privately to the centurion’s friends, but to the crowd, the very crowd that the centurion was trying to keep Jesus from getting in trouble with. He told the crowd this man had greater faith than anyone He had met in the believing community of that day. In other words, this man’s faith was greater than everyone in church even though he was not a church member (and Israelite). We are not told the reaction of the crowd, but we are told that when the men returned home who came to Jesus on behalf of the centurion, they found the servant well.

Jesus had just concluded a teaching seminar for His disciples. First, Jesus demonstrated amazing courage in His praise of the military officer of a foreign occupying army. Real teaching is committed to the truth, no matter what the cost to one’s image or whether it squares with what is politically correct. Second, Jesus had defined for them what it meant to be blessed when we are hungry. “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.” Blessed are you who hunger now for the welfare of your employees for you will be satisfied with them receiving what you desire. Blessed are those who hunger for the welfare of others. Jesus had taped into the great “intercessory prayer” fountain that flows through the Old Testament. The great ones of Israel’s past history, like Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, David, etc. were blessed because they cared about someone besides themselves and interceded for them. Moses was hungry in Exodus 32:7-14 and 32:32, etc. He was hungry for the welfare of his people.

“Blessed are you who hunger now.” We can avoid such pain or inward hunger by not caring for others who are sick whether with sin or illness. We can focus only on our own health, but then we will miss the state of blessedness. We will also feel satisfied but later be filled with hunger. How many of us have gone to the funeral of those who were never hungry for anyone else’s needs but their own?

b. Blessed are those who weep. 7:11-17.

Again, the next lesson for the disciples or explanation of 6:20-23 would take place in another location, this time near the town of Nain. A large crown was accompanying Jesus, but Luke carefully tells us that His disciples were also with him (7:11). A dead man was being carried out; the only son of a woman now left destitute in her widowhood and bereft of any means of support. She had no husband and now no son to help her. Jesus saw her and Luke says “His heart went out to her.”

Jesus then went up and ruined the funeral. First, He defiled Himself by touching the coffin and this must have shocked the pallbearers because they stood still. Second, He spoke to the dead man because no one is beyond the call of God. He commanded the dead man to get up. The dead man obeyed: he sat up and began to talk. Jesus “gave him back to his mother” Luke says. The crowds were filled with awe as any of us would be, and they began to praise God because a great prophet had arisen in their midst who had come to help God’s people.

Good teaching will step beyond the rules of propriety if a great good is to be accomplished. Compassion is part of teaching and part of what should direct our actions as a teacher. Good teaching will demonstrate truth. Jesus was not afraid of death (He touched the coffin), and He was over death (He raised the man from the dead). Good teachers are consumed with compassion rather than with what is acceptable or what would keep us from criticism. Elisha had done the same. He had lain on a dead boy (II Kings 4:34) and then prayed before God, and he too had restored a boy to his mother. The boy in Elisha’s time was also his mother’s only son. Perhaps, this action of Jesus had reminded the people of Elisha’s action. Elisha was also defiled by touching the dead. The prophet had commanded Gehazi, his servant to place the prophet’s staff on the child (so as not to defile the servant), but it did not work, it required the touching of a body by Elisha, and Elisha did what was needed.

The widow at Nain had no doubt suffered greatly in the hours before the funeral. She had experienced the grief that so many have had when a child precedes a parent in death. However, this woman’s tears had placed her in the realm of the blessed. She was the first to see a precursor of the resurrection. She had an insight into the doctrine of the resurrection that few of would ever have. Pain is still pain. Jesus was not glorifying pain, but pain would not have the last word, but rather the pain that is experience now will be redeemed. Perhaps, the disciples were directed to look differently on their sorrows if they were to enter into discipleship with Jesus. Perhaps, it is only through their sorrows that certain joys and understandings could be reached. In the discipleship of Jesus it is blessed to weep now.

It is dangerous and it moved the disciples into the realm of “woe” if they could in some fashion avoid sorrow in an inappropriate manner. There are those who do that. There are those who insulate themselves from the sorrow of others: the plight of the homeless, the sick, the elderly, those caught in sin. There are churches that do the same. We can refuse to weep now as a body of believers, and we will reap the judgment of God (6:25).

c. Blessed are those who are persecuted. 7:18-35.

The third vignette centered on the person of John the Baptist. He had heard, according to verse 18, all the news about Jesus that was spreading through out the region (17). John had some doubts that Jesus was the Messiah. Perhaps the manner in which Jesus was conducting himself was puzzling to John. The people Jesus dealt with might have caused him concern or the fact that his disciples did not fast, etc. Perhaps, Jesus had not judged those filled with corruption, and John had believed Jesus would do that (3:7-9). We are not told by Luke what exactly John thought except that John was not someone to criticize without finding out the facts. So he sent two men to ask Jesus if He was indeed the One who was to come.

Jesus responded by first allowing the two disciples of John to view his work of healing and exorcism, and then He told them to report what they had seen roughly quoting the beginning of Isaiah 61 (7:21-22), the very text used in the first sermon in Luke 4. He ended it with an additional statement. Jesus added that one was blessed if they were not offended on account of Him. Even the great John was challenged.

Jesus then demonstrated a remarkable ability to handle criticism and doubt. It would be discouraging if the very individual God used to announce your ministry had serious doubts about you. It could make you defensive; Jesus was surprisingly not defensive but rather modeled for us how to handle doubts from good people about our teaching. First, He did not alter His work because of the cross examination, but continued on with what He was doing in the presence of the two messengers from John. Second, He began to praise John (7:24-26) by use of a series of rhetorical questions but did so after the messengers from John had left (7:24 a). He was not trying to kiss up to John with His praise but was pointing out to the audience what He truly thought. If one can see the good points and fine character and exalted ministry of our doubters we are certainly not sitting in a state of defensiveness. Jesus began by calling John a prophet, but went on to say John was more than a prophet (a thing hard to conceive), but given the exalted position of being a forerunner (27), finally ending with the statement that the greatest man born was John (7:28). Jesus still saw John as His witness. He was not put off or angry with John’s doubt.

Jesus gained the approval of the crowds with His statements because they knew John to be from God and had submitted to His ministry of baptism. Jesus’ statements about John were to the crowds, and it is very instructive for people to see how leaders view one another. A minister once remarked to me that the pastor’s demeanor in the pulpit will be transferred to their congregation. If they see ministers or teachers with different styles or ministries get along and see themselves as part of a greater good, then the congregation will have a greater chance of doing the same among themselves.

Jesus ended His talk by comparing and contrasting the differences in who the people perceived Jesus and John to be. One appeared quite ascetic and disciplined and the other quite gregarious and friendly, but both met with unfair criticism. Jesus was saying the difference in styles and approaches the two men demonstrated had each, in their own way, garnered criticism. However, both would be justified in the end by the results of their work. Both would die for their work. Jesus on the cross, and John was to die a horrible and almost trivial death (beheaded because of a rash promise made at a party) because of his loyalty to the truth. Jesus left no doubt in the audience’s mind as to how Jesus perceived John and his work. No mention was made of the temporary doubt John had. Jesus was not defensive; He has been in the desert. He knew who He was.

In all of this Jesus had not lost sight of the disciples in their quest for the riddle. John was highly praised by Jesus: “the greatest man that has been born among women”, but the praise was not meant to put John on a pedestal that caused despair in those hearing the words of ever gaining the same type of praise. So often we go to funerals of good people only to leave depressed because of the manner in which they were eulogized. All along, Jesus had a double agenda: express His views of John and teach the disciples how to be blessed. The statement of inclusion, not exclusion, is found in 7:28: “I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John, yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” All the disciples could achieve blessedness by their own experience of exclusion or rejection because as teachers they were loyal to God and the truth. We can get to similar greatness. Perhaps, seeing such a great man as John brought down to within range of our efforts brings alive a hope and stirs a resolve to be loyal. Again Jesus was teaching by example, a historical, contemporary example.

For many in the crowd John was a model to followed, but in contrast, the leadership of the community had not allowed themselves to be humbled with a rite that was reserved in their minds for Gentile converts (baptism by water) and had rejected God’s purpose for them. They had rejected John and now accused Jesus of having a demon and as being a reprobate, and He was also rejected by the leadership of that day as evil. However, wisdom was to be justified by her children (the product). It is our choice to be loyal like John was to the truth. However, it is also our choice to enter into the state of blessedness by the experience of rejection that loyalty to the truth can cause.

d. Blessed are poor. 7:36-50

The final episode in Luke 7 took place at a dinner party. We were told of the party Jesus attended when Levi had invited him (5:29-30) and how that had brought criticism of Jesus and no doubt had tarnished His reputation (7:34), but now we are told of a different dinner engagement. Jesus finally gets a proper and reputable invitation. This was one dinner party that would not tarnish His reputation or bring into doubt His piety. He went to dinner with Simon the Pharisee. It was a formal dinner, they reclined at table.

It was then that things got a bit out of hand. A prostitute seemed to have been overwhelmed with guilt and sought some form of release from her life of sin or from guilt and found out where Jesus was dinning. She entered the party and began to wet His feet with her tears, wipe them with her hair and pour perfume on His feet. Her tears were an expression of her repentance, and wiping His feet with her hair was an act of repentance. The word “repent” in Hebrew means to literally “turn” and the woman was turning not only in her mind but was attempting to turn by expressing it with her body.

In those days, as it is still in much of the Middle East, a woman’s sexual attraction was strongly tied to her hair (perhaps why pious Islamic women today wear the cover over their hair). She washed the feet of Jesus (who wore sandals on dusty, donkey dung covered streets) with her hair. Her hair must have been filthy after this, and then she went further and poured perfume on His feet. Perfume was an item only the wealthy and or prostitutes could afford (Proverbs 7:17). She was getting rid of the tools of her trade. The sexual allurement of her hair and perfume was being discarded. She was turning from her past.

She must have been overcome with grief at the realization of who she had become and therefore was willing to brave the searing stares of the guests. Simon, the host, Luke records, saw Jesus’ allowance of such action as proof that He was not a prophet because He did not seemingly perceive what kind of women was touching Him. The text does not tell us what her feeling were, but Jesus seemed to have perceived her growing discomfort in the presence of the “guardians of the Word of God”.

Her actions were embarrassing and she put herself in a vulnerable position, but Jesus’ immediate response did the same for Himself. Jesus did not push her away. Jesus had again lost credibility in the eyes of the proper folks. He first lost it because of how He defined His ministry in Luke 4. How Jesus defined who was to hear the “good news” had brought Him into an increasing conflict with the church (synagogue) leaders of His day. This woman had created an embarrassing situation (or distraction) for this instructor in God’s Word, and so He decided to use it to instruct (see also 5:17-20).

He began by answering Simon’s doubt and asked permission to speak with the Pharisee. Simon’s title of address for Jesus was an interesting one: Simon called Jesus a teacher. So the teacher began to teach. He told a mini-parable about two debtors of unequal debt who were both forgiven. The parable was told in such a manner, typical of that day, as to allow a question that required a judgment. In this case, Simon was to decide who would most appreciate the canceling of the debt. By the question, Jesus put Simon into the place of the teacher and Rabbi. Simon was to make the decision about who of the two debtors would be most loving towards the creditor. Simon was forced to be an active participant in the teaching event. Simon gave a cautious but accurate reply. His reply was not immediately greeted with scorn, but with approval. Jesus affirmed his reading of the story with its attached question. Simon was declared by Jesus to be correct and to be regarded as insightful.

Had Jesus stopped there He might have escaped with only minor criticism. He had forced Simon to acknowledge that the woman’s actions were out of love for the grace of God known so widely to exist through out the Old Testament. It was what Jesus did next that excited increased controversy. Jesus went further to express His love for the woman and finally for the Pharisee. Had Jesus not been such an intensely concerned teacher His troubles would have been less. Had He set His sights just a bit lower, He would have avoided sorrow. However, a good teacher will go on to gain all he or she can for their students. Jesus would not avoid “weeping” (6:21) in the now; He would act out His own teaching. He was hungry then for people’s redemption, (6:21) willing to be hated then than walk away from an amazing teaching opportunity (6:22), and He was willing to be poor in the short run of things (6:20).

So He began a threefold comparison, much like the comparisons found in some of the sayings in the book of Proverbs. He compared the woman and Simon as hosts. Of course, the woman never saw herself as a host or her actions as an attempt to make up for the short comings of the actual host, but the comparison was valid. Simon had not properly provided water for Jesus feet to be washed, but the woman personally washed His feet with her hair. Jesus had not received the customary oriental kiss of greeting, but the woman had kissed His feet. Simon had not given Jesus the honor of having the cooling oils poured over Him that were often accorded guests in proper dinner settings, but the woman had anointed His feet. After presenting this new contemporary parable or metaphor drawn from the proceedings right before their eyes, He made a rabbinical judgment.

Jesus was teaching and trying to hit two birds with one stone (maybe even four). Luke tells us as much with the phrase: “He turned toward the woman but said to Simon”. So Jesus fixed the woman in His gaze and spoke His words to Simon. This mention of body language indicated Jesus’ desire to again have a double audience. First, Simon was shown that He needed to repent and gain the necessary state to enter into “blessedness”. Simon had been judgmental and rude as a host and therefore inferior in his actions to the town whore. He had sins (and had no doubt sought forgiveness at the Temple for them), but they had produced little love in him. Second, the woman was being told that she was accepted and all that she had done was not rejected by Jesus nor seen by Him as embarrassing. Rather, no doubt, much to her surprise, her actions were glorified and elevated as loving actions. Jesus did not approve of illicit sex or prostitution as He calls her sins many, but He did approve of her repentance and therefore of her attempts at repentance.

He then went towards another audience beyond the woman and the Pharisee; He aimed at the other guests. He pronounced the woman forgiven and the guests thought this bordered on blasphemy. Similar to what He did with the religious leaders in the house who saw the paralytic man who was lowered through the roof, Jesus claimed the right and authority to forgive sins. He seemed to want the guests to know that. They were scandalized and normally Jesus would take up objections to His actions and explain Himself like He had in 5:22-25, 5:31-32, 5:33-39, 6:3-5, 6:8-10 and 7:22-23. This time Jesus broke His pattern. The circumstances dictated He do so.

Jesus spoke not to His detractors but went back to the woman. She was vulnerable and clearly now the object of scorn. She needed to be taken care of, and Jesus’ normal action of explaining Himself was trumped by her vulnerability and need. He did two things for her. First, He explained how to get to God by the saying: “your faith has saved you”. No doubt she would need to get to God again in her life time. She was saved by her faith; she had been saved by her actions of repentance. She would again need to take such risks. Jesus termed what she had done as faith. She has risked the demeaning looks and stares of the religious leaders in her drive to find God. Her risk had paid off and her risk now took on its proper name: faith.

He then released and dismissed her with the command to go, but she was to go in peace, in shalom. The Hebrew word shalom did not exactly mean what we mean by peace, but it had more the connotation of “communion”. The name for the final sacrifice in the Jewish sacrificial system was the sholamim. It was a communal sacrifice in which all partook. The one sacrificing, the priesthood, the family and extended family and even God ate a meal together. To eat together was to commune together. She was to know that she was on good terms with God; she was in shalom with God and with Jesus. He was not mad at her, nor angry that she had caused Him such trouble or ruined such a fine dinner party.

Throughout this entire episode there were four audiences being taught: the fourth audience was the disciples. They were learning by the actions of Jesus the final answer to the fourth part of the riddle as to who is blessed. Blessed are the poor and the woman defined what it meant to be poor. She was not necessarily poor financially, but certainly poor in self-esteem and in self righteousness. She had surely been admitted to the reign or kingdom of God (6:20). Her poverty, expressed in her actions in 7:38 had brought her into the kingdom of God. Others, had missed it: the Pharisees and experts in the Law had refused to be poor and accept the baptism of John and so had “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (7:30) and the dinner guests ran the risk of being outside of the peace or shalom of God because they did not recognize their need of repentance. They had little love for God or how God had extended love for this woman. They cared nothing for the woman, but only stood about as her condemners. They were rich and they had already received their comfort (6:24). It was temporary, and it would doom them.