C. The Third Sermon: on Evangelism. Luke 8-9.

1. A Summary of His Actions and Mention of Women Helpers. 8:1-3.

Chapter eight opens with reference to Jesus’ travels and that He was proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God from one town and village to another. Luke then gives us an example sermon that would illustrate how Jesus spoke to these various villages and towns. This is Jesus’ second “sermon or teachings to the crowds”. Like the two sermons before it, it is filled with disturbing methods of communication. This time the sermon is on evangelism and thus, for our purposes, on how to do evangelism. I am fairly certain if we heard this sermon we would invite Him to teach a seminar on “How to do Evangelism”, or if we did, we would not book Him to do so again.

Similar Prefaces **** could put all of this in a footnote***

The third sermon or teaching session recorded begins in verse 4. However, Luke has prefaced the sermon with some information. This material is similar to what is prefaced to the second sermon in chapter 6: Luke 8:2-3 is similar to 6:14-16. In both prefaces, specific people’s names are given who became part of the teaching effort. In chapter 6 the twelve apostles were named and the sermon was primarily addressed to them. In chapter 8 specific names of women are given, and they are said to have contributed out of their own means to support the efforts of Jesus and the disciples. It is only in the very first sermon in chapter 4 that Jesus was alone. In chapter 6, He definitely decided to include people to accompany Him and to be personally taught by Him. In chapter 8, women help him. Luke says “some of the women” that He had healed from diseases and demon possession were helping Him and several are named specifically, but then Luke states there were others besides those named.

Jesus was not someone who spoke in a vacuum. Luke will go out of his way to show us this. His understanding of teaching is that the event entails a speaker and an audience. Luke will present Jesus as excessively aware of His audience and the situation from which He communicates. He does not change the message to suit the crowd. This proved by the fact that the message to the disciples was heard by the crowds in Luke 6 and the message to the crowds was heard by the disciples. However, He is entirely aware of His audience as His remarkable choice of topic to the hometown in Luke 4 was different than what He did with the disciples in Luke 6, as will be His message in Luke 8 to the crowds. In addition, we will see that what He says privately is entirely context driven. What He says to the paralyzed man is different than what He says to the man with a withered arm.

He is also not a “lone figure” but one that sought to involve others in the teaching effort. These women were givers of financial help and it was no doubt small but accepted. The disciples will also be shown to both serve and help with the teaching efforts according to Luke. When someone helps it does potentially draw him or her away from listening as they feel part of the “inner group” and may feel above the message (it is for others). However, despite that risk, Jesus takes it and seems to see that being part of the team has other benefits for those He employs. He will give them special teaching both verbally and by example, and they will receive special rebuke as He is aware of their need of it. Later in Luke we will even see Jesus specially debrief them after their services (9:1-17 and 10:1-24). Had Jesus not taken the trouble to involve others we would not be doing this study together. There would be no Gospels and no church. Jesus’ gift to the next generation was primarily a gift passed on via a “flesh and blood” medium. The people Jesus intimately taught, taught the next generation. Great teachers do not merely teach well, they produce other great teachers. ******

2. The Third Sermon: the Parable of the Sower. 8:4-8.

What is different in this sermon from those recorded in Luke 4 and Luke 6 is that it was addressed to the people, not specifically to the disciples, as the teaching material was in chapter 6. The crowds were the focus, though the disciples are clearly present (8:1). It is true that the crowds got to hear the message in Luke 6 and in turn the disciples were hearing this sermon as well, as Luke would show us. Luke wanted to show thought that the crowd was the targeted audience. It was large and Jesus spoke to them using a parable based on common agricultural knowledge that was known by all who listened.

Parables

Jesus frequently used parables, and so a word about them is appropriate here. The word “parable” in Greek literally means: “to throw along side of”. Parables were extended metaphors that created mental images in the minds of the hearers. These mental images were given to them to teach spiritual truths. The metaphor (or image) drawn from the common life experience of the hearers was thrown along side of the truth Jesus wished to teach. The metaphors were drawn primarily from secular or common events that could be easily visualized. They were metaphors that evoked concrete pictures in the imagination of those who heard them. Such images stick a long time in our memories: usually longer than most propositional statements.

Parables are also short stories, and this method of teaching by story is recorded in all the Gospels. It parallel’s the Old Testament choice to present truth as roughly 55% of the Old Testament is in narrative or story form. Except for the teaching sections of the Gospels (of which a third are stories or parables of Jesus) they are similar to the Old Testament. Perhaps, the choice of narrative for communicating essential truths is quite practical. Every morning we arise and begin our next installment of our own story. One of our primary perceptions of reality comes through the experience of our own narrative. We relate to the world as an actor in a narrative, which is our own. Thus, as the parable is mental picture to be “thrown along side of” the truth Jesus wished to convey, so the biblical narratives can be thrown along side of our own narrative. The desire of the author of the texts was to encourage you to relate the biblical story to your own: hopefully, to make its story, your story.

Disturbing or Perplexing “Good News”

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,…. (8:1)

As one reads this particular parable in 8:4-8 a natural question arises: why was this parable an example of or metaphor for good news? Why give this parable to the crowds to help them see that there was good news to the Kingdom of God? Luke 8:1 says He was proclaiming the “good news” of the Kingdom of God (or the evangelium or Gospel). What was in this message to the large gathering of people that made it appropriate for them when a different message was given to the disciples? What does this say about teaching those who have yet to commit themselves as the disciples had?

“A farmer went out to sow his see. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds ate it up.

Some fell on rock, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture.

Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants.

Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.”

When he said this, he called out, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”
The parable was about four types of soil (8:4-8). The four types of soil were described as having four different types of agricultural success. The difference in the four situations was not connected with the sower or the seed; they were the same, but the difference was in the soil. The variable was tied to the earth in which the seed was planted. Could the four soils be four different types of audiences? Is the parable teaching that success or lack of success was not connected to the work of the sower or farmer (the preacher/teacher) or the seed (the message or God’s Word) but with the state or condition of the soil (the listener)? Why tell the people about themselves and the openness or lack thereof of their receptivity to the “seed”? How is that good news?

What is the purpose of this teaching to the large crowd? Are they being informed, encouraged (it is supposed to be good news) or are they being challenged to do something? Is there something to be obeyed? How do they get the good news or how does the good news become helpful to them? What is the intended affect Jesus sought to have on the audience? Notice there is no explanation given to the crowd about the parable’s meaning. Is this a model for what we should do with such audiences? If so, why should we do this? Why should we tell parables to large crowds without explanations?

All that was given at the end of the metaphor about sowing seed, instead of an explanation, was a general challenge or a warning: “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” We know that the word shamah can mean “to hear” as well as “to obey”. What is it that they were to hear or obey? Is Jesus doing something similar to what He did to the disciples in 6:20-26? How does this model for us good teaching? Are we supposed to frustrate our audience with a metaphor that they can easily relate to but not understand?

3. The Parable’s Message for the Disciples. 8:9-18.

The questions we have asked must have been going through the disciples’ minds as well. They did not understand what the parable meant, and so they asked Jesus the meaning. His disciples asked him what this parable meant (8:9). His response is given in verses 10-18: it has four parts or sections. Before we proceed to these four sections it might be important to realize that Luke seems to indicate that the audience was hearing all that will follow as well. There is no indication the following eleven verses were spoken privately to the disciples, and Luke goes to great length to let us know who is present when Jesus is speaking.

a. The Reason for the Use of Parables. 8:9-10.

His answer began with another reference to the prophet Isaiah (6:9-10) as the first sermon in Luke 4. What is remarkable is that this particular passage comes from the “call” of Isaiah to minister to his own people. His call is described in 6:1-8 and then 6:9 and following describe the nature of Isaiah’s task. These verses tell the prophet that his task was to teach people who would not respond. Therefore is Jesus saying this parable to the crowds or is he saying this to His disciples? Is Jesus challenging the crowd to move themselves outside of the realm of those who have no understanding? Is Jesus challenging the disciples as well (as we saw His ability to speak to multiple audiences in 7:36-50)?

Here we see that the quotation from Isaiah served as justification or explanation of why Jesus used parables or extended metaphors. The disciples were told that the secrets of the kingdom were for them but the crowds were only to receive these parables. Is Jesus saying to the crowds that until you become a disciple you will remain with metaphors but not with insight? If the crowds are hearing this, they are told a reason for their being spoken to only in metaphor and that the parabolic form of teaching served a purpose:

The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,

Though seeing, they may not see;

Though hearing, they may not understand.” (Isaiah 6:9).

The mystery grows. The parables have a purpose but Jesus did not clearly tell the disciples “why” the crowd would be kept from insight into His preaching. In reference to the above Isaiah passage, we know that Isaiah’s messages were logical and clear enough, but that the hearts of the listeners in Isaiah’s day were hard. Is Jesus saying the soil (the state of the listener) determined before hand the receptivity or capacity to perceive the message and so therefore no attempt was made to explain the metaphor? If Jesus meant this, He did not clearly tell us. Was He telling His audience (and the disciples) that hard hearts cannot appropriately receive the vital seed? Rather, He proceeded to explain part of the meaning of the parable for the apostles (with the crowds apparently listening as well).

b. Explanation of the Parable to the disciples. 8:11-15.

The second part of Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question was to plainly explain the meaning of individual elements within the parable. In verses 12-15, Jesus began to say: this means that, and this means that, and so on. The soil was the Word of God and the four types of soil and how they affected the seed sown in them were each explained. The hardened path or soil stood for those who did not allow for the message (the seed) to penetrate the listener’s heart (the path) and so the Devil was free to take it away, and they did not believe and therefore were not saved. The rocky soil represented those who heard the Word but had no depth to them and so when testing (summer weather) came they did not have the capacity (a root system) to withstand the stress. There was temporary joy, but no staying power and therefore no yield. The third type of soil with the weeds was representative of those who were chocked by the cares and the riches of this world (weeds) and did not mature full root systems and therefore did not bear fruit. The final category of soil was good soil and represented a noble and good heart, and hearing (obeying) took place and the seed sprouted and the plant persevered to produce a good crop.

After this explanation, we still are at a lost as to “what to hear” or “how to hear” (i.e. metaphorically how to become good soil); we are only told why some types of people would not hear. We were told the cause of their problem but not the solution to it. There was seemingly no good news for the first three types of people represented by those types of soil. Again, Jesus did not connect the dots: He did not explain. Some truths were clearly deducible but Jesus left that up to the disciples to do and did not do it for them.

For instance, if we compare and contrast the four soils to one another some insights emerge. There is a definite contrast between rocky soil and good soil: one produced plants that were temporary and the other plants that persevered. Also, farmers know (and most people of that era knew) that good soil had to have rocks removed, weeds taken out and the soil loosened by plowing. Something had to be done with poor soil for it to be able to sustain and produce plants that could produce a good crop. It would make sense to plow up hard, compact soil (oxygenate it). Plowing would also turn up the rocks and so the laborious task of removing them could begin. In addition, plowing before planting turns the weeds under and they become food for the seed as the weeds decomposed and not competition with the intended crop. At any rate, the common thing needed with the first three soils to make them better soil seemed to be plowing or “disturbing and overturning the soil”.

Jesus did not point any of this out. Why did His explanation stop short with the disciples? What type of teaching method is this? Is it similar to what He did in 6:20-26? Is the answer to slowly unfold in what the disciples were to experience in the push and pull of their daily lives with Jesus? Did Jesus intend to make them struggle to see what He wanted them to see? Why did He leave the crowd, the non-disciples, totally in the dark? Did He want to exclude or include the crowds? If Jesus did not want the crowds to understand why did He speak to them at all?

c. A New Parable about the purpose of light. 8:16.

No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light.

Jesus moved quickly to another parable about the use of lamps. He stated the obvious in that a lamp was to be put on a stand, not hidden in a clay jar or under a bed. If the lamp was put on a stand it showed forth light for those who came near. He then gave an interpretation to some degree for this parable. He turned the lamp parable toward the issue of what light could do: it could reveal. What this had to do with the use of parables was still not told to the disciples, but what was clear was that they were told that light was to be used properly.

d. Warning to Listen. 8:17-18.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be known or brought out into the open. Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Those who have will be given more; as for those who do not have, even what they think they have will be taken from them (8:18).

Jesus returned again to a warning or challenge about listening (as in 8:8 b). Jesus warned or challenged the disciples that nothing could be hidden that would not be brought to light or concealed that will not be brought into the open. What they knew they were going to be responsible for and the fact that they knew could not be hidden, but would be made known.

He also challenged them to listen (or obey) and promised they would gain more. He also threatened them. He warned them that if they did not have, they would lose what they already had. What was clear in reading this “saying” was that things must be used because consequences, good or grave consequences, would follow what action was taken. There was no option to choose inactivity. Jesus both promised and threatened in order to motivate His audience. They were going to gain or lose based on how well they listened (or acted as the word “to listen” implied action).

What type of evangelistic teaching is this? Are we to tell our assembled audiences that we wish to persuade to become Christians that they are the problem and that no matter what we tell them, for three fourths of them, the seed or the Gospel will not be helpful to them? Only one type or part of the audience would gain from Gospel preaching: the good soil.

How did one become good soil, deal properly with the light so as to gain eternal life? Like the pattern in the first two sermons, explication would come in the following stories. Something in the sermon was left vague or ambiguous that caused consternation and puzzlement. It was made much clearer by the actions of the Teacher in the narratives that followed. This pattern of positing a “glitch” could be in play again.

4. Explanatory Narratives. 8:19-56.

a. Identifying who is Family. 8:19-21.

As verse 21 opened, Luke shared with us a remarkable fact: the crowds were listening to what was being told to the disciples. The disciples were not receiving private lessons or secret knowledge. We know this because Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him but could not get to Him because of the crowds. The crowds were seemingly still present throughout 8:9-18. They too were allowed to hear what the disciples heard.

It was someone in the crowd who told Jesus His family was outside and wanted to see Him. The exasperating use of parables mentioned in verses 9-10, the puzzling explanation of the sower parable in 11-15, the crowd heard the new parable with its puzzling explanation in 16-18. They were told publicly that the secrets of the kingdom were to be given to disciples and they were to be left with parables that would keep them from perception. This was the proclamation of good news about the Kingdom of God that they heard (8:1). How the crowd understood what He said was not told to us, but rather Luke tells us that they reversed roles. They took the role of “teacher” in that they informed Jesus about the presence of His family that was blocked from getting to Him.

Jesus’ response to their information was a public one for both the disciples and the crowd to hear. Jesus took this information given to Him and used it to teach. Jesus in effect said His true family consisted of those who heard the Word of God and put it into practice. Those who were truly in Jesus’ family were those who “heard” (shamah) the Word of God and did (shamah) it. His quickness to use as a teaching prop the overcrowded situation is amazing. They gave Jesus information about His family that was outside, and then He used their information to inform them of how they could get inside of His true family.

Could this be a subtle answer as to how to properly use the light and to gain eternal life and to become good soil? In responding to their information about His family was Jesus showing them how to apply the parables and come close to Him (who was the essence of the Kingdom of God)? Were they to take what they heard and do it? Could this (8:21) go back to 8:8b? What was it they were to obey? How could they become family?

b. Identifying the Disciples’ lack of Faith. 8:22-25.

It was later, and we are not told how much later, in the next story, that Jesus told the disciples to go to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. The disciples complied (they obeyed His Word). As they sailed, Jesus slept. As Jesus slept, a great wind came down on the lake or Sea of Galilee (a common enough experience for those who traveled that lake). The boat must not have been large as they began to sink and were in considerable danger. The wind caused the crisis. What was interesting was that the term “wind” had a long association with the actions of Yahweh in the Old Testament. The “Wind of God” (the Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Lord) from the Hebrew ruach Yahweh was occasionally used to describe certain actions of God.

The disciples woke Jesus and pressed upon Him the danger they all faced. Jesus got up, rebuked the wind and it obeyed: all was calm. He then addressed them with the rhetorical question: “Where is your faith?” They did not respond to His challenge but rather their response focused on His power over the wind. Their reaction changed from fear of the wind, to awe of Jesus because of what He did with the elements. It appeared they did not get His point, but we will later see that they did hear Him when we get to chapter 17 (17:5).

Clearly, the wind caused the problem and as mentioned above, wind was at times used in the Old Testament as a metaphor for God’s action. The word for wind in Hebrew is ruach and like many Hebrew words, it was used in a literal sense and a figurative sense. It referred literally to moving air or the wind. It figuratively human vitality as it was referenced to the moving air in our lungs and thus represented our being alive. At times, God was said to act like the wind. This was seemingly done because periodically He seemed to rush upon the human scene and move among humans in a wind like manner: mysteriously, powerfully and yet invisibly. The Hebrew phrase for such action (the ruach Yahweh) is usually translated into English by the phrase: the “Spirit of God”. So “wind” could refer to several ideas: to the actual wind, to refer to that aspect of humanity that indicated life and vitality, and it could refer to the mysterious actions or vitality of God.

In verse 24, Jesus rebuked the wind and subtly displayed His Sovereignty over nature (like Yahweh). However, in verse 23, is the “wind” the wind of nature or the Spirit of God? Did Jesus control the elements or merely display that He and God were acting in the lives of the disciples in a powerful and mysterious manner through nature. Clearly, the wind caused the problem. Was the wind a reference to God’s activity? Did God want to rock the boat? It appears that the rocking was under His sovereignty and control, as was the wind on that lake.

The disciples obeyed Jesus and got into the boat and almost drowned. Did their obedience have something to do with bringing about the crisis? It appears that the obedience of the disciples in getting into the boat produced into their lives terrible stress. They had heard and had obeyed (see Luke 8:8 b and 8:21). Jesus was full of the Spirit, and because of His obedience to its leading He was in the desert (4:1). Did the disciples, as their Lord, experience difficulty because it was God’s purpose for them to do so? Were the disciples being plowed or turned into good soil? Were they being plowed or having their lives turned up side down? It seems one has to be put into crisis before one learns who one is. One cannot be good soil if one is unaware of how lacking in a key element, like faith, one is. The disciples did not know how to gain faith; they only knew they did not have it. That is a start, and a necessary one.

c. Identifying Good Ground: the Demonic. 8:26-39.

1) The story

After a terrifying (and revealing) boat trip the disciples arrived in a region on the other side of the Sea of Galilee that was primarily occupied by Gentiles. The residents were herding pigs and the good Jewish people considered them as unclean from the instructions of the book of Leviticus. They were in non-churched territory. Pigs made one unclean. They were among the messed up, non-churched (non-Jewish) parts of society.

They were met head on by a demon-possessed man who was living among the graves (another way to become unclean), and he was stark naked. He came to Jesus and bowed at Jesus’ feet. He called Jesus by a respectful title: the Son of the Most High God. This phrase was normally a Gentile reference to Yahweh as it was a typical phrase used by those outside of the Israelite community. The man or the demons within the man recognized who they were dealing with and pleaded for mercy. Jesus demanded their removal from this tortured man, and they asked not to be tortured. Jesus asked the demon’s name and his or their reply was “Legion”, perhaps indicating their plurality or to intimidate Jesus with numbers. It did not work, and they (the demons) repeatedly begged not to be sent into the abyss. Jesus allowed them to enter into a large herd of swine or pigs grazing in the distance and the herd plunged off a cliff into the lake and they were destroyed (Was Jesus was a being Kosher?).

The destruction of the herd brings questions to our minds. Why did they plunge to their deaths? Did the demonic entrance startle the pigs, and thus the demons were tricked into losing any type of bodily form (which it is believed they crave) or did the demons act like their master and bring destruction on their hosts? Luke did not tell us, but Luke did tell us that the herdsman were understandably shaken and ran off to tell the people in the town what had happened. The towns-people saw the results of being with Jesus: the formerly possessed man was clothed, in his right mind and sitting at the feet of Jesus. It was too much for them to take in, and so they pleaded with Jesus. They asked Him to leave and Jesus began to comply. He could have forced Himself upon them. They were certainly frightened, but He chose not to.

The former demon-possessed man had been given, by the power or activity of God his normal human existence back. He had found relief from the torture of the demons. He had finally found an authority in his life that was a blessing and did not seek to misuse or harm him. He now pleaded with Jesus in the opposite manner of the towns-people. He asked to be with Jesus. He had directly contacted God, where as they had only seen but did not really perceive (8:10). The towns-people had heard but did not understand. However, the former inmate of Satan did perceive. He wanted to stay with Jesus.

Jesus’ responded in an alarming manner. He said: “no”. He said no to a valid and good request. The man was sent away, but not in shame nor in rejection but in the pursuit of a task (similar to Luke 5 with Peter and Levi). He was to return home and tell of what God had done for him. The man then made a decision about what he had heard: the man obeyed (8: 8 b and 8:21).

The story brings up other questions? Why did Jesus disappoint the man? Why did He allow the demons to kill the pigs as this seemingly encouraged the people to want Jesus to leave, and thus He could not preach to them?

2) The message and method

It was taught among the ancient Desert Fathers that spiritual growth began with the word: “no”. They believed that until one could tolerate to be told “no” and thus have their pride checked, true spiritual instruction could not begin. This man had been delivered from Satan and then offered a chance to be a disciple. Disciples are those who are taught and a true disciple listens to what he is taught. The former demoniac obeyed and his obedience began to reverse the fall of Adam and Eve. This man chose to let God decide what was good and what was evil. He first had defined “good” as being in the boat with Jesus and Jesus countered with good being defined as leaving the marvelous, glorious presence of God to go do a task.

He obeyed and avoided a new slavery. He was formerly co-dependent on demons and was about to replace the co-dependency with the charismatic leader Jesus. His obedience broke such co-dependence as he was charged with leadership responsibilities. Symbolically, the man had rocks removed and therefore became good soil. He obeyed, and thus he used the light. This Gentile (non-churched individual) also became the instructor of the disciples. This formerly demon-possessed man became the living example to the disciples of how to truly have faith. He did not panic in fear when threatened with Jesus not being physically near him as the disciples did. When Jesus was asleep in the boat the disciples panicked in their crisis, but this man, by faith, obeyed. He left the tangible presence of Jesus. The teaching of the disciples (8:10) was to continue.

In addition, this man was sent to the crowds that Jesus was driven from. He was one of their own, teaching his own. This was not a foreign messenger, but one whom they knew had encountered a power that brought freedom. They were to hear the message of being good soil from an example of good soil. They had also witnessed how good soil had come about. We often learn that the most effective missionary is not the foreigner but the native convert, not the youth leader but teens sharing the Gospel with teens.

d. Identifying Faith. 8:40-48.

1) The Story

Jesus returned to Jewish territory and Luke carefully noted that so did the crowds. They welcomed Him for they were expecting Him (8:40). Out of the crowd came an individual that was a ruler of the local synagogue by the name of Jairus. He was an individual with needs, and he pleaded for Jesus to come and heal his only daughter who was about 12 years old. Jesus agreed to come, and Luke tells us the crowds almost crushed Him as they gathered around Him in His journey to Jarius’ home.

In the midst of the crushing crowd was another individual with needs, but she did not seemingly consider herself free or worthy of speaking with Jesus about her problem. She tried to be secret (but everything that is hidden will be revealed and all that is concealed will be brought to light, 8:17). Her plan was to touch the Rabbi’ clothes secretly in hope of being healed. She knew it would defile a Rabbi to be touched by a woman in her menstrual flow. She had had this condition for 12 years and had not been able to find a cure. The Mosaic Law said anyone who touched a woman during her period would be considered defiled, but the Law was designed to protect women and bring respect to the menstrual condition for the Law taught that the blood represented life and was to be respected. The Law had changed a private (and potentially embarrassing) part of life for women into a chance for both the man and woman to express obedience to God. However, this particular law was never designed with this abnormal condition in mind: it was not designed to separate a woman from human touch for twelve years.

She reached out and touched Him and was instantly healed. Obviously, God knew the intent of His Law. Jesus immediately stopped as He sensed power go out from Him and inquired who had touched Him. Peter expressed what many no doubt thought: that everyone was touching Him. However, Jesus insisted that something had happened and stopped and waited until the woman could hide no longer. She revealed herself (and experienced the purpose of light 8:16-17). She was forced to come to the light, and she did so trembling as she fell at His feet. The trembling indicated she must have been horribly afraid; she had lost control of her life. She was being plowed. Jesus was to her what the wind had been to the disciples. The wind shook their boat and His demand that she be public about her defiling Him shook her. She openly confessed before all those who could hear how and what she had done and that she had been healed.

His response was again not an expected one: He was not displeased. His acceptance was revealed with the first word He spoke: He called her his daughter. He did not refer to her as a defiler or Lawbreaker or as a thief of the blessings of God. He called her “daughter” and then followed the endearing title of address with two additional words. He told her that her faith had healed her like the prostitute in chapter 7:50 and she was to go in peace. The disciples were listening.

2) The message and method

She now became the second teacher of the disciples (and to the crowd as well) as to the meaning of the parable of the Sower. She had been plowed, broken up by her illness and His intimidating call for her to admit her action. In the desperation caused by her illness she expressed faith by touching His garment, and she had become good soil: a woman of faith. The demoniac had been plowed by the devils and Jesus’ refusal to let him get into the boat, and she like him had allowed it to produce the opportunity for good soil to form. She and the demon-possessed man had heard a “word” and had acted. She had faced the fear of being exposed and the demoniac had faced the fear of being alone without the wonderful physical presence of Jesus. However, both had done the right thing: they had trusted God, they like the prostitute in Luke 7 had faith.

e. Identifying the Good News. Luke 8:49-56.

We wondered how the parable of the Sower could be identified with the presentation of the “good news” of the Gospel. As the stories continued, Luke has shown us that it was not the “sermon” that seemed good news to the crowds, but that Jesus responded to them. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God is that God responds. In verse 21 He responded to the crowds giving information about his family, in 24 He allowed Himself to be awakened from sleep, in 38 He responded to the request of the demoniac, in 42 He responded to the request of Jarius, in 45 to the touch of the woman, in 46 to Peter’s exasperation, in 48 to the woman’s fear of defiling a Rabbi, and He would respond in 50 to the paralyzing fear of the parents who got word their child was dead. Jesus is God and God responded to human approach and need. That is good news, the same news the Old Testament had been teaching (Genesis 6:8, Exodus 2:24, 25).

However, Jesus is also human and the model teacher. Good teachers should respond to the circumstances around them (like the interruption with the roof in chapter 5) and not be so fixed on their teaching agenda that they are not immediately responsive. It was good news to the crowds when the man who represented to them the power of God responded, and we should be similar examples of good news.

The approachability of God seen in Luke 8 is encouraging but the complete good news of the kingdom of God is not a sentimental “nice” presentation of God. The good news of the reign of God comes to a sinful world, and it does not always take a nice form. Jesus gave the demoniac the news that he was not allowed to come into the boat with Jesus, but it indeed was good news. It was good news to the disciples to know the truth of their level of faith. It was good news for the woman’s condition to be frighteningly revealed because it showed her His true response to her, the nature of where she stood with Him (and therefore with God) and how she got there. The disciples, the demoniac and the woman had been plowed. They had begun to become good soil. One must be plowed before one is sown successfully with seed. In similar fashion, the parents of the child were about to enter the most disturbing turbulence of their lives. Like soil that is turned upside down the lives of these parents was to be plowed.

1) The story

It is totally disabling to good parents when your child is ill. It is devastating when parents lose a child. In verse 49, Jairus learned that his daughter had passed away and his engagement of the Rabbi was no longer of any use. He must have been broken hearted. To hear the words from Jesus’ mouth must have been hard: “Do not be afraid, just believe, and she will be healed.” Jairus had a choice to make. He could have sunk into depression. He could have stormed off in anger at Jesus for letting an old woman preempt his lovely, innocent daughter or stormed off in anger with God, but instead he continued to travel with Jesus to his home. In a sense, however he felt, he obeyed.

When they arrived there was commotion everywhere as the community had gathered, and in sympathy with the parents, the neighborhood women wailed and mourned the child’s death as good neighbors did in those days. Again, Jesus’ response was unusual. He demanded that the wailing cease and His reason for His insistence was that she was not dead. They now laughed, no doubt with scorn, as they knew she was dead. He then took only three disciples and the 2 parents into the place where the dead child lay. He then issued another command and this time to the dead child: “My child, get up.” Her spirit obeyed, and she stood up, and He followed with two more commands. First, He demanded they give her something to eat and then that they tell no one what had happened.

2) The message and method

The parents had obeyed. They had sought Jesus’ help and continued when it seemed all was lost, and now they saw the light. The father had obeyed and had put the light on a lamp stand so all in the room could see: Peter, James, John, his wife and his little daughter. He had listened and had got more (8:18).

The good news is that soil can be changed. Perception can be gained, but not without plowing. Good soil and perception are tied to obedience and tough times. The good news of the kingdom comes to a lost and sinful world. Plowing seems to be a necessary part of producing a good crop. Human sin has left us imperceptive and almost unable to hear but sorrow or plowing can be the “hand-maiden” of God. It could be God’s ally.

There is also something for the audience to do when it hears good news (8:8, 18). There must be response: “Whoever has will be given more” (8:18). The people who informed Jesus believed He wanted the information they had and they spoke expectantly, the demoniac ran to Jesus with expectation (8:18), Jairus came to Jesus with expectation for the healing of his daughter (41) and the woman had demonstrated her expectation when she reached out to touch His garment (44).

How should we teach the crowds? Should we teach them with just words? Should we give them watered down simplistic easy messages? Did not the little parabolic stories that invoked images in their minds stay there until life (directed by God) began to interpret it? If we are truly teaching God’s Word, will not the Universe, which He created, bare witness to His truth placed in words? How should we teach the crowds? Should we speak in metaphors that are always explained knowing that the instruction will take place well after our speaking at that particular time is over? Do we best teach the crowds by first teaching well the few?

This is seen in the handing of the demoniac. He was willing to temporarily lose the crowds (they asked Him to leave their region) in order to demonstrate to the man he was free from the demons. He saw the hosts of the demons plunge into the sea and therefore knew they were gone with a physical demonstration. However, the hope of the many came from the preaching to the one. It was a plowed and obedient man that was sent (much like the apostles would be) to a lost community. The demoniac was Jesus’ ministry with the disciples in miniature.

5. Teaching the Twelve. Luke 9.

a. The Sending and Returning from the Mission. 9:1-17

1) The Sending out of the Twelve. 9:1-10.

To teach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the crowds was the focus of chapter 8 and yet a lot of the chapter focused on the disciples’ understanding of what that message was and how it was to be understood. Jesus was teaching the crowds but simultaneously deeply imprinting the disciples (the new generation of teachers) as well. Once Jesus’ public ministry began the disciples were quickly brought into the picture and became a large part of the focus of Jesus’ efforts. It is easy in hindsight to see why He did this. He left the world no books, no organization charts, no CDs or no videos, but only humans to carry on the message of the good news of the possible reign of God in the sin filled lives of human beings. The entire Gospel enterprise was hinged on the lives of the twelve disciples. Another way to see this is that the most effective way to teach the world is not only to teach to the crowds, but to teach intensely to a few. Jesus was replacing Himself and multiplying Himself as He went about His own teaching ministry.

So how does the master teacher teach and make good teachers? Luke appears to be saying that to teach a teacher or to form an excellent teacher is not accomplished just with filling the student with information. Information is part of it, but never enough. There is more to it. One simple addition is found in chapter 9: let the budding teacher go out and try his wings. In Luke 9, Jesus let the disciples go try and do the teaching instead of watching the master always do it. Luke recorded that Jesus called the twelve together to send them out to preach, and He did so in a remarkable and risky manner: He gave away power.

As we have read through Luke’s Gospel and watched Jesus teach, it has been evident that it was not merely the teaching of truths or concepts that drew the crowds and impacted the people. A lot of it had to do with Jesus’ ability to do healing and do exorcisms. So in 9:1 we find Jesus conferring upon the disciples this ability:

“He gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and He sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.”

They were sent to teach, but were given a drawing card to accompany them. They were to preach and heal. How do we get such power? Or more to the point, why does the modern Christian teacher in the West seldom have it? Luke did not address our questions. He merely reported that Jesus did confer power on the disciples. Luke also tells us that Jesus gave some instructions to His staff before He sent them out (9:3-5).

They were to go with power and authority, but also to go vulnerably (9:3). They were to take nothing for the journey: no staff, no bag, no bread, no money and no extra clothes. This is hardly how large organizations usually send off missionaries, preachers or short-term missionaries today. Granted we often send people to entirely different regions and countries and the disciples were to go to towns near by. However, they were to go vulnerably. As far as lodging goes they were to stay in one place in the towns they entered (9:4).

They were also instructed as to how to handle rejection. Jesus’ first sermon had been rejected. The people of the region where the demoniac was healed had asked Jesus to leave, and He had begun to stir opposition in the religious leadership (6:1-5, 6:6-11, 7:39-50). The disciples had power, but they, like their master, were not safe from rejection. They were told to shake the dust of their feet when they left towns that did not receive them (9:5). They were not to use their power to coerce or punish. They were to cure with power, but never to make lepers out of their antagonists or intimate those they spoke with using the power they were given. They were to go with power and yet with humble vulnerability be dependent on the good will of those to whom they preached and healed. They were to accept help and make their audience part of the enterprise. If rejected, they were to leave, but exact no type of revenge. Jesus took no revenge on the people who rejected him after He healed the demon-possessed man. In contrast, He blessed them by sending them the demoniac as the messenger of the greatness of God.

Therefore Jesus has shown us how to design a good first teaching assignment. They were to know what to preach and were to be empowered and yet to have with the assignment the possibility of failure (9:37-45). In addition, it must imbibe of, according to Jesus, a scenario with the teacher-in-training being vulnerable in practical affairs like acceptance, food, lodging, finances, etc. Good teachers arise out of such stress. It is not overwhelming stress, but just the right amount.

The disciples obeyed (in fulfillment of 8:8 b) and went out from village to village preaching and healing (9:6), and it was their obedience or ministry that caused or stirred perplexity in the minds of the government (9:7-9). Herod heard about what was going on, and he was perplexed because of the rumors. He wanted to know whom this Teacher was that had sent out His staff to multiply His efforts. The rumors about Jesus were varied: He was John the Baptist raised from the dead, Elijah or one of the prophets. Herod knew it was not John. He had beheaded John. However, Herod was intrigued and tried to see Jesus (9:9, 22:8-9). He never would until Jesus’ trial and that did not go well: “Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him” (8:18). Herod had heard John, but did not listen and so when he finally got to see Jesus, Jesus was silent (22:9).

Jesus was a wise master teacher. His disciples returned from their first excursion (9:10), and He attempted to take them aside and debrief their first experience. Luke will report that Jesus would attempt to do this again (10:17-21). However this time the debriefing period was interrupted because the crowd learned they had gone to Bethsaida.

2) Feeding the Multitude with Frustrated Staff. 9:11-17.

The crowds followed the twelve and Jesus. When Jesus saw them He welcomed them and began to teach them about the Kingdom of God and healed those needing healing. Later in the afternoon, the disciples, no doubt frustrated from the crowds interrupting a needed rest and debriefing, came to Jesus and requested that He send the crowds away (9:12). They told Him that the people needed to leave so as to find food and lodging, as the place they were at was a remote area.

The one thing the disciples did correctly was to bring their frustration to Jesus. They saw the crowd as a problem, and so they sought the removal of the problem. It was a reasonable solution. The response of Jesus was like many of His responses: it did not at first sight look very reasonable. So much of what Jesus did and wanted from the disciples and the people He met was seemingly impossible. This element of the miraculous has been fairly rooted out in much of the modern Western Christian world, but it is dominant in the Gospel accounts.

Jesus told them to deal with the problem of the crowd by serving them. He challenged the disciples to feed those they wanted to get rid of (9:13). So often we see crowds as a sign of success or financial resources in America, but Jesus saw the need to serve them. The disciples saw things differently. They saw the resources they had as inadequate for the task. They had five loaves and two fish, scarcely enough for just a portion of their own group, let alone enough to feed 5,000 men. They said they would need to try and purchase bread for the whole group. The option to buy so much bread was probably not possible (see 8:2-3), as they existed off the giving of a few women. Jesus clearly pushed them into the realm of the impossible (the world of miracles), but did so to serve people they saw as a problem.

As a good teacher, Jesus no doubt knew He had frustrated a weary group of men even further so He gave them another command, but it was different in nature than the first one (to give 5,000 men bread with no resources). They were commanded to have the people sit down in groups of fifty (9:14-15). This last command was possible. They could accomplish crowd control. It seemed that Jesus showed them how to access the impossible tasks God would give. Start with what you can do. Again, the disciples obeyed and made everyone sit down. Jesus then gave thanks for the loaves and fishes as He looked up to heaven. He then empowered the disciples to join in the work of feeding as He gave them the bread to give to the people. Everyone ate and was satisfied. To prove the point that something extraordinary took place the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

There is a delicate balance in this story. Luke tells us He brought the crowds bread miraculously after looking up to heaven and praying (9:16). In a figurative sense He gave them bread from heaven (much like the bread Moses gave to people in remote places in the form of manna). He fed the people bread, physical bread. He would later command His disciples to pray for their daily bread (ll:3). People need physical sustenance, and Christ recognized that (Israelite world views do not view matter as evil. God, Jesus’ Father made the physical world and called it good in Genesis 1) but Christ was balanced as the Old Testament was. He had given them more than mere bread (as did Moses for He gave them the Law as well as manna). The passage in Deuteronomy 8:3 records that people need the Word of God as well and this saying is at the end of Moses’ career as he verbalized the balance. In similar fashion, Christ was teaching the disciples this balance by His own actions. He taught them the Word of God in 9:11 and then later gave them the command to give the people physical bread in 9:13.

An additional comment is in order. Jesus demonstrates wisdom in regard to the use of miracles that was influenced by what He learned in the desert (4:3, 4). There, He would not make bread, because that bread was for Him, but here He did make bread, but this bread was for others. Jesus was teaching the disciples the role and function of miracles. The miracle of the loaves was for the members of His staff: it was for these new teachers. For the most part they would humbly buy their meals (8:3), or humbly receive them (9:4, 10:7) but if need arose (9:12) then the balance would be corrected by God.

He first gave them a chance to experience successful ministry but taught them that the use of the gifts (miracles) was in the context of helping others. By forcing them to keep serving when they returned from their use of the gifts of healing He was demonstrating that the issue was helping others not being able to do miracles. They had done preaching and healing (or medical miracles), and when they returned He had forced them outside of what they had already had success with. They were commanded to do a different kind of miracle because that was what the people needed. As teachers we like to stay in the realms where we have already experienced success, Christ showed the disciples that to do that was to miss the point of teaching or ministry at all. Success was not the goal; the appropriate service was (4:42-44).

Associated with this story is the aspect of the miraculous. One might ask how one “learns” to do miracles. Perhaps, some part of the answer is found in this short vignette about bread. If we look at the story from the standpoint of the disciples some interesting things appear. They saw the crowd as a problem, but came to Jesus with their problem (i.e. they went to God or they prayed: for talking to Jesus is talking to God and talking to God is what we call prayer). Christ then confronted them with an impossible task and their second response was to reasonably explain the impossible nature of the commanded task. I believe we too, should tell God that some of the tasks He has assigned are impossible. Jesus responded with another command but one that could be done by human effort (set the group down in companies of fifty). The third response of the disciples was to obey that command. Then Christ took over. He instructed them by His actions to lift up their eyes to heaven and be thankful for what little resources they had. Then He began to give what He had. The fourth thing the disciples did was to clean up (most teachers think such things are beneath them). However, humility has its own rewards as the clean up revealed another tangible sign that the miraculous had taken place. They started with five small loaves and wound up with twelve full baskets. The miraculous works of the disciples could have ruined them via pride, but being forced to keep serving and in menial ways (like picking up excess bread) saved them from potential arrogance.

b. Understanding Identity. 9:18-36.

1) Understanding His Identity and Their Own. 9:18-27.

The Gospel of Luke has often been called the Gospel of Prayer and rightly so. Verse 18 opens with Jesus praying and the disciples were around Him. It could be that Jesus gained insight as to how to teach the disciples in a deeper way during His time of prayer. It seemed that His prayer time had directed Him to start a new agenda that was to follow.

Jesus began the teaching session with a question, an objective question. It is good to start a teaching section with a question as it gets the audiences’ mind engaged. Then Jesus demonstrated some practical ways to do this. First, it is good to start with a more objective question that puts the audience in the role of the “instructor”. You may be taking a risk to open the floor like this, but you gain the audiences’ involvement and therefore interest, and it empowers them. Greater learning takes place. Jesus asked how the crowds understood Him, and they were the ones allowed to disseminate the formation. The disciples’ answer was very similar to the one the crowds had given to Herod: some say Jesus was John the Baptist, others Elijah and still others a prophet from of old had come back to life (9:18-19 and see 9:7-8).

Jesus did not comment about their answer but seemed to let it stand as an accurate portrayal of information. However, He worked off their answer and pushed the issue of His identity from a crowd viewpoint to a personal viewpoint. He asked what they thought. The second question moved the teaching session from a dissemination of information to a revelation of their thoughts and to some degree to their own belief system. Peter answered: you are the Christ of God (9:20).

Christ again did not second-guess the answer but seemingly accepted what was said and took the answer in another direction. He strictly warned them to tell no one, and then re-focused their attention on His definition of who He was. He saw Himself as the anointed one of God in 4:18 (what the word “messiah” means) and the purpose of why He was anointed was given in the previous passage as one who was to help those in need. Now he defined Himself as the Son of Man and His role in four ways. His four-fold understanding was found in the following four verbs: He was to suffer much, be rejected by the leadership classes, be killed and three days later be raised from the dead. It was disturbing to hear that the One you so deeply admired was to suffer, be rejected, killed and then raised (9:21-22).

It became more disturbing as they were to learn that as His disciples, His replacements in the carrying on of the enterprise of the Kingdom of God were to have similar careers. He first spoke of His own “poor career prospects” and then made the application of His death (and rejection, suffering and rising) to them (9:23-27). Jesus did not present “good prospects” to His staff. They had to know what was involved in being a teacher for the Kingdom of God. It would involve: denying oneself, taking up one’s cross daily and following Him (9:23). He also made it clear that it was not optional. Therefore if one tried to make it optional, and tried to save their life they would lose it, but conversely if they lost their life they would gain it (9:24). If they gained the whole world it would not help as they could still lose their souls (9:25). He knew something of this from the desert (see 4:5, 6).

Key to understanding this teaching was to understand the necessity of loyalty. They could avoid some pain being disloyal to Jesus Himself and what He taught. However, they were challenged to not to be ashamed of Him or of His Words. Such loyalty was not optional for it was followed with the threat that if they were ashamed of Him, the Son of Man would be ashamed of them when He came in the glory of His Father and with the angels (9:26). This intensity was not new. Moses said the first of the Ten Commandments was to put loyalty to God above all else (Exodus 20:3 or Deuteronomy 5:7). Similar threats were given by Moses if there was no compliance to the Law: Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9.

Jesus and Moses also motivated by giving promises. In Exodus 20:6 and Deuteronomy 5:10 the amount of the promise of blessing was greater than the amount of the threat of punishment and there is the great promise of Deuteronomy 4:8: “Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, `Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people’”. In Jesus’ case, loyalty to Him and His words was to result in their being able to see (8:10) and perceive the Kingdom of God before they died (9:27). Some would see the reign of God (the kingdom of God) before they tasted of death.

The disciples had experienced massive success and the healing power of God had flowed from them to bless others (9:6). They had received that power from Jesus who did healing all the time. They had become like Him and no doubt it was pretty exciting. However, now they learned that He was to suffer, be killed and rejected before rising again. He then said the same would be roughly true of them if they followed Him. Many want to experience the call to have a great teaching career but Jesus was pointing out that it entailed their death. They had to deny themselves (whatever that would mean for each of them). They were offered much: the gaining of their lives (24), finding of themselves in following Him (25), avoiding punishment in eternity (26), and assurance that their suffering was temporal (22 b, 27). All of this was offered but they had to suffer first. They were to bear fruit like Him (they had tasted a little of that in 9:6), but as soil they had first to be prepared: rocks removed, weeds turned and their lives upturned. In addition, after the difficulty it did not get easier. They had to be trained by difficulty and then be crucified. He was their master example and to follow Him as a teacher they had to be like Him: “A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (6:40).

Jesus had predicted His death just when they had begun to understand who He was. They had earlier learned experientially something of His power (8:25), but this was new. The choice to reveal this to them in stark terms (9:22-27) was evidently made because of Jesus’ time spent in prayer (9:18). He was modeling that prayer gives the teacher insight as to what subjects are to be addressed and when. Prayer was also to form and shape the next episode or teaching session.

2) Further Revelation of His Identity. 9:28-36.

It was just a little more than a week later that Jesus split the staff into two groups. One was to remain in the Galilean area continuing the ministry and the other (only three of them) was to travel with Jesus up into the mountains (9:28). Jesus was up in the mountains praying. As the prayer time progressed something began to happen to Jesus’ outward appearance. The look of His face and clothes changed. His clothes became as dazzlingly bright as lightening. Then something more happened: two men joined him. They were Moses and Elijah who represented the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament). They too appeared in splendor and were discussing with Jesus His departure and what would take place, or what would be fulfilled in Jerusalem. This transformation took place during a time of prayer.

The disciples had not proved themselves very insightful. True they had obeyed and left everything to follow Him (5:11, 5:28), but at times they panicked (8:24-25), got tired of serving (9:12) and now they were to prove that they did not always know what to do with religious experiences (9:32-33). Becoming a great teacher requires more than an initial radical commitment. A great teacher needs further teaching, so the master teacher, Jesus, kept training.

The disciples’ reaction to the amazing change in Jesus and to seeing Elijah and Moses began with their being very sleepy. When they awoke they saw Jesus’ glory and the two other men standing with Jesus. As the two men were leaving, Peter (that prized pupil one hopes to have in every class that will speak up and verbalize what many are thinking) thought it good that they were there and so offered to erect three shrines, one for each of them. Luke tells us Peter did not know what he was saying (9:33).

One of the features of earlier physical appearances of God in the Old Testament (theophanies) was the presence of a cloud (like that which filled the Temple at Solomon’s Temple dedication or what went before the ark in the time of Moses). A cloud was on the mountain as well and surrounded the disciples. They were filled with fear as they entered the cloud, but the cloud did not harm them. A voice spoke to them. The voice clarified what they should think and do with such a religious experience. The voice identified who Jesus was: He was God’s Son, whom He had chosen. It also identified what they should do: listen to Him. When the voice had finished speaking they saw Jesus alone. They kept this experience to themselves and for a while did not tell anyone what they had seen (9:35-36).

The cloud told them to listen and all that such a command entails (listen is to obey). It was not a new message; they had heard it from Jesus before (6:46, 8:8, and 8:18). Religious experiences are not to be enshrined, but compel us to listen to the messages we have already heard. If a powerful experience is felt by an audience during a particular teaching session the proper fruit is not to memorialize that time and those involved, but to listen to what the Spirit wishes us to hear and do. Seeking to have similar experiences is not wise, but rather wisdom lies in doing what was said.

The voice did some subtle things as well. The disciples were commanded to listen to Jesus (even though the representatives of the Law and the Prophets were also there). That would have shocked many in that day. The priority of Jesus’ leadership was being established though not by the contradiction or abrogation of the Old Testament. The two men were speaking with Jesus of what was to be accomplished in Jerusalem (the Cross) and by implication were in concert with it.

By implication the centrality of the Cross was also being stressed. This was what was being spoken of between Jesus, Moses and Elijah. It was spoken of and accompanied by glory (the shinning appearances). As Jesus was their leader and master teacher He showed them the way to glory. Glory came by means of the Cross (9:23). The glory of the Resurrection can only occur after there has been death. Seed can be successfully planted after there has been plowing. No fruit can grow from the seed until it is buried (dead).

The Cross was the ultimate paradigm of all the works of Jesus, but it was to be accessed daily (9:23) and in the push and pull of life as the stories of chapter 8 showed. They saw the glory of God in Jesus’ power over the raging waves, in the breaking of the power of demonic possession, in healing (the woman with the continual hemorrhage), and in the breaking of the power of death (with the raising of the little girl), but all the experiences of glory had been preceded by turbulence in the lives of those who experienced the glorious intervention of God. We bring good news not easy news: words of life not ease. The coming of the Kingdom of God was good news. It came to sinful humans, poor soil, and so it must be preceded by something symbolized by plowing. In similar fashion, the ultimate power and glory of God’s breaking death in the Resurrection had to be proceeded by the death on the Cross. Jesus was teaching this, and He was His message. He did not call people to difficult tasks that He was not willing to do Himself.

c. Receiving Rebuke, Critique and Praise. 9:37-62

1) Exorcising Evil in the Boy and Beyond. 9:37-45.

The apostolic band had been split. One group of three had been instructed through the experience of the Transfiguration, while the other nine were learning in another fashion: through failure. The next day Jesus and the three came down from the mountain and encountered a large crowd who had seen the nine fail to exorcize a little boy who was filled with an evil spirit. The father of the boy approached Jesus and asked Jesus to attend to the boy personally because Jesus’ staff had failed (37-40). The man pleaded with Jesus to heal his only child. The father went on to explain that the spirit would constantly seize his son and the boy would suddenly scream, go into convulsions, and foam at the mouth and then the demon would attempt to bring about the boy’s destruction. This up-coming and promising new generation of great teachers had failed to help the boy. The success they had experienced in 9:6 had not carried over into this situation.

Jesus’ responded in a way that would be offensive to many today. He was publicly critical of the disciples’ performance. He called them unbelieving and perverse and reminded them that He was not always going to be present. He demanded that the boy be brought to Him. They had to step down from the limelight and let the master teacher clean up their mess (9:41). Many today would consider this wrong and would not stand for it. However, to be a disciple of the master teacher meant that one had to learn how to handle critique. Many today who say they want to be in a “discipleship relationship” really have no heart for it if it involves negative critique. However, what Jesus was doing was already known: it was all through the Old Testament: “My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline and do not resent His rebuke” (Proverbs 3:11, Job 5:17). Moses was heavily critiqued by God (Exodus 4:24-26 and Numbers 20:1-13). The stories in II Samuel 11-13 heavily critique the great king David.

This was not the first time Jesus had been critical of the disciples. They no doubt were still aware of their panic in the boat (8:24-25). They had been asked where their faith was and had seen Jesus pronounce a foreigner (the Centurion), a prostitute, and an old sick woman as possessing it. They had seen the parents of the dead child and the demoniac not panic. They had to learn from others who were not part of the privileged twelve, and it must have stung. However, it would not be the last time they would be rebuked (i.e. see the next stories in Luke: 9:46-48, 49-50, 51-56). What is interesting is that they accepted the critique, and it is interesting that they stayed disciples and were not replaced. Good teachers rebuke and good teachers do not dismiss their pupils for errors made or failure to get the lesson right away. Good students do not quit in the face of criticism.

Jesus did heal the boy, and it caused great amazement. They gave the credit for the healing to the greatness of God. It was done in a dramatic fashion while the boy was in the midst of a convulsion. Then with characteristic tenderness Jesus returned the healed boy to the parent (9:42, see also 7:15).

While everyone was marveling at all Jesus did, He made a decision to not bask in His own glory. As He had instructed the three in the mountain about His coming death (9:44), He announced it again to the twelve (which would include the nine). He used the familiar term (listen) in bringing forth the central message of the Kingdom of God: “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.” He first predicted His betrayal. This Giver of power to heal and do exorcism was going to Jerusalem and was going to be betrayed. The Giver possessed great power, but was subject to harm from men. As great as He was, He was still subject to harm and so were His followers.

However, at that time, they did not understand, it was hidden from them, and they were afraid to ask (9:45). Jesus did not press things at this point. He let them stand as they were, but He had put something deep into their sub-conscious minds.

2) The Disciples Prove Their Misunderstanding. 9:46-56.

It is almost comical what the disciples did next. They proved they did not grasp what Jesus said. He had spoken of dying for the world; they broke into an argument about which of them was the greatest. They had tasted of the power often demonstrated in ministry in 9:6 and displayed their inability to handle it. They had not yet been in the desert. They did not yet understand that the gifts of God were for the people of God, not for the aggrandizement of the operator of the gifts.

Jesus knew their thoughts, good teachers do. So Jesus began to instruct them by taking a little child and with the little one standing next to Him Jesus defined the proper nature of power. He told them that whoever focused on this little child, focused on Him and whoever focused on Him focused on the One who had sent Jesus into the world. Greatness was defined by giving service, not being the recipient of it. The least among them would be the greatest (9:47-48). They were to be godly; to be like God. God the Father created the world with only the power of His speech and then rested on the seventh day. He had rested from labor for others. He had built a world, a living space for human beings. He had served with His great power the small puny creatures we call humanity. True power, power in concert with the nature of reality, in concert with the fact of creation, was power that served. Jesus was the Son of His Father, and He was calling His disciples to be like Him. It is hard to learn this lesson. The disciples certainly did not learn it very quickly.

We are often dissuaded from serving others because we are defensive about our own self worth. We often demonstrate this by propping up our self-esteem with the exclusion of others. We deem ourselves special because others are not. John observed an exorcism being performed in Jesus’ name, and he sought to stop it. They were not one of the twelve (9:49-50). Jesus instructed John by rebuking him. Jesus did not want John to be as petty as some of the religious leaders He had encountered. Jesus had healed on the Sabbath and the religious leaders were more concerned with the fact that they did not control the situation through their narrow mindsets than they were with the health of the man who was healed (6:6-11). He did not want His disciples like that. He told John to stop stopping ministry. If what others were doing was not against the disciples efforts (they had freed people from demonic oppression) then doing an exorcism was in line with the goals of the disciples. Therefore, any such action was to be considered as a positive affirmation of their own position (9:50).

John was not yet well trained. He would become the “beloved disciple” but Jesus had a different nickname for him in his early years. He and his brother were called: “the sons of thunder”. Jesus was not afraid to call into His service hot-tempered individuals. It is encouraging to see that being hot tempered or intense was not a trait that disqualified one from being a leader in the Kingdom of God. However, one had to be able to be critiqued. John had to be able to hear the word “no” as the demoniac had (8:38).

Jesus continued His education of John, but Luke showed that it was done in a certain context. Jesus had resolutely aimed towards Jerusalem (9:31); it had been discussed on the Mount of Transfiguration. It had been settled in the desert. The disciples did not yet understand, and this became evident as they passed through a Samaritan area. The Samaritans had refused the common decency of selling provisions to travelers because the apostolic band was obviously heading towards Jerusalem. James and John saw this and took this for an insult. In their anger, they asked Jesus to use His power to avenge His and their honor. They knew Jesus had done things similar to the great prophets Elijah and Elisha so they asked Jesus to replicate another of Elijah’s and Elisha’s miracles: call down fire from heaven (I Kings 18:36-39, 2 Kings 1:9-12). James and John did not understand the nature of the true reign of God and so were rebuked (9:51-55). The preservation of our honor is not the task of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was moving towards the Cross and the teacher’s personal honor had to take second place.

In all three cases the blindness of the disciples was revealed. They were blind to the use of power. They had tasted of it, and it ruled them, but they were to be rulers not ruled (Genesis 1:28, Psalm 8:6) even by their giftedness. In the desert, Jesus had settled this, but it had not yet been settled for them. Jesus was not ruled by the need to use the gifts to prove He was the Son of God. He fought this battle in the desert and the disciples had not waged such wars and thus misunderstood. Therefore, the rebukes came hard and heavy from the Master Teacher, but not dismissal. One could be dismissed from leadership, but the lack of understanding or mistakes were not the criteria. In the very next chapter, He would send them again and with power (10:17), and He would deal again with their lack of understanding.

3) The Cost of Discipleship. 9:57-62.

Luke seems to stop at this point and show us that others had seen the power Jesus had and had heard the messages about the Kingdom of God. One man approached Jesus and asked to be a disciple. He declared he would follow wherever Jesus would go. Did the man understand that following Jesus would mean following Jesus to his own Jerusalem (9:23)? We are not told anything about the motives or state of the man’s heart, but only how Jesus responded to him. Jesus pointed out that to follow Him would be to accept a lack of normal security (9:58 = 9:2-4 and 10:3-4). Jesus’ response was, perhaps, a crash course in what He had been teaching His disciples about His own destiny and by implication, what the Son of Man experienced would also be true for His followers. In the next chapter, He would term their expeditions as being sent out as “lambs among wolves”. We do not know the individual’s response (9:57-58).

Another man was asked by Jesus to join the group of disciples. The first individual in 9:57 did the asking, but this time Jesus did (9:59). He seemingly agreed, but with a provision. He wanted to first bury his father. Whether that meant to wait around until the father died so as to gain the inheritance and thus some ability to sustain his ministry (Jesus and his disciples lived rather vulnerably and often from the offerings of a few women as in 8:3) or to wait until his ill father passed we do not know. Even today if you are not present at the death of a parent your share can be reduced in the inheritance. Again, all we have is Jesus’ response: “Let the dead bury the dead, you go and proclaim the Kingdom of God” (9:60). One had to cut ties to death by death. One had to die before one could live again. One would never live again or experience the resurrection if one refused to die (9:24). This again seemed harsh, but it was not inconsistent with what Jesus had been saying to the twelve. Others could join but they needed to know what they were getting into.

The final episode was like the first. The person volunteered to join (9:61). He said he would follow Jesus and even called Jesus “Lord”. However, like the second person, two issues arose to the surface. In both of these later cases, one was to follow without delay and to do so without mitigating conditions. The first man wanted to wait until his father died. The second wanted to go and say good-bye to his family. This seemingly innocent request was met with another harsh answer. Jesus’ answer to this third potential disciple said: whoever starts and looks back is unfit for service in the Kingdom of God (9:62). If we put conditions to the reign of God, we still reign and God does not.

How saying good-bye to his parents or family was “looking back” we are not told, but the metaphor used to convey the intolerance for delay or for the rejection of conditions imposed by the potential disciple is an interesting one. Jesus spoke of plowing. “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God” (9:62). Why use a “plowing” metaphor? Had not the third sermon that explained the Kingdom of God opened with a plowing metaphor? It appears that with this metaphor Luke is signaling us that the three interviews teach about discipleship, and that the three interviews were for the benefit of the twelve.

They had been a bunch of blockheads in the five stories before the three episodes of others trying to become disciples. As they heard Jesus speak with others what they overheard was that one must be willing to travel and minister in a state of vulnerability. They had done that. The second individual could not delay and wait for some type of inheritance. In their case, the disciples had left all: the fisherman left their boats with their father and Levi had walked away from the tax collector’s table. They left their financial security. Finally, they saw in the last person a final blow being struck to those who would delay for any reason. The fisherman and Levi had left all and left it immediately and without delay. They were slow learners, but they had made commitments and acted upon them. Good teachers challenge but good teachers also praise. In essence, these three stories taught the disciples that they were doing well, despite their slow learning. This subtle praise was not lost to the disciples. A quick look at Luke18: 28-30 lets us know that they did pick up on what He said here. He had wisely affirmed them, and they had heard it. Even in 18:28-30 where is He is pushing them even further in financial matters He never resends His praise of their “leaving everything”.

If we are to be in the important business of announcing the true kingdom of God we will be involved with being the recipients of the “plowing of God.” To be involved with something that important allows no turning back in wistful remembrance (as the Israelites did in their wilderness experience after the Exodus), but requires a steady attention to the work at hand. It is interesting, as mentioned above, that immediately after these three interviews Jesus commissioned these slow learners to go out on their own again and again imbued with them His miraculous power. They had tasted success in 9:6, then went into a series of five failures (9:12-50), but then are given subtle, indirect encouragement in 9:51-62 and sent out again in chapter 10:1.

D. The Fourth Sermon: to the Disciples on Doing Mission Work. 10:1-42.

1. The Sermon: Instructions for the Disciples’ Mission. 10:1-16.

a. The Story

Jesus had gathered many disciples but He did not go after mere numbers as 9:57-62 shows. He, in a sense, culled some who were not willing to pay the price of vulnerability (9:57-58) or who had conditions to their commitment (9:59-62). Although Jesus was not ruled by the need to have mere numbers, He did want the Kingdom of God to expand. He wanted the work to grow and to grow with quality.

To help accomplish this quality growth He again sent out others to minister in chapter 10. From an educational point of view, Jesus’ action demonstrated a certain level of intentionality and planning. His plan was to send His disciples out to preach and minister in places He was about to go. He knew where He was going to preach and teach next, and He thought it good to prepare communities for His coming. The disciples were to be like John who prepared the way for Him.

The numbers are larger this time (see 9:1 where He sent only the twelve). He appointed 72 (or 70), which, like the number 12, is a highly significant number in the Old Testament. They were sent in groups of two, but it was a large number of small teams. It is implied that effective teaching could be accomplished in many small venues. Rather than focusing on only one speaker speaking only one time, the people were able to meet these men in a more intimate setting and meeting these groups of two would later enhance Jesus’ preaching.

It is significant that they are sent out by twos. The early evangelistic efforts of Paul reflected this same pattern of not sending a person alone. We are not told why He chose to send them by twos, but we are told what instructions they received. His instructions to the 70 or 72 would comprise the fourth sermon that Luke has chosen to report to us. It has some similarities to the short instructions in 9:3-4. In those brief words the disciples had received instructions to go out in an atmosphere of vulnerability, been told where to lodge and how to handle rejection. Here the list of instructions was both similar but also more comprehensive.

There was a new part to the instructions. Jesus began by saying that the work was ready to be done but those ready to work were few, and they were to be like Him in seeking from God others to help them. On the eve of their being sent they were to pray for others to be sent. They were never to see their own ministry as the end of their responsibility. Jesus did not see His ministry as the end of His responsibility to a lost and dying world. He clearly saw part of His task was to empower and train new leaders that would take over the ministry from Him. The key was not “His ministry” but the ministry itself and it would be healthier if more were doing it. In addition, He modeled for them that we are to never worry about “turf” but to look to Him for needed help. God would call the others needed to meet the needs of the harvest. With His command to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send out workers into His harvest field He was showing the disciples that they too should seek expansion through the help of others. Their ministry, like Jesus’ was to be conducted with a constant eye to replace oneself.

So many are more interested in keeping up their numbers in their efforts than worrying about the larger number that could be served. Perhaps it is helpful in gaining the proper attitude to see that Jesus saw the harvest fields as His Father’s (10:2) and that our job is to pray for helpers and it is God’s job to call and send. We are to take ownership of the task, and yet we are not the owners: God is. He owns both the fields of labor and the workers. All are His, not ours, including us.

The second agenda centered on vulnerability which was first mentioned in chapter 9. Perhaps, there is a correlation between the miraculous and our willingness to be vulnerable in whatever manner He asks. He commanded them to go out as lambs among wolves. They would be vulnerable. Some of the ways they would be vulnerable were again of their own choice: no purse, bag, or sandals. In a sense they were both vulnerable but trim and light as well. They were not to be burdened with “things” (10:3-4). However, the instructions in chapter 10 add another aspect to this: they were to be focused. They were to greet no one on the way (10:4). Assuming that most “greetings” in that world were not a quick “hello” as you passed by but would entail staying at friends’ houses and spending considerable time with them, it was to be skipped. Perhaps, they are being told not to get sidetracked spending time with friends when on a mission.

As in the briefer instructions in chapter 9, instructions on where to lodge (10:5-7) were given. In the earlier instructions, only the command not to move around once they settled was given. In these new instructions they were told additionally to pronounce a blessing of peace on the house. If a man of peace were there then the peace in them would rest on the man and if not the peace in them would return to them. They were commanded to eat whatever they were given because they were worthy of such wages and again told not to move around from house to house. If they were not to move around so as to be seen as seeking the better place or because they were to be stable (in a vulnerable situation) was not explained. Perhaps we will learn what this means from our brothers in India and Asia who do practice evangelism in this manner. They do such work and no doubt have encountered first hand how meaningful and wise His instructions were.

Then in verses 8-16 instructions were given as to how to handle rejection similar to the instructions given in 9:5. However, there were some additions. In 10:8-9 they were given instructions on how to handle acceptance. The form of this teaching was in a familiar form found in much of the legal material and prophetic material in the Old Testament: an “if… then…” construction or a “condition… results…” form. The conditions were two: when you entered a town, and when you were welcomed. The results were to be threefold: accept their hospitality (eat what was put before you), heal their sick and make a pronouncement to that town. The pronouncement was as follows: “the kingdom of God is near”. If accepted they were to accept, bless and speak. In verses 10-16, extended instructions were given for when lack of acceptance was found. It too began in an “if… then…” form. The conditions were again twofold: when you entered a town, and when you were not welcomed. The result also had three parts, but they were all verbal. They were to say publicly that they were wiping the dust from their feet, that the “Kingdom of God was near”, and that it would be more tolerable for the city of Sodom (that famous wicked city) on that day (judgment day).

Jesus then broke into a pronouncement against two cities by name: Korazin and Bethsaida. They were compared to two well known foreign cities, the non-Jewish (or to use today’s terms: non-churched or non-Christian) cities of Tyre and Sidon and told that had these foreign cities seen the miracles that the Jewish cities had seen they would have repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes. These famous wicked cities would receive a lighter judgment than the two Jewish cities. He then added the city of Capernaum (where the Centurion had been called greater in faith than anyone in Israel) and predicted their down fall in a dramatic fashion. He did this by asking a rhetorical question calling into question whether they would be exalted. This was followed by a pronouncement of their being brought down to the depths (10:15).

The final word about the possible rejection of the disciples could apply to their acceptance as well, but was probably more a word for those who would not gain acceptance (10:16).

“He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

It seemed to be something Jesus anticipated was needed for those facing rejection. It was an encouragement or boost to their understanding of themselves and their mission. Their self-esteem would need bolstering. No one wishes to face rejection, and it is natural to take it personally. It began in a short “if… then…”statement: “if they listen to you, they listen to me.” That was followed by a longer twofold “if… then…” statement that said if they reject you, they reject Me, and if they reject Me, they reject the One who sent Me.” In effect, He said if they rejected you, they were not ultimately rejecting you, but were rejecting Me and therefore rejecting God. The disciples were to understand that they were the most important people their audience would ever encounter. They might be rejected, but they were not to hang their heads in utter self-disrespect. They were the ambassadors of the King.

b. The Method of Teaching

If we stop for a moment and comment on His teaching technique several things could be noted. First of all there is the use of the “condition… results…” form. This is not new but actually quite common in Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching method, and it is worth commenting on. This formulation points to a deep commitment to reason as being at the heart of reality. Life is not meaningless because actions have consequences. Life was not random, but logical consequences were part of reality. Jesus was in line with the world view of the Old Testament in this regard as it used this form often.

Emotions run high when one is placed in the vulnerable position of facing either acceptance or rejection. Preaching makes one vulnerable. The disciples were placed under scrutiny and therefore any mention of rationality was helpful. Cause and effect also gave some solidity to some of the seemingly irrational things they would experience. That they came to preach the goodness of God and to bless and heal and to be rejected seemed to be illogical, but sinful man is often irrational (Genesis 4:6-8).

Second, there was careful consideration given to how the disciples’ understood the world: it did not center on them, but on God. Their possible rejection and therefore their feelings were not the key issue but rather the people’s deep need for God. God and a sinful world in need of God were the central issues and not themselves or the success of their ministry. This aspect was communicated in this sermon through the last statement made in verse 16: “he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” In addition, the truth that the work of the disciples was not about themselves was contained in the pronouncement about the “nearness of the Kingdom of God” (see 10:9, 11). What they had come close to was the reign of God, the salvation of their souls.

Jesus taught them that vulnerability was part of good teaching. Often a speaker that is vulnerable in some fashion will touch their audience in a more profound manner. In Jesus’ instructions, vulnerability was to take several forms. There was the financial, physical aspect concerning how lightly they traveled but now another type was emphasized: the disciples’ self esteem. As beneficial as it is for an audience to see a teacher’s vulnerability and as helpful as it is to an audience for them to see the teacher truly listen, there are risks to the teachers/preachers who practice it. A good master leader is aware that both of these issues (financial and self-esteem vulnerability) will take a toll on their staff. It is the latter one of self esteem that could be the more dangerous.

We too must speak about understanding the bigger picture and that such personal experiences of rejection are part of a larger perspective of how things truly are. It will hurt when we are rejected but more than us is being rejected. Jesus was modeling the financial vulnerability for them, and as they obeyed and went, they experienced God’s provision. It is true that one does not like being vulnerable financially, but God will provide, and He did provide for the disciples on their trips. See Luke 22:35 where the disciples discussed with Jesus their experiences of being totally provided for on their excursions.

Third, the issue of dramatic presentation was used. Jesus was instructing the disciples when suddenly and simultaneously He dramatically started speaking to three specific Jewish towns. He opened by using the ancient the dramatic form of the pronouncement of judgment or a “Woe Oracle” from the prophets. Jesus pronounced “Woe to you” and finished with a dramatic rhetorical question given to a city that was not present. It is unusual to speak privately to some of your staff and then all of a sudden start speaking in dramatic fashion to someone who is not even present.

I have seen this done. A professor once was instructing us on a difficult academic position and all of a sudden looked up toward the ceiling of the class room and started having a conversation with a former professor who had died ten years before. He looked up and addressed the scholar by name and said: “Ah, now you know you are wrong.” We knew the professor did not believe he was personally speaking to a deceased scholar. He was speaking to us about the famous man’s theological position. Now in heaven’s clarity that scholar saw his error as we were to do in the present. Was Jesus speaking to the three cities or primarily to the disciples? It seems He was speaking about the need for the disciples to realize the importance of their mission. Jesus did not want them to be devastated by rejection because something greater than their feelings was involved. He too had been rejected, and He focused on the sad fate of the cities not His personal feelings of rejection. He modeled for them where to direct their energies in the face of rejection: off themselves and on the sad fate of those who reject (6:21).

Fourth, there could be more to this “dramatic” pronouncement than just using a creative teaching method; it could be the beginning of the answer to the riddle. The riddle was presented but could be easily missed. Employing a riddle or a seeming glitch in His teaching had been done before. He had used a startling unexplained statement that made sense as a statement but what it meant created a question in their minds (who will be extended the favor of God, blessed are the poor (etc.), or the riddle of the seed parable). The riddle or glitch in this sermon or teaching session was tied to the pronouncement the disciples were instructed to make on cities they visited. Jesus instructed the disciples that if they were accepted they were to say: “the Kingdom of God has come near. He then said if they were rejected they were to say: the Kingdom of God has come near”. The same statement was to be given to both conditions. One would have expected something different. If they were accepted they would say the Kingdom of God was there, and if they were rejected they would say the Kingdom of God came near. However, the same statement was given to both groups.

This had to have puzzled the disciples, and it should cause puzzlement among us. As we have seen before in the first three sermons, perhaps the glitch or surprising element should not be swept under the rug but looked at carefully. In the first three sermons we saw that the narratives would illuminate some of that meaning for us. So we should expect the narratives following this sermon to do the same. There are three vignettes: His debriefing of the disciples after their mission (17-24), the dialogue with the Scribe about eternal life (25-37), and the episode with Mary and Martha (38-42). I would suggest we have an A, B, and A form here: a positive, negative and then positive example about what “the Kingdom of God is near” phrase could mean.

2. Explanatory Narratives: Debriefing Disciples, the Scholar, And Two Sisters. 10:17-42.

a. Jesus’ debriefing of the Disciples. 10:17-24.

The disciples did obey, and they returned from the mission with joy. They must have encountered more acceptance than rejection because they had performed exorcisms, and they would not have done that had the people rejected them (10:8). They had been the vessels or conduits of spiritual power, and it had excited them. When they addressed Him they used the title of address, “Lord”, which expressed what they had discovered in their experience. They had learned that in His Name (i.e. in His Lordship) was power over the demons. They joyfully told Him about how these demonic powers were subjected to them in His Name. The Christological and divine implications of this are important as it was “in the Name” of Yahweh that exorcisms were done in that day.

Jesus’ response was interesting. He did not dampen their enthusiasm created by their success. His first statement was to move into another dramatic pronouncement (see 10:13-15) by saying He saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven. This was a powerful metaphor telling them that they were part of a grander scheme. They were part of toppling the very pinnacles of evil. Jesus was adding fuel to the fire of their joy (10:18). He was not afraid to rejoice in their success.

Jesus then went on to assure them (through the metaphor of stepping on scorpions and snakes) that they had done something very dangerous but were kept safe. It was a subtle reminder that their safety was in the fact that authority had been given to them by Him. When we are successful we always need reminders of the source of our success, and that we do not need to “knock on wood”. We do not need to fear reprisals from the Devil because we are under authority and operate from His authority not our own (10:19).

He added to their joy, He did not want to take it away (rejoice with those that rejoice) and did not seem to mind extensively praising them (remember the comment on 9:57-62). However, He wished to protect them, and so He next redirected their joy. His redirection was not to dampen their joy but to insure its permanence and explain its real nature and source. He refocused their joy in two ways. First, He told them not to rejoice in the demons being subjected to them, but in the fact that they had their very names written down in heaven (no doubt employing the motif in the Old Testament about the book of life as in Exodus 32:32, Isaiah 4:3, Psalms 69:28, Daniel 12:1, Malachi 3:16). As Oswald Chambers says, “rejoice not in successful service but rather rejoice that you are rightly related to Jesus Christ”. Success can come and go, but to be written down in His book was a source of joy that would never end. They were right with God, and He used them to help others with His authority and power, but it was more important that they were right with God than that He used them. Jesus refused to use the “gifts” in the wilderness because operating the gifts was not as important as being on good terms with the Giver of the gifts. Jesus had learned that in the desert and was passing it along to them.

Second, Luke then punctuated Jesus’ speech to the seventy and thus broke it into two parts: 10:18-20 and 10:21-22. Perhaps, Luke deliberately put another introductory formula (“He replied” in 18 and “said” in 21) to put emphasis on what was to follow in 10:21-22. In addition, Luke showed his readers that Jesus’ joy had come from the Holy Spirit: “At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said….” John had leaped for joy in his mother’s womb because the Spirit revealed to him the presence of his Lord (1:42), and now full of the Holy Spirit Jesus was full of joy because of what the disciples had learned. Perhaps, He sensed His Lord in them.

They had learned experientially Jesus’ relationship with the Father. They did exorcisms in “His Name” and thus learned just how powerful that Name was. Jesus expressed this in another dramatic expression (the third one in this chapter) by going directly into prayer to His Father (and yet He was still speaking to the seventy by allowing them to overhear His prayer to His Father). His joy and praise to His Father was triggered by His Father’s revelation to the disciples that all things were committed to the Son by the Father. Jesus then followed with a statement that only the Father knows who the Son was and no one knew who the Father was except the Son and to those whom the Son choose to reveal it to.

He called them “little children” (10:21) and contrasted them with the wise and learned. I believe it is still true today that few scholars in the Jewish or Christian academic world have God revealed to them, whereas countless laymen (little ones) have a deep understanding of His nature (Isaiah 50:4-5). Revelation of God does not come solely from study and study does not necessarily reveal the Father, but revelation of God only comes when it is the will of the Father or the Son. Perhaps, the title of “little ones” was Jesus’ way of telling us that humility and obedience to His instructions to go out vulnerably would bring us such revelation. So often we will not go out in a vulnerable fashion when we share our knowledge of the Kingdom of God with others. Therefore we avoid vulnerability and avoid being the “little ones” who experience His power, receive revelation and create joy in the heart of God.

In 10:23, Luke gives us another introductory formula (“Then he turned to His disciples and said privately….”) and thus again Luke deliberately punctuated Jesus speaking. He let us know that Jesus turned towards the disciples and directly (instead of indirectly) addressed them. We can speak in dramatic fashion to good affect, but it is also good pedagogical technique to directly look at and speak to our audience. Jesus directly announced to them that were blessed. Their blessedness consisted of what they had learned of Him, of what they had seen, or of what they had perceived. He went on to say they were quite privileged to have seen what they had seen and heard what they had heard for many prophets and kings had desired what they had experienced (10:23-24).

They were filled with joy because of the success of their mission and rightly so. Jesus rejoiced with them and gave additional gifts to them. He gave them instruction that showed why they had experienced such success, and that behind it was two greater sources of joy. Their success was an indication of the good relationship they had with God and was the proof of the greater or true source of joy. The manner in which their success had been achieved planted the seeds of an even greater prize: the revelation of who Jesus was. They were not “near the Kingdom of God” but in it. It is one thing for a town to accept the missionary, but quite another thing to obey personally the God that sent the missionary. Once you were in the Kingdom, you would be a missionary too. To be near is not to be in. To risk vulnerability in obedience to the King of the Kingdom of God is to be “in” rather than “near” the Kingdom of God. Experiencing God’s healing power and hearing good preaching is to be near the Kingdom of God, but not necessarily in the Kingdom of God.

b. The Dialogue about Eternal Life with a Scholar. 10:25-37.

In verse 21, Jesus had intimated that the educated had not had their eyes opened. The next narrative would illustrate His statement. The man in the next narrative was an expert in the Law. He was highly trained in the Holy Scriptures. In today’s terms we would say he had a PhD in Biblical Studies. He approached Jesus, and before he spoke two things happened that expressed a great deal about this scholar’s attitude. First of all, Luke says he stood to test Jesus. He came not as a little one to receive (10:21), but standing he tested the source of revelation. He also addressed Jesus as a “Teacher”, whereas the disciples in 10:17 (the little ones) and Martha in the next episode in 10:40 would call Him “Lord”. The type of education that took place in these stories recorded by Luke was often heavily influenced by the attitude of the student (8:5-8). How we approach God often determines what we will learn in the encounter. What type of soil we are is highly determinative of how productive the Word of God is in our lives.

a) The Story

The story unfolded as primarily a dialogue between the Jewish expert in the Law and Jesus: between the biblical scholar and God. The biblical scholar was dialoguing about Torah with Jesus of Nazareth but ironically was unaware that the Law Giver was in dialogue with him. It opened with the scholar asking an important question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus’ response put the question back onto the man by asking him to give his reading of the Torah. Jesus put the man into the role of being the teacher. In addition, Jesus’ counter question indicated where Jesus thought that the true answer to the question of eternal life could be found. Jesus had a high view of Scripture. The man answered with great clarity and precision: love God and love man. He neatly summarized the two main thrusts of the Ten Commandments: the first four commandments center on how to love God and the last six on how to love others. Jesus then complimented the man on his good answer. He then followed with the phrase: “do this and you will live”. This was Jesus’ first indication of how one gained eternal life: do the will of God found in the Old Testament. Jesus was not at odds with the teachings of His Father.

The man must have been frustrated. He must have thought he could find a reason to discredit Jesus and instead found himself examined and given a clean bill of health. He began as the judge and found himself under examination. The one he disapproved of had just given him spiritual advice that originated from his own mouth. So he struggled to regain the position of inquisitor and asked for a definition of terms: “who is my neighbor”. Perhaps, he thought Jesus would betray Himself by mentioning some of His rather expansive views of just who were the proper members of a righteous community. Jesus had consorted with tax-gatherers (5:27-32), centurions (7:1-10), prostitutes (7:36-50), demon-possessed foreigners (8:26-39) and unclean women (8:41-48). He had not only dealt with these people, but also in every case accepted them and often praised them as people of faith. Jesus’ subsequent reply was probably not what the scholar expected. It was a brilliant piece of teaching: He told a story.

The story is the famous “Good Samaritan” story where the hero was a member of a hated racial group that was also considered heretical. In the story a Jewish man in need was passed over by two members of his own Jewish race that held religious positions established by the Torah (a priest and a Levite). The Samaritan or heretic helped out a stranger, a foreigner, and a member of a racial group that his racial group hated or one whose racial group hated his. He treated the injured Jewish man with common decency. One who carefully reads the Torah or the prophets (Exodus 23:4, 5, 9; 22:21; Genesis 18:1-15; II kings 6:20-23; etc.) would know that being kind to those in need was in line with the expressed will of God and that would include one’s enemies or a stranger.

Jesus then followed the story with another question: “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The legal expert was pinned down and instead of admitting that he needed to truly enter into the reign of God (Kingdom of God), because the kingdom of God was near, but not yet inside of him, he balked. He refused to “repent” (that great term any reader of the Old Testament knew was so essential to gaining access to the heart of God: i.e. Isaiah 66:2; Deuteronomy 30:2; Jeremiah 4:1; etc.) He refused to admit the hero, the true neighbor could be a Samaritan, and so he answered Jesus’ question with: “The one who had mercy on him.”

Technically, the scholar was correct and thus Jesus followed with the same advice he had given before: “go and do”.

b) Method

Jesus had used some amazing teaching techniques that are not always easy to emulate. First of all, He was calm under pressure and did not panic. He was being attacked or tested, but He kept His wits about Him. He first demonstrated this by the use of counter questions. If we are insecure or defensive when we are attacked we will not have the presence of mind to respond to a challenge with a counter question. His asking the man to answer Him was a brilliant response. It put the man into the role of having to first give information from the Torah. The story was completed by having the scholar give an answer of interpretation that lead the scholar to see that Jesus had high regard for the Law.

Second, Jesus let the scholar be the teacher to the “Teacher”. This was a demonstration of Jesus’ humility (as humility is a power virtue, not a weakness). The man was encouraged to answer and his answer was accepted as true. Jesus praised the man and only a secure and non-defensive man could say: “you have answered correctly”. This aspect of teaching would be extended in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus then would offer to the scholar the opportunity to be humble having been taught by the actions of the Samaritan. The “Teacher of all Truth” let a human scholar teach Him and so by extension the “orthodox Jew” needed to be taught truth from the “unorthodox Samaritan”. Truth is truth no matter who teaches it and arrogance can cause us to be blind.

Third, Jesus played the game (the test of orthodoxy on the man’s own terms and took the game to the opponent’s home court. The scholar in the Law was answered by the teachings of the Law. He gave a good answer, and Jesus accepted His answer, and when pressed Jesus went to another major Old Testament theme or law taught in the Torah. He used the great teachings in the Law about hospitality. The scholar knew Jesus had bested him by beating him at his own game. When we teach others we need to speak in terms of their expertise.

Fourth, through this story, Jesus taught how to move from “near” to “in” the Kingdom of God. He, who hears, obeys. The Kingdom of God can be near, but until we act or do, it never arrives. The scholar had answered correctly in both cases (10:27 and 10: 37). However, the technical correctness was overshadowed by the true lack of obedience to the will of God. This was shown by admitting that someone outside of their accepted list of people could be doing the will of God. The scribe refused to say the word “Samaritan”. He was instructed to see that those who “heal” are God’s servants, His missionaries. Those who by-pass such opportunities as the priest and Levite did are not doing the work of God and therefore are not in the Kingdom of God or under the reign of God. If God were our king, then we would do His will. However, this scholar was not delighted with the light, or humbled with repentance, nor even amazed at the wisdom and sheer brilliance of the Master Teacher.

Fifth, the scholar’s great need was not to respect God (the first part of the Ten Commandments) but to love his neighbor (the last part of the Ten Commandments). He accepted parts of Scripture but not all of it. The wall between himself and God was constructed by his unwillingness to see all humans in an “orthodox manner”. All were made in the “image of God”. He was a bigot and captive to his own racial dislike of the Samaritans. He was not like Moses who allowed a pagan priest to instruct him in Exodus 18. He was “unorthodox” in his views of those outside the believing community. Jesus knew all were made in the image of God (as so clearly taught in Genesis 1). It was vital that Jesus got him to see his error so he could be saved and to accomplish such an important task Jesus told him a story.

Sixth, Jesus was to again demonstrate that sometimes the best way to get to an individual and temporarily get behind their defense mechanism was by the use of a story. The great story told to David in II Samuel 12 by the prophet Nathan had done this. This story was very culturally relevant. They all knew of the dangers of the Jericho road and the terrors of robbers on that road through the wilderness where little or no population existed between the cities of Jericho and Jerusalem. Jesus employed people in the stories that related to the religious leader’s experience: Levites, Priests and Samaritans. He told a story that could be easily visualized by the scholar, as he had no doubt taken that precarious road himself. Perhaps, he had been robbed or seen or heard of robberies.

When Jesus had his mind into the story, then He twisted it in characteristic parable fashion by use of a “glitch”. The glitch was found in who the hero was: he was of the wrong group. The issue was not helping the needy but accepting the humanness of non-Jewish peoples. The story brilliantly took the man to his very center of disobedience. Jesus went after his jugular vein and did it with the use of a story.

Finally, we, as teachers of the Kingdom of God, have to be diligent against our own tendencies to be defensive and the way is to have love towards our enemies (6:27-49). Jesus was His message. He dealt with this man in a loving manner: not with sentiment but with action. He did this in two ways. First, He gave one of His greatest stories or greatest teaching sections to a man who tried to trap Him and therefore harm Him. Jesus brilliantly tried to help this man see the true nature of a sin that kept him as a teacher of the Law from the blessings and approval of the Law Giver. His story was the very thing that would help the man gain God’s approval. He showed the man the way: “go and do likewise”.

Second, He was humble in letting the man instruct Him and then in giving the man the chance to be humble in being instructed by the Samaritan’s actions. The man was being given an opportunity to be a disciple. The disciples had been educated by the prostitute (chapter 7) and the demoniac (chapter 8) and they saw their hope of finding truth in a humble fashion. Jesus showed the scholar compassion and true love. He tried to bless the man who was trying to curse Him (6:28).

c. The dialogue with Martha about Mary. 10:38-42.

The next story will also answer the question of how to move from being “near” the Kingdom of God to being “in” the Kingdom. However, the following story about the domestic dispute between two sisters over housework when guests were present does not seem to fit where Luke has placed it.

It is a story of praise for being helpful and yet a correction of how that helpfulness should be focused (much like 10:17-24). Martha was frustrated with Mary. There were many preparations to be done in order to feed over a dozen men (one being a famous Rabbi), and Mary had decided not to help in the kitchen. We do not know what conversation took place between the two women, if any, but Martha approached Jesus demanding that He take notice that Mary was being inappropriate. Jesus addressed Martha by name (twice). He told Martha that many things stressed her and Mary had chosen the better thing, and it would not be taken from her.

What does the Mary and Martha story have to do with eternal life or with expounding the riddle of the “Kingdom of God is near”? Perhaps Mary is the example of “little children” (10:21) and the expert in Jewish law the example of the “wise and learned” (10:21). The scholar and Mary were in contrast: the scholar “stood”, “testing” (10:25) where as Mary “sat”, and was “listening” (10:39). Mary had made a good choice, a better choice. She had sat in humility and listened to Jesus and had chosen the one thing needed. The Kingdom of God had come near to both Mary and the scholar. He did not obey, he only heard. She was said to listen to Jesus’ teaching despite the social shame of not being a good hostess or of not meeting social expectations. She was severely criticized, but did it anyway. The scholar followed social expectations and did not want to listen to that which would bring criticism. Remember they tried to kill Jesus after His first sermon when He intimated that God loved those outside of the Jewish community in 4:28-29. The scholar followed social expectations when he refused to name the Samaritan as the hero. Finally, there is the obvious contrast with the positive example being a young female and not the elder, highly respected and trained male.

The Kingdom of God is not gained by going to church or having the minister to dinner in your town (10:8-9). The kingdom is near (there will be blessings, i.e. healings 10:9) but the kingdom is only near, it is not necessarily there. The scholar had dialogued extensively with writer of the Torah and had been complimented twice by Jesus as understanding Torah well (10:28, 37) and was twice challenged to do what he heard. However the scholar only knew the Torah’s teaching, he did not do it. Insight came from doing. The disciples had gone out vulnerably in 10:1-17 and Jesus said it had brought them revelation of hidden things: the Kingdom of God.

His teaching technique:

Jesus’ again put into His teaching a puzzling statement that was only later made clear by the actions He performed and the words He would later voice in connection with those actions. The answer to the puzzle came in partial form in the pronouncement against the cities of Korasin and Bethsaida: they received Jesus, experienced healings but did not repent. The Kingdom of God had been near, but was not present like it was in the disciples themselves. The rest of the answer came much later than the initial teaching session. Jesus had courage to wait. He did not connect the dots and spell it all out in every case. At times He did, but at other times the learning or understanding was delayed and the needed clarification came from subsequent events in the learner’s lives.

Luke began to present something in this chapter that will be repeated later and that is that Jesus is a highly skilled debater. He completely turned the tables on both the Lawyer and Martha and taught from the given situation certain truths they were not expecting. Martha learned something of her own excessive stress levels and her need to focus on the Word of God and the scholar learned he needed to deal with his racial and religious hatred if he was to be a true Torah expert in deed as well as in word. The scholar and Martha both tried to put Jesus on the defensive with questions and Jesus skillfully reoriented the focus of the discussion. With the scholar he used counter questions and a story in order to move the focus off of Himself on to the scholar. With Martha He countered with a response that moved her focus off of Mary and on to herself.

The use of the story of the “Good Samaritan” was a very effective means of communication. The story helped Jesus get behind the scholar’s defenses. The man was pulled into the story that functioned like a mental movie playing effectively in his brain. As mentioned above, Jesus employed a local, believable background with the Jericho road. He also used some stinging examples by using as bad examples those people who held religious positions mentioned in the Torah instead of current ones such as a Scribe or Pharisee. He debated with the man from common ground in the Torah, which they both held as authority.

Finally, Jesus was a debater who cared about those He debated with. He twice complimented the scholar and then gave him the benefit of the doubt when he refused to name the hero as a “Samaritan” but still gave him the way to salvation: go and do. He did not despise Martha, but called her by name twice. Jesus was a dangerous Person to attack in the fact that He was brilliant in His responses, but He did not destroy His opponents. He showed them patience and respect which should be the hallmark of all of our debates.

E. The Fifth Sermon: to the Disciples on Prayer. 11:1-54.

1. The Sermon on Prayer. 11:1-13.

The fifth extended example of Jesus’ teaching given by Luke is from 11:2-13. The subject was on the issue of prayer. This teaching section opened with Jesus modeling for his audience what He would teach about: Jesus was praying. We do not know if He prayed out loud or silently to God (probably the former) but they were used to having Him pray (4:42; 5:16; 6:12; 9:28-29; 10:21-22). One of the disciples asked Jesus when He was finished praying to teach them how to pray as they had information that John the Baptist had taught his disciples how to pray. Jesus’ actions spurred the question that set up the teaching opportunity.

a. The Lord’s Prayer. 11:2-4.

He opened His answer by saying: “When you pray, say.” These opening words implied that prayer was primarily speech not meditation. He did not give instructions in techniques for meditation, but all through the discourse He would stress “speech”. The form of the instructions indicated the nature of the instruction. Prayer was talking to God. It was the intelligent communication of our minds to Another. This was further emphasized with the opening words: it was a title of address. They were to address God as a Person and one who was both authoritative and yet dear: they were to address Him as Father. This was quickly followed by a description of God’s character: “holy is your name.”

Jesus quickly let them know that prayer was talking to a Person, and it was important to recognize Who they were speaking to. He was dear, as dear as a father, but authoritative, as fathers in the Ancient Near East were. The disciples were also to realize they were speaking to the One who was holy, who was Other, who was filled with dangerous power. His Name (His character, His Person) was to be viewed with awe. However, as frightening as holiness is, God was still their Father. He was “their Father”, not “the Father”. Therefore they were His children. Despite the terror of His majesty, prayer was to begin with the realization that they were to have a certain type of privileged relationship to God: as His children. Good parents love to hear from their children: by implication God, despite His frightening power would love to hear from the disciples.

They were then to make a series of requests (11:2-4). The rest of the prayer consisted of four requests. Prayer consisted, Jesus said of understanding God as a person, and of understanding what type of a person He was and what our relationship to Him consisted of. Father’s were authoritative, but a true father served because a true father loved his children. A true father was not offended with requests from his children and so by implication neither was God put off by their coming to Him with requests if they understood who He truly was and what their true relationship to Him was.

The four requests seem to be in two categories: the first was for God’s interest and the last three directly for their own. Their first request was to ask that His reign would come (perhaps, first within themselves and then in the lives of others). They were to ask for His kingdom, His reign to come. They were to be concerned first with His agenda for a needy world. To be sure, when the reign of God was present, they were always better off, but the focus was still not on their agenda, but God’s. They were to pray that God’s agenda, God’s reign began. The second set consisted of their personal needs: daily sustenance (whether physical or spiritual), forgiveness and help or protection from temptation.

Jesus said God was concerned about daily needs (again the issue of vulnerability or daily dependence was stressed as in 9:3-5 and 10:3-12), the need of forgiveness and the need of protection from temptation. Prayers to God were in His will if these four items were high on their list of desires. In regard to the human condition, all people need daily help for sustenance, forgiveness and help in fighting temptation.

They were simply to ask with no conditions given on the asking except in one of the four requests. Only the forgiveness request had a condition attached to it. They were to expect forgiveness to the extent that they had granted forgiveness. The great agenda of chapter 6:27-49 again asserted itself. As God’s Spirit worked in the disciples, they would become aware of their sins, and thus they would be aware of their need of forgiveness, but they were given a task: forgive others. In this one aspect, He was giving them the way to begin their role in the coming of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God arrived when they obeyed and the first thing He asked them to obey was to obediently ask for help. The second thing He asked of them was to be like Him and forgive. If they refused to ask they would stay frustrated and if they refused to forgive those who had harmed them then they did not want the Kingdom of God. In effect, they would refuse God as their King. Similarly for us, our lack of forgiveness makes nonsense out our first request for His Kingdom to come.

God knows they had needs, daily needs and the metaphor bread stood for more than bread, but food, all necessary food. However, in the second place it could stand for all necessary needs: acceptance from others, shelter, clothes, a job, friends, etc. God also knew they would not succeed against temptation alone. They were in need of help. He taught a simple truth about dealing with temptation. What they were to ask for was help in the coming areas where they anticipated temptation would come.

Prayer for Jesus was an interactive thing; it was to include an act of faith. They were not allowed to passively make God a heavenly mail order catalogue. They had to talk as one person to another Person and be willing to ask about the things He thought were important, verbalize their needs to Him in very practical areas and be willing to let others off the hook.

b. Further Instructions. 11:5-13.

1) A Parable about Tenacity. 11:5-8.

a) The Story

Jesus then expanded on the issue of prayer by telling a parable. The parable was about something they had all experienced. There were no convenience stores or 24-hour super markets or freezers in their homes in ancient times. It was harder to store food, and emergencies did occur. Average people did not always have stores set aside for surprise guests, but when guests did come, it was imperative to be a good host. So the individual with the guest went to a neighbor and requested bread (a metaphor for food, no doubt more than bread was wanted). In our story the neighbor was addressed as “friend” and so the theme of close relationship was stressed. The “friend” did not want to be bothered. It was late and all in his little house were asleep. He would have to disturb his whole family to get to the door and get the needed supplies and so verbally refused the request. Jesus then commented on what happened after the verbal exchange occurred outside of the door. Jesus said the man would open the door and supply the neighbor with bread, but the motive would not be their “friendship” but the man’s persistence.

b) The Message and the Method

Jesus taught three things about prayer with this story. He addressed the possibility that often runs through our minds: will God listen, will our prayers be effective, and will we be refused? The second issue concerned the inopportune nature of the request. People often have requests that are emergencies, and they are personal emergencies. The man was not asking his neighbor for world peace or for an understanding of global justice. He needed bread, needed it then and not bread for the village, but bread for his particular acquaintance. Prayer is often best done in light of personal needs for people we are concerned with or responsible for. Also, the issue of asking on behalf of another was brought into play: what we would call a prayer of intercession. The man asked for bread for another, not for himself. Many of the great prayers in the Old Testament given by the great patriarchs, kings, or prophets were for the welfare of someone else. To be sure the need was a personal one, and the request was for someone known to the person making the request. However, the request was still in behalf of someone else.

It appeared Jesus was encouraging His disciples to not fear refusal, but to bring their personal emergencies in behalf of others that they cared about to God. Their hope of not being refused was not in their “connections” or “relationship”, as much as that was stressed, but in their “intensity” or “persistence.” Prayer, Jesus said, should have an element of “fervor” to it, and when prayer is made, persistence was encouraged. There was a subtle message here about doubt.

As a good teacher, Jesus anticipated some of the objections that would arise in people’s hearts when asked to pray. Yes, God was their Father: yes, they knew they were His children: yes, they were the friends of God, but they (like us) actually doubted that. They, perhaps like ourselves, did not have the confidence in their relationship to God that would give them the boldness they needed to ask for the needs of those they came across, because it was their very relationship that seems often in doubt. The prayers of a righteous man avail much, and the disciples were coming to know too much about themselves to have too much confidence, or they simply lacked the faith to pray with boldness. The parable could be stressing that they were to put their doubts aside about whether they were close enough to God. They were to put aside these doubts because what they lacked in “pull” (after all the man in the story was just a neighbor, not the mayor of the town or the king of the country) they could make up with persistence.

Good teaching anticipates the mental state of the listener. Jesus knew His words would be heard and perhaps understood, but that deep within, His listeners would doubt it could help them. They did not doubt the Teacher but themselves.

2) Application of the Parable. 11:9-13.

The application of the parable continued with a threefold command: ask, seek and knock (11:9) that was then repeated (11:10). All six of these commands were followed by an assurance that the asking, seeking, and knocking would be effective. All six commands were followed by a motive clause: they would receive if they asked, they would find if they sought, and they would have the door opened if they knocked.

The repetition of the three elements had an additional element… In the second triad is the term, “everyone who….” The second series of commands addressed the doubt that asking, seeking or knocking would be affective because it was “they” who asked. It was not just the pastor, or the great godly woman who prays a lot, but “everyone who asks….” Dominating these verses is the issue of repetition. Jesus had again used repetition to drive home His point. The commands to ask, seek and knock are basically parallel, and then they are repeated with some minor variations. Good teaching uses repetition.

It could be true that in our interaction with others we truly learn about who that person is. Therefore the reason Jesus demanded that they pray was to get to know Him. Perhaps, the only way to learn about God, about God’s character and how God thinks of them was to ask for something. They needed to see that prayer, at its essence, was talking to God. As they talked to Him, received the answers, observed the manner in which the answers came, the disciples could learn who He truly was. Perhaps, it is our needs that compel us to ask but the deeper result would be that a relationship could begin to flower.

The application of the parable continued with a metaphor that contained a twist (11:11-13). The metaphor started with two rhetorical questions about the natural response of fathers. They were asked to consider whether a father would give harmful things to their son (or daughters as both sexes are usually implied unless otherwise explicitly stated in Hebrew) such as a snake or a scorpion when a fish or an egg was asked for (11:11-12). Jesus was saying they needed to be clear in their minds who they we were talking to. They needed to be aware of Who they prayed to. The teaching on prayer opened (11:2) and closed (11:11-13) on the nature of God’s character. They needed to be clear in their minds that God was not evil and would not harm them.

It is interesting that in concert with 11:11 that snakes and scorpions had just been mentioned in the previous chapter (no doubt intentionally by Luke in 10:19) as indicators of demonic, harmful entities. A good human father would not give something evil when asked for something good. (It also is interesting that a demon will be expelled in the next vignette that follows the teaching on prayer in 11:14-26).

The choice to use rhetorical questions as an educator clearly meant Jesus wanted His disciples to think. In this particular situation, they were to think about the nature of the Person to whom they prayed. One should force oneself to ponder, to think, and to think logically and clearly. Part of prayer was to see reality properly, or to say it in another way, to think properly. They were commanded to do correct thinking about the nature of God, it was an essential part of prayer.

The last verse on prayer (11:13) appears to be another rhetorical question. It is the final question, the one that draws the teaching section to a conclusion. The final rhetorical question does not take the form we would expect. It should read: “If we, as sinful human beings, know how to give what is good to our children, how much more would God give what is good to His children?” However, there was a surprising twist that ended the verse. Jesus did not say God would give them good gifts, but rather He would give the Holy Spirit to those who asked. What did Jesus mean by this? He did not explain.

Most of the teaching or sermon was clear, prayer was to a Person, who is good, holy and well disposed to them, and they were to persistently and boldly ask. However, why ask for the Holy Spirit? This mention of the Holy Spirit seemed to come out of the blue. It was puzzling, and it was meant to puzzle. We have learned how Jesus taught with these disturbing elements and that we are to keep our eyes and minds open to what will happen next, and it will begin to come clear. So, we look to the narratives that will follow. The first two will compliment each other by going to opposite extremes of one another. The first will work from the aspect of a negative critique and the Spirit’s role (11:14-26) and the latter from the realm of positive praise (11:27-28).

2. Power over Evil, but not Humans. 11:14-26.

a. The Story: His Spirit led actions.

Jesus, the man of prayer, who had encouraged us to pray, was doing an exorcism in the next episode. He was driving out a demon that caused the possessed individual to be mute. The evil spirit had robbed the man of his ability to speak. The exorcism was effective and the mute spoke and the crowds were amazed. Perhaps, this last element triggered the response from some individuals in the crowd. They could have been very disturbed that Jesus was so popular with the crowds and so there were two responses in an antagonistic attitude. The first was the accusation that He was affective because of His association with demons. It was proposed that he had access to them and was in league with them. This was a remarkable thing to say. They basically accused Him of being a Satanist, of doing exorcism by the very power of the prince of demons. Others were asking for a sign. Of course, the ridiculousness of the request for a sign was also apparent, as He had just given them a sign. He had done the miraculous healing of a deaf mute.

It should be noted that successful ministry is portrayed throughout Luke to bring both the best and worst out of people (4: 22, 28; 5:21, 26; 5:29, 30; 6:11, 19; 10:25, 39) Jesus even warned His disciples that there would be a potential double response in 10:8-16. Teaching is never done in a vacuum but with sinful people who have partaken of Adam’s Fall: there will be praise and criticism even for good works, excellent teaching and selfless ministry. We are naïve to believe it will be all praise.

What was remarkable in the following passages was how such criticism was handled. Jesus would model how to handle criticism and praise in the next two passages. Luke tells us that Jesus knew their thoughts (He was filled with the Spirit: 3:22), and He began to answer their accusation about demonic activity first and to answer the question about the call for a sign later. He began His response to their accusation by using an verbal form common in the Old Testament Wisdom Literature and in essence told them a proverb (11:17). A proverb is an obvious truth that the very verbalization of which establishes its validity. In this particular case the proverb stated the obvious truth that a kingdom divided against itself would not stand and a house divided would fall. This proverb stated what they all knew about tribes, nations, military units, business, etc. Jesus established a common ground upon which they could all stand. He stated a truth that they could all agree with.

He then applied the proverb with a rhetorical question to theology and in specific to the particular theological realm they had been concerned with, namely exorcism (11:18). If Satan cast out Satan how could his kingdom stand? Jesus expected his audience to immediately see that kingdoms or houses do not remain if they fight internally. Satan cannot cast out Satan and remain standing.

Then He went one step further and applied the proverb to Himself (11:19). He began with a rhetorical question saying if His exorcisms made Him a Satanist then what did that make their disciples (sons) or the young men they had taught in their rabbinical schools? He had turned their accusation upon them. They had obviously done exorcisms and so what Jesus did in an exorcism was not new. They had begun with a criticism that brought down their own position upon themselves. If they accused Him of using satanic power to accomplish an exorcism then logically that same accusation had to be leveled against their own trainees or their school of thought. This put them in a bind for they clearly thought they cast out demons by the power of God.

He concluded this application by logically stating that if He cast out demons by the power of God (the finger of God) then the power of God’s reign was in their midst (20). He was not content to destroy their position, but to show them something positive that could benefit them. If they were logical, they would be able to see something vital to their lives. They would be able to discern that God’s Kingdom and reign was present in their midst.

After the use and application of the proverb, Jesus then changed forms and told a short parable (or metaphor) about a man’s house being plundered while the owner was fully armed and guarding his home (11:21). A successful plundering would take place only if the one doing the plundering of the armed man’s estate was more powerful than the one guarding it (11:22). If he was stronger than the owner then he could plunder the house. Jesus had established that Satan would not be involved with plundering his own house, so if Satan was plundered, then something greater than Satan had to be involved.

Everyone who understood Pharisaic thought knew that there were only two powers: the evil one and God. They would also know that God was more powerful. Jesus was implying God had plundered the goods of Satan (Satan had taken the demon possessed man’s ability to speak, and therefore had taken the man’s ability to be complete with the taking of the normal gift of speech). Jesus had overpowered Satan and plundered his spoils. The ability of the formerly demon possessed man to speak was proof of the plundering by God and of Jesus’ power as being of God. All Jewish leaders knew that only God could overpower Satan. Jesus had logically (using Rabbinical positions and rules of argumentation) showed them their error.

Jesus then changed gears (in 23-26). He sought to gain their allegiance by saying you cannot stay neutral in His presence. You need to be either for Him or against Him (11:23). What is interesting is that Jesus did not compel his audience to follow Him, but appealed logically for them to see the evidence and make an intelligent decision. He warned them as they had seen the Kingdom of God come into their midst that they were responsible to make a decision to make the Kingdom their own. However, this verse could be addressed to another party as well as Jesus’ detractors. It could be addressed not just to the leaders but to the man newly freed from the power of the Devil.

Let me explain why this could also be the case: why a double audience could have been intended with this statement in 11:23. Jesus followed the saying in verse 11: 23 with another attempt at persuasion, which was a warning as well. He told of a spirit that came out of a man (presumably referring to the man just exorcised) who then went through dry places seeking rest. When that spirit did not find it, he returned to the house (the body) he formerly inhabited and found it clean or exorcised (11:24-25). He then took seven more spirits, more evil than it and went and inhabited the house making the man’s condition worse than before (11:26).

This last metaphor was a warning that makes more sense being addressed to the man recently cleansed. The man was free from the demon and therefore free to choose. The exorcized man was free to invite the power of God into his life or free to attempt to stay clean on his own. However, Jesus warned that such neutrality was impossible. He had to be filled with goodness, and the Spirit of God was his for the asking (11:13), or he would become filled with worse evil. He had to ask to be “led not into temptation” (11:4).

b. His teaching Method.

We should pray for the Holy Spirit so we respond to the needs of people with the necessary power to help them. He was filled with the Spirit and therefore had great power to overcome the demons (11:14, 21-22), but that power was never used to overrun the freewill of human beings. The Spirit of God gave power for healing in order to stop evil, but not to compel people to come and stay with God. They had to choose. The man was given freedom (if only for a while) to pray 11: 2b: “your kingdom come.” Since, “man does not live by bread alone”, the Spirit wanted to help the man more than just free him from the demon, but offer him access to the source of all goodness. When the man chose to submit to the will of God, he moved from physical bread alone to the Word of God.

There is another reason to pray for the Spirit of God. His disciples would also be criticized, and they had to have the same ability Jesus had to deal with it. They too needed the ability to think logically and clearly when under pressure. Therefore the coming criticism and persecution should not cause them anxiety because such abilities would be there (12:11-12). The Spirit would help them (12:12) as Jesus was helped by the Spirit in 11:14 ff. However, this help was not merely to defend oneself and help others see their errors but to help the vulnerable (the recently healed man) in the midst of such debates.

The dinner party in Luke 7:36-50 portrayed Jesus as being criticized for His association with a prostitute and His response was similar to that in 11:14 ff. In both stories the clarity and agility of Jesus’ mind is displayed. In the dinner story in Luke 7 Jesus had out flanked Simon logically with His question about the size of a debt in correlation with gratitude (7:40-43) and His host’s poor hospitality (7:44-48). In addition, similar to the episode in chapter 11, Luke tells us clearly that Jesus had an intended double audience: “Then He turned toward the woman and said to Simon”. Jesus spoke to the Pharisee who needed to up-grade his thinking and the woman who needed a word from God. He tried to help the Pharisee find the truth, as He protected and ministered to the woman. His mental awareness of all parties concerned was remarkable: He was filled with the Spirit of God.

In the story of the exorcism and its resulting criticism, Jesus was defending His ministry, attempting to educate His accusers (11:17-23), but also giving valuable and vital information to the newly released man (11:23-26). This man was poor, as the woman was poor and to such the kingdom of God belonged (4:18 and 6:20). Jesus was filled with the Spirit of God and therefore was free to see beyond His own needs to the needs of those around Him. It is difficult to focus on the needs of the vulnerable when our own needs are so forcefully in play. Jesus had been accused of not being a prophet (7:39) and of being in league with the devil (11:15). However, in both cases He was able to see beyond His own needs to the needs of those who were terribly vulnerable. This is remarkably difficult to do as a pastor or as a teacher, but possible with His Spirit.

3. The Spirit gives Insight. 11:27-28.

Those who are impressed by the gifts or desire their presence in their ministry, without considering the hard choices that need to be made, need more of the Spirit. They need to experience the actions of the Spirit similar to 4:1, where Jesus was led by the Spirit into a time of difficulty or the desert. In addition, merely to do remarkably visible miracles is not enough. If we are fully anointed by the Spirit of God then we will also receive insight to help others to be obedient (10:17, 21). This very truth is repeated (as all important things are in Hebraic teaching) in the next story.

After Jesus was through speaking to His first set of detractors and before He could address the second group, He was interrupted by someone wishing to praise Him. A woman in the crowd was impressed. What she was impressed with we are not told precisely, but it appears she was impressed with His words. However, she loudly proclaimed that the mother who bore and nursed Jesus was a blessed woman. This is not a common form of praising public speakers today, but when thought about it is not quite so strange. She was basically saying you have done well and the mother of such a person must be proud (Proverbs 23:24-25). In a highly family oriented society a blessed parent was one who had a good and wise child.

Jesus responded with a familiar theme (see 8:18-19) about the necessity of acting on the Word of God after it was heard: “On the contrary blessed are those who hear the Word of God and obey it.” It is having the Holy Spirit that enables one to see that success is not the powerful operation of the gifts and garnering praise for it (10:20). Success is when people choose to obey the Word of God. Jesus knew this and Luke showed us that He learned it in the desert (4:4, 5). Jesus was tempted to bask in the glory of the exorcism but instead focused on the greater good and the greater need. In this story, He focused on the woman’s need for obedience. Perhaps, she was one who enjoyed praising good preaching/teaching and stopped there not going onto the action phase. Some people can hear good teaching many times but it does not make a real difference in their practice. He who “hears” should “hear”. He who hears should obey: shamah, shamah.

Such appreciation is a welcome oasis in a land of criticism (11:15, 16) but it can also be dangerous. Both criticism and praise can lull the teacher into focusing on himself. Jesus demonstrated that if one is filled with God’s point of view then it is possible to look past one’s own feelings and look to the needs of others. Here the temptation was to focus on self because of praise. Once that is done then the needed focus on the needs of others is put in jeopardy. Because Jesus was properly prepared He avoided both traps: criticism and praise. Both times (11:23-26 and 11:28) He sidestepped the temptation to focus on Himself and focused on the needs of others. Many long for such praise, but the true operation of the Spirit’s power with the perspective of the Spirit of God would free the teacher of the addiction to praise or approval.

It appeared that Jesus had different concerns for different people who were in different situations. The woman at the dinner table in Luke 7 needed something quite different from the man released from the evil spirit, as did the woman in this most recent story. How does one know what messages belong to which crowds? Such insight came from the Spirit as in the desert when Jesus filled with the Spirit, knew which parts of Deuteronomy to quote. This is implied because it was the Spirit that filled Jesus (3:22), and it was the Spirit that drove Him into the desert (4:1).

Jesus counseled His disciples to ask for the Spirit (11:13). The Spirit of God is not merely a Spirit of power, but also one of insight into the needs of others. Some want the power, but do not want to pay the cost in the form of a difficult education that the Spirit will bring. If we ask for the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will lead us into the desert or tough times. The blessing of tough times is that they could yield insight into the needs of others as well as the power to heal, etc.

4. Answering the Question about Signs. 11:29-36.

The crowd had asked Jesus a question about a sign. He initially answered the accusation about the source of His power. He seemed to have deemed it necessary to deal with the accusation of being in league with Satan first because it came first and perhaps because of the vulnerability of the newly freed man. He then dealt with the woman’s statement in short order and was free to address the issue of signs. Luke tells us that Jesus began His address as the crowds began to increase.

He began His answer for a sign by making an accusation: He called the generation that sought a sign a wicked one (11:29). It asked for a miraculous sign but would not be given one, except for the sign of Jonah. Jesus did not explain what He meant by the “sign of Jonah” but it most likely referred to the fact that Jesus would rise from the dead in three days (the belly of the earth) as Jonah emerged from certain death from the belly of the whale in three days. Jesus predicted they would not use the signs and therefore would be termed as “wicked”.

The motifs of the book Isaiah are extensively interwoven in the Gospel of Luke as has been mentioned before. This is another example of it. Isaiah asked Ahaz to seek a sign (Isaiah 7) but he refused. It appears Ahaz knew the sign would bind him to obedience, and he did not want to be so bound. Signs would be seen as proof. If Ahaz saw proof of the prophet’s words then he would be expected to obey in faith.

Later in Isaiah, a sign was given to Hezekiah about his answered prayer for a longer life (in the reversal of the sun dial in chapter 38), but when Hezekiah heard the Word of God from Isaiah’s lips he asked for another sign. He had already been given one: the reversal of the sundial. It is almost as if the King wanted continual reaffirmation instead of hearing what God had said and acting in faith based on the initial sign.

In Isaiah 39 Hezekiah was portrayed as a foolish and selfish man towards the end of his life. He was foolish in going back to men or military alliances with foreign, non-believing nations for safety (seeking help from Babylon against the threat from Assyria in chapter 39) after the great deliverance he experienced solely from the hand of God in Isaiah 36-37. He was shown to be a selfish man when he responded with relief when he heard his children would suffer captivity but he would escape it during his time (39:8). He had been given two signs (the Assyrian defeat and the sundial) but they did not seem to help him. He seemed to want continual signs perhaps because he would not make a firm decision based on what he already knew and had evidence for.

Similarly, Ahaz did not want a sign as he did not want to get enough evidence (that the sign would provide) because it would make it all the more clear that he had to choose trust in God. To trust in God would push him into the vulnerability that trusting God would entail. There is a place for signs, but signs are to be used to make decisions and to encourage proper action. Action must follow reception of the signs. To not use them was termed as “wickedness” (11:29). The Israelites in the Exodus story saw the most signs: the plagues, the drowning of the Egyptian Army, the daily manna, daily manifestation of God’s presence via pillars of light and cloud, the miracles of sustenance, etc. Despite their seeing so many signs, they did not obey and died in the desert. Signs must be used.

It is in this light, that Jesus wisely pushes the audience further. Similar to His sermon in Luke 4, Jesus added insult to injury. In Luke 4, He told His Jewish audience that non-Jewish (non-churched) people had used signs well when they received them. Jesus again told this audience that the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba would be their judges because they saw signs and used them properly. They responded with the proper actions: repentance in the first instance and a hunger for more wisdom in the second instance concerning the Queen (11:31-32).

This was followed by the parable of the lamp. Lamps were not to be hidden or placed under a container but put on a stand so they could function to bring light (8:16 is almost identical to 11:33). Light was for the purpose of revealing. In 11:34 Jesus metaphorically spoke of the act of insight or revelation: “Your eye is the lamp of your body. When you eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness.” One’s eye is the illuminating mechanism for light entering the body. If one’s eye is defective then the inner mind of the body, the brain, cannot perceive images and create pictures within the person’s consciousness. Similarly, if one’s ability to perceive truth is defective (as those who seek for signs without acting on what they see) then one dwells in darkness. Thus the warning: “See to it, then that the light within you is not darkness” (11:35). Perhaps, the warning is avoid being self-deceived by your own lack of obedience. The man who was delivered from the demon and those who had observed it (11:14-26) had a choice to make, they could not remain neutral (11:23) or they would lapse into darkness. If they saw the light (if they saw their sins), then they could repent (11:29-30) or seek more of God (11:31-32).

Jesus no doubt offended his audience by calling them a wicked generation. He used two foreigners in the stories of the Old Testament as role models for perceptiveness and as more insightful than themselves, but He had done this before (4:24-27). However, the Holy Spirit would help them, if they allowed Him. The Spirit wished to help them come to a decision that would bring about their salvation. This was much more important to Him than having a pleased audience. If we ask for the Holy Spirit that inhabited Jesus we will at times be offensive. Jesus was filled with the Spirit, and He had a boldness that did not pull back when confrontation was needed. The old American preachers called it: “holy boldness”.

5. The Attack on Poor Leadership. 11:37-54.

If the Spirit of God that sent Jesus to die for humans on the cross became resident in the disciples, it would drive the disciples to seek the salvation of others as paramount over all other considerations. It was the correct attitude to have but a painful one. The disciples were to ask for this attitude (11:13), but be aware that this attitude would be caustic at times. The ancient prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit and were often quite caustic in their sermons. Jesus would be quite confrontational once more at the dinner party He attended in the next story (11:54). What is important to understand is why He was caustic.

In the ensuing story a religious leader invited Jesus to dinner. What motivated the Pharisee to invite Him to dinner was not told to us. We do know asking someone to a meal was a sign of respect and an attempt at communion. It had been attempted before by a religious leader in Luke 7:36-50 and had ended rather dramatically with the prostitute coming in and disturbing the calm. It was the women’s presence and her need, coupled with host Simon’s need to see reality, that motivated Jesus’ little story or parable about the two men who owed money and Jesus’ subsequent application of the parable to the host and his uninvited guest (the weeping prostitute). Another storm irrupted at this dinner in Luke 11 (dinning with Jesus seemed to have been anything but calm, see 5:29-32 at Levi’s home). There will be other meals in Luke that will have a turbulent element to them: 14:1; 19:7; 22:15; 24:30. This time the storm was not caused by Jesus’ acceptance of people others despised, but by His own actions: He did not ceremonially wash His hands. The Spirit of God could lead us to be controversial, but not just for controversy’s sake.

The action was no doubt deliberate, and it surprised a good and proper Pharisee to see Jesus not wash His hands. Jesus believed so many of the doctrines that the Pharisees held dear as a belief in demons and angels and thus in exorcism. In contrast with Sadducees who did not believe in angels and demons, or in the resurrection of the dead, Jesus (along with the Pharisees) believed in and taught both. So it must have surprised His host to see Jesus not wash His hands in a ceremonial fashion that had become a Pharisaical practice influenced from the washing done by priests as taught in Leviticus. Jesus deliberately skipped the ceremony to help them. He wanted to bring attention to the fact that a true reader of the Old Testament and especially of the prophets (which the Pharisees held as Scripture and the Sadducees did not) would see such religious ceremonies differently. It was the prophets who knew the danger of ceremony that masked disobedience to the true intent of the Law. Isaiah saw it: “these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me” (29:13) and so did Jesus. Therefore, Jesus did not wash His hands and used the disturbance to bring clarity to His audiences’ view of religious actions. Once He had their attention, He proceeded to utter six Woes against these conservative leaders of His day.

He started his attack by reference to His action of not washing hands. He told them they were foolish because they worried about washing the outside of things and did not worry about the inside. God made both and so to wash one without washing the other was to demean God. God gave outward ceremonies but also the inward meaning of the ceremony. So Jesus said they washed dishes to make them clean, but it was foolish to wash only the outside of the dishes. Washing the outside would look good, but not be sanitary. Similarly if they were ritually clean only on the outside (appearing to be pious) and not in their hearts their actions were meaningless. He counseled them that true religious cleanliness was possible when they washed the inside of their minds as well. The most secure way to be truly ritually clean was to give some of the insides of the dish to the poor (11:41).

All good teachers knew that giving to the poor was an enormously large concern of God’s and Jesus’ claim that to give to the poor would make all things clean to them was a good reading of the Prophets. Also, Jesus came to preach the good news to the poor, but what was alarming was how Jesus defined what being poor meant. It included all types of poor: financial, physical, spiritually (demon-possessed) or the spiritually blind. To be concerned with rituals and not be concerned with the poor, the spiritually poor would be wrong. He was living out His own teaching. The Pharisees were poor spiritually and He was giving to them by not washing His hands and then confronting their hypocrisy. .

The first “Woe to you” was given to the Pharisees because they tithed carefully, (which He agreed with) but they had not shown deference to the greater parts of the Law: to focus on justice and the love of God. They were clean outside in their ritual observance but the great issues of the prophets (Isaiah 2:5-8; 5:23; etc.) to love God and to love your fellow human, was ignored. Jesus would repeatedly demonstrate the love of people over ritual observance (6:1-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6) and thus show a priority that matched the Old Testament itself (I Samuel 15:22, 23).

The second woe was against the Pharisees for loving public deference, whereas Jesus truly loved the people instead of loving their acceptance. He would repeatedly offend or challenge if it was to be of help to them. He would protect the little girl from being an object of curiosity (8:56) and so let the crowd believe she was in a coma. Enduring their mocking He kept hidden her miraculous rising from the dead. He would accept those people others would not accept (Levi, and the centurion) and reap disapproval from the power structure. Jesus did not favor public deference and public respect from the powerful religious elite above showing love to people.

The third woe was their hidden lack of cleanliness which was in truth defiling the people because of their association with them. They were like unmarked graves that defiled people unawares. In contrast, Jesus was openly defiled by His calling attention to the act of the woman with the issue of blood (8:41-48) or with touching the casket of the dead son of the widow of Nain (7:11-17) or with the lack of washing His hands in 11:37-38. What He did could teach the true definition of such ritual actions and move people towards faith. Many do not make publicly observable mistakes but inside are corrupt. They defiled the people that got to know them and got to know what they did because they influenced people to become as phony as themselves. Their hidden corruption spread their defilement.

The fourth woe was directed towards the teachers of the Law or the biblical scholars of the day. They complained Jesus was, by implication, insulting them too because most of the scholars were Pharisees. His retort was to say they had knowledge but little insight into how to lovingly impart that knowledge to the people. He was not against the demands of the Law but against a harsh overbearing legalism that added extra rules (like the ritual washing of hands) without any sympathetic hand to help them succeed. In contrast, Jesus would rebuke (9:33-56) but also encourage (9:57-62). He was never afraid to compliment people who made efforts towards goodness, or said the proper things (7:9; 7:28; 7:43; 7:50; 8:48; 10:18-19; 10:28; 10:37; 10:42). Sometimes people needed a compliment when they did the right thing. His constant use of metaphors and repetition was evidence of an intense desire on His part to help them understand what was important and therefore come to a state of obedience. His was no cavalier teaching style that put out the information and damned them for not taking it. He was intense: He lifted His finger to help them

The fifth woe centered on the praise of the great men of the past. At first light this seemed like a praise-worthy action and one that Jesus Himself had used. He was constantly referring to figures in the Old Testament as appropriate behavior models worthy of praise. However, the difference was that one could praise the great men of the past but deeply dishonor them by building shrines to their memory while disregarding their actions and words. Such praise then became a mockery worthy of judgment; severe judgment. Judgment would fall because their fathers killed them, and they made them tombs: “Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.” To know the past and not use it properly (even given the additional insights that come from hindsight and the confirmation of history) was to put one is special jeopardy.

The final woe was also directed to the scholars because they had knowledge of the truth and the knowledge of the way of salvation, but they took away the key. It was primarily done through their lack of doing the will of God themselves and then hindering those (perhaps primarily by their hypocrisy) who were attempting to enter. Jesus was a true teacher: He was His message in the flesh. His knowledge was acted upon. He learned much in the desert and then took that knowledge and let it guide Him through the tough and dangerous road of fame and defamation that would accompany His ministry. He not only taught His disciples the knowledge of focusing on a right relationship to God over ministerial success, but He lived that out right in front of them. In fact, His behavior at the three dinners recorded so far in Luke all ended in great disarray or criticism because Jesus was loyal to His Father’s will and not to popularity with the powerful.

His speech again demonstrated both His love of God and His love of the Pharisees and scholars. He could have gone to dinner and dazzled them with His endless knowledge of the Torah and remarkable insightfulness of its meaning, but instead He took pity on their misguided understanding and confronted it with nothing held back, so reminiscent of the great prophets. The prophets were the lovers of Israel and their love was present again in the Person of Jesus. Where did such courage and such discerning and tough love come from? It came from being led, educated and filled with the Holy Spirit. It is something the disciples were to ask for (11:13).

When Jesus left the dinner, both the Pharisees and the scholars began to oppose Him fiercely, attack Him with questions and hope to catch Him in some mistake (see also 6:12). They had been given a chance. Jesus was to speak to people using great pedagogical skill and creativeness much like the prophet Isaiah before Him who was told at his call that he was to speak to people that would:

“Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving. Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isaiah 6:8-10).

F. The Sixth Sermon: to the Disciples. 12:1-53.

1. Dealing with Anxiety from persecution. 12:1-12

Chapter 12 opens with the fact that Jesus was surrounded with huge crowds of many thousands of people. However, Luke goes out of his way to tell us that the message given was first of all to the disciples (12:1). In addition, what happened next was closely tied to what had happened at the end of chapter 11: “the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose Him fiercely and to besiege Him with questions…” What follows was given in the midst of opposition from the religious establishment. What He said in the next few verses was remarkable in itself given the fact that it was in the face of dangerous opposition, but all the more so that it was given to the disciples in a public setting. Jesus did not hide His views about His powerful opponents. He was not afraid.

He would speak of being free from anxiety and fear in the midst of an anxiety ridden setting. He began to teach His disciples how to be fear free and modeled His advice. He did not cower before His enemies, and he began to show them how to be as free. His opening words (12:1-3) were a warning against the influence of the Pharisees, but it was done so in a very insulting manner. He characterized their teaching as “yeast”. The metaphor indicated that the added material (the yeast or their interpretation of Torah) had inflated and expanded the true Word of God (perhaps indicating it had changed or distorted it). Lest they miss the meaning of His yeast metaphor, He called their teaching hypocrisy (12:1). He saw their additions as insincere. They appeared godly and spiritually intense but were actually phony.

In the earlier chapter Jesus had characterized the Pharisees’ teachings as infested by their lack of justice for others and lack of love for God (11:42), their egotistical desire for preferential treatment (11:43), corruption (11:44), unloving or uncaring attitude towards the laymen they taught (11:46), and false and insincere praise for the heroes of the past (11:47-51). Their main problem was that their hearts were corrupt and their net effect was to take away the key to the understanding of God’s Word from the people because they had first taken it away from themselves. The Word of God was changed for those hearing it when those teaching it to them were corrupt. The messenger must match the message.

Jesus followed His blistering warning (accusation) with a motive clause for heeding Him in 12:2-3. The motive clause was at first glance a strange one. He said to be careful of such false teaching, beware of such hypocrisy because “all will be known in the end”. They were phony, and they would be found out. Those who act in such a manner would be judged and also found out. They would be exposed no matter how secretive their actions were. God was not ignorant: God knew all.

He desired that his disciples would avoid such terrible corruption of God’s Word by remembering that the old saying was true: “God has a thousand eyes”. It seems that mankind is plagued in every age with the folly of thinking that God does not see what we do or know what we truly think. All through the Old Testament we are told the righteous are the apple of His eye (Deuteronomy 32:10; Psalm 17:8; Proverbs 7:2) and the wicked are not (II Samuel 22:28; I Kings 16:25, etc.) or His eye is on the righteous (Psalm 33:18; 34:15) or His eye looks for the truth (Jeremiah 5:3; 32:19) or that throne of God moved and did so because it could see completely into the hearts of the worshippers (Ezekiel 1:18; 10:12), or that the eyes of the Lord saw perfectly and ranged throughout the whole earth (Zechariah 4:10). The Psalmist knew of what Jesus reminded His disciples:

Take heed, you senseless ones among the people;

You fool, when will you become wise?

Does He who implanted the ear not hear?

Does He who formed the eye not see? Psalm 94:8, 9.

The Pharisees had deep hatred and disrespect for Jesus and for John the Baptist but hid their feelings because of their fear of the crowds. In contrast, Jesus was very open with His distain for their hypocrisy. He instructed His disciples against their behavior, but did so in front of the crowds, which meant His message would get back to the power structure. He challenged the disciples to be like Him and to risk the same pressure and hatred from the religious powers of their day.

His four fold “if…then” statements in 12:2-3 that eventually all things will come to light could also be taken in two ways. These statements could be taken as a warning: if a leader was worried of being spoken ill of in religious circles and then caved into religious behavior that appeared as righteous (see 11:37-39) they were captives. They were captive to the fear of being judged as “less righteous” or “less spiritual”. However, these words could be taken in a positive light as well. Jesus wanted His disciples to know that all would come to light in the end. They would be vindicated. They were to live by what was right in the Scriptures, not what was a popular adaptation of it because of peer pressure. Knowing all would come to light could be seen as a promise to give His disciples the strength to do the right thing and know eventually they would be seen in a true light.

In 12:1-3, He showed them first what not to be: do not be hypocritical. What followed in 12:4-12 seemed to indicate how He believed hypocrisy (something He did not want in His disciples) developed in a teacher. He indicated that hypocrisy came from fear, something Jesus certainly did not have. So He addressed the fears of the disciples (12:4-12).

The opening fear He addressed was the fear of death: “do not fear those who can kill the body”. The way out of such fear was found in two things. The first was to realize that all those they feared could do to them was to “kill the body”. Their power over the disciples (and over Jesus) was limited. The second way out of such fear of powerful, disapproving, and threatening religious authorities, was to re-focus. They were to have fear, but to have their fear properly directed. They were to turn their attention to God. They were to fear Him (12:5c). He could kill them and send them to an eternal hell whereas all the religious authorities could do was to kill their temporary bodies. Jesus wanted His disciples to walk in freedom from the fear of death, and it was gained by a healthy fear of God. It was gained by re-directing one’s mental focus. Break the fear of those in authority by fearing God.

He then addressed another issue that often arises in religious circles (12:6-7). If we do the right thing, we may be passed over because our obedience to God is not considered impressive to others. Most in ministry struggle with significance and often ponder who will remember and take notice of their work. Most of those in ministry worry that if they do not show the improper deference to corrupt religious officials they will lose their position and their livelihood. Their significance is often tied to their job, and they could lose it. Jesus addressed that issue by again commanding them to think about what they already knew from nature and what they should know about God if they would only focus their minds on it. He reminded them of the insignificant sparrows that were sold so cheaply in the markets were not forgotten by God. These little birds were cheap and seemingly unimportant but carefully watched them. Therefore God would certainly watch over His loyal servants who by-passed fame or security due to their obedience to God. God knew the birds’ every movement and thus knew every movement of His disciples. In fact, the very hairs of the disciples’ heads were numbered, and so they need not fear insignificance. Their path was to focus on what God thought and be careful to please Him, and He would not forget them. They were not insignificant because they were significant to God.

We do have to think to be a disciple, and we have to make decisions. We cannot remain neutral. In 12:8-12, Jesus stated that the disciples had to acknowledge Him before others or in the judgment He would not acknowledge them before the angels of God. If they disowned Him, He would disown them before the angelic powers of Heaven (12:8-9): “But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God” (12:9).

The following phrase (12:10 a) at first glance seems to contradict 12:9: “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven…” The disciples are threatened in 12:9 but then told in 12:10 a that if they spoke a word against the Son of Man they could still find forgiveness. This seems contradictory. However, anyone with any honesty knows that in some manner or way they have feared men and not been good confessors of their Lord. Peter would be such a person. Luke 12:10 a would eventually be seen by Peter as a word of hope.

However, the ending part of 12:10 went back to warning and threat. One was not forgiven if one sinned against the Holy Spirit. What does it mean to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?

What followed in 12:11-12 continued the theme of the necessity of pubic confession. This time the fear of defending themselves at their trials was addressed. If men brought them to court they need not have fear due to their impending examinations. When brought before any kind of authority whether religious or otherwise, they could be free of fear or worry because the Holy Spirit would teach them at that time what they needed to say.

The disciples were to see that they were not to give into the type of teaching that was characterized by Jesus in 11:39-52 as hypocrisy. That type of teaching was self-centered, uncaring, falsely pious, corrupting and damaging to those who heard it. Instead, His disciples were to know that God saw all phony motives and such religion would be exposed for what it was. They were not to fear death, insignificance or pressure from the corrupt authorities when brought to trial. His disciples were to walk honestly in their private lives, were not to fear death, and were to be consumed neither with fear of losing prestige, nor with what authorities would do to them.

If they lived in such courage they would be blessed and rewarded by God. In addition, it should be noted that following these instructions would make the disciples remarkable men, character wise. Jesus’ disciples were to be men of great calmness under the pressures that surround most leadership positions. Their strong character did not make them able to escape persecution, death or rejection. He promised God’s acknowledgement of them (8) and the guiding of the Spirit to say what needed to be said (11-12) but not deliverance from the consequences of being loyal to God. The reward would come after death (8-9) in the presence of the heavenly court. A true disciple of Jesus was to pray for the Spirit (11:13) and confidently know He would give it, and it would come in the midst of persecution (12:11-12). They were to pray with faith for the coming of the Spirit for it would release the disciple from worry as to how he could testify to the greatness of God when arrested. Receiving the Holy Spirit was not for the faint of heart.

2. Dealing with Anxiety from Material Issues. 12:13-48.

a. The Interruption/Request from the crowd. 12:13-21.

The teachings found within 12:1-12 were for the disciples, but others were listening, in fact, a huge crowd was listening. Someone from the crowd interposed a request that seemed to be what teachers today often experience; it revealed the man was not listening to the challenge to be free from the anxiety of persecution. This individual was concerned about justice in regard to financial matters. This is not the first time Jesus had been interrupted and delayed from His intended task (that of training or teaching the disciples vital information for their spiritual formation). He would return to that task after the interruption (see 12:22) as in similar fashion He was not dissuaded from His task in 5:17-26. This would not be the last time He would be teaching and the audience totally disregarded what He was saying as evidenced by their questions (see 17:5 and 17:37).

This man made an appropriate request of a Rabbi. The teacher of the Torah was instilled with knowledge of the heart of God that was to be judicially applied to practical circumstances. The scholars of the Torah understood the legal passages and the stories of the Torah to be “precedents” to be applied to other similar situations, much like we do today in our legal decisions. This man wanted Jesus, as a Rabbi, with His considerable knowledge of the will of God (found in the Torah) to make a ruling and give Him justice in the practical realm of finances. He wanted a fair shake from his brother in an inheritance squabble. His title of address is an interesting one: “teacher” as opposed to the title of “Lord”.

Jesus’ response to the man seemed a bit short, perhaps indicating disappointment in the nature of the request. The man first heard a rhetorical question basically challenging the man’s right to address such a question to Jesus (12:14). He then began speaking not to the man in particular but to the entire audience. The answer this individual received amounted to a refusal to deal with his particular problem. That seemed rude but the rest of Jesus’ speech was even more confrontational.

He spoke to the entire audience, instead of the man, by opening with a warning that exhorted them to be on guard against all manner of greed within themselves. This could be taken as an assessment of the man who made the request for a ruling, but that is not clearly stated. He warned against greed and then gave a motive clause for His command: life is more than possessions. In a way, as rude or as confrontational as this appeared, it was quite freeing. If the disciples could understand that life was more than material things could lessen the agitation for justice in matters of finance. The things we feel deprived of stir our feelings of justice and therefore begin to take away peace and joy.

Jesus did not immediately follow with an explanation of what else life consisted of, but rather focused on another reason why greed was a dangerous thing. He added this information through a story, followed by an interpretation of His story or parable.

The parable told of a “rich man” (a phrase He would use again, see 16:1 and 16:19). This particular rich man had financial success as a farmer: he had a bountiful crop. The man pondered what to do with the excess wealth and how to store the extra amounts that exceeded his normal production. He had a discussion with himself, not with God, his wife or his Rabbi or his children, etc. He decided that he would expand his storage capacity by tearing down his present facilities and enlarge them. The man went further; he assessed his financial position for the future and decided he could retire: “take life easy; eat, drink and be merry”.

The parable ended with God breaking into the story and speaking to the man. His speech had three parts. First, God gave the man a title of address: he called the man a “fool”. The man in the parable did not have a name, rich men in the Gospel of Luke, who do not repent, never have names. Zacchaeus was named in 19:1 but he repented. In the parable of Lazarus and the “rich man”, it was the poor man who had a name, but the rich man did not (16:19-20). The ruler with riches in 18:18 did accept Jesus’ challenge and we do not have his name either. Riches do not gain someone a “name with God”.

Second, God pronounced the man’s death and when God speaks reality conforms. Third, the man, though he possessed wealth or security was shown to be lacking in true knowledge of the future (what he thought about the future would prove to be untrue). Jesus did this when He asked the rhetorical question: “who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” The man died prematurely (at least in his own reckoning), was not recognized by God and unable to enjoy his wealth (others would enjoy it).

The man had asked himself a rhetorical question concerning the use of his excess wealth. His thinking process was flawed. It was totally self-oriented: he spoke only with whom he loved. He loved neither his neighbor nor God, but only himself. Therefore God countered with a rhetorical question of His own and asked the man who would get what he had put away for “himself”. The man was much like the rich man in the parable of chapter 16:19-31 who had excessive wealth and lived in luxury but gave nothing to the poor at his very gates and wound up in hell. The man in our parable considered no one but himself and found himself in eternity and termed as a fool. Our thinking must take into account the place of wealth and the Law would guide us as to its use. All through the Old Testament the judgment of God fell on those who disregarded the needs of the poor or oppressed the poor and praise was given to those who took care of them. Greed in this context was basically understood as self-centeredness: “who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God”. We only truly have what we give away. Greed could impoverish us for all eternity, and so it must be guarded against.

Jesus taught effectively by teaching off the questions of the audience and by employing once again the technique of telling a story to drive home His point. This technique, so typical of the Old Testament, left much unsaid forcing the audience to put the pieces together. God saw all that people do (12:2-3) and that would include their use of wealth as well as their conduct as teachers. Ultimately, it is God who must be the center of their thinking and they were to be “rich towards God”. They were to handle fear and greed in the same manner, by refocusing. Being rich towards God rather than rich in wealth or a shallow popularity are the proper ways to please God and to love their neighbors. When the disciples were captive to what others thought of them, they moved into a realm where their love of those same people did not exist. To love others was to be free of the need of pleasing them. God did not put them on the earth to please people but to serve and care for them.

b. Instructions to the Disciples: Do not be anxious for finances. 12:22-40

The question by the person in the crowd was cut off in a shorter fashion than usual. It makes us wonder why. Maybe He thought the question too insincere to fully deal with it. In other examples of requests or interruptions He often dealt more directly and substantially. The woman with the twelve year long issue of blood interrupted Jesus, and He stopped and took time to deal with her illness (8:41-48), the prostitute who interrupted the dinner with the Pharisee was given His complete attention (7:36-50) and the interruption by those carrying the man who tore up the roof was dealt with extensively in His response both to the man’s need for forgiveness and the man’s healing as well. All three got what they sought for: healing (8:44), forgiveness (7:48) and healing (5:25). To be sure, they got more than what they sought. All received insight into the heart of God: all were taught. The man in chapter 12 sought financial justice (something we would be highly interested in), and Jesus basically refused (12:14). This man also got more than what he requested in that he too was taught, but he was not helped to get more inheritance.

We do not know if the man liked the teaching he received, and we wonder why he, of all of the ones interrupting Jesus, was refused the object of his request. In addition, he was the first person asking Jesus for a specific item since the teaching about prayer in 11:9, 10. We were told there to ask, seek and knock and assured we would receive. Perhaps, the key is in 11:11-13. Is there something about getting money that could be like a snake or scorpion (11:11, 12) that physical healing or forgiveness is not? We do know that in Luke 10:19 serpents (snakes) and scorpions are metaphors for the demonic. Perhaps, to give this man what he wanted would be to harm him. Perhaps, there was one more reason for Jesus’ response. Those in ministry can be easily drawn into bitterness over being unjustly paid and maybe this teaching was meant for the disciples as well.

Jesus counseled the crowd to be rich towards God, to avoid the designation of being a fool and being left with something that in reality could not be kept eternally (12:21). The man in the parable ignored others, sought a rich retirement, then quickly died and was left with nothing. After the parable and its application, Jesus went back to addressing His disciples (12:22 a) and back to the issue of anxiety. He had not really left the issue, for His instructions in the light of the question from the crowd, spoke of the man’s anxiety for his fair share of the inheritance. The questioner was told it was a misguided anxiety. Jesus did not want His men to live in such financial worry. So He began with a prohibition: “do not be anxious for your body…”. He used two common examples: food and clothing. This was followed by several reasons (as commands or prohibitions always were when Jesus was teaching). The first reason was more general and was a repetition of what He said in 12:15: life is more than physical things: in this case food and clothing and in 12:15 possessions. Man shall not live by bread alone (4:4). Jesus was sharing what He knew from God’s Word and from His own experience in the desert. He had lived out what He was teaching them.

The second reason for being free of anxiety brought on by financial needs could be garnered by pondering God’s relationship with nature as Creator (12:24). He asked His disciples to consider the birds that did not have barns or storehouses but were fed by God. True to Genesis 1 and 2, He made the valid deduction that if God cared for the ravens He would certainly care for human beings. According to Genesis 1 and 2 the human beings are the crown of creation. The humans are the reason God labored over creation. He was creating them a home, a living space. So it stands to reason that He would care for the pinnacle of His created order.

The third motive given for being free of anxiety was that it was a useless endeavor (12:25-26). There was no reason to be anxious because it could accomplish nothing. His argument began by asking another rhetorical question about the capability of anxiety producing a longer life span. Since we could not accomplish a longer life by means of worry then it was logical to deduce that we could not garner or acquire food and clothing by being in a state of anxiety.

The fourth reason addressed the issue of clothing (12:27-28). His approach to clothing was not what we would expect. He did not address clothing as covering from the cold or nakedness, but as a means of displaying our glory. He hit the pride aspect to most uses of clothing. He again pointed His disciples to creation. They were to consider or ponder the existence of the lilies of the field. These plants did not labor or spin, but were clothed in a splendor that superseded the clothing of the rich (Solomon was used as an example). The life expectancy of the lilies was very short and yet God beautifully clothed them. They were challenged to have more faith and part of the way to do that was to bank on our worth to God. As He clothed the lilies, which were His creation, certainly He would clothe the disciples, who were His elect from the most important species creation contained.

Jesus used rational arguments based on their knowledge of the Creator, His disposition towards the disciples and the impracticality of anxiety as reasons for ridding themselves of it. His arguments are logical, but still one had to have faith. One had to truly believe if the logical force of Jesus’ motive clauses were to change their minds. Choosing not to have anxiety was an act of faith.

He then proceeded to add two well-known tactics to free His disciples: calling them to see who they really wished to be and to deliberately refocus their minds. They were prohibited from worrying about their physical existence, for in doing so they became like the heathen and thus denied that God was all knowing and knew of their needs (12:29-30). Their anxiety proved not only their lack of faith, but also their lack of realizing just who they were. The disciples were witnesses to the greatest understanding of God ever given to the human race (the Old Testament) about the nature of His being. This type of argument is similar to 6:32-36 where the disciples were to see themselves as greater than the sinners who surrounded them (6:32-24) and were to mimic their Lord and Master by being merciful to the ungrateful. They were to be like their Father. The appeal is the same in chapter 12; they were to realize who they were and to realize what they knew of God.

Just as Jesus sought to free the disciples from the bondage of resentment in chapter 6 by redirecting their focus from those who had offended them to their own mistakes (6:41-42), He attempted to redirect their focus in regard to financial anxieties. The refocus in chapter 12 was to be on the Kingdom of God and directed away from financial needs or wants. Once the disciples worried about how God was reigning in their lives or in the lives of their loved ones, their financial needs took their proper place. In addition, the command to focus on the kingdom came with promises. If they focused on the Kingdom of God, He would supply their financial needs (12:31) as well as give them the kingdom (12:32). They were not to live in fear that they would not receive the kingdom, but understand their relationship to God: He was their Father. The title of address that followed the prohibition against living in fear of not obtaining the Kingdom of God was interesting and unique: they were called “little flock”.

In the instructions on forgiving one’s enemies another method that was employed in chapter 6 was used in chapter 12 as well: they were to be proactive. In chapter 6:27-31, 38 the disciples were not merely to forgive but to be aggressive in the situation: do good, bless and pray for those who hated them. They were to choose to turn the other cheek to those who offended them and aggressively offer them the other check. They were to give to those who asked of them because they were to treat others in the manner they would like to be treated (27-31). They were to give not by force by choose to give (38). They were not to be passive in the light of injustice. The disciples were not to be victims, but to take charge of the situation and become aggressive (offer your cloak). In chapter 12, in regard to finances, Jesus commanded them to be aggressive: they were to sell their possessions and give to the poor (12:33). They were to not worry about money but aggressively take charge of their finances by giving.

The motive clauses were two in nature: they would receive financial blessing back from God and they would reconstruct the focus of what they truly wanted in life or come to the knowledge of what they truly valued. Both financial blessing and insight would take place. Concerning the latter, when they gave, it would change them, and when they gave (or did not give) they learned something about themselves: where their heart truly was (12:34). The promise Jesus gave about receiving back was closely related to the parable told about the farmer with the large crop. He did nothing with the temporary blessing of God on His crops so that made him poor towards God, and thus he wound up with nothing. If they aggressively gave to the poor (by faith that what Jesus said was true) they traded their temporary goods that would perish or could be easily be lost or stolen for heavenly rewards that would not perish, nor be stolen, nor come to an end.

How was this redirection to be done? The method of focusing on the Kingdom (31) and receiving the Kingdom of God (32) could be accomplished in two ways: by giving to the poor on their own initiative (33) and by aggressively awaiting the coming of God (35-40). The way to be free from the fear of others who could harm them and the pressure of finances was based on the nature and promises of God (12:1-34). They were then commanded to be ready for God’s appearing. Since it was His character and nature that motivated and lay behind the hope needed to act in faith with regard to money and persecution, His presence was to be sought and looked for. Since He was the center of all motivation, looking for His coming was one of the ways they could redirect themselves from greed (12:35).

In a sense this was an apocalyptic text (focusing on the end times). This was the first text of this type in the Gospel of Luke but did not seem to explain much about the nature of God’s return. Instead, it was like all such texts in the Gospel in that it was tied to a very practical exhortation for daily living in the present. The disciples were to be dressed and ready for service with lamps burning like one awaiting the coming of his master. They were promised that they would be blessed if they were in a state of readiness. The motive clause has a double nature: promise (12:37-38) and threat (12:39). The issue was not how and when He would return (and not much had been said about His going away), but rather the fact that He would come again and one must be ready. The emphasis was on the consequences of the presence or lack thereof of such readiness.

The promise in 12:37 was remarkable: if they awaited Him in readiness for service, He would wait on them in service. The reward had a personal aspect to it. The personal aspect was not in the specificity of blessing for each disciple but in the personal service of the Master. The Master Himself, not an angel, would serve them. It would be good for those servants who were found prepared (37a and 38a) by the examination of the Master Himself.

When the master would come was not known (this is indicated towards the end of verse 38 and the beginning of verse 39): “if He comes in the second or third watch of the night” or “if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming”. This fit quite well with verse 40. The emphasis was again put on being ready and the ability to know when He would come was not given. In fact, it was said that they would not know: “because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him”. We might wonder why the time of when He would come was kept from the disciples but only the fact of His coming was given. The answer is seemingly in the context which was instructions to battle against anxiety from finances. When He came was not important, nor would it be helpful in their struggle against present anxiety, but their watchful readiness was helpful to divert their attention and focus from financial stress to loyal anticipation of God’s arrival.

c. Further Reasons for Freedom from Anxiety: Leadership. 12:41-53

1) The Role of the Disciples. 12:41-53.

a) Peter’s question as to who was addressed: 12:41

Jesus was again interrupted by a question but this time it came from one of the disciples: it came from Peter (12:41). Peter did not call Him “Teacher” as the man in the crowd did (12:13) but called Him “Lord”. Correspondingly, Jesus’ answer to Peter was quite extensive (though not at all a comfortable answer) as opposed to the quick refusal of the request from the man in the crowd. Perhaps, our receiving an answer from God is tied to how we approach Him and understand who He is.

b) Answer: Disciples are to be Focused Leaders. 12:42-48

Peter’s question asked to whom the parable was addressed: to them or to everyone. We are not told what motivated this except that we are shown by Luke that the challenging message about money was to the disciples but also in the presence of the crowd who overheard and in the context of the man who wanted financial justice not freedom from financial anxiety.

In verse 42, Jesus returned to the metaphor or parable just employed about the steward or manager (12:35-40) instead of returning to the parable or metaphor of the farmer used to answer the man from the crowd (12:14-20). The farmer worked for himself and considered no one else but himself. The manager was not so free, but was responsible to another: namely his master. The previous metaphor in 35-40 was about “servants” of a master: or about disciples. The very choice of metaphor or parable gave Peter his answer. The teaching was for disciples. However, Jesus did not quickly answer Peter’s question in a succinct manner. Peter was to learn good news and bad news. The bad news was that disciples were not free but under heavy obligations to act in a certain way. The good news was that they were to be leaders, people with important responsibilities and therefore people with worth. Jesus’ answer was used to explicate the way to be in a role of responsibility and importance.

The answer began with a rhetorical question (12:42) about who was the “wise” and “faithful” servant the master would put in charge of taking care of what the master held most valuable: the other servants. The disciples were to feed the sheep. This was so important to Jesus that He followed it with extensive motivation.

He started with a positive motivation or with a promise (12:43-44). It would be good for the servant to be engaged in taking good care of the other servants and if he did the master would put him in charge of all His possessions. Proper discharge of one’s responsibilities acquired greater responsibility. This is hardly a reward for the passive person, but it is to the aggressive individual.

The promise of increased responsibilities was followed by a threat (12:45-46). If the servant did not believe his master was coming soon and began to beat the other servants and to improperly indulge himself, there would be judgment. The master would come on a day he did not expect and the results would be disastrous: “He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.”

There was a strong “if…then” form to this answer. There was a strong causal affect between handling one’s duty and the actions of the master. The leader with authority over others (who was under the authority of his master) created his own future by his own treatment of those under his care. The issue was not the success of the household but the treatment of the members of it. To be concerned with our own luxury (12:45) or to be caught up with greed (and therefore misuse the bounties of the master’s household) would not free one from the anxiety of finances. The strong anticipation of the master’s return would free the true disciple.

Jesus went further and spoke about the fairness and the righteousness of the judgment of God. He first employed again, an “if…then” form. If a servant knew his master’s will and did not become ready for the master’s coming he would be judged severely (beaten with many blows). If a servant did not know and acted in an unworthy fashion, he too would be beaten but with few blows (12:47-48 a). Jesus continued to use the “if…then” form but moved from the metaphor of the manager to a different form of communication: a proverb. It was in typical proverbial form and therefore was stated in parallelism.

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (12:48 b)

Jesus was clearly addressing His disciples and not the crowd. The crowd was allowed to see the privilege and responsibility of discipleship. It entailed leadership, but with it came expectations. Jesus was showing Peter the nature of his coming role and at the same time explaining what He meant by “being ready” for the master’s coming. One was freed from greed by being ready and being ready was accomplished by a careful execution of one’s duties to those one was put in charge over. If they were good, wise and faithful leaders or disciples then further reward and leadership roles would be given. If they did not live in “readiness”, which was very narrowly defined as taking care of others, they would face severe judgment. The judgment was mitigated or influenced by how much they knew. Many parents have freed themselves of greed by intense preoccupation of caring for their children and many spiritual parents (priests, pastors, Sunday school teachers, religious professors, etc.) have freed themselves of greed by an intense love for those in their care and concern for the welfare of those they have authority over.

Many have succumbed to greed in the form of a demand for better titles, misuse of the resources of a religious organization or the abandonment of the needs of their students in the pursuit of their own academic status. To these the judgment of God, Jesus says, is coming.

2) Why they needed to understand their Role: His Role. 12:49-53.

Jesus was still speaking in 49-53 as the introductory formula that introduced 12:42-48 also stands for 49-53. In the earlier portion, Peter’s question was being addressed. Jesus’ intended audience was His disciples, but in verse 49, Jesus spoke about himself, using the personal pronoun. He spoke about the two tasks that were before Him, and He used two metaphors to refer to them: fire and baptism. The baptism undoubtedly referred to His death and there was a definite aspect of anticipation present coupled with the hope that the one task would be started and the other was already completed.

In verse 49, Jesus said His task was to bring fire on the earth, and then He expressed His desire that the fire was already kindled. What He referred to was not clear unless He spoke of it in verses 51-53. We do know that fire was an Old Testament metaphor for judgment. The task He spoke of was therefore to bring judgment on the earth, and He looked for it to begin. