III. Instructions to on Repentance, Responsibility, Faith and the Kingdom. 12:54-18:43.
A. Instructions to the Crowds: warnings to Repent. 12:54-15:32
This section was not addressed to the disciples, but to the crowds. It alternated between stern calls to repentance (that are filled with warnings) and examples of Jesus’ compassion. It is a strange, but purposeful mixture. It culminated in a call to discipleship that was followed with a series of metaphors/parables that stressed that if one repented God would be receptive and compassionate.
1. Call to Repentance: 12:54-13:9.
a. Properly Assess the Weather or End Up in Court. 12:54-59.
This section opened with an introductory formula that says Jesus spoke to the crowds. In a somewhat typical manner (see 8:4-8), He began with a parable or parabolic statement: this time about the weather. He accused them of knowing how to accurately read the weather, however they did not know how to read the signs that this was a time of opportunity. They could interpret nature and the physical world, but not the signs of the times.
He repeated His accusation with a rhetorical question. Jesus asked them to consider the folly of not doing what is appropriate in a preemptive fashion (12:57).
“Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”
This He followed with a different metaphor, not from the weather, but this time from the legal realm. He basically counseled them to settle out of court before it was too late. Jesus urged them to settle before they would be convicted and sentenced to prison. The metaphor stressed doing something before the opportunity to do so was lost. The metaphor indicated that they were guilty and early confession and settling out of court would be the wiser choice.
The section was concluded with a threat that the prison term would not be a light one: full justice would be exacted. Again, by implication, the terms of a lighter sentence are held out as an encouragement to admit one’s guilt. This is convicting confrontation that threatens punishment, but at the same time holds out the hope of forgiveness.
Jesus’ message to the crowds, as a popular preacher, is not what we would expect. He called them dull and imperceptive and accused them of being guilty. This is not what we would consider to be a well received message. We say Jesus is the ultimate example of love, so it is instructive to see how “Love” preaches.
His method of communicating this message was, of course, very interesting. It was couched in metaphors and applied with rhetorical questions. For example, the metaphor about the weather (12:54-55) was applied by two rhetorical questions that confronted the listeners with their lack of insight and challenged them to do something with the information that they had but had not yet properly applied. He called them hypocrites (12:56) and thus the approach was hardly a gentle one. The second metaphor about the impending arrest clearly rested on the assumption that they were guilty and that only by facing that guilt could they hope for a lighter sentence.
As stern and as accusatory as these metaphors were they also held out hope and the hope lay in the altered course of action by His audience. It was within their grasp to do the right thing and improve their future. The changes they were challenged to make were based on their own perception of what was right and their own perception of their guilt.
What was missing in this sermon was what they were guilty of: what their specific sins were that they had not faced and dealt with. Why Jesus did not deliberately confront them with a specific sin we are not told. (See the first sermon to the crowds in 4:24-27. In certain situations in the Old Testament the pagans had been more receptive of the prophets than the Israelites were). The second sermon to the crowds in the parable of the sower (8:5-8) was also not laden with specific sins. In that sermon the crowd was not told which sins made them imperceptive and unwilling to receiving the “seed” or the Word of God. In the explanation to the disciples the issues of hard heartedness, the cares of this world and shallowness were given, but to the crowds nothing was said. In 8:19-21 a woman (in the hearing of the crowd 8:19) was told the key was to obey, but what specific Word of God she was to obey was not listed. In 11:14-28 the crowds were again told that gathering with Jesus brought continued health and protection from the devil (14-26) and obedience to the Word brought blessedness (27-28). They were not told which Word they were to obey or how they were to gather to Jesus. This lack of specifics continued in 11:29-36 where the crowd was called “a wicked generation” (they were called “hypocrites” in 12:56) and in what specific manner they were “wicked” was not given. Rather an appeal to become insightful and to use the light they had was given (11:35). The warnings and calls to repentance will be continued in the rest of His address to the crowds in 13:1-9 but what they were to repent of and therefore to turn from in order to avert destruction (13:5) and avoid being cut down (13:9) was not specified. This makes us wonder why Jesus stressed their guilt and lack of perception but did not give them specific ways to come to terms with God’s will and therefore obtain peace with God.
This approach, at first glance, appears to be the worse type of preaching that condemns people in their guilt and lack of spiritual perception but does not show them the way to salvation. However, we will see in what follows that clear specifics were given to the disciples, the leaders, and to individuals who engaged Him in personal dialogue (there will be two examples of each). To whom specifics are given and to who they are not is a phenomenon that asks us to ponder what this means about His teaching style and the method of finding salvation contained within the Gospel of Luke. Why general condemnation without helpful specifics? Why would a teacher tell the whole class that their papers were inadequate to gain a passing grade but not speak of what those inadequacies were comprised of? Why would a doctor tell a whole room of patients that they were desperately sick without spelling out how they could avoid the serious consequences of their ill health?
Perhaps, the answer is in this: salvation was found only within the context of personal interaction with Christ whether they were disciples, church leaders or individuals. General prescriptions are not given to those who are ill with sin. Perhaps, we need to encounter God in personal dialogue before we are able to receive the actual specific help we need. All the people who gained the necessary pointers to salvation that would free their souls from sin had to speak with Jesus. Speaking to Jesus is speaking to God and speaking to God is what we call prayer.
b. Call to Repentance by Politics and Metaphors. 13:1-9.
Luke has his readers watch this lack of specific direction take place again in the opening verses of chapter 13. Some were present who had taken it upon themselves to tell Jesus about the Galileans who had with their sacrifices to God in their hands been butchered by Pilate. These reporters did not directly deal with Jesus but stayed in the safety of the crowd when they offered their information. Jesus informed them that those particular men from Galilee were not guiltier than other Galileans and His audience would also perish if they did not repent. He then brought to their attention, on His own initiative, another contemporary situation about the tower in Siloam that had fallen and killed 18 people. Jesus assured them that those eighteen were not guiltier than any other inhabitants of Jerusalem and that if His audience did not repent they would suffer the same fate.
Jesus followed His warning with a parable about a man who owned a fig tree (13:6-9) that was unproductive. It was about to be cut down because it produced no fruit and therefore wasted the ground it was planted in. In the story there was a delay in the judgment to allow the tree another season to produce the fruit natural to its kind and fulfill its normal function. The implication was that there was time to repent, but it must not be wasted for the axe would fall if change did not occur.
Jesus’ ability as a teacher was displayed by taking a general comment about a contemporary event in the local news and used it to point out His audience’s need. He not only was able to use the interruption, the mention of the Galilean tragedy, but was able to follow it with reference to another contemporary event that served His agenda in a similar manner. The interruption was no doubt an attempt to move Jesus’ attention from their own guilt in order to focus His attention on the guilt of the Galileans. Jesus incorporated their interruption and used it for His own ends. He then pushed even further by His use of repetition (the Galileans tragedy 1-3 and Jerusalem tragedy 4-5). His use of contemporary events to illustrate to His audience the need for repentance showed His audience that what He was saying was relevant to the here and now of their experience. The fact that He followed with a clever parable from an agriculture setting (almost every family and home had their own trees and could easily relate) was again a brilliant strategy to grab His audience’s attention.
However, despite the brilliance and creativeness in presentation the lack of specifics continued. What they were to repent of was not taught. Pastor Keith Hood made an insightful observation about the Gospels. He noted that if you could follow Jesus in a silent helicopter and put a device in the aircraft that could measure the spiritual progress of individuals as it was pointed at each person an interesting and consistent truth would emerge. Those who came out of the crowd and made personal contact with Jesus were the only ones who made spiritual progress. To be sure not all who dialogued with Him became believers and gained salvation, but without leaving the safety of the “crowd” the message always remained general.
2. The Reign of God: Compassion, Confrontation and Teaching. 13:10-21.
a. Compassion and Confrontation with the Leaders. 13:10-17
Luke placed Jesus in a new setting in 13:10 that took place on the Sabbath in a synagogue. Jesus was teaching, and then He stopped His lesson. This time Jesus was not interrupted but He, on His own accord, interrupted Himself. As He was teaching He noticed a woman who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and unable to stand up straight. He called to her and then pronounced over her words of power that declared her free from her illness. Next, put His hands on her and immediately she straightened up and began to praise God. Her praise was directed towards God and His action was an act of compassion. The leader of the synagogue that day missed both agendas.
The synagogue leader was surprisingly indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath. He did not address Jesus on the matter but turned to the people and told them God gave us six days in which to work so they should come on those days to be healed and not the Sabbath. What is interesting is that the leader was not delighted with God being praised, nor happy over her good fortune. He was upset because she was healed during the Sabbath, which he interpreted as an act of work and therefore as invalid during the day of rest.
Jesus’ response was not very patient but opened with a title of address that indicated His mood. His opening words could be seen as addressed to either the crowd or to the religious leaders as a whole in that Jesus called them hypocrites (the plural is used again in 13:15). He then substantiated His accusatory title of address by asking two rhetorical questions. The first called them to recognize that work was performed on a Sabbath even for a donkey or an ox when they were untied and led to water on the Sabbath. The second rhetorical question required that they compare the woman’s status with a beast. He asked whether it was not appropriate to set free a “daughter of Abraham” who had been bound for 18 years by Satan. It was assumed that compassion for animals was an appropriate action on the Sabbath even though it meant a minor work related act. He then compared the compassion He administered to this woman to the compassion they regularly gave to their domesticated beasts. Being a “daughter of Abraham” was an obvious reference to her high status as a member of the covenant elect. She had been bound not by vows or constrained by service to God, but bound by the enemy of God, namely Satan.
Jesus’ opponents gave no verbal response to His two rhetorical questions but we are told they were humiliated and the crowds loved it. The crowds saw the obvious and were delighted with the wonderful things Jesus did. They often displayed their delight when in the presence of religious legalism if they could express their views with recrimination. Some one else has to take the lead and be the focus of the scorn that would surely follow. Perhaps, part of good teaching is to verbalize the obvious and take the recriminations.
b. Parables on the Kingdom of God: Mustard Seed and Yeast. 13:18-21.
We are not told whether the teaching that continued was what Jesus was originally speaking on or if the parables on the nature of the Kingdom of God were prompted by the interchange with the woman and the religious leaders in 13:10-17. It could be He saw the Torah as an expression of the Kingdom of God, and He lamented the Torah’s misuse. He had been speaking earlier by means of rhetorical questions which compelled His audience to ponder and think. It appears that this same approach to the audience, to demand that they think, continued.
He began by asking questions about the nature of the Kingdom of God. He asked His audience what it was like or to what it could be compared. These are rhetorical questions in that He did not await an answer but moved immediately into the presentation of two parables: one about mustard seed (19) and the other about leaven or yeast (20-21). First, He told them that the Kingdom of God was like the small mustard seed which grew into a tree large enough to be perched in by birds. Jesus again asked what the Kingdom of God could be compared to and said it was like the small amount of leaven or yeast placed by a woman in a large amount of flour, which worked all throughout the dough.
It appears that in both parables the issue of starting with something small was stressed. His parables were once again drawn from issues that those in the audience could readily relate. Though the issue of small beginning and then subsequent expansion dominated both parables, there are several things left unspecified: did the growth refer to the church or to the personal spiritual growth in an individual? Why was smallness stressed? Why was the fact that the Kingdom of God, despite its original size, would expand so important to know? What did the birds represent? Were they a symbol for the significant growth a mustard seed would exhibit so that even birds could rest in a plant that started out so small or did the birds represent evil? Would the Kingdom of God grow substantially and then the birds, symbols of evil, would desire to be in the top of the plant? We are not told. It seemed Jesus taught, but they did not get the benefit of understanding.
c. His Method with Parabolic Teaching.
We could gain by pondering Jesus’ teaching method displayed here in 13:10-21. First as a teacher He was very aware of His audience. He was so aware that He was willing to postpone His teaching when He was confronted with a pitiful need represented by the woman who was crippled for eighteen years. He was willing to stop and deal with it. This requires a compassionate heart and a confidence that is displayed in being free enough to focus on one individual from the large audience. He seemed free of the nervousness that is often created when we teach because we worry about how we are being accepted. There is additional confidence in that Jesus was very aware that healing the woman would not be accepted by the religious leadership. He did not seem to let potential criticism intimidate Him. He was free to focus on the woman and not the fire storm that would engulf Him when He healed her. His freedom and confidence become even more readily apparent in His quick wit and devastating rhetorical questions that pinned His opponents to the wall.
The series of rhetorical questions and the use of parables reveal a gifted and focused teacher. His metaphors were brilliant and yet at the same time, they contained selected ambiguity. Though the message of His understanding of the Law was clear, His parables about the Kingdom of God were not. He was quite willing to risk not being completely understood in selected parts of His teaching. Perhaps the parables which were easy to remember, but not easy to understand were designed to haunt the recesses of their mind and be understood later (perhaps even years later). Perhaps, they were meant to point out to the audience that they did not understand what He was saying and the haunting was to remind them that they “saw but did not perceive” and therefore needed to repent. Whatever His particular motive in the use of these two mini parables, it was clearly a bold and courageous method of teaching. We are often very intimidated into being completely clear, not deliberately unclear.
3. Warning about the Narrow Door and the Lament of Jerusalem. 13:22-35.
Two vignettes follow that were placed in a setting different from the events of the healing of the demon afflicted individual and the parables of growth which were given on a Sabbath. The next episode was placed in a travel setting as He moved towards Jerusalem (13:22). The disciples hardly were aware and the crowds were perhaps not aware at all that moving towards Jerusalem was moving towards Jesus’ death and His accomplishment of salvation. Luke wanted us aware that the teacher was aware of the shortness of time, and that we should see His warning in that light.
a. His Method of Teaching off of Questions from the Crowd.
This section (13:22-30) and the following section (13:31-35) reveal Jesus teaching from the questions or comments of the audience. As noted above, modern teachers are often afraid to allow themselves to be in settings where they are not in control of the agenda. Jesus often taught off the comments or questions that would arise from the audience. It takes a greater control of the material you wish to teach and an even greater confidence to not completely control the setting. The plastic (or non-genuine) nature of much modern communication both religious and secular can come from the refusal to take risks. Often there is a refusal to accept any venues of communication where we do not control what questions will come our way. Even when modern technology or communication aids are used, the plastic nature of the communication is still present. The vulnerability that questions can create could be viewed as a detriment or could be seen as the very thing needed. If the audience is asking the questions (even when asking insincere ones) the chance of them listening to the teacher’s answer is greatly increased.
b. The First Episode: who will be saved? 13:22-30
The first episode begins with a question from the crowd: “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” It must have been a burning question of the day. What was typical of Jesus’ answers to questions (see chart E in the back of the book about questions asked Jesus) was that He would directly and specifically answer. Other questions He would re-direct into a different form, depending on what the question was.
The question here asked for a quantitative answer, Jesus answered on a different basis. His opening response was not focused on a quantity but an exhortation to make an effort. They asked for a number or percentage and His response was to introduce another element to the discussion: a personal warning. He warned that they personally needed to take great heed that they would be saved. He moved from an objective agenda to a subjective one. They wanted an academic answer that would allow objective and detached discussion, and He responded with a personal challenge to be actively involved in making an attempt to be saved. He threatened them with the possibility that they would not be saved: that they would not be able to enter the narrow door. In essence, He did answer that not all will be saved, but the quantity issue was substituted with a personal challenge to take the religious question to heart.
After changing the very nature of the discussion with His challenge, Jesus followed with a parable to illustrate and drive home His point (13:25-27). He told the story of a man who already closed his door when he heard someone outside knocking to get in. The owner of the house responded with the phrase “I do not know you or where you are from”. Those outside respond with: “we ate and drank with you and you taught in our streets”. However, the house owner responded with two things, a repetition of the lack of knowing them or their origin and with an addition charge to get away because they were evildoers.
The little parable had a new twist, it was not told about “some owner” and “some people” being outside. The very story was told with that specific audience in mind. The personal nature of the challenge was present in the story’s structure. The grammar had as much theological significance as the plot of the parable. The dialogue was loaded with first person pronouns: “open the door for us”, “I do not know you or where you come from”, “then you will say”, “we ate with you” “taught in our streets”, “I do not know you or where you come from”, and “you evildoers”. The way the parable was taught reinforced the move away from a detached academic investigation to a religious discussion that had deep and threatening personal consequences. Jesus did theology in a highly personal tone.
Like other parables there was an application and this one was dramatic in its approach. In an almost surreal or apocalyptic nature He moved from a dialogue outside a village door to a cosmic end time perspective. There would be weeping and gnashing of teeth (due to their rejection) as they would see people long dead (but in Jesus’ understanding of life after death, very much alive) such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God. That they would see such famous people from their past tradition and culture clearly pushed the application to a post death application. What was appalling was they would see these great figures of their religious tradition, “in” the kingdom of God and themselves “thrown out”. Even more galling was that others, from many other regions (from the East and West) would be “let in” taking their place at the feast of the Kingdom of God.
He concluded the end-times vision with a proverb stating “who” would be saved could be surprising: “there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last”. This last phrase, no doubt, anticipated the Gentile mission, but for the present audience, it was a challenge to their false religious security gained from their being born into the Israelite community. This would be very similar to those who consider themselves Christian because they were born in a Christian nation or family or attended church. We do not know if the original question was asked to gain Jesus’ view of salvation being extended to those outside the present believing community or whether it was motivated by someone who wanted Jesus’ view of whether all Israelites would be saved or just their particular theological party. Jesus’ answer clearly saw those presently regarded by His audience as “outside” as potentially coming in and themselves left out.
The issue in Christ’s answer was not “how many” but whether “you” would be saved. The issue was not whether others who never heard of Christ would be saved, but whether you who were raised in church and under the sound of the Gospel would be saved. Much of what passes for theological discussion today would be re-routed by Jesus. He did answer some questions in a straight forward manner. Often His answer, as in this instance, would be to tweak or re-direct the agenda to one that would lead to their personal discomfort but then hopefully to gain their salvation.
c. The Second Episode: Temptation to fear. 13:31-35.
The second section (13:31-35) was brought into focus by some Pharisees who sought to get rid of Jesus with a threat of reprisal from Herod (13:31). They told Jesus to leave that area (stop His preaching of the Kingdom of God) and go somewhere else as Herod wanted to kill Him. This was a lie as we know from Luke 9:9 (and from 23:8) because Herod actually wanted to meet Jesus. Often threats are lies, and if we are intimidated by such threats from the powerful we often give ground needlessly.
Jesus would illustrate His teaching by acting out this truth in His own life. Jesus was not afraid of “those who kill the body and after that can do no more” (see Luke 12:4, 5). He was His message and so with perfect fearlessness He boldly responded. The lack of fear came from fearing God because those that feared God did not fear man. His response was aggressive and authoritative: “Go tell that fox”. It also revealed the secret to His authoritative and confident demeanor. He was commissioned by God and on God’s time table. Yes, He would die, but He would die on God’s time table, not on some human authority’s schedule. He would go on driving out demons and healing for a prescribed manner of time and then in conclusion reach His goal, and He knew where the goal would be accomplished. It would end in Jerusalem: “surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem!”
Hopefully, we have all met those who face fear well. We often wonder how they could attain such a calm perspective. There is another secret to such fearlessness, and it is found in this text: His lament over Jerusalem. The principle was presented earlier when Jesus taught His followers a valuable way to gain freedom in the “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6:42 and Luke 12. The principle centered on the choice to “re-focus”, or divert one’s attention to something else to gain mastery (in the Luke 6:42 instance, it was the mastery over judgmental attitudes). In this chapter, Jesus did not focus on His own death (though He was always aware of it and spoke of it often), and the fear that it could engender. He focused not on own His peril but that of others. Yes, He would die in Jerusalem, but His focus was on the spiritual death of His executioners. His own people, the believing community (Israel or Jerusalem or if you will: the church) would kill Him. Jesus’ greatest lament was for what their killing Him would do to them. So, He laments in 13:34: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
This would not be the last time that Luke records Jesus’ knowledge of the coming judgment of Jerusalem and His pain resulting from that knowledge. In Luke 19:41-44 He would openly weep wishing they would see the path to salvation and take it.
The metaphor here is a tender one, revealing, not a sentimentality, but a deep and abiding love for His enemies (see Luke 6:27-49). His very tenderness was another manifestation of His living out His own teaching. He loved His enemies and sought to bless them (6:27-28), but they took themselves outside of the realm of blessing. Their refusal did not create anger or a desire for revenge but rather lament over their fate. His love was deep and painful to Himself. It was not sentimentalism but a love infused with stark reality: their house would be left desolate (13:35). It was also not a love that was filled with resignation and despair. They would see Him again, until they said: “Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord.” Despite the horror from the consequences of poor human choices there is still the hope that the praise of God will be found on the lips of men.
Jesus could have given a formal lecture or a polished structured sermon but by interacting with their questions and their threats He avoided plastic religious doctrines and gave them challenging, personal appeals. The appeals were for the welfare of His audience, and His audience was allowed to see His heart and therefore the heart of God. Jesus was teaching theology, and He was teaching religious truth, but in a highly personal manner: both for themselves and for Himself. He taught in an interpersonal manner and in the shadow of His own death: “as He made His way to Jerusalem”. To be open to questions and threats puts one in a vulnerable position, but the communicative gains are considerable.
4. The Fourth Dinner: Being in Communion with God. 14:1-24.
a. Teaching Theology and the Nature of God at Dinner. 14:1-14
1) His Method of Working off the Setting.
It is a little misleading to break off this passage from the two sections (13:22-30 and 31-35) that ended the previous chapter. This block of material did seem to take place a little later and in a different setting (at the dinner table of a Pharisee) but it partook of the same teaching technique as the former two episodes. Jesus was not in a formal teaching setting, but rather used the setting that He was in as a bridge to teach certain truths. He would first speak about how to be right with God or in true communion with God. (Eating a meal with someone was understood in the Ancient Middle East as a form of communion: think of our “Communion Service” for it contains a meal as well.)
He could have communicated these truths with other methods or in propositional statements, but He frequently chose to speak in parables or metaphors. These metaphors were chosen because they fit a particular setting. For instance, when He spoke earlier of properly treating those in need and how important that was to God in Luke 10:41, He used the metaphor of ritual cleanliness because that metaphor fit the setting (He had deliberately not washed His hands). In this passage the same truth would be taught but now with a different metaphor as He was in a different setting.
At times, He let the occasion set up the metaphor or a question or statement from someone in the audience. At other times, He would do something and would use that startling action as the attention getter to focus His audience to attend to the metaphor and therefore on the truth He wished to convey. In this setting at dinner it was a combination of both what was available (He used the guest sitting right in front of Him who had dropsy: 14:2) and what He created by His actions (the healing of the man in 14:4). In the next instance, it would be the action of certain guests that set up His teaching about the wisdom of humility (14:7-11). He would later use the occasion set up by the Pharisee’s invitation to dinner (see 14:12-14), and the incident following which was a comment made by a fellow dinner guest (14:15-24). Like the two occasions at the end of chapter 13, Jesus would teach extemporaneously from the various settings He found at hand.
At the end of chapter 14, He would use a fairly normal setting for teaching, but I say only fairly normal in that it was outside in the streets and not in the usual synagogue setting where most teaching of His day was done. Even in this fairly normal situation, the chosen metaphor was not a stock presentation of Kingdom of God doctrine, but an emphasis that did fit that particular audience in their particular situation.
2) Three examples. 14:1-14.
a) Teaching at Dinner: Properly Understanding the Law. 14:1-6.
Chapter 14 apparently took place later than the street preaching He did in 13:22-35, and it took place on a Sabbath. He went to dinner as a guest in the house of a prominent Pharisee. Luke tells us He was carefully watched. He taught on the true understanding of the Mosaic Law and the occasion for the teaching was right in front of Him. There was a man who had dropsy, and we are not told whether this was a set up (i.e. a trap) or just a happenstance. Jesus opened by first addressing the Pharisees (obviously there were more there than just the host) and the experts in Mosaic Law. He began asking them a question that both forced them to think and to commit themselves to a position. The question would force them to justify their lack of compassion (and common sense). No doubt word about His Sabbath healing of the woman who had been ill for eighteen years had gotten around (13:10-17). There the synagogue leader and those aligned with that leader had been humiliated (13:17) and the crowds delighted with seeing what He did for that woman. In that situation the opponents had been reduced to silence because of the marvel of the healing but here no miracle had yet taken place to stir and rally the crowd, but still the experts in the Mosaic Law chose to remain silent (14:4a).
His second step in teaching was to grab hold of the situation forcefully. He did this by taking hold of the man, healing him and sending him away (14:4). We do not know the state of the man’s faith or if he grew spiritually from the situation, but rather the focus was not on the man with dropsy but on the spiritual leaders of the Jewish community. It was perhaps for this reason that the man was sent away so he would not get in trouble for being healed.
The third step was yet another offer to the leaders to speak their mind and state their position. Jesus asked a second question, but it was a loaded question that framed the issue in a way they would not like. They were asked to commit themselves personally as to how they would apply the Law. The situation given was where something very valuable was in jeopardy like their son or their own ox which had fallen into a ditch. Common sense and compassion would force them to see from a personal angle that helping someone with an exertion of energy was not a violation of the Law but a fulfillment of it. Like the teaching in Luke 13: 22-30 the theological discussion was moved from an objective to a subjective environment: from a detached intellectual judgment to one that required personal judgment. Jesus’ second question then asked them to judge what “they” would do if “their” son or ox fell into the ditch. This second chance to express their opinion or to place themselves into a subjective, personal position in relationship to their theological views was passed up. They remained silent and so did Jesus (14:6). They passed on their opportunity to dialogue with God.
b) Teaching at Dinner about Humility. 14:7-11.
As the room began to fill up with other guests, Jesus was quite aware of His surroundings. He was aware of the man with dropsy and now aware of another illness. This illness was more psychological than physical: the human desire for public recognition demonstrated by the scramble for prestigious seating. It is uncertain whether Luke meant to contrast the two conditions: the dropsy which had an obvious swelling affect on the ill person and the latter inward illness that was a swelling due to pride. However, Jesus dealt with both. He easily healed the man’s physically ill condition, but He appealed to the will of those involved in the latter condition: it required a choice on the part of the people who were afflicted with pride. So He began a clever metaphor that they could immediately relate to and that could be physically implemented.
He told them a parable about dinner accommodations. He advised that they took the lower, less prestigious seat when invited to a dinner. Apparently the seating arrangement in ancient times was much like to day: where you sat indicated your social status as our phrase in English “the head table” indicates.
The advice was in the form of a prohibition: “Do not take the place of honor” and like all such commands to His audience Jesus followed with a justification or motive clause that gave reasons why such a prohibition should be obeyed. He appealed to their minds as rational creatures and as creatures that He respected. Like a good teacher, He gave reasons to those He wished to persuade and that was in concert with all that the Old Testament does. The reason to obey His command appealed to wisdom. However, His reasons had a penetrating conviction to them for they went to the very heart of why they were fighting for the “better seats”. It was to “look better” in the eyes of their comrades that they took the higher seats: the motivation was pride. The motivation He gave to them for choosing to take the lower seat was pride as well. If they took the higher seat and someone more prestigious arrived, they would be forced into the humiliating condition of taking a lower seat in front of all the guests. If they took a lower seat and were asked publicly by the host to take a higher seat, then they would be honored in front of all as they moved to the higher place. However, to choose His way of wisdom was a risk. It was easier to grab now, than risk delayed gratification. Jesus’ way of wisdom, of choosing a lower seat demanded faith.
He ended His teaching with a proverb that was in a classic “if…then…” form. If one exalted himself then he would be humbled, and if one humbled themselves then they would be exalted. To obey this required something and produced something. To obey required faith in God that His sovereignty would bring about the exaltation of the man or women who did not exalt themselves, but would be exalted later in time. To obey meant to trust in God and have the faith that they could be happy in the short run or in the delay before exaltation “later” took place. To obey took faith but it would produce something else. Something Jesus Himself was already experiencing and living in the midst of: it would produce freedom. It had to start with faith, with the risk that we could possibly be happy, content and at peace without getting the immediate recognition of our peers. However, once the obedience was done by faith then the freedom from the pressure of trying to impress others was experienced.
The man with dropsy was free from the painful swelling of his physical condition, but “man does not live by bread alone”. The other guests were swelled by pride, and it made them spiritually, socially and psychologically ill. They needed more than physical bread (physical health). They needed the Word of God that would lead to inward health. Jesus knew the way. He had resisted making bread to validate His divine nature to the devil. He did so then in the desert and repeatedly in His public ministry because He followed the Word of God (in Deuteronomy). Now He passed on the secret to His freedom. This freedom would become all the more evident in His final week. The Son of Man was led away to be crucified, and He kept His mouth closed and did so by faith (Philippians 2:8-9). He risked humility and gained all manner of honor (Philippians 2:10-11).
c) Teaching at Dinner about Faith. 14:12-14.
Jesus taught the people what not to do in dinner situations in the previous section: do not exalt yourself (14:7-11), and in the next section He taught them what to do in dinner situations. In the first section, He gave them the way to gain temporal freedom by faith. He taught them how to gain faith in a practical, almost secular, setting. He now addressed the host on how to gain glory in the afterlife by pleasing the heart of God. Similar to the section above the way to gain credit with God in the resurrection was by faith. This time the faith required an aggressive position. He was again teaching theology and this time it was the doctrine of the resurrection. Like so much of His theological teaching, His approach to theology was in a practical, personal manner. He was speaking to the Pharisees and the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection. He now challenged them to truly show they believed their own doctrines.
The way to faith and eternal reward lay in the guest list. He challenged His host to redesign his guest lists with an eye to the “resurrection of the righteous”. He was not to invite the normal run of people: friends, brothers, relatives or rich neighbors. Such invitations would result in reciprocal invitations and thus be repaid. Instead, Jesus urged the host to redesign his guest list by faith and invite an unusual type of people: the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind (14:13). Such guests would not be able to invite him to dinner in return, and thus he would be blessed. They could not repay him but he would be repaid by God in the resurrection. Only someone who believed in the resurrection or had faith in coming justice to be dispensed in the afterlife would see the logic of such a course of action (14:14).
3) His Method of Adding Practical Depth to Doctrine.
Jesus was teaching theology in an everyday, secular, down to earth manner. It required more than the discussion of or acceptance of certain intellectual or theological formulations. It required commitment to how one managed their social and financial life. In addition, He taught not only how one should approach key doctrines such as use of the Law (13:10-17 and 14:1-6) and the resurrection (14:12-14), but how such doctrines displayed the nature of God.
Jesus displayed a flexibility and compassion in His understanding of the Law and saw these two ingredients as necessary to understanding His Father’s Sabbath laws. He taught how to “rest” (which was healthy both for the obedient believer and allowed others to rest) and how to apply the Law with compassion. To do so was to see the “rule behind the rule”. At times, true rest necessitated a little work. In addition, Jesus was not against the Sabbath Laws which were designed to practically display our respect for God and belief in His work as Creator (for He rested on the seventh day). Jesus showed that the very nature of the Giver of the Law was revealed when we showed respect to Him by compassionately overruling Sabbath rest to help someone in dire need if the occasion arose. The creation was created for humans, not to show compassion on the very reason for creation was to misunderstand the intention of the Creator. It was not to take the Law into one’s own hands, but to take into one’s heart the heart of the Law Giver.
Jesus was teaching theology, and therefore He was teaching on the “nature of Theos or God”. What type of God is it that one can reap rewards in heaven by taking care of the poor and disabled? Why do these actions bring eternal reward from the “Giver of Life” in the eternal life to come? Jesus wanted His audience to see clearly into the heart of God. He did it by teaching how the great doctrines work and by how He interacted with these Laws. At His own risk He healed the man with dropsy (14:4) and the woman crippled for eighteen years (13:13). To use the Sabbath Law in a way that showed no respect for the humans it was designed to bless would be to miss the compassion of God. He would later teach about an additional side of the compassion of God and the Law: His compassion on sinners in chapter 15.
b. Teaching on How to gain entrance to Heaven. 14:15-24.
Jesus spoke of the “resurrection of the righteous” in 14:14, and it triggered a reaction in one of the guests. The man spoke up and demonstrated that he understood the metaphor of the banquet list as applying to the judgment and therefore to the acceptance or lack thereof of God. So the man now applied the metaphor further and stated out loud what he thought was the true blessed state: to have eternal communion with God. He used Jesus’ banquet metaphor and said: “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the Kingdom of God.” It is one thing to eat in the feasts our relatives and rich neighbors provided for us because we had given them a feast, but it is quite another and more blessed state of affairs to be at the “feast in the Kingdom of God”. The man’s theology and understanding of reality was superb. Jesus’ response continued with this theme of “blessed communion” with God using the metaphor of the feast, but in an astonishing fashion.
1) His Method of Dealing with Responses from the Audience.
There is the pattern we noted above found in the responses Jesus made to well meaning comments that at first glance could be viewed as rough, confrontational or even unkind. For example, in 8:20 someone gave Jesus seemingly kind information that His mother and brothers were outside waiting for Him. In 11:27 a seemingly well intentioned woman called His mother blessed for bearing such a child. In 13:31 He was given false information from those pretending to care about His safety from Herod. In 22:33 Peter swore loyalty to Jesus claiming he was willing to go to prison and death for Him. In 14:15 and these others, Jesus was not content to accept praise or comment, but would take the comments and interact with them. They approached Him on a certain superficial level: information (8:20 and 13:31) or with claims of loyalty (22:33), praise (11:27) or theological agreement (14:15). He did not let the interaction stay on that level. Instead, in a variety of ways He would raise the level to show them how to find salvation. He was not angry nor was He being disrespectful towards them. They have chosen to interact with Him, and now He was going to bless them for such efforts by interacting with their comments.
Jesus taught from the responses He received. In 8:20 and 11:27 He took the information or praise and turned it around. If someone truly wanted to know who Jesus’ true relatives were or who were truly blessed then that individual needed to obey. They must “do” what they heard of God’s Word. The false information given in 13:31 was not contested, but rather used as an opportunity to speak on what His purpose in life was centered: His death in Jerusalem. The claims made by Peter of loyalty later made in 22:33 were contested and Jesus predicted Peter’s failure. It was a failure that would drive deep into Peter’ soul his understanding of Jesus’ mercy and purpose in coming: to extend grace through His death. In these cases, Jesus wanted to raise the level of communication to focus on what would significantly change them spiritually and lead to their growth or beginning of faith. Jesus may have appeared unkind, but it was the depth of His true compassion that drove the penetrating, often disturbing responses He gave. They approached Him on a superficial level: one that would not help them on such a level. So He raised it.
Understanding leading to Salvation (Jesus’ response)
>>>
>>>
>>>
Superficial Question (the approach to Jesus)
2) Application of the Method: How to dine in the Kingdom. 14:15-14.
In 14:15, we are not told if the man was sincere when he said: “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the Kingdom of God”. Jesus merely used His comment to warn others of the weight of responsibility they had as members of the covenant. It could be that Jesus detected a shallowness that often reigns in religious circles and is covered up by religious language and claims. Whatever the case, Jesus responded to the man’s comment with a parable about another banquet (14:16-23). The invitations were sent and in a final gesture of respect the final call or announcement was sent out to those invited. As the invitations came to the various people who had been invited they began to make excuses about purchases made or recent marriages. The master responded in anger to the servant’s report about the declined invitations and commanded the servant to go bring in the poor, crippled, blind and lame. When it was apparent that there was still more room, the master sent the servant out into the streets and country lanes to compel these to come as well (14:17-23). The application of the parable was brief and to the point: those invited would not taste of the dinner that was intended for them (14:24).
Most see this parable as a prediction of the Gospel’s greatest growth usually taking place among the poor or in the Gentile mission. Repeatedly in church history revival starts elsewhere when the believing community (whether Israel at first or the established church later) becomes indifferent to the invitations of God to become intimate and commune with Him. When those already in relationship to God through the nation of Israel or the church did not respond, God started a mission to find new people. The parable was clearly a warning to those who listened that day against complacency and the error of not taking advantage of what God had offered His people. They (as later we) must use the signs (11:29-36) and use the opportunities or invitations extended by God. How does one get into Heaven or communion with God? Jesus taught that it was not by entitlement but by active acceptance of the gifts of God. Paul would later say: “quench not the Spirit.”
5. The Final Call: the Cost involved but Hope. 14:25-15:31.
a. Challenge to the Crowds: the Cost of Discipleship. 14:25-35.
Jesus taught that God was compassionate, and Jesus demonstrated that same compassion in His own actions. However, as we have seen, Jesus was compassionate, but not sentimental. He was stern in His belief in the consequences to our actions here on earth: reward (14:14) or punishment awaited us at the end of our lives (14:24). He preached and demonstrated a loving God, but also a God that was demanding. Jesus demanded they use their brains and properly adjudicate Sabbath law decisions. They had to take aggressive interest in the poor, they had to read the signs, become good soil, choose not to live in fear for their lives or in fear of what others thought of them, etc. Jesus preached that they had to be like God. They were to be godly, or “god-like”: to be like what He was doing and teaching.
This entire section from 12:54 until the end of chapter 15 is a model on how to gain disciples. The disciples were listening to their Master’s teaching but the teaching itself was addressed to the crowds. What followed were two final themes that in various aspects were disturbingly surprising, each in their own way. The first theme is surprisingly stern. Jesus wanted them to know that the price of discipleship was a steep one; it was a costly adventure. He then enumerated three types of cost (14:25-35).
Oswald Chambers wisely says that discipleship is always prefaced by an “if”. There are conditions to discipleship that one must be aware of. If one wished to be His disciple they had to consider three issues. The first cost was that of emotional (and maybe financial and physical) security. This was symbolized in His insisting that they had to love Him even over family in 14:26 (a devastating statement to those who lived in such close families). He had brought this issue up before, but it was addressed to His disciples (12:49-53). What Jesus was saying was not new, the first member of the covenant of Israel had to first “leave his family”. Abraham had to leave Ur and leave the protection of his family (and to put the will of God over his family in his sacrifice of Isaac).
The second type of cost was the cost of their very lives in 14:26b. He followed that alarming statement with a horrifying metaphor: they must be like Him in bearing their own cross in 14:27. Their death, and a difficult death, was not an option but an absolute necessity or they could not be His disciples. The cheap grace offered by the church today has no echo in Luke. He had already hinted strongly about the possibility of losing one’s life in 9:23-27 and 12:4-5 when speaking to His disciples. Now this prospect was held out to those not presently disciples who were considering joining.
Before the third category was given, like a good teacher, He fixed the challenge in their mind by two mental pictures: a man building a tower in 14:28-30 that did not properly estimate the cost and a king fighting a war that did not first estimate the amount of troops needed in 14:31-32. The emphasis was not on the cost (loss of family and a painful death) but on the necessity of understanding that there was a cost involved. It was better not to start the adventure of faith than to foolishly begin it (see 9:57-62 and especially 9:62: “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back was fit for the service in the Kingdom of God”).
The third category or manner of cost had also been given first to the disciples in 12:31-34 and now repeated in 14:33: “any of you who do not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple”. Possessions were to be possessed not to possess the possessor. The path to discipleship would entail great earthly costs: family security, life itself and possessions. All three of these, of course, Jesus gave up: family, life and possessions. The disciples as well were to experience those same costs and Jesus intended that cost to be extended to all disciples. To become a disciple would entail giving up possessions (see also the rich young ruler’s story in 18:18-30).
The final metaphor of chapter 14 was given to conclude or cement the challenge of costly discipleship. It concerned salt. Salt was good, but salt that was not salty could not be reconstituted, and it became worthless. The debate as to what type of salt can lose its flavor or nature misses the point. If a disciple was not willing to give up family, his life and his possessions he or she was worthless and would be thrown out. What was clear was that the cost was not optional: to not pay the costs would be as unnatural as salt that was not salty.
Jesus ended the teaching to the crowd with the same statement He ended His sermon on the parable of the soils: “He, who has ears to hear, let him hear” (8:8 and 14:35). One had to be good soil to be of any value or it would not be able to bear a crop, and one had to pay the cost to be the salt of the earth, or to be of value to the world (which was what the disciples of Jesus Christ were designed to be).
I am sure that many who heard these words were scared off because they had not intended to pay such prices for their following of Jesus. However, there might have been others who saw the cost involved but hung back for another reason: they had doubts about their self worth. The issue was not courage but self esteem due to their knowledge of their own sin. The final message to the crowd about the true nature of the Kingdom of God and the nature of the God who called men to join it was given to those who had self esteem issues: both positively and negatively.
b. Giving Hope: Teaching on Repentance: 15:1-32.
1) The Setting: Tax-gatherers and Indignant Religious Leaders. 15:1-2
The setting of this final teaching to the crowds was not dominated by where He was teaching but dominated by reference to the two categories of people to whom He taught: the tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees and teachers of the Law. The latter group grumbled against Jesus because of His attitude towards those in their society who were moral failures. Jesus’ attitude was clearly manifested by the fact that He welcomed them and ate with those they felt had betrayed their community politically and financially (the tax collectors who gathered taxes for the Romans) and morally (those who broke the Mosaic Law by undermining the sexual discipline taught in the Law that was essential for healthy family and social life).
At first light it seemed He did not care about past behavior or the effects such behavior would have on the community. It appeared that Jesus did not highly regard the sanctity of the community because to be the elect was to be holy as God was holy (Leviticus). Jesus appeared to some to disregard the Law and therefore forfeit the Law’s ability to make their nation a blessing to the world (Deuteronomy 4:6). A significant portion of the anger He stirred came from His association with these despised people evidenced by eating meals with them. It was His actions that caused the negative reaction by the religious leadership, but it was His actions that opened up the group considered too sinful to deal with to be ready to hear what He was about to teach. Jesus “set up” His teaching by His actions and attitudes. Jesus was very interested in establishing righteousness in the nation or community and in the hearts of each individual, but His manner of approaching that goal was dominated by what He knew of the heart of God.
The stern call to discipleship that was so disturbing to read in the latter part of chapter 14 fit very well with the teachings of the Torah. However, this stern approach and demanding of a decision in the light of the tremendous cost was now balanced (or perhaps empowered) by His sincere openness to those who had made serious mistakes in their lives. This stern and demanding teacher of the “cost of discipleship” who was so open to sinners was not living in a contradiction. This was not softness on Jesus’ part, but was rather a mere extension of the heart of God, His demanding Father. It was also a subtle confrontation with a key impediment to holiness or discipleship (or salvation) which was pride.
Chapter 15 was addressed to both of these groups: despised sinners and indignant religious leaders. What is interesting is that Jesus considered both of these groups as “outside” the fold of the kingdom. The sinners and religious right were both thought to be part of the crowds that were being called to repentance. In this section the clear message of repentance was addressed to both of these disparate audiences.
The struggle with these two groups is not unique to the Gospel of Luke. There are many in religious circles today that would shy away from the criticism that “wrong associations” could bring. They would carefully place themselves in social settings that avoided garnering “wrong association” criticism. Jesus did not avoid criticism but seemed focused on something besides a good reputation. He demonstrated how to focus our minds as well as how to handle this type of criticism in chapter 15.
Jesus had faced this critique before in chapter 5:27-32 in the first “dinner party” episode that Luke recorded. The complaint in chapter 5 was the same: that He ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus did not respond in an apologetic manner, rather He responded with an aggressive presentation of the “nature of His ministry”. He said He came for such individuals using the metaphor of a doctor. It was the ill who needed a physician, and He came to heal the spiritually ill sinners and call them to repentance.
What was remarkable was that Jesus was not doing something foreign to Torah or the rest of the Old Testament but was right in the middle of the great preaching of Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. Repentance was important to the understanding of the call of a prophet. It was to sinners that a prophet was called to speak. However, even in Old Testament times there was repulsion towards this aspect of God’s character: His grace. In Jonah chapter 4, this aspect of resentment towards God’s extension of grace towards sinners was glaring. Yahweh’s response to Jonah at the end of chapter four was remarkably similar to what Jesus did.
Jesus’ response to this criticism in chapter 15 was as bold as the response in the earlier episode in chapter 5 (and Yahweh’s response to Jonah). He did not apologize but firmly stood His ground while trying to explain the nature of His ministry in chapter 5 and of God’s heart in chapter 15. These two motifs of the nature of His ministry and the nature of the heart of God were viewed by Jesus as identical. He addresses these two groups by using three parables.
2) The parable of the Lost Sheep: 15:3-7.
The first parable was the famous “Lost Sheep” parable. The key components were that the flock which was once whole became separated in that one was lost. The bulk of the flock or “the ninety-nine” were left (temporarily abandoned) while the shepherd searched for the lost minority. When the lost sheep was found it was brought home on the shoulders of the shepherd and friends and neighbors were called. The shepherd then called upon them to rejoice with Him because of the found animal. Finding the “lost” item created communal joy. That aspect of “communal” joy would resurface in all of the following stories: 7:6, 7:09 and 7:23.
The application to the parable was the usual short (one verse) appraisal that focused on one particular part of the story. What was focused on in the application of the first story (15:7) was the rejoicing that was created over the lost sheep’s return. The shepherd and his community’s joy were said to be parallel with the joy of heaven. The application was put in a comparative framework. The rejoicing over the one lost sheep trumps the static safety of the ninety-nine, and thus the rejoicing in heaven was greater over the one repentant sinner than the ninety-nine righteous individuals who needed no repentance. This, Jesus declared, was the value system of heaven, but was certainly not the value system of those in leadership who watched Jesus. They needed to pray Luke 11:2: “your kingdom come”.
3) The parable of the Lost Coin: 15:8-10.
The second parable was parallel to the first. The woman’s head piece became separated and a minor part (one out of ten) became lost. Effort was made to find the lost coin. The aspect of effort being extended was common to both parables. When the coin was found the woman called her friends and neighbors together and asked them to rejoice with her. Again, communal joy was central. There was only one speech in each of the first two parables and both times the speech was on the lips of the “finder” calling for the community to rejoice (15:6, 9). The application of the coin story followed the same emphasis as the first parable. The communal joy of heaven began in the presence of God when one sinner repented.
4) The parable of the Lost Son: 15:11-32.
The third parable interpreted and applied the first two parables. It was longer, and it moved from metaphors about animals and coins to a direct application to human beings. It would define for us what being lost means and what finding means. Also, it would directly challenge (and threaten) those in the audience who were judgmental. Before we look at these further definitions, let us list the main parts of the three parables.
1. There was separation of the whole: one sheep from the ninety-nine (15:4); one coin from the ten (15:8) and later one son from the two sons (15:11-12). The herd, the head dress and the family had become broken. What the third parable of the lost son made clear was that the state of being lost or becoming separated was not an accidental state of affairs but was deliberate and chosen. There was culpability. The son made a choice to leave the home of the father and once gone from the father’s home the younger son became caught in his own lack of discipline. The younger son was “lost” in sinful behavior and deserved his lost condition as he squandered his estate in loose living (15:13). The young man not only left his father but still wanted the benefit (his part of the estate) of being a son. He then betrayed his father’s morals by being irresponsible both financially and morally. Jesus was not romanticizing the “lost”. Jesus was open to sinners, but that openness did not include a denial of Torah regulations. He defined sin in much the same way as His detractors.
2. There was effort to bring about the return: the shepherd’s left the ninety-nine in the open field (4), the woman swept and carefully searched the house (8) and the son suffered famine and ill treatment coupled with the remembrance of the father’s fair treatment (14-17). Here the efforts to gain the return of the son to the father (who clearly represents God) were not direct actions by the father but seemingly indirect actions which pointed to God’s sovereignty in the world. These worked to bring about the finding of the lost son. It was misfortune that became the “tool of searching” employed by God to bring the son to his senses. Sorrow became the tool of grace. Clearer thinking and remembrance (15:17) only began when misfortune took hold (15:14-16). The young son had been plowed (8:3-8).
3. The lost element was found: the sheep was found and carried home on the shepherd’s shoulders (5), the coin was found (8) and the son came to his senses by the combination of his misfortune and remembrance that his father treated his servants with justice. His hope of better treatment was based on the father’s good treatment of those under his authority. In addition, being found was equated with the son’s repentance which was verbalized twice: once in preparation (15:18-19) and once when the son arrived home (15:21). The son was found by a combination of his difficult condition brought on by his own actions and his remembrance of his father’s character. Being found has three elements: sorrow, remembrance, and repentance twice (the words of repentance were verbalized two times). Speech is highly important in Jewish narrative technique. Repetition is also highly important and this speech of repentance is made twice. Only one other speech would be repeated twice in the parable.
4. Communal joy was found in all three parables: the neighbor and friends of the shepherd were called to rejoice with him (15:6), the woman also called her neighbors and friends (15:9) and the father called for a banquet to celebrate the return of his lost son (15:22-24). There was an expansion of the finder’s role when the father found his lost son: the extravagant and exuberant welcome of the wayward child when he came within sight of the home.
5. An application was found in all three of the stories but carefully developed further in the final example. Here was where the ninety-nine or the nine came into the story with greater prominence. This greater development in the final parable started in 15:25 and extended through out the next eight verses. It concerned the older brother and the father in dialogue. Two powerful messages come forth in this dialogue. The first teaches about God.
The dialogue with the first son and the father helped highlight the nature of the father. Jesus was teaching truth for those who had made errors as well as truth for those who judged ones who had made errors but He also was teaching about the nature of God. In the previous two parables, the application centered on the value system of heaven and on the joy in the presence of God over a repentant sinner, in the third parable, the value system of heaven was shown to have an origin. The origin was the center of heaven: God Himself.
The father in the story was clearly the God figure and what the father valued came to the fore. The father’s joy was evident by the aggressive and decisive actions in welcoming the errant son home. The son was not just allowed to come home, but welcomed home. The “best robe” was put on him and a ring was put on his finger and a feast was started. The “fattened calf” was prepared for a communal meal of joy for they were commanded to eat and be merry (15:24).
Jesus was teaching who God was: who His Father was and His attitude towards those who repent. Jesus chose to eat with sinners because it was a sign of the possible communion with God. God wanted His lost ones home (15:1-32) and His sick ones healed (5:31-32). He had given His son the authority to forgive sins (5:24) and His presence was the guarantee of God’s promise and possibility of forgiveness (5:33-35). When His ministry was in full swing a new dynamic was released in the world as dynamic as new wine, and it would need a new perspective to contain it and understand it (5:36-39). In chapter 15, another speech was spoken twice besides the statement of repentance and confession by the son. It was the pronouncement of “life” by the father: “for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found” (15:24). This would be repeated to the older son, with an additional nuance (15:32).
The second theme is the aspect of the second son’s attitude. The last eight verses paralleled the application sections of the first two parables. They spoke of the nature of the father but also of the need for understanding in the ninety-nine sheep, in the nine non-errant coins, or in the minds of the righteous. The older brother’s scene was clearly designed to speak to the Pharisees and scribes. Their objection to Jesus’ communion with sinners was similar to the older son becoming angry when he learned of the feast made for his younger brother. The elder brother complained to the father that no feast was ever given in his honor despite his faithful servitude. He bitterly referred to the squandering of the father’s wealth, and how it was done with flagrant disregard for sexual morality.
The father did not defend the younger brother’s actions, nor attempt to justify his behavior or minimize his errors. He stated that his older son had been faithful and that the inheritance was his. There was reward for good and loyal behavior. However, the father’s response was, at its center, an attempt to persuade. The effort to persuade was completely based on familial relationships. The younger brother was still the “son of the father” and a younger “brother” to the elder son. The final speech of the parable ended with reasons for why merriment and joy were appropriate “for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found” (15:32). Despite his sins the righteous and sinner were still family. Despite the sins of humanity we are still “sons of God”. Whatever horrible sins a woman or a man commit they are still made in the image of God and are the crown of creation.
This perspective was not new. Through out the book of Genesis, the creation account (Genesis 1, 2) was focused on relationship. God was shown to be highly interested in relationship to the humans and thus the purpose of creation was to make a living space for them. He made the created world for humans. What followed next was all about relationship as well. The humans were given an additional gift in the created order: the gift of free choice. When they chose against God and sinned, all attention was given to help them repent. The first recorded speech in the Bible that was addressed to human beings was “Where are you?”
Similar to the Prodigal Son story, Adam and Eve were given the choice to repent when God questioned them and they refused, so God gave them another chance to repent. Help was built into reality to encourage repentance and learning: the curses on the man and the woman. The famine and mistreatment encountered by the son was similar to the curses of Genesis 3. Sorrow in creation was understood by the Genesis account and by Jesus as the “searching tool” of the Father/Creator.
The motif of searching was repeated in Genesis 4. When Cain and Able sacrificed and Cain was rejected, the first speech by God to the sons was addressed to the “vulnerable”, “rejected” son: it was addressed to Cain, not to Able. Cain made a choice that led to his sacrifice not being accepted. However, God wanted the rejected son to see the perspective of heaven and to be humble and willing to change and so great effort was made to persuade him to “turn” from his chosen path. In the Cain and Abel story God does not directly address Abel but only Cain (4:6-7). God was still the searcher and the searcher for the lost worshipper as Jesus portrayed Him as the searcher for the lost coin, lost sheep and lost son.
Choice dominated the Genesis account. The humans were valued and blessed but they were also “choice makers”. This same motif dominated the third parable. The father gave the younger son freedom enough to rebel. He continued to give such choice to his older son as well. Choice dignified the created humans as it still gives dignity to us today, but it is not a gift without consequences.
The third parable has a threatening aspect to it. The threat centers on the motif of “communal joy”. There was joy in heaven over the repentance of a sinner. There was joy in the feast set for the younger son who was lost. The older son was “outside” and refused to come in. The implications of the third parable are ominous. If we do not rejoice over the lost and refuse to join in the “joy of the feast” then perhaps we place ourselves, by our choice, outside the “joy of heaven”.
In many ways this is similar to the Esau/Jacob story in Genesis. Again, there are two boys and again the emphasis falls on the second, or way-ward son. Jacob also needed to “come home” and it is his coming home that triggers significant growth in his spiritual life. The struggle with the angel (or God) in Genesis 32 precedes his having his name changed. His coming home is also filled with “multiple expressions of repentance”. He sends many gifts to his brother trying to assuage his anger for his previous action. No doubt, since money or wealth motivated the brother’s separation for 20 years, Jacob repented with multiple gifts of wealth. What is perhaps very significant and very important to Jesus’ audience was that it was the “second” or repentant son that became the chosen vessel of God’s election and blessing to the world. The messianic promise proceeded down into history through Jacob not Esau. The joy of election went to the one who made mistakes, who was lost and who by God was found. The Pharisees who did not rejoice over the repentance of sinners were out of touch with their true tradition and true spiritual lineage. Their ancestor Jacob was the prodigal son.
In the prodigal son story, both sons had to make choices. The younger son had a second decision to make after his first decision to leave home. He had first decided to repudiate the father’s will and was by sorrow encouraged to choose the path of repentance. He had to turn. He had to rehearse his words, and in humility come home and plead with the father for forgiveness and reconciliation. The older son made a decision in verse 28: “But he became angry, and was not willing to go in….” The older son was then asked to make a second decision and see the perspective of the father. Those who are righteous also have a decision to make. They also have to “turn”; to repent from their first decision of repudiating their familial ties (see 15:30 when the older son called his younger brother the father’s son but not his brother). The second choice was to remain outside the feast or to come in. Both sons had to have humility, the younger son in his repentance from his errant ways, and the older son in his need to repent for rejection of his brother. Both had to turn from how they defined what was good and what was evil. Both had to reverse the fall of Adam and Eve.
There is one thing more about the third parable that warrants mentioning. We understand the joy of finding the lost part of the flock and the lost coin. However, there was a disturbing element in the commentary of the first of the two parables. It is the word “more” in the interpretation of the actual parable (15:7). It is one thing to say heaven rejoices over the repentance of the lost but another thing to say it rejoices more than the ninety-nine persons who need no repentance. This extravagance was present in the third parable as well and in the same place. The father’s extraordinary welcome of the lost son is charming but extravagant. It is one thing to forgive, but the complete, exuberant forgiveness of the father surprises one. There was an extravagance present here as in many of the parables. Here it is the extravagance of grace. It matches the extravagance of the call to discipleship in 14:26: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” What is the place of such extravagance in Jesus’ teaching method? Why were such extravagant actions placed in the parables? What does that mean for us who wish to teach His truth and to teach in the manner in which He taught it?
B. To the Disciples and Pharisees about Faith: Wealth, Law and Eternity. 16:1-31.
This chapter is comprised of two speeches by Jesus. The first speech was to His disciples (16:1-13). Then there is an interruption by the narrator telling us that Jesus gave the second speech to a group of religious leaders who were scoffing at what they heard Jesus say to His men (16:14-31). Jesus opened the chapter trying to persuade His disciples to use wealth from the standpoint of eternity but that standpoint can be gained in our temporary situations only by faith.
This chapter, though in two speeches, is divided into three parts: 1-13, 14-18 and 19-31. The first and the last sections open with a parable that begins with: “there was a rich man”. Both parables were about the use of wealth, God’s Law (or Torah) and eternal judgment. Subtly implied throughout the chapter was that wealth, or the power that it brought, must be guided by the teaching God has given us. How that teaching was responded to would settle our eternal destiny and show our faith. How one used wealth brought eternal consequences and Jesus wanted us to be blessed by wealth not cursed by it.
In the middle of these two “wealth, Moses’ teaching and eternity” sections was a response by the Pharisees who heard what Jesus said and sneered at it because they loved money (16:14). Jesus responded by first telling them that they were hypocrites and that God knew their true condition (16:15). Next He did something very surprising to us (at first glance). He spoke of the place of the Law, of John and then of the eternal validity of the Law and gave one example from the Torah: the law about divorce (16:16-18). Following this section, He went back to the issue of money and eternal judgment (16:19-31). It seems odd to talk about Moses/John and divorce in the middle of these two parables about wealth. What the Law, John, and marriage have to do with money and eternity will become more apparent as we proceed. The chapter is filled with puzzles deliberately designed to make us think; so as to obtain true riches and gain what is our own (16:11-12). Perhaps, it is hard to understand because we force our way into the Kingdom of God (13:16). Wealth can be a barrier or a trap that must be overcome to enter the reign of God. Jesus said the path to success, and the avoidance of the trap was found in what the disciples and Pharisees already knew (16:16-18, 29, and 31).
1. The Parable of the Unrighteous Manager. 16:1-13.
Chapter 16 opens with an introductory formula that lets us know that the proceeding material was addressed to His disciples, but we will later learn that others (like the Pharisees in 16:14) were also able to hear what He taught His disciples. We are not clearly told by Luke if there was a new setting for this teaching than that of chapter 15. That does not seem to be important to Luke, and so should not be important to us.
A parable about a rich man who had a deceitful employee is how the teaching section to the disciples was opened. Something many of those in a leadership position have experienced (no doubt multiple times). The man was accused of mismanaging funds belonging to his master, and he was called in to make a full accounting of his activities. He was told to prepare an account of his management but the decision to dismiss him was pre-determined. There was no doubt the manager was guilty (16:1-2). The manager had betrayed his master by the manner in which he handled his responsibilities.
The manager’s response was a bit shocking. There was no remorse on his part for any wrong doing but only more plotting against his master. He did not verbalize feelings of being wrongly accused or verbalize to himself that his own actions cost him his job but just that the master was taking it away. Sorrow and negative results that come into our lives from our own wrong actions do not always produce repentance as in the story of the “lost son” in chapter 15. However, this was only the beginning of the shocking aspects of this parable.
The manager was not passive but aggressive as a leader: all of his speeches to others were in the form of a command. He began his first speech by asking himself a rhetorical question. He was reflective. He asked what he would do now that his job and privileges would be taken away from him. Like a good leader in the business world he made an assessment of his condition and devised a business plan to accommodate it. He pondered his options and realized he was not strong enough for physical labor and too proud to beg. He therefore devised another plan and saw his future in his being welcomed into the homes (businesses) of his present employer’s debtors.
He then called in various merchants who were debtors to his master and reduced what they owed. He seemingly hoped to acquire the good will of these men by doing some favors for those who had substantial indebtedness to his master so as to gain their favor after his own dismissal. He had to act fast while he still had power to do so (16:3-7). A manager in the ancient world was a leader and the individual in this parable was clearly portrayed as a leader. His leadership though, as recorded in 16:3-7, involved others with his sin. He was decisive, aggressive and dishonest (the narrator tells us he was dishonest in 16:8 a). Leaders guide and involve others; this man involved others with his deceit. There are many different ways to lead and not all of them are positive.
This manager was an owner’s nightmare. However, here is where the truly shocking element in the parable comes in. As in the parable of chapter 15, the father’s actions were shocking in his overly gracious extension of forgiveness to the lost son. The owner or master in this parable displayed an attitude that caused equal surprise: he praised the “dishonest” manager. He termed this “nightmare employee’s” actions as shrewd. This is not what we would expect and Jesus obviously knew that. Jesus was a very good teacher and knew, and no doubt calculated, the effect of putting such aspects into His parables. Perhaps good story telling should include surprising elements that first startle us, but then make us focus and ponder.
The interpretation of the parable followed (16:8 b and 9), and it made two points. It compared the people of this world to the people of the light. The former were shrewder in their dealings with one another (16:8 b). This was a seemingly depreciatory remark towards those who dealt honestly and according to righteous standards (the sons of light). The second point was a command: make friends for yourselves with dishonest gain so that when the money was gone you would gain welcome in your eternal quarters. At first glance, this seems contradictory to Jesus’ understanding of money (6:20) and especially with what would follow in verses 10-13.
Jesus left us some hints to the surprising ending to this parable with the master praising the dishonest manager or steward. The hints began with the titles given to people and money. We were told in 16:1 that the master had heard that his steward or manager was squandering his possessions and in verses 3-7 we saw him squander his master’s possessions even further. Then in 16:8 the narrator referred to the steward as the “unrighteous manager” when recording the praise by the master. The manager, though praised, was clearly referred to as “dishonest”. Assuming that light is a positive metaphor, the sons or people of the light were contrasted with the people of this world or the sons of this age. Similarly, the title for money in 16: 9 was variously named as “worldly wealth” or the “mammon of unrighteousness” (depending on your translation) and the same title was found in 16:11. It was not necessarily money per se that was denigrated but “worldly wealth” gathered in an inappropriate manner. We will see this “improper use of wealth” appear again in the second parable about a rich man.
The final hint often eludes Bible readers because we are not accustomed to thinking of Jesus using such a teaching technique. However, 16:9 is a statement of irony. Jesus has grabbed our attention in 16:8 with the cheated master praising the cheater as shrewd. Then Jesus stated with “tongue in cheek” that we should surely make as many friends as we can with unrighteous gains so that we will have plenty of friends in our eternal dwellings. The key phrase, of course, is the phrase: “eternal dwellings”. Did Jesus refer to heaven or to hell? I think in the context, He clearly referred to hell. After all, the manager had involved others in his cheating scheme and sin. Hell is the destination of those who sin and destroy the integrity of others in the process. Jesus ironically stated: Make as many friends with your cheating as you can so you will not be alone in hell.” There is subtle irony here, even a bit of dark humor, not at all foreign to the Old Testament.
In the next few verses, Jesus would clearly state that we cannot serve God and money: we cannot have two masters (16:13). To have another master was to have another God and the Torah would call that idolatry. Idolatry was the dominant motive for the wrath of God in the Old Testament. The second motive given in the Old Testament for the wrath of God was the oppression of others and that would be covered in 16:19-31 in the rich man’s treatment of the poor man. The second story (16:19-31) was about “eternal dwellings”, and it spoke of hell as the abode of the unrighteous rich man or the rich man who improperly withheld his wealth from a man in need. Jesus was subtly or ironically saying: “Cheat all you want and involve others in your schemes so that you can have plenty of friends in hell”.
We might be unnerved by Jesus using irony because it could clash with our preconceived notions of Jesus’ personality. However, as we have seen in the Gospel of Luke, He was not “nice” but loving and the loving thing to do was to hit hard those who destroy themselves so that they can wake up and avoid judgment. This was addressed to His disciples and He wanted them free of such things. Why then did He speak verse 8 a? Why was the cheater praised by the cheated as shrewd? It was a wonderful attention grabber, and we have seen Him do this countless times (from chapters 4-11) with alarming statements that force His listeners to listen carefully or to ponder what He meant. The later pondering would prove a much more affective manner to drive the truth of what He said deep into their minds. Perhaps, the audience of that day would have heard the subtle voice tones that we are not privileged to hear but as we ponder the context found in a written text, the result is the same (something the first audience was not given the opportunity to do).
Another thought might be added here as to why the dishonest steward was praised. In our experience in this world and among the sons of this world we will often encounter the praise given to those who cheat others. Cheating always seems to win in the short run. It is a fact of life, and it can influence us who are sons of light. If we will be as honest as Jesus attempted to persuade us to be in 16:10-13, we will often be regarded as “simple” and not as cunning, as shrewd as others. We will look stupid until the weight of eternity proves Torah as correct and ourselves as wise in following it. To experience the wisdom of Torah would require an act of faith on our part to believe that honest dealings in financial matters are ultimately profitable. The delay in reward or punishment is essential to having the opportunity for faith.
It helps us to know that Jesus was aware of the labels honest people would be given and the positive labels that would be given to those who are cheats. The sons of light have been given insight by the teachings of Jesus or by the Torah (they are the same) but are regarded temporarily as less shrewd than the sons of this world. True insight knows that the delay of being properly understood is a temporary state.
Seeing 16:9 as irony is further bolstered by following verses (10-13). Luke has written 16:1-13 as one continuous speech and so that has to influence us as we seek to understand what he wished to convey. Verses 10-13 continue the application or interpretation of the parable that was begun in 16:8 b. The dishonest manager has been trusted with the wealth of his master: something we would, in this world, consider to be an important position of trust. Jesus countered this betrayal of trust with two proverbial statements in 16:10. The first is in a standard “case”, “consequences” or “if…then” form: “whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much”. As we seek to interpret this proverb we clearly see that actions have results but it makes us wonder what the “little” refers to. His second proverbial statement: “and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much” also leaves us wondering whether He referred to a “little” as money or something else.
The clear message was that being trustworthy was essential. The first proverb was a promise that being faithful even with little things would bring added trust and added responsibility but the second proverb was in the form of a threat or warning. Dishonestly, even in little matters, led to dishonesty in greater matters. The lack of trustworthiness in a person would produce more dishonesty. This seemed to be what the parable was saying. In the second proverbial statement we were warned that we set patterns in ourselves by our own behavior and in the first proverbial statement we were promised that we set into motion positive consequences based on how we handled first assignments.
It is not until verse 11 that we get a hint of what the “little matters” could be. Jesus moved from using a proverbial “if…then” form to the use of a rhetorical question. If you have been untrustworthy in handling “worldly wealth” or the “mammon of unrighteousness” then who would entrust you with true riches? It appears that the “little” is money (something we would tend to regard as something large, not little) and is to be distinguished from the “true riches”. It could be that Jesus was saying that we need to learn how to responsibly and properly handle wealth. Not because it is so important in itself but because it could lead to further dishonesty or to the possession of greater responsibilities. We are not told what true riches mean, but perhaps that is left up to us to ponder (or in the context it is new responsibility).
In verse 12, Jesus followed with a second rhetorical question. Like the first rhetorical question it too imbibed of an “if…then” form, and similar to the first, it was in the form of a threat. The first threatened us with the prospect that if we were unworthy with worldly wealth we would not be given true wealth to deal with. The second threatened us with the prospect that if we were not trustworthy with other’s property then we would not be entrusted with what was ours. The emphasis appears to be on the issue of “first assignments” or on dealing well and responsibly with what we are first given. In life we start out with nothing and have access to only what is given to us by another (like our parents). Perhaps, we are to progress as was implied in verse 10 a. The more responsible we are the more responsibilities we will be given. What is it that was referred to by “true riches” or “property of our own” is not completely clear, but the issue of progression is.
The final saying in this section was also in proverbial form. It took more the tone of a warning than a promise. It opened with stating a general truth common to the understanding of the Jewish people who were founded theologically on monotheism. The teaching reached back to a foundational concept in the Torah: exclusiveness or having no other gods before the True God. Jesus reminded them that they could not have two masters and then followed with justification for His statement. They would either hate the one and love the other or be devoted to the one and correspondingly despise the other. His justification was in a chiastic formulation: a b b a, or hate, love, devoted, despise. The repetition pushed home the point. The issue was that there had to be a clear choice. After the general statement, Jesus specifically applied the principle of exclusiveness to the issue of money and God. His disciples could not serve both God and money. In practice, one would win out over the other. To be free one had to love the right things and one could not be divided in one’s love for one love would kill the other.
2. Teaching to the Pharisees: Salvation Comes from Torah. 16:14-31.
a. Answering the Pharisee’s Sneering. 16:14-18.
The first thirteen verses were directed towards the disciples, but the Pharisees (and presumably others) were allowed to hear. Now the process was reversed, He addressed the Pharisees but His disciples were allowed to listen. The narrator informed us that the Pharisees were lovers of money and therefore were sneering at Jesus’ teaching about money. What proceeded was a speech that was addressed first to their objection and a second that addressed their love of money which was putting them at odds with the central truths found in the Old Testament.
The Pharisees agreed with Him about there being a future resurrection (that His comments about “eternal dwellings” implied), and they agreed with His view of their being an after-life judgment which entailed being sent to heaven or hell. This latter view would be picked up in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. They disagreed though with His views of money and were no doubt highly disturbed about His implication that they were idolaters because of their love of money. The Pharisees did not want to be found out of the fold of Orthodox Judaism and wanted to be viewed as monotheistic to the core, but they also did not want to disassociate with their attachments to money. They were caught by Jesus’ application of a central tenant of Judaism to their actual lives. Jesus’ skill as a teacher and His uncanny use of proverbs and parables had hit them hard.
Jesus was sneered at, not argued with. They had to commit an “adhominem” argument and attack the man because they could not attack the argument. All through the Torah, the key figures or hero’s of Biblical faith put God over money. Abraham passed this test right away in Genesis 13 when he chose the cordial relationship he had with his nephew over financial gain. His love of his nephew caused him to despise money and let his younger relative have first pick of the “means of wealth” which was land. So sincere was his resolve and the death of the love of money by his love of his nephew that in Genesis 14 Abraham risked his life to save the nephew that took the choice lands. He attacked a greater force and brought back Lot and the whole contingent of the city of Sodom and asked for no financial gain. Abraham’s life proved the validity of the proverb of why two masters would never work. Jesus was teaching nothing new and the Pharisees must have either consciously known that or unconsciously suspected that they were standing on false ground.
Jesus could have left well enough alone but He did not. He went right for the jugular vein of their spiritual lives. The key verse in the chapter is verse 15. They had justified themselves in the eyes of men but were blind to the fact that they could not fool God: He knew their hearts. This truth was also found throughout the Old Testament. Jesus was marching down the well worn path of the prophets of old. They also knew that all through the Old Testament God often saw what was valuable and what was not in a manner different than what the society did. The world at large valued the powerful, but Yahweh valued His Word given to Abraham and so tore apart the great Egyptian society to free what the world would have regarded as worthless: slaves. Therefore, Jesus reminded them that their very religious foundation was based on the value system of God: “what is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight” (16:15). Men valued money and God valued loyalty to Himself and people (Exodus 20:1-17).
Next, Jesus spoke of His ministry (16:16) and said what the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) taught was God’s Word. With John (and by implication Himself whom John authenticated and introduced) the reign of God (the Kingdom of God) was now being proclaimed and many were forcibly entering it. One way to see this last statement was Jesus’ popularity threatened the Pharisees (and even His gaining of adherents among those of lower moral levels such as the sinners and tax gatherers). It was no doubt that this later point was a sore point with the Pharisees. In the context, it would more naturally be read to see that “from the beginning until now” people have forced “their” way, not followed God’s way into God’s kingdom. However, the fact remained despite man’s manipulation of the will of God to suit their own purpose, which God’s Word did not change: it was eternal (16:17). It would outlast and exist beyond the created order. Not one part of it would disappear. Verse 17 goes back to verse 9. God’s will was eternal and would determine our location in the eternal dwellings. Wisdom would dictate that we focus on God’s will and not on money. We could interpret God’s law to suit our own fancy, but it was eternal, God knew what we were doing (16:15).
No doubt this later point was aimed at the Pharisees choosing to say they believed in the Old Testament yet they set aside certain main tenants clearly taught in the Torah. Jesus then proceeded to give two examples: marriage and care for the poor. Both were exceedingly large agendas found throughout the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament. In Genesis 13, riches were dealt with but in the chapter before that (Genesis 12:10-20), the second vignette about Abraham (the founder of their faith) was about marriage. The second lesson learned by Abraham about what it meant to be right with God (Genesis 12:10-20) was focused on how he was to regard his wife. Abraham had to learn how to treat Sarah. She was not property as Abraham would only co-inherent the promises of God through her (and only Sarah, not Hagar, who was not his wife). He was to learn slowly (a similar mistake was made in chapter 20 of Genesis with similar embarrassing consequences for Abraham) that God would act powerfully and miraculously to protect not just Abraham but Sarah as well. She was his wife. She was important to God symbolized by the command that Abraham was to listen to her (Genesis 21:12). Additionally, Sarah’s burial place was the first actual acquiring of a piece of the Promised Land (Genesis 24). Marriage to your wife was sacred (Exodus 20:14).
In concert with the Torah, Jesus began applying the life of faith to the vulnerability of women in a male dominated society. He spoke against divorce and called divorce and the subsequent act of remarriage as an act of adultery. He correctly understood that the man had more rights to divorce and greater ability to do so than the woman and so aimed His remarks in that society completely to the men. He put the sanctity of marriage much higher than His fellow religious leaders did and therefore called into question their teaching and therefore obedience to the will of God found within the Scriptures.
How marriage fidelity found its way here in the midst of a chapter dominated by the issues of money is a puzzle. Perhaps, the key is found in realizing that divorced women were often at great financial disability whereas the men were usually not. Men could afford to divorce and women often could not. Because of the divorced woman being vulnerable in that society, it was part of man’s proper stewardship to see that his wife was secure. His being married to her made him responsible for her welfare both in terms of financial security, social status and protection. To divorce her would put her at risk and therefore risk devaluing what God valued. The husband who divorced his wife would not be a responsible manager of what God put in his life. It was clearly shameful not to take care of (and be a good steward) of one’s children, but some how in that society it became acceptable to forego one’s stewardship of one’s wife. It was common in the society and therefore acceptable in the sight of men, but not the will of God expressed in the Torah.
It would fit then that divorce would fit a context dealing with being faithful in matters of money and faithful in a manner that fits the teaching of Torah. To be unfaithful to your wife’s financial needs would be similar to not being faithful to others in need symbolized by the poor beggar in the following parable.
Perhaps, there is one more reason for using the example of divorce in this context. All through this chapter there is direct reference or implied reference to the teaching of the Old Testament. The choice to state His opposition to divorce by calling it adultery picked up a key motif expressed in a word commonly used in the Old Testament to describe those out of the will of God. Those who were disloyal to God had committed spiritual adultery in the eyes of the prophets: it was one of their main metaphors to frame their accusations against a disobedient Israel.
b. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. 16:19-31.
After His comment on marriage, Jesus began a new parable with the same type of introduction: “there was a rich man….” He would go on to contrast the true, endless security found in following the will of God in proper stewardship (in terms of finances and one’s wife) to the false security of money. There was no better way to drive home the point than to tell this story about the “eternal nature” of the “Law and Prophets” and that the “Law and the Prophets” was the determining factor in where one had their “eternal dwellings”.
Like the first parable in this chapter the focus was on an individual rich man. The first man was accused of wasting his masters’ goods; the second was accused by association. He was described as dressed in purple (a sign of royalty) and fine linen (living in luxury every day) and at his gate was a beggar covered with sores (living in abject poverty hoping for the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table). His plight was further denigrated by having his sores being licked by dogs (perhaps a reference to “Gentile dogs” or to the fact that believers were always to keep non-believers from denigrating another member of the covenant). The accusation against the rich man was not because of his wealth but because right next to him was need, and he did not address it though he had the means to do so (16:19-21). Clearly, the rich man did not live in light of the Torah’s teaching. All good Rabbis’ would agree and therefore so would the founders of the Pharisaical movement.
Both men went into eternity and in line with good Pharisaical doctrine they went to eternal dwellings. The one was carried by angels to the very bosom of Abraham. The phrase “bosom of Abraham” was symbolic of being embraced by the very foundation of God’s revelation to Israel and the source of their covenant relationship with Him. Abraham was the beginning of the covenant and so to be in “his bosom” was to be in “his embrace”.
Then begins a careful emphasis expressed in metaphors of distance or direction. The rich man also died and was given a burial. He was not carried “up” into heaven by the great servants of God (16:22a), but put “down” into the earth (16:22b). What is more, after his burial he found himself burning in hell and torment (16:22). The contrast is enormous and deliberate. Jesus was reversing common stereotypes found in His culture that often saw the rich as the favored of God no doubt due to their work ethic. The poor were reaping the benefits of either their disobedience or lax behavior and inadequate work ethic (as so colorfully and humorously described in the sluggard proverbs (Proverbs 6:6-11, 13:4, 20:4, 26:13-16). Jesus was not against hard work or responsible behavior (16:10-12). But this story is for the rich not the poor. Therefore, Jesus put the rich man in hell and the poor man in heaven. This must have startled both the Pharisees and Jesus’ disciples (see Luke 18:25-26).
The story was then dominated by a threefold dialogue between the rich man and father Abraham, the symbolic origin of the covenant with God. Before we begin our investigation of that dialogue (16:24-31) our narrator gives us some additional information to help us frame our understanding of the dialogue (16:23). The narrator gives perspective by placing us inside of the place occupied by the rich man. We are allowed to see the story from his eyes by two carefully chosen verbs: lifted and saw. Not only is the rich man in hell and the poor man in heaven, but one is far and the other is near and the rich man “saw” it. He lifted his eyes because he was down or buried in torment, and he saw the center of the covenant far away (in contrast to Lazarus who was near, as he was in Abraham’s very embrace). The rich man was far away and the poor man was near. We are told that the rich man did see: he did perceive. Pain, (or sorrow as in the story of the prodigal son) no doubt, made him perceptive. The surprising thing was that he only saw when he was in hell the one he refused to acknowledge while on earth.
The first dialogue opened with a speech by the rich man. He began his speech with a title of address, “Father Abraham”. He still saw himself as a member of the covenant community (he was a member of the church, a Christian in today’s terms). This story was not addressed to the heathen of foreign lands but to those who live in proximity to biblical teaching and believe themselves to be part of the biblical community. What is interesting was that Abraham would respond and call him, “son” (16:25).
The rich man’s first speech contained two requests (16:24). The first was a general request asking for mercy. The request for mercy was a well known Old Testament phrase and the encouraged way to pray in the Old Testament. Israelites were taught to call out to God because He would hear them. God heard the Israelites when they cried out in their bondage (Exodus 2:23-25). It became the paradigm for efficacious prayer (i.e. Psalm 107) and so typical of many of the prayers found in the Psalter: “I love the Lord, for he heard my voice; He heard my cry for mercy” (Psalm 116:1). Then typical of many Old Testament prayers or speeches the rich man moved from a general statement to a specific need: he wanted relief from the agony of the flames of hell. He could see the one he had ignored close to Abraham (and he now perceived himself as far away and in torment). It is true that the rich man could see Lazarus, but it is not clear that he perceived who Lazarus really was: the favored of God by Abraham’s side.
His perceptive inadequacy was indicated by his second request. He requested of Abraham that Lazarus be sent from the comforts of heaven to hell to relieve him of his pain. He still saw Lazarus as his inferior and at his bequest to attend to his needs. He still saw himself as the rich man and Lazarus as nothing; but Lazarus had a name in the story and the rich man did not.
Abraham’s reply was to address the rich man as a “son” and then he made a request of him. He asked him to remember that in his lifetime he had received good things while Lazarus had received bad things. He went on to say that now the roles were reversed: Lazarus was now in comfort and he in agony (16:25). Then one of the most frightening of statements in the story was made. It concerned the great gulf between those close to the covenant and those far away. It was fixed and no one, after death, could cross it. He could not come to them and Lazarus could not come to him (16:26). The time for repentance had passed and the chasm was fixed and no doubt the rich man could see it, as he made no further requests for Lazarus to come to him.
The first dialogue ended in an impasse: the rich man had not learned anything about the worth of Lazarus and Abraham had refused his request for relief. So the second dialogue began with the rich man making another request. He had made some progress in that he made no further requests for himself but now for others, for members of his family. He still called Abraham “father”, but he persisted in misunderstanding the position that Lazarus held. He then asked that Lazarus be sent from the comforts of heaven to his father’s house because the rich man had five brothers who were no doubt living like the rich man had lived. He wanted Lazarus to warn them so that they could avoid the torment he now endured. He no doubt understood why he was in hell, but again, he was quite willing to order around and disturb the existence of the poor man Lazarus to do his bidding. The rich man obviously cared about his family. However, his lack of perception continued. It appears that the rich man still saw his house as so important because of their wealth that the ordering of a man by the very side of Abraham did not strike him as inappropriate. It was not that Lazarus was beyond service or beyond the requirements as such, but that the rich man took it for granted.
Abraham’s response was short with no title of address. He merely said that the covenant was clearly explained and well known: the brothers had the Law and the Prophets. The brothers possessed the way of avoiding the torments of hell in their very midst, and all they had to do was to “hear” it or to obey it. Not the least stroke of a pen would drop out of the Law (16:17). It was secure, more secure than heaven or earth. They had the great gift of God’s will. They had the “Law and the Prophets”: they had the Old Testament. They had all they needed for the true riches of salvation to be obtained. All they had made use of, however, was money. They had loved the wrong thing and the love of money had killed their love of God (16:13) and therefore obedience to His will.
The final round of exchanges between the rich man and Abraham contained an understandable request coming from the man in torment, but in essence it was one of audacity and asked for the violation of Torah. Like the previous two speeches the rich man addressed Abraham as father, but opened with a declaration that Abraham and therefore by implication the covenant and its stipulations in the Torah were wrong. He wanted the dead to go back to those living on earth and communicate with the living. He wanted the prohibitions against necromancy so clearly enunciated in Scripture to be lifted (see Leviticus 19:31, Deuteronomy 18:11-13, Isaiah 8:19-20, and where it warrants the death penalty in I Chronicles 10:13-14 and Leviticus 20:6, and 27). The rich man, in essence, told Abraham that the founder of the covenant did not really understand. Abraham did not accurately perceive reality, the Torah was wrong; God did not do enough for the salvation of mankind. God needed to go beyond and against the Torah and send messages from the grave. The request was understandable and something we would be tempted to request. A miracle was needed to persuade, even though this particular type of miracle was forbidden by God.
Abraham’s response was again brief and with no title of address. The rich man was told that if the brothers did not listen to (and obey) Moses and the Prophets neither would they listen to someone who arose from the dead. Miracles did not guarantee the conversion of those who viewed them.
The ground work for such an answer had already been laid in Luke 6, 11, 13, and 14. In Luke 6:6-11 the religious leaders saw the man with a withered hand healed, but were not moved to compassion. The deliverance from demon possession that the man experienced in 11:14-28 did not convince some of the audience to see that the hand of God was present and operative in their midst. In 13:10-17 the religious leaders saw the woman sick for eighteen years healed and in Luke 14:1-6 they watched in silence as Jesus healed the man suffering from dropsy. In each case the miracle did not persuade the religious leaders (who did know Torah) to praise God or become open to Jesus’ teaching. In the first case, they were filled with rage (6:11) and in the last they were silent (14:6). Those who experienced the miraculous healing of the man who was deprived of his speech by a demon and instantly set free were demanding a sign, when they just saw one in the man’s healing. In the case of the woman with the eighteen year old illness the people were delighted and filled with joy but the leaders were humiliated. They were left out of the celebration, but left out by their own choice as was the older son in the parable of chapter fifteen (15:28). They too could have rejoiced for and with the woman who was a daughter of Abraham (13:16) and was bound by Satan and now freed, but they were not concerned with that. They wanted nothing to do with such joy; they had other agendas than those of God (and oddly in their view, in behalf of God).
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus had no application or interpretation following it. It ended dramatically with the last speech of Abraham and thus the speech to the Pharisees was ended. Jesus made the last speech end with the declaration that disobedience to the Torah left one imperceptive. “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much….” If the leaders did not obey what they clearly knew from the Old Testament about finances and marriage, how they could be entrusted with the doctrine of the Incarnation towards which the whole Old Testament was moving: the true riches. The trap of “worldly riches” was that it could blind one to the true values in life. A constant sublimation was needed to put God and His will before all. Jesus asked them to be true and practical monotheists. He also warned them of the consequences of not being so: their eternal destiny hung in the balance of the practical application of the gift of the covenant regulations.
The parable also summed up His experience with the religious leaders who were repeatedly prevented from seeing who was before them by their own refusal to obey what they already knew. He was modeling for His disciples what would happen to them because the truth of the parable would be something they too would experience. Obedience would open the minds of those who viewed revelation, but without obedience their minds would remain closed.
We do not know anything about Lazarus, except that he was desperately poor and ill and was taken into heaven. It is assumed because he was at Abraham’s side that he was a loyal son of the covenant, but we know nothing of his choices that brought him to such honor. He never was addressed by the rich man, and why that was we are not told. It could be that the rich man thought it beneath his station to do so, or because the covenant protected such people from harassment after death. The center of the story concentrated on the actions and fate of the unnamed rich man. Poor people will emerge in Luke’s Gospel again (21:1-4) and garner great praise, but here Lazarus’ role was to hold out hope for those who have suffered in the manner in which he did.
Finally, it has become obvious that another role reversal was subtly present through out the parable. The rich man had no name. The poor man did. We usually seek to make a name for ourselves and in utter irony (see 16:9) the man who lived in luxury and dressed in purple and fine linen had no name. Having a name and what that signified was an enormous issue through out the Old Testament. The Name of God was a double for God’s presence according to the Jewish Scriptures and when a man made progress he was often given a new name, etc. Perhaps, the greatest insult would be to have no name at all.
It would not be possible to be “close to Abraham” and therefore close to the covenant with God if one had totally disregarded the will of God: the Law and the Prophets. How one handled money and by faith saw that responsibility in handling wealth was more important than the wealth itself.
C. To the Disciples about Faith and the Kingdom. 17:1-37.
The chapter above opened with teachings about faith in terms of the responsibilities of handling wealth (in obedience to the Torah or the Law and the Prophets). The next chapter was also one on faith, and what one of the benefits of faith could bring: insight from God.
The chapter is one of questions or requests. It runs in four major blocks: 1-10, 11-19, 20-21 and 22-37. It opens and closes with teaching by Jesus directly to His disciples (1:1 for 1-10 and 1:22 for 22-37). The first is about faith and the latter about the Kingdom of God. Each of these two sections of instructions for the disciples had a question by the disciples but in between the lepers also made a request of Jesus (17:13) and so did the Pharisees (17:20). The former was a request for mercy and the latter was a request for insight or information.
1. How to Increase One’s Faith. 17:1-10.
a. Instructions on Handling the Little Ones and Forgiveness. 17:1-4.
Chapter 17 started with Jesus instructing His disciples. The aspect of warning dominated the tone of the instruction. There were two warnings: Do not hurt the weak (17:1-2) and do not fail to forgive (17:3-4). His opening warning was in an ancient Old Testament prophetic genre: a woe oracle. He stated that it was inevitable that “stumbling blocks” would occur or that occasions for sin and temptation would occur. However, the instrument of stumbling would be judged. Therefore, woe to the one through whom the occasion for sin arose: judgment would fall on those who were the causes of stumbling or of “little ones” falling into sin. He warned the disciples not to be agents of harm to the little ones who were usually understood as children or new believers.
The warning came with a motive clause: there would be severe and terrifying judgment (17:2). They were told they would be better off to be killed by the suffocating waters of the Sea than to be the cause of the stumbling of a little one. Israelites did not speak of the joy of swimming or sailing. The main words for “ocean” or “sea” in Hebrew were also words that doubled for “chaos” in the first instance and “death” in the second. The Jewish people did not seemingly have a fondness for travel on large bodies of water. To die by drowning was not relished by their community.
“Don’t mess with the little ones, or the judgment will be horrifying”. This was a carefully designed threat. Jesus wanted His disciples to realize the extreme consequences if they hurt one of those who were vulnerable. How they handled power was extremely important to Him. Similar to the responsibility that financial wealth brought or the place of privilege that being male in marriage brought (chapter 16), the power they had in the exercise of their position as leaders in the church had to be seen as a privilege when exercised in the context of the little ones. If the little ones stumbled, it should not be because of a disciple. So many in the Jewish community then and in the Christian community now stumble in their faith because of the religious leadership.
The second warning was on the theme of forgiveness of a brother. This was a return or later version of the teaching first given in chapter 6: 27-39 on forgiveness. There the issue was forgiving one’s enemies, but this teaching was focused on dealing with a repentant brother. It was given in the “if … then” form: “if” your brother sins, “then” rebuke him. Then “if” he repents, “then” forgive him. Also, “if” a brother sins and repents seven times a day, “then” one must continue to forgive. The disciples were warned to be “on their guard” or to be “watchful” indicating that this was something that could be easily slipped up on. It was easy to fall here and therefore one should watch for it.
The teaching was not new. The latter warning was a central one in Jesus’ words to His disciples and the earlier one was a dominant teaching from the Old Testament. Authority was a trust that God gave us and this gift should be used carefully, just like the power a spouse had in marriage in that society and wealth did in relationship to the poor. The creation story was a clear demonstration of how to use power. God’s great ability to create the entire creation with just His “voice” was seen as an example of how power was to be used in the service of “working” for others. God made for the humans a living space in the Genesis 1 account. He rested on the seventh day from working for others. Power was to be used like the Creator. The true possessor of power, the God of creation, had served in the act of power that we now understand as creation. Power was to be used in behalf of others not used to harm others. Therefore, (in character with Old Testament values and perceptions) the telling of David’s great condemnation in the Bathsheba affair was more concerned with an abuse of power than it was a sexual impropriety. Nathan convicted David with his parable and it was a parable about the abuse of privilege, not a mistake driven by passion. Jesus wanted His disciples to be properly related to the center of this prominent teaching in the Old Testament. Notice how the disciples responded….
b. Question by the Apostles. 17:5
The disciples seemingly were not listening. They did not ask about why forgiveness had to be given many times if necessary. They did not comment on the difficulty or the proper procedures for using power correctly in regard to the little ones. They wanted to know about this quality that Jesus had been repeatedly been bringing up: faith. They had seen there own lack of it in 8:25, but also the high praise it was accorded by Jesus when present in humans: the litter bearers of the paralytic in 5:20, the centurion in 7:9, the prostitute in 7:50, and the women ill for 12 years in 8:48. It seemed to them that faith was the key to success or the key to the reception of powerful miracles in the possessor’s behalf, and so they wisely wanted to know how to have more since they were told they were deficient in it in 8:25. The request was valid but seemingly out of place. Jesus the teacher had experienced what we so often experience as teachers or parents. The main thrust of His teaching was ignored.
c. Answer: Metaphor of Agriculture and Agribusiness. 17:6-10
Jesus began to answer their question by using a metaphor from the realm of agriculture. He told them if they had a small amount of faith, like a small mustard seed, they could do amazing things by mere words (uproot mulberry trees and plant them into the sea). Clearly, a little bit went a long way. One did not have to be a master in the realm of faith but just have a little bit. However encouraging this is, in a sense, He also seemed to be taunting them (17:6). They asked for faith, and they were told that it was indeed an extremely valuable commodity to acquire. The taunting however, did not last too long as He continued to teach.
Jesus then launched into the telling of a parable. This time it was about agricultural workers or slaves. He asked them if they had a slave who worked their fields or tended their sheep, would he be invited to eat right after their work in the fields. He told them that such employees would be commanded to first feed the master. Afterwards, when they were properly clothed, then and only then, would the servants be given their own needed sustenance (17:7-8).
He then began to interpret the parable. The interpretation first focused on the actions of the master and was given in the form of a rhetorical question. The disciples (apostles) were asked whether the owner would feel it necessary to thank the slave for doing that which was his duty to perform (17:9). The focus was on the slave’s duty. They were to work hard and then continue to serve their master and not expect commendation. The emphasis seemed to be on performing one’s duty.
The next verse applied the parable directly to the disciples. When they had done all they had been commanded the disciples were to verbalize their own unworthiness as slaves and state that their obedience was what they should have done due to their status as slaves. This is quite a surprising story.
Throughout the Gospel of Luke, Jesus seemed to be quite contrary to this type of attitude. He was usually quite liberal with praise: 7:9, 28, 43, 50, 8:48, 10:18-19, 28. He was not afraid to praise someone for a correct answer or a courageous amount of faith, etc. The parable itself seemed reasonable as it was the duty of slaves or employees to do their duty, but even this example seemed strained. Reward was promised for proper behavior (6:35, 37, 39, 42, 45, 48) as much as punishment was threatened for improper behavior (6: 43, 44, 49). Jesus often tried to persuade by use of praise or even with withheld praise (6:32-34). The tactic in this parable seemed quite surprising. The emphasis was completely on duty performed because the duty was proper to the station of the one who performed it. No emphasis was made on the “heroic choice” that would be encouraged by praise or threat.
What was even more disturbing was what this parable meant in this context. What was this parable doing here in the midst of a teaching on how to gain the valuable commodity or attitude or choice of faith? Does faith belong to the category of items that was not to be praised? That did not seem to be the case in the other “faith passages” as they were filled with praise or correction.
Perhaps the key is to see that the teaching to the disciples runs from 17:1-10. It is a unit. The disciples interposed their question to change the subject to faith when Jesus was talking about the need to not abuse power and forgive. The parable of the slaves and the metaphor about the uprooting of the mulberry trees were all in the context of the two warnings of 17:1-4 and the same is true of the question of how to have an increased faith (17:5). Perhaps, the answer is this. The disciples were to be so committed to not hurting the little ones and to forgiving one another that they should never expect praise for obedience to these two teachings or instructions. It was simply “expected”, it simply was their duty. It was hard (17:7 field work), extended labor (17:8 clean up and feed the master) that was to be done before any payment was to be expected (food for the day). If they did this they would acquire or increase their faith.
One must forgive by faith, not because one was appreciated or would be praised and one should carefully take care not to cause the little ones to stumble, not because they would be praised for their extended careful watchfulness in this regard but, solely because it was expected. If one could see life lived in this manner in regard to these two issues of proper care for the little ones and forgiveness, faith would increase. They were to be encouraged though, because the normal elements that are present to encourage and motivate the difficulties of obeying 17:1-4 by means of praise were compensated by the metaphor about the Mulberry bush. It is quite contrary to human behavior to be diligent in taking care of the “little ones” because it is more natural to be careful around the “great ones”. It is quite contrary to human nature to forgive because we humans have over inflated ideas of our own importance and our pride is great. Forgiveness is hard to do. And to repeatedly forgive was even harder. However, even if we just do a little of it, it would build faith in us.
It appeared Jesus had again taken an interruption and used it to teach further and drive home what He considered essential truths. In addition, He did so without connecting the dots for them. He left them to figure out all the connections between faith, the little ones, forgiveness, mulberry trees and expected duty accomplished without commendation.
2. The Request of the 10 Lepers. 17:11-19.
The second portion of the chapter opened with Luke reminding us that what will happen next was still in the context of the “way to Jerusalem”. It was in the context of His coming humiliation, betrayal, death and resurrection. He was between Galilee and Samaria, and He encountered a band of lepers. They were proper in their approach by standing at a distance lest they infect or defile the Rabbi. So they “raised” their voices and cried out in the familiar Biblical pattern and called for mercy (see 16:24). They called Him “Jesus, Master” and then made their request.
They came out of the crowd as a group and made a direct petition to Jesus. He did not disappoint them. He responded with a direct challenge and command for them to do a specific action (so typical of other healing or salvation stories). The way of salvation is by faith and faith is expressed by obedience to the Law. They were to go to the priests so they could be examined and cleared to return to society in accordance with the Law of Moses in Leviticus. Their act of faith would be to go towards the priest without the healing being experienced. This was similar to much of the teaching of Luke with the person being addressed learned that obedience was efficacious. They experienced the truth of this immediately after putting the instruction to go to the priest into action. It was action done in obedience and under the direction of God, and it brought about their cleansing (17:14).
The story however, was not finished. Luke recorded that one of the ten lepers when he “saw” or perceived that he was cleansed returned to Jesus. He “turned” back glorifying God with a loud voice. The word “turn” might have some connotation with the concept so prevalent in the Old Testament of “repenting” which in Hebrew literally means “to turn”. Whether Luke intended this as a reference to repentance or not Luke clearly portrayed the man as submitting to Jesus. He threw himself down at Jesus’ feet and said thank you. Luke then tells us that he was a Samaritan. He was outside the established acceptable group that comprised the believing community of that day. He was much like the centurion in chapter 7, but it was worse. The centurion was an admirer of Jewish customs and had built the accepted religious leaders a synagogue (7:5) where as this man was a heretic.
Similar to the story of the centurion, and the story of the prostitute (7:50) Jesus would praise the most unlikely of persons. He began by asking where the other nine were as He had cleansed ten lepers. We do not know if they were Jewish, but it was implied that at least some of them were. Only the foreigner “turned” back and gave glory to God. It was the role of Israel to praise and give glory to God. Perhaps, it is better to say that it was the role of a righteous or healthy human to “give glory to God”. The leper who was from the wrong side of the tracks theologically had become “a son of the mighty”.
“Ascribe to the Lord, O sons of the mighty,
Ascribe to the Lord Glory and strength.
Ascribe to the Lord the glory due to His name;
Worship the Lord in holy array”. (Psalm 29:1-2)
Jesus went even further and gave the man further commands and further insight into what had happened to him. The disciples had asked a question in 17:5, i.e. they prayed. Talking to God is what prayer is and Jesus is God. They made a petition for increased faith. Prayer brings answers but often answers we do not expect. It will bring the commands of God. Real prayer will bring further commands, and we should not pray if we do not want to hear further commands. The disciples were given the further commands that they were to obey what they were told in 17:1-4, but to do so without commendation or praise (but with hope that any amount of obedience would be efficacious as the Mulberry tree metaphor implied in 17:6). Now the Samaritan leper had approached Jesus. The leprous group had made a petition and come out of the crowd to do so, and now this man drew nearer and did so with thanksgiving. He too had prayed from within the group of ten and received a command in answer to a request, now as he prayed further, or glorified God and thanked Jesus he received further commands coupled with a further gift (17:19).
He was to rise and go his way (in obedience to the original command to show himself to the priests in obedience to Torah), but he was to go with further information. He was to leave with the knowledge of how his healing had been gained. No doubt, he would need to receive from God again and so he learned that it was his faith (in response to a command of God) in accordance with Scripture that brought about the faith. Obedience in submission to the will of God changes us; it makes us men or women of faith.
Only the one who humbly acknowledged God learned what reality was all about. Our duty is to say thank you for gifts received and it led to the leper’s learning how faith works (17:5). The original obedience was faith, but the thankfulness brought insight. The reign of God has to be inside of you. It cannot be seen by men.
3. The Pharisee’s Question about the Kingdom of God’s Coming. 17:20-21.
The third section opened with a question by the Pharisees. They had repeatedly heard Jesus teach on the Kingdom of God and its nature. They probably had their own conceptions of what the Kingdom of God meant but their question was not about its nature but when it would come. It appeared they understood the term to include human political manifestations.
Jesus did not answer their question in the manner in which they posed it, but it does not appear that He did so to be evasive. He answered in the manner in which He did because to have answered their question in the form it was given would not have helped them. Their question was invalid because their understanding of the Kingdom of God was inaccurate.
He therefore answered their question by saying the Kingdom of God’s coming could not be observed by signs that could be observed (17:20). What He meant by that was at first glance unclear. However, He went on to clarify what He meant (17:21). One could not say that God’s reign was spatially observable. It could not be pointed to in time and space. It was not objectively “out there”, but subjectively “within their midst”. He could be saying it was a matter of having faith (17:5). When one forgave and carefully avoided hurting the “little ones” and did so in obedience by faith then the reign of God would be present. It would be within our midst, in our very soul. God would be king and therefore what we asked would be in accordance with His will, and He would do it (17:6). It began by obedience to the essence of the Torah by faith. In this case it was caring for the vulnerable ones and forgiving those who sinned against us.
4. Instruction to the Disciples about the Kingdom of God. 17:22-37.
This section did not open with a question, but it would include one towards the end. The chapter contains three questions (17:5, 20 and 37) and one request (17:13). All three of the questions indicated that those asking the question did not ask wise questions. The only good statement was the request in 17:13: “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.”
The section was related to the question asked by the Pharisees about “when” the Kingdom of God would come in 17:20. Luke states that Jesus proceeded to expand on the issue that the Kingdom of God was within. The question of “when” was inappropriate as was a similar line of reasoning: questioning the “where” in the sense of an objective outward manifestation.
a. Warnings meant to help the Disciples be prepared. 17:22-36.
1) Warning against Deception posed by seeking “Where”. 17:22-24.
Jesus opened with the statement that His disciples would come upon hard times and long to see “one of the days of the Son of Man” and would not be able to (17:22). The danger, Jesus felt, was to let this longing lead them into deception. The deception could take the following form: the reign of God was taking place in a spatial location: “Look over here or over there.” Jesus admonished them not to listen to what some men would say. Jesus’ reign could not be spatially located (17:23). His reign will be as the lightening which covers the whole breadth of the sky. He used the lightening metaphor, and it appeared to stress that the Kingdom would be extensive as the lightening that stretches all over the sky, but did not explain it further or expand on what He meant.
2) Warning that His Suffering would precede that day. 17:25.
He predicted they would long to see His day. His day would come, however it had an element in it that was, perhaps, not what the disciples wanted to hear. It would be a day that had to be prefaced with suffering. The Kingdom of God had to first imbibe of pain. The Son of Man must “first” suffer much and be first rejected by this generation. Suffering preceded the salvation from Egypt and before the “day of the Lord” appeared there. Suffering in the wilderness preceded the entrance to the “day of the Lord” manifested in the conquest of Palestine. Similar predictions were in the prophets about the “day of the Lord”. The disciples would not escape suffering. The reign of God would come, but it would first entail sorrow, and Jesus who was the epitome of the Kingdom of God would illustrate this by His life. The disciples were to again understand that they had to be like Him and take up their cross. One could not rise from the dead until one was first killed.
3) Warning that the day would be unexpected. 17:26-30.
The key teaching in the following verses (17:26-30) seemed to be centered on the “unexpected” nature of its coming, at least to those not looking for its coming. He gave two examples from the Torah: Noah and Lot. Both stories were from the first book of the Torah. These are some of the earliest stories the Israelites had. What was alarming was that both stories were about judgment on those not ready and were “days of destruction” except to those who were ready.
What was stressed by the mention of the Noah story (Genesis 6-8) was not Noah, nor his family who were in the boat, but those who were left outside (17:27). They were going about the normal activities of life: eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage. These activities took place right until the day that the flood came and destroyed them all (17:26-27). The only thing said about Noah himself was that he entered the ark before the disaster hit. He acquired safety in the ark which preceded the coming of the flood.
The second example about Lot in Genesis 19 was similar to the first. Again, Lot, nor his daughters, were emphasized, rather those who did not escape the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were stressed. They did not expect the judgment either. They too were involved with daily, normal activities: eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting and building. Again, what preceded the destruction of the city of Sodom was the departure of Lot (17:28-29). Both of these examples were to be paradigms for the coming of the Son of Man. The people who experienced destruction did not know “when”. It caught them off guard. It was unexpected. They were going about their normal activities.
What was new about the Lot story in comparison with the Noah story was the slight variation in the list of normal activities the people of Lot’s days were engaged in. What was missing from the Lot list was the “marrying and being given in marriage” and what was added to the list was the mention of financial aspects: buying, selling, planting and building. (17:28). There was commerce going on right up until the day Lot left Sodom.
4) Warning to be read: leave material goods behind. 17:31-33.
The next section stressed “how” to be ready and the stress was on the issue of not trying to preserve worldly goods. The list from the days of Lot ended stressing commerce and these new instructions were subtlety tied to this idea. Again two examples were given: being on a roof and being in the fields. Both examples stressed material possessions. The one on the roof was not to go down inside to where “his goods” were to get them. In the second example of the one in the field one should not go back “for anything” (17:31).
Then the exhortation: “Remember Lot’s wife” was given. What about the story of Lot’s wife did Jesus wish to focus on? He had narrowly focused His reference to the Noah and Lot story in the section above. The exhortation was followed with a twofold statement in an “if…then” form. If one tried to save one’s life, then it would be lost and if one would lose their life then it would be preserved. It seemed Jesus focused the episode of Lot’s wife’s death on her looking back for what she possessed in Sodom as she gazed at the city when it was destroyed. We know Lot lost everything. He was in Sodom because he chose the better land when Abraham gave him a choice. Lot should have let the older man choose first and let Abraham take the better land (Genesis 13). Was this poor choice when it came to financial matters continued in the behavior of Lot’s wife? That we are not told, but it is clear from the Lot story and Jesus’ use of that story that her holding on or looking back had a “worldly goods” aspect to it.
How were the people to become ready? They gained their lives by not holding on to material goods. Jesus often taught in metaphors from nature, agriculture, domestic issues or business and sometimes from allusions to Biblical characters or events. I believe his reference to being in a field or on a roof could be taken literally, but most likely it was meant to be seen as a paradigm for action. What the roof and field images stressed was He wanted His disciples to let go of “goods” and move out. Goods were not to be equated with life. Life was more important. The Kingdom of God was within. What seemed to be a peril to the Kingdom of God was the “holding on” to material goods.
5) Warning of a Discriminating Judgment. 17:34-35.
Some of the new English translations have a verse 36 but that verse is not in what is considered to be the best Greek manuscripts, but this does not appear to be crucial. The third example listed in verse 36 is a repetition of 34 and 35. If verse 36 would be added, (the metaphors of two people in a bed in verse 34 or two women grinding in verse 35) it would have given another example of people experiencing different results. The third example would be two men in a field. Whether there are two or the three examples, they stressed the same aspect: there would be a discriminating judgment. People would seem to be engaged in the same “normal activities” (see 17:27, 28) but one would be judged differently than the other. It seemed that Jesus wanted His disciples to see that the activity itself was not the issue but rather who was ready and who was not. Being involved in a marriage or in getting married or being involved or uninvolved business was not the deciding factor. One was to remember the judgment would come on a day that was not expected. The disciples were also to “remember Lot’s wife” and not be focused on “goods” for that aspect of life was what could cause them to lose their lives or not be ready for the coming judgment/salvation.
The coming of the Son of Man would be marked by a selection of one person from another. The event would be salvation for one group or person and destructive judgment for another. Holding on to goods might indicate to the disciples an inward condition that was perhaps not observable to the outward eye. God would know whether the Kingdom of God, the reign of God was truly in them.
b. Disciples’ Question: misunderstanding the Kingdom. 17:37.
The final question of the chapter was asked by the disciples. They had been listening to the question by the Pharisees about when the kingdom of God would come and Jesus had said such a question was not appropriate to the subject, as they misunderstood the nature of that kingdom. It was within, and not to be observed as a political change in the society could be observed. It was a kingdom or reign of God within the very nature of the disciples. For the sake of His disciples, Jesus then proceeded to define for them some of the nature of the Kingdom of God. He had showed them practical ways to have faith and thus be under the reign of God or in the Kingdom (17:1-4). Then Jesus proceeded to warn them not to miss it in various ways (17:22-36)
The Kingdom of God was within and no doubt the disciples were as misinformed as the Pharisees about that aspect of what Jesus was going to bring. The true kingdom or reign of God would not be observable (17:20-21), and not in a specific physical location (23-24). It would be preceded by suffering (25), come unexpectedly (26-30), could be lost by holding on to worldly goods (31-33) and would cause a discriminating judgment (34-35). It would bring about either their destruction or salvation, it was vital that they were prepared. Therefore it was vital that they understood its nature and how to avoid being left out of the Kingdom of God. What was remarkable was that the disciples were listening, but not hearing (8:9-10). This was proved by their following question in verse 37.
Jesus had clearly told them where the kingdom would be was not the issue, but their readiness (23-24) and their question must have been a rather frustrating one to hear. They asked: “Where, Lord?” Jesus must have been crushed in His spirit. Jesus was trying to show them the way to the kingdom of God in verses 17:1-4. Jesus taught they were to be more concerned with the difficult business of forgiving their brothers and taking care not to harm the little ones. The disciples interrupted with the question about how to have increased faith. The disciples seemed to not be locking into His agenda but kept perceiving through the lens of their own agendas. It was evident by their question in 17:5 and then by their question in 17:37.
Teachers should expect determined unwillingness or temporary inability to learn from their best students. The disciples basically ignored Jesus twice (17:5 and 17:37). They seemed incapable of understanding (8:10) even though it was to them that the “knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of God” had been given. The apostles were the “champions of the faith”, to quote John of Antioch, and the ones sent (the apostles) to bring the good news to a lost and dying world. At this point they do not seem to be very impressive. What does a teacher do with such pupils?
Jesus did not quit or give into them. He did not fire them because of their slowness to grasp what He tried to teach. He kept them as disciples, but did not lower the bar so that they would have a false sense of security. Of the seven times in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus declared that one either had or did not have faith, only the disciples (8:25) were said to not have any. He did not fire them, but rather He confronted them with their lack.
His response to them in this chapter was a consistent one: He went back to metaphors in the face of their lack of perception. He went to difficult metaphors that were not easy to unravel. In answer to the question in 17:5, He first encouraged them through a metaphor about mulberry trees that even some faith was terribly affective but then told them the parable of the servants who were to do their duty as if they were proper slaves and to do their duty without praise. This was His answer to how to gain faith. He did not define in an easy to determine manner what their duty was (though it was there within the chapter in verses 1-4 which they had seemingly ignored).
In the discouraging question that revealed their lack of carefully listening to what He had said in 17:23-24, He responded in a somewhat similar fashion as He did to their request for faith in 17:5. He responded with another puzzling metaphor. This time the metaphor was about vultures in answer to the inappropriate question about where the Kingdom of God would come: “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” Again, He did not unpack the metaphor. The chapter ended after He spoke the metaphor and chapter 18 opened teaching about prayer, though verse 18:8 could be coming back to this. We will look at this later.
What did He mean? Was this merely an ironic or sarcastic response? They asked a foolish question about “where” when He said do not be concerned with “where”. So, did He in desperation basically say: “wherever”? Vultures go to wherever there is carrion. This could be the meaning He intended. We have noticed Jesus was not averse to using irony (see 16:9).
Was He merely giving a sarcastic retort or rebuke, or was He beginning another of His puzzling metaphors that would be unpacked only slowly and with effort and time: “Since that time, the good news of the Kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it” (16:16).
D. Insight into Prayer and the Kingdom of God. 18:1-43.
The following four stories or sections will all define or illustrate the issue of prayer. They will speak of understanding who the God people pray to is, and how they should understand their hope of being heard. In addition, the stories will instruct the disciples about what God is truly after and thus what they should do to be effective in prayer and in His Kingdom (or under His reign).
Prayer simply stated is “talking to Jesus”. Since Jesus is a Person, He is not a set of doctrines, nor a magic force we need to control or manipulate. Therefore, Jesus teaches that many of the dynamics that inform us of good communication between humans would help us understand talking to or communicating well with God. There is one catch: the Person we humans are talking to is all powerful and the mighty Lord of the Universe. We humans must understand that this can cause problems and so Jesus addresses them.
Therefore, the four stories addressed the nature of the One we speak to (18:1-8), the feelings of inadequacy we feel as sinners (18:9-14), God’s openness to those we do not think worthy of approaching Him, which could include us (18:15-17), and finally what God wanted of the relationship and therefore what we need to do (18:18-30).
1. The Parable of the Unjust Judge: 18:1-8
Chapter 18 opened with Jesus still speaking to His disciples, but seemingly on another topic: that of prayer. In Luke 11, the disciples had asked Jesus about how to pray, but here in Luke 18 the topic was brought up by Jesus Himself. In chapter 11, the disciples wanted to know “how” to pray and seemingly wanted a set prayer like the one John gave his disciples. Jesus did answer their request and gave them a prayer (11:2-4). It was a set one that taught them “what” to ask for. Jesus did not stop there, but followed that request with a parable and further teaching on prayer that gave additional insight. Jesus always gave more than what they asked for. They were encouraged by the parable (of the neighbor who came at midnight in 11:5-8) and the exhortations that followed to pray with confidence and to ask believing they would receive (11:9-12). He then helped them know what they should ask for: the Holy Spirit (11:13). They wanted a set ritual, but He wanted to them to see that intelligent prayer (what to pray for) was needed and that they needed to be encouraged to pray. His teaching in chapter 11 was both informative and motivational.
In Luke 18, there is additional teaching on prayer, but with a different nuance: that of understanding the interpersonal dynamics of prayer.
a. Introduction/Thesis of the Parable. 18:1
In the Old Testament there are many instances of prayer being encouraged when we are faced with trouble (i.e. Jacob facing death in Genesis 32, Samson in captivity in Judges 14 and all of Psalm 107, etc.). In Luke 18, He also addresses this issue via a parable. The parable has an unusual construction, it is preceded by a comment by Luke that focused the reader towards seeing that prayer was to be the chosen action when faced with the temptation to give up: “that they should always pray and not give up” (18:1). It appeared as if Luke has given us the thesis statement of the parable before the parable begins. The parable was designed to encourage perseverance through the means of prayer. To accomplish this, the parable was going to skillfully anticipate why we might not keep praying. The parable has little to do with the nature or procedure of prayer but focused on the nature and intentions of the One to whom prayer was to be addressed: namely God. There was a misconception of about Him that needed to be faced.
b. The Parable itself. 18:2-5
The parable, like many of His parables, is a troublesome one. This parable came from the legal realm (18:2-5). It entailed a judicial matter and recounted the interaction between a judge and a widow. It began with telling the reader that the judge was deficient in character. His character was in complete opposition to the intent of the Mosaic Law: he neither feared God nor cared about humans. This comment was going back to the teaching summarized in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). The first four commandments were concerned with how one loved (feared) God and the last six commandments on how to love one’s fellow human being. This judge was deficient on all accounts (18:2). He was completely the wrong person to have in a position of authority. He was a great example of the opposite of God’s will, as revealed in Scripture.
Also in the story was a widow (a classic Old Testament symbol for the disadvantaged poor so beloved of God). The Israelites were taught that those who brought harm to them would incite the wrath of God (Exodus 22:22-24, Proverbs 14:21, 31, etc.) and to help such persons would show they respected God’s desire and understood His passionate care for the weak. This particular widow kept coming to the judge for justice against someone who was against her (18:3). It would be reasonable to assume that this was exactly the type of person one should be most eager to help if one believed in the Torah or the will of God. However, for some time the judge refused (18:4). Finally, he reasoned within himself that though he did not care about the woman or fear God, that her continual bothering of him would wear him out (18:4-5). The parable ended.
c. Interpretation of the Parable. 18:6-8
The interpretation that followed (18:6-8) took an unusual turn (as most parables do). It primarily spoke about the judge not the woman. What is surprising to us is that the judge was to be viewed as the “God figure” (see 16:8 for another surprising role assigned to the “God figure” in a parable). The judge was heartless towards people and unconcerned with justice in and of itself. Jesus seemed to have reached out to that suspicion that we often have that God is unconcerned and does not really have our best interests in mind. Jesus compared the judge in the story to God. Perhaps, Jesus did this to help us face what we sometimes secretly think about God. God appears to us at times cruel and uninterested and not bound by the demands of fair play and justice. Jesus would use four phrases to interpret this strange and perplexing parable.
Jesus first opened His interpretation of the parable by demanding that His disciples ponder what the judge said to himself (18:6). The key was in the words of the judge, not the words of the widow. The judge was going to do the right thing or at least the thing the powerless widow wanted. Jesus wanted His disciples to focus on the reason the judge would give justice. It was because he was badgered by her continual addresses to him (i.e. continued prayers, for prayer is talking to or addressing God).
Second, He asked them two rhetorical questions that would push the disciples to ponder and think about the true nature of God in contrast to the judge (18:7). The first rhetorical question asked whether God would not bring about justice for His elect who call to Him continually. He asked His disciples to think about the true nature of God and His love for His elect (being the elect of God was how Jesus assumed believers saw themselves as it was clearly taught in the Old Testament). God was the defender of justice for His own in the Old Testament. The Exodus story alone would teach them that. God delivered His people from the oppression of the Egyptians, and the Exodus event formed much of the motive clauses for the instructions to give justice to others. Since God had delivered them when they were strangers in a strange land they should act like Him in similar situations they encountered (Exodus 23:9). The second question asked them to ponder whether God would delay (implying He would not refuse as the unjust judge did). The God of justice did not need to be cajoled. There is the implication that there is nothing in His character, as opposed to the character of the judge that would stand in the way of giving justice to those who asked or prayed.
Third, Jesus assured the disciples that what the rhetorical questions forced them to conclude was indeed correct: God would bring justice and do so quickly (18:8 a). God would listen to the needs of His elect and would act in their behalf speedily. This was the nature of the God they served and had bound themselves to in a covenant relationship. So far the interpretation of the parable was focused on the disciples’ need to think reflectively about the nature of God. He loved His people and would act with great speed because He wanted to help them when they were in need. However, any cursory reading of the Old Testament would reveal that God often did delay the bringing of justice to His elect.
In reading of the first elected individual, Abraham, one would immediately notice that there was a delay of 25 years in the beginning of the lineage of Abraham’s line. Abraham was 75 when he received the promise of a son and 100 when the promised was fulfilled. The justice due to Joseph was delayed 17 years, and David had to wait at least 15 years before receiving the justice he was due, etc. Delay was part of the experience of the people of Israel in their relationship and dealings with Yahweh. Jesus therefore would address that in the last half of verse 8.
Fourth, Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of Man. It would be in the future, and He would come to earth, but He would come with expectations. He would come to earth looking for something. He would come to earth looking for “faith”. God could have easily allowed Sarah to bear children quickly and repeatedly the moment Abraham was in the Promised Land. He could have given Joseph justice the day his brothers threw him into the cistern, or killed Saul with a heart attack (like He did to Nabal in I Samuel 25:37 after he began to persecute David). Instead of such immediacy, which would have made obedience to God more attractive, God delayed His response or His bringing about of justice for David and Joseph or in bringing about the fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. All along God has been looking for faith. The delay was necessary for faith to have an opportunity to emerge. The delay in the case of the unjust judge with the widow was due to the default in the judge’s character. The delay in the case of God when His children call out to Him for justice was not due to a defect in His character but rather in a key goal of His interaction with His people: to find faith.
Justice is in the heart of God. Though God may seem to be like some authorities we now experience, the delay in God’s action was due to His intentions of producing faith in His beloved. It was not due to His lack of concern for His people. Jesus taught His disciples that such a view of God was mistaken and that God’s delay was actually a deeper display of His love when we reflected on His nature and what He was after. He wanted to give us justice and, as always, give us more.
Another answer has been given as to the means of actively acquiring faith (see 17:5) in these instructions about prayer: we are to pray and not lose heart. The duty of all of God’s great servants in the Old Testament was to have faith (see also 17:10) and so the duty of believers was to choose to pray confidently, knowing that the delay in receiving justice in our particular position was not an indication of His lack of care for us. We acquired faith when we chose to pray instead of going into despair. Prayer in the face of injustice and in the face of a delay in receiving justice was the means to choose and therefore acquire faith. In chapter 17, faith was acquired by doing their duty as His followers by forgiving others and treating others well (especially the little ones, 17:1-4). Here it was the act of praying when despair could set in because we were tempted to believe God did not care. The kingdom of God was within.
2. The Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector. 18:9-14.
Luke says the next parable was not addressed directly to the disciples. This parable addressed a particular part of the audience who was confident in their own righteousness and looked down on others. This could apply to anyone and could apply to the disciples, though we often think He was addressing the Pharisees, but the very next story (18:15-17) is directed towards the disciples. Which audience was intended was left vague by Luke. Perhaps, this was to warn us from quickly settling into judgment of the Pharisees (these conservative religious leaders of that time) for all members of the church could be as guilty as them. a. The Parable about Two Men Praying. 18:9-13.
The setting given was two men going up to the Temple to pray. Jesus had just instructed His disciples about the nature of the God to Whom they should pray, and then He spoke further about prayer (18:9-14) but again not on the nature of true prayer as much as the necessary attitude needed by those doing the praying. The first parable (18:1-8) stressed the proper understanding of the divine side of the Divine-Human interaction. This parable (18:9-13) would stress the human side of the Divine-Human interaction that we call prayer. This parable would address the proper self understanding of those who attempt to pray. This was done by contrasting the two people: one a Pharisee and the other a tax gatherer (18:10). The parable itself was basically confined to two speeches or the report of the two prayers made by each person in the story. Neither spoke directly to the other but addressed their communication to God.
The prayer or speech of the Pharisee was said to be given aloud while standing and was addressed about or to himself. His prayer was as follows: Title of address (18:11), and then a word of thanks (18:11) that slides into the form found in some Old Testament prayers called an “Attestation of Innocence”. He thanked God he was not like other evil men and therefore not like the tax collector within view of him. He then told God something of why he felt so accepted by God: he fasted twice a week and tithed (18:12). He declared his own righteousness. He had decided what was “good and what was evil” (Genesis 3:4, 22). He, not God, was the one who defined righteousness. He defined righteousness in terms of discipline over his body and his money (which are good things to be disciplined over). He did not see that he was not disciplined over his pride (the problem with humans and the key to understanding sin in Genesis 3). Jesus was disciplined over His body (fasting 40 days in Luke 4:2) but also over His pride submitting all of His actions to the Word of God (Luke 4:4, 8, 12). The two men (Jesus and the Pharisee) seemed similar in outward actions, but were worlds apart: the Kingdom of God is within.
The second individual’s prayer was much shorter and his body language was much different (18:13). He would not even look up to heaven (perhaps indicating that the Pharisee did). He beat his breast and made a short prayer: It had a title of address, a request and another title of address. He too opened with the title: God. His request though was in stark contrast to the prayer of the Pharisee. He asked for mercy, and then gave himself a title of address: he was a sinner. He did not thank God for his righteousness nor present a very positive picture of himself to God. He did not compare himself to the Pharisee, but only compared himself to what he knew of the will of God. He found himself lacking and thus termed himself a sinner. He was submitting, and his fellow worshipper was judging. He was not defining what was good and what was evil, but submitting to God’s understanding.
b. Interpretation of the Parable. 18:14.
Jesus’ focus in His brief interpretation was on the contrast between the effectiveness of the two men’s prayers. Jesus reversed the common understanding of those in His society when He declared that the social deviant who had collected taxes for a foreign government thus betraying his own people for money went home justified. Whereas the moral conservative religious leader (whose theological views Jesus, by and in large, agreed with) went home unjustified before God. The Pharisee had not gained money in a disreputable fashion but rather tithed on all his income. His handling of money appeared to be much more in line with Jesus’ teaching in Luke 16 than what we could surmise of the Tax-Collector. What was more, the Pharisee’s giving and therefore prayers were accompanied by fasting: he fasted (disciplined himself) quite often: twice a week.
Jesus then commented on the nature of the value system that relegated the one person to justification and the other to a surprising opposite. It was in the form of a two-fold “if…then” construct: If one was self exalting then they would be humbled and if one was humble then they would be exalted. The attitude of the heart that was filled with adequate or accurate self-assessment and was willing to admit their faults gained acceptance before God. So often we feel inadequate to pray to God because of our knowledge of our sin. Jesus said such knowledge was actually an asset. In contrast, the Pharisee invalidated his prayers by pride and a judgmental spirit.
It appeared that Jesus was taking away two hindrances to successful prayer: an inadequate view of God (18:1-8) or an inadequate view of God’s view of us (18:9-14). Many people will not pray because of their incorrect view of why God has delayed blessing them or delayed bringing them justice. Another group will not pray because they know their moral guilt would justify God’s rejection. Jesus said if you know who you are and will repent then justification will result. Humility and openness about our sinful condition would bring the favor of God. The disciples were to understand correctly who God was and who they were. God wanted them to pray, to talk to a Person. Such speaking should be done with intelligent knowledge of the speaker and Who was spoken to.
3. The Disciples and Children. 18:15-17.
a. The Story.
While Jesus spoke, Luke reported that action was swirling around Jesus. People brought their children to be touched, to be blessed. It must have disturbed the disciples but their exact motivation for being upset was not given. Perhaps, Luke did not want us to focus on why the disciples rebuked the people bringing children. Whether they did not see the children as important or were protective of their master’s time we are not told. Luke focused on Jesus’ reaction.
He opened by publicly contradicting His staff and reversing their efforts: He called the children to Him. What was wrong with the understanding or motives for the action of the disciples was not stressed. Rather what Jesus’ motives or understanding of children was stressed. Jesus’ speech had two parts: instruction and a warning. His instruction consisted of an exhortation, a prohibition and then a reason for both the exhortation and prohibition. He demanded that the children be allowed to be brought to Him (this was the exhortation) and He prohibited them from trying to stop the children’s advance. The reason or motive clause declared that the reign of God belonged to them.
His warning to the disciples in 18:17 appeared to explain the former statement about the nature of the Kingdom of God and why it belonged to such “types” as the children represented. It opened with a word of emphasis (“I tell you the truth…”); stressing that Jesus wanted them to pay careful attention to what would follow. Then the warning itself was in the condition-result or “if…then” form so familiar to the literature of the Old Testament. If the reception of the Kingdom of God was not received in a childlike manner then it could not be entered at all.
Perhaps, the childlike behavior being referred to was explained by the parable above where the tax collector was humble before God as children were humble. The child knew who it was and had not yet developed adult pride, as the tax collector had known who he was and so called himself a sinner and gave up his pride.
b. His Method of Teaching: Using Interruption and Illustration.
There was another aspect to this whole story if one could visualize it taking place while He was doing the teaching. This demand for a blessing was an interruption, by people who did not understand. The children could not understand the powerful subtleties of the above two parables on prayer. The parents wanted their children blessed, but should have been carefully listening to the teaching of Jesus instead of wanting the popular (and no doubt deeply respected) Rabbi to bless their children. Their desires interrupted the teaching. It broke the mood; it upset the opportunity for the multitude to learn of God. This was another situation of being interrupted as we had recorded by Luke in chapter 5:17-20 and in Luke 12:13. Jesus was again going to model for us as teachers how to handle such interruptions.
He, of course, rejected the disciples’ answer to the interruption (18:15), but rather saw it as an opportunity to drive home a central point of His message about prayer. God did favor the humble (9-14) and would listen to those who were without power (the widow of the parable in 1-8). The children would become a concrete object lesson to drive home His teaching on prayer. Luke seemed to be saying that Jesus often saw certain types of interruptions as key assets to effective teaching. He did not want the children removed: He rebuked the disciples for trying to do so. Perhaps, we should not desire settings where our fellow workers carefully make sure that all those who wish to interrupt us are removed. We could be removing some of the key elements that would make our teaching better understood.
This attitude is, of course, very difficult to maintain. There is enough pressure in public speaking the way things normally are, and such an attitude towards interruptions implied a confidence and presence of mind that we as teachers seldom reach. However, He had been in the desert (4:1-13), driven there by the Spirit of God (4:1), and He did invite us to ask for the same Spirit that was in Him (3:22 and 11:13). It is good to remember 4:14: “And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit and news about Him Spread through the entire surrounding district.”
4. The Interview with the Rich Young Ruler. 18:18-30.
a. The dialogue and its relationship to the above stories.
Despite what the disciples may have thought, the interruption by the parents wanting their children blessed did not seem to stop important people from being very interested in what Jesus had to say. A “certain ruler” approached Jesus and asked about the way to obtain eternal life (18:18). This was hardly a trivial question, and it was not asked by a trivial person. Important people were asking important questions. Perhaps, we learn as teachers that such attention to the “little ones” (15-17) is not a step backward to effective ministry. Jesus’ approachability by the marginalized of society also made him approachable by those with authority. Jesus had been talking about the approachability of God in prayer (1-8) and the proper manner to approach God in prayer (9-14) and that He, who was God, was approachable by even the seemingly least important of society (15-17). Perhaps, what will follow is another teaching on prayer because it is conversation between an individual and Jesus. As we have noted before talking to Jesus could be taken as a model for prayer. In addition, the man came out of the crowd and asked Jesus a personal question and therefore got a specific, concrete and personal answer to his question.
b. The Dialogue about Salvation. 18:18-25.
1) The Story.
The dialogue ran as follows: the ruler asked a question (18:18), Jesus responded with a challenge/rebuke to one of the terms used in the man’s question (18:19) and then proceeded to answer the question from the Torah or more specifically, the Ten Commandments (18:20). (Notice how many times the use of the Ten Commandments or summaries of the Law are used in Jesus’ understanding of prayer: see 18:2, 4, and now here.) The man responded by assuring Jesus he had been in compliance with the specific commandments Jesus had mentioned (18:21). Jesus countered with further instructions about how to draw near to the will of God and therefore be in the favor of God. He told him to divest himself of his wealth, give to the poor and thereby gain eternal treasure and then come and follow Him (19:22). The ruler was very sad and walked away due to his excessive wealth (8:23), (He was not like Abraham in Genesis 13.) Jesus responded with a saying about the difficulty/impossibility of rich people entering the reign of God.
The mention of the lack of entering the “Kingdom of God” tied the story back to the previous episodes. The tax collector (9-14) and the Children (15-17) are in contrast to this religious and seemingly moral ruler. They were in the “Kingdom” and he was outside. Rather, the ruler was compared with and in the same position as the Pharisee of 9-14. Both of these men had a more understandable claim to God’s favor due to their clear obedience to the teachings of Scripture (18:12, fasting and tithing and 18:20-21 the obedience to half of the Ten Commandments). While the tax collector and the children did not outwardly appear to be such good candidates to obtain God’s favor, Jesus declared that they had received it.
2) Understanding the Interview.
The Ruler asked a question Jesus had dealt with before in Luke 10:25-37, namely what must be done to inherit eternal life (18:18). There Jesus had split the Ten Commandments (which were a summary of God’s will found throughout the Torah) into its two natural components: cultic and civil law or how to love God and how to love man. The Ten Commandments conveniently split into those two factions: Commandments 1-4 speak of how to love God and commandments 5-10 on how to love your fellow human being (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). In the earlier story, the expert in the Law had been shown that though his theology about God was excellent, his love of his neighbor was deficient. The man was not tempted to be disloyal to God, but was filled with a hatred for the Samaritans that had prevented him from being in the will of God or in the Kingdom of God. Salvation came through obedience to the Torah. It depended on who you were as to what part of the Torah was most needed to help you gain the attitude of the tax collector and the humility of the children.
Jesus’ answer to the Ruler had two parts: the challenge to the title of address (18:19) and the answer to the question itself (18:20). It is at first puzzling to understand what Jesus was doing with the opening statement. The man had called Jesus “good teacher” and Jesus answered with a rhetorical question challenging him to think about why he called Jesus good. He then declared that God alone was good and did not explain why He did this. Was Jesus challenging the man’s attempt to “kiss-up” with phrase “good” teacher? Or was He humbly declaring He was not God as some have put forth? This hardly seemed to be His motive as the way to salvation included “following Me” (18:22). Or, more in keeping with the context was He saying all that was good came from God and God’s Word, therefore by extension, the only true good? Only God’s Word could define goodness, and therefore He quoted the Torah much as He had done when in the desert in Luke 4. It was this “Word of God” that would be disliked by the Ruler and cause him to sadly walk away (18:23).
What was Jesus doing pedagogically with the rhetorical question that challenged the use of the word good? Why was His answer from the Torah prefaced with a seeming diversion? Could it have been that the man was insincere and did not know it himself? Was He focusing on the man’s phrase because the man was focusing on the affect of being right with God (eternal life) and not the source of being right with God which was right relationship to God? Luke did not clarify that for us, and perhaps because Jesus did not do it for the disciples. Was it to remain an open question because it could fit multiple people in multiple ways?
The answer to the ruler’s question itself was clear enough in verse 20. Jesus recited five of the Ten Commandments which all have a clear center in objectively loving your neighbor (commandments 5-9 in Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5). The issues of adultery, murder, stealing, false testimony and honoring parents are patterns of behavior that have an objective, outward manifestation to them. Jesus seemingly left aside the issue of coveting (commandment 10) as it was not in the same category of objectively defined behavior as the five commandments listed above. Jesus seemed to be saying if you submit to God’s will in your relationships with others, you will inherit eternal life.
The man’s response was seemingly out of frustration. He declared that he had kept these commandments from a young age. He was not a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, a liar in court or one who was disrespectful to his parents. He appeared to be a moral, chaste and respectful man who held authority in his community as a ruler of his people.
Unlike the expert in the Law in Luke 10 who was deficient in his love for others, this man was different. Jesus received the man’s declaration of loving others as true. Jesus did not contradict his self assessment of Torah obedience towards his fellow humans. The laws that reflected our horizontal relationship with other people were being followed. Jesus’ response was then to tackle, in a creative fashion, the other major aspect of the Ten Commandments. This man was in violation of the vertical commandments. He had another God before Yahweh or an idol (see commandments 1 and 2): his vice was materialism or mammon (Luke 16). He was commanded by Jesus to look at one more issue, a lack in his life that prevented him from Torah obedience and therefore from inheriting eternal life. Abraham (Genesis 13 and 14) had dealt with this (see also Luke 4:5-8) and had put people over money in the case with Lot (13) and with the ransom of Lot (14).
The solution to gain freedom from sin and to become a free disciple, like the ones Jesus was attempting to produce in the Apostles, was to do what He had repeatedly told them: put God over all things (especially in 16:13 as well as in 6:20, 9:57-58, 10:4, 14:33, 16:14-31 and 17:30-33). There was to be no other gods before Him. This man was to divest himself of his wealth and help others with it. In addition, the capstone was the invitation to fellowship or communion with Him. He was to enter into the peace or Shalom of God and follow Jesus because he had no other gods before him.
The response of the Ruler was sad, and it caused him grief as he realized he would not accept this answer from the good teacher. The goodness of God’s teaching was not to be his seemingly because of the grip his wealth had on him (8:14, 16:14). Perhaps, he felt he would lose control without his wealth and he did not have the faith to follow God. He needed to stay in control and define what was good and what was evil much like Adam and Eve had done. He passed over his chance to reverse the Fall of Human Kind by submission to the true goodness of God. He chose his definition of good over God’s definition.
The text says Jesus looked at him and spoke. We are not told if the man was still present and heard such words. We are not told if the man later repented and became a disciple, all we know was Jesus’ assessment of the man’s position. He was in a hard place: he was rich, and it is hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. It was basically impossible for the rich to be saved. The metaphor of the camel getting through the eye of a needle drove that point home in a powerful manner. Camels obviously cannot fit through the eye of a needle.
The poor are blessed because theirs is the Kingdom of God (6:20) and the woman in Luke 7 illustrated that wealth and poverty could take on multiple meanings. It was not always to be equated with money. She was poor in self esteem being a declared sinner as a prostitute in a very conservative society (7:39). However, she was told by Jesus to depart in peace (7:50) because of her faith, whereas Simon the religious leader who no doubt possessed great self esteem was not given such an assessment. He was in the same boat as the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14, and his wealth of self esteem was too great a barrier to overcome in order to obtain or inherit eternal life, much like the Ruler in our passage. Luke did not tell us if these people were plowed by sorrow, but they were in need of it.
c. The Application of the Interview. 18:26-30.
1) The Application.
Luke tells us that Jesus’ words following the interview caused great concern (18:26). We are not told exactly who heard His statement: “Those who heard this asked….” Was it the Ruler, the crowds, or just the disciples? We are not told. We are told what was said by those who asked Him: “Who then can be saved?” They were seemingly shaken by the fact that the rich could not be saved. No doubt they thought that riches were an indication of the blessings of God. (Abraham was rich, as was Jacob, David, etc.) Jesus’ reply indicated that He was aware of what His statements in 18:24-25 would produce. He then followed with a word of hope and instruction as to the nature of the Kingdom of God (18:27). It was to be entered upon by grace: “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” There had to be an element of the grace of God or the supernatural intervention of God. They had to be “plowed” and brought into poverty (Luke 8). They had to be made good soil. Abraham, Jacob and David had been plowed. It is part of the story we sometimes want to leave out, but all three of the men mentioned above had been through very difficult times. Jesus was not teaching something new here but was an excellent and thorough Old Testament theologian.
Peter however was seemingly nervous and anxious concerning his own salvation (18:28) and so in concert with the Pharisee in 18:12 and the Ruler in 18:21 he declared his righteousness. Again, like the response to the Ruler, Jesus did not deny Peter’s declaration or try to set the bar higher like He did with the Ruler, but rather did something surprising: He reminded Peter of his coming reward (18:29-30).
Jesus told Peter that no one who has left home or family for the sake of the Kingdom of God would go unrewarded. That reward would be both in this age and in the age to come. Jesus defined the reward. Earlier Jesus had firmly said that giving up family was one of the costs of obtaining the Kingdom of God (see also 9:59-62). Here He showed Peter that what was given up would be replaced by more (as Job who lost his family received more).
2) His Method of Teaching.
Again, Luke left us to wonder about Jesus’ teaching method or goal in His answer to Peter. Why did Jesus not push Peter to see that he had a long way to go in his becoming poor? Peter would certainly see this in 22:62 with his denial of Jesus and would later learn of the “help needed” to make his salvation possible in 22:31-32. Did Jesus know that one could only go so far in understanding at first and only later learn how much more the journey to freedom in God as a disciple would entail? Peter, according to Luke, was to continue to learn, and continue to submit to the will of God in Acts 10 and 11. Peter was to learn much of the lessons about accepting those outside the Jewish community that the expert in the Law in Luke 10 did not learn. For Peter, it was with the Gentiles who wanted to be believers in Christ and for the lawyer in Luke 10 it was with the Samaritans. Peter proved pliable to the will of God. However, it appeared that Jesus understood that one does not gain the top of the mountain in one leap.
5. Jesus’ Prediction of His Death. 18:31-34
The next section was a counter balance to the promises of the Kingdom of God found in the verses above (18:26-30). They were on their way “to Jerusalem” and Jesus became more and more insistent that the disciples understood what that meant. He had spoken of this in 9:22 and 17:25. Indirectly, it was implied in 9: 23 and 14:27, as they too were to take up their cross in 9:31. Also, after the Transfiguration, in 9:51 He resolutely set out for Jerusalem. That He would leave was implied in the parable of 12:42-48. Here Jesus took the twelve disciples aside and directly told them what “going up to Jerusalem” meant.
He saw it as a fulfillment of all the prophets had written of the Son of Man. It was not a change in plan but the very essence of the plan. He would be handed over to the Gentiles, mocked, insulted, spit on, flogged, killed but would rise on the third day. They would be rewarded for their leaving all for the sake of the Kingdom of God, but it had to be seen in the light of the cross. Death would be broken but not without humiliation, suffering and first experiencing death. Death, much like sorrow, was God’s tool.
What is interesting here is what was stressed. There was one verb each for His arrest, death and resurrection but four verbs that spoke of His humiliation and suffering, which were: mock, insult, spit upon, and flogged. Suffering and rejection were stressed in 17:25 and in 9:22 there were two verbs that covered suffering and rejection and one verb each that spoke of His death and resurrection. The emphasis here was similar to what has gone before. If we take seriously the Hebrew language underpinning the Gospel of Luke and agree that Luke’s narrative style was similar in many ways to the narrative style found in Old Testament narrative style then verbs must be seen as very important. They are very important in Hebrew narrative literature. Luke wished for the reader to see that Jesus anticipated betrayal, humiliation and suffering as integral to the accomplishment of salvation. This had terrible implications for the disciples.
They did “not understand any of this”. It’s “meaning was hidden” from them Luke tells us, they “did not know” what He was saying (18:34). Three times Luke says they did not get it: a Hebrew way of doubly emphasizing something. They were perceptually blind. Perhaps, they were too focused on the statements in 18:29-30 that spoke of receiving “many times as much in this age” as well as eternal life in the age to come.
They did not perceive that suffering was part of their call. Luke would later tell us that Paul understood it very early in His call in Acts 9:16: “I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” At this time though, the disciples did not get it. Early in this Gospel the signs were there. Jesus was almost killed after his first sermon (4:29), the rage against Him was building in 6:11, and He was tested in 10:25 and carefully watched in 14:1. Luke started out His story with a great emphasis on the Spirit, and it was the Spirit that took Jesus to suffer in the desert (4:1-13). The reception of the Spirit, a treasured gift in 11:13, brought many positives into the lives of those who received the Spirit, but it was the same Gift that would take them to their own desert. If they wanted to be perceptive and be good soil, they had to be first plowed (Luke 8). Blessed are those that mourn and are persecuted (6:21-23). Pain and discipleship were held together by the Teacher.
b. Implications for Learning the Message and Method.
It would seem appropriate to infer that we too must be in the desert, be plowed, be rejected and humiliated if we wish to teach as effectively and in the same manner as Jesus did. He was the embodiment of His message and so, by inference, we should be. According to Luke, it was true of the prophets (6:23). It was not to be feared though, as suffering would be the tool of God to bring about goodness and salvation. It would be His tool, not the Devil’s. Being poor, hungry, in mourning and persecuted for the sake of the Son of Man would bring the Kingdom of God, and finally satisfaction, laughter and joy (6:20-23). However, to understand the “good news” that we teach we teachers cannot stay outside of it ourselves. The old American hymn or chorus: “we cannot wear the crown if we do not first bear the cross…” seems in to be in line with the Gospel of Luke.
6. The Insight of the Blind. 18:35-43.
a. The Story’s Relationship to Its Surroundings.
The last episode of Luke 18 puts Jesus fairly near to Jerusalem. He was basically east of it in the city of Jericho. There will be three pericopes or sections that are placed by Luke in Jericho. One where Jesus approached the city (18:35-43), one while He passes through (19:1-10) and finally Jesus told a parable while there (19:11-27). Though the last story in Luke 18 has connections with what follows in chapter 19, it is also tied back to the rest of chapter 18. It serves a double duty function. It begins the assent to Jerusalem with a hope that at least some will understand, and it completes and compliments the teaching about prayer and entrance into the Kingdom of God. Jesus had earlier predicted His death and rejection but the man in the last story of Luke 18 was a contrast to what would happen in Jerusalem. The educated elite of Jerusalem would, by in large, not understand, what this penniless blind man would see.
The disciples were said to be spiritually blind in 18:34 and the story was about a blind man who will see. The disciples did not see but the blind man saw more than them all. The Blind man would be an example of how to pray properly like the tax gatherer and in contradiction to the Pharisee in 18:9-14. He was child-like in his trust (18:15-17). This story was also symbolically about prayer for talking to Jesus is talking to God, what we call prayer. This man’s statements to Jesus are very helpful in understanding what we should do when we pray. Finally, the man, in essence, becomes an illustration of the exhortation to pray and not give up (18:1) fleshing out what Jesus meant in the opening parable in the chapter about prayer (18:2-8).
b. The Story Itself.
The blind man was sitting by the roadside as Jesus approached Jericho. He heard the crowd going by and asked what was happening. He was told the commotion was caused by Jesus of Nazareth and so seemingly hearing much about Jesus he called out to Him. However, he used a different title of address than the one given to Him from the crowd. He called out to Jesus and addressed Him as the Son of David. He then pleaded for mercy in much the same way the Israelites were taught to call out to God in the Psalms (see 18:13 where the same phrase was addressed by the tax gatherer to God). There were clear messianic implications in the title.
The response to the man’s calling out was two fold. First, it got Jesus to act: to stop, to ask for him to come near and to then question him as to his needs (18:40-41). Second, it caused the response of the crowd to change from giving the blind man useful information (18:37) to a rebuke to keep quiet (18:39). He refused to be quiet and called out all the more (in concert with 18:1) repeating the phrase: “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
Jesus’ response to the man’s persistence was to first ask him what he desired, showing the reader that the God to whom we pray was indeed interested in our plight (see 18:8 where He would respond, and, as in 18:14, He would give the mercy asked for). Then Jesus miraculously healed him and said it was his faith that healed him. This fits well with 18:8. The man did not give up despite the discouragement from the crowd (18:39). He kept calling out to Jesus (praying) and did not give up, and so Jesus found faith in him on this earth (18:8).
Finally, the blind man received his sight and did what the rich ruler refused to do (18:22-23). He followed Jesus (18:43). In addition, the role of the crowd changed from being information givers (18:37) and a hindrance to getting to God (18:39) to following the blind man, who could now see, in praising God (18:43). The faith of the blind man turned Him from a follower in the crowd to a leader of the crowd. The transformation started from stepping out of the crowd (as so often is seen in Luke) and with great effort encountering God. One must leave the crowd to get that essential word needed for direction for salvation, and this man did leave the crowd and get that word.
c. Jesus’ Method in Teaching the Way to Spiritual Perception.
Subtly, Jesus has modeled what a good teacher/preacher does in communicating the truth. The interaction with the blind man taught the disciples positively how to pray, how to encounter God (persistence in prayer) and how to gain faith. Jesus taught these truths by His interaction with the blind man. What started the whole teaching opportunity was a practice that we see Jesus doing several times: he noticed what we do not normally notice. He took time to deal with Simon’s mother-in-law (4:39). In Luke 5: 20, Jesus noticed that those interrupting His teaching had faith, and He was willing to get involved with the man with the shriveled hand (6:6-10). He was willing to get involved with foreign military captains (7:1-10), dead sons of a widow (7:11-18), embarrassing individuals like the prostitute (7:36-50), the wild demon-possessed man of Gerasenes (8:26-39), the woman crippled for eighteen years (13:10-17), the man with dropsy (14:1-6), the ten lepers (17:11-19), the little children (18:15-17) and now finally the blind man. Jesus had a persistent ability to notice and deal with those parts of the society that most of us would avoid if we had the chance to. He seemed to aggressively get involved and the involvement was costly. It caused great controversy and would eventually lead to His death.
In this particular story, the man’s request “stopped” Jesus (18:40), Jesus aggressively began to interact with the man. He first ordered or commanded that the man be brought to Him. Jesus was modeling that the right prayer can stop God in His tracks and begin the process of salvation (see Exodus 2:23-25 where just before the call of Moses in Exodus 3 the people of God cried out in their bondage for help or see Nehemiah 1). The right prayer was a call for mercy. He taught through action, and that necessitated wanting to be aggressively involved with even those others would pass by. The elect people of God in Exodus 2 were drawn not from the elite of the world but from a slave race. It is the way of God to deal with such people, and thus to teach, and preach like He did, it has to be the signature to our teaching as well.
Disciples must first want to be aware of such people and then to be aggressive in pursuit of meeting their needs. No greater encouragement could be given to a discouraged person than to watch Jesus stop and command the man to be brought to Him, so as to “ask” what the man thought he needed. Imagine God “asking” humans what they thought or what they perceived to be their need. This was powerful teaching, and it was done in the streets (18:35) as well as in formal teaching settings.
Jesus was God in the flesh. He was the truth incarnated, and therefore He taught the truth as much by what He did as by what He said. This is possible for us as His disciples, though it is intimidating. Our natural affections must be challenged and crucified. Who we deliberately approach has to be guided by a different understanding of what is valuable in the human race. In addition, Jesus was employing something we cannot learn from reading commentaries, going to Bible School or attending Seminary: He did healing, performed miracles and could read people’s minds. Jesus not only knew their true needs, but how to address them with uncanny accuracy. In other words, Jesus’ ministry was filled with the miraculous or the gifts of the Spirit. How do we teach like He does without the Spirit? I would think part of Luke’s message is to say that it is impossible.
Paul would employ such powers and then go on to describe them in a list he called the gifts of the Spirit. Jesus told His disciples to ask for the Spirit in Luke 11:13. He was baptized in the Spirit (3:21-22) as He was praying and in the power of the Spirit as He began to teach (4:14-15). The method of Jesus’ teaching was tied to the miraculous, and it came from a source outside the control and natural ability of humans. The disciples were to know it was costly to acquire such abilities (they led to Jesus’ earthly death) but they were theirs for the asking.
The Spirit would not only give the disciples the ability to do ministry but the heart to desire to see people as Jesus did. “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (4:18-19). They were not anointed to preach to the rich but to the poor, the prisoners, the blind and the oppressed. The anointing was not merely given to be successful but to have the mind of Christ, the value system of the Creator, and to be given a sense of the heart of God. It would be expensive. It might even cause their death in some manner, but it was an excellent way to effectively teach the “year of the Lord’s favor” to a lost and dying world.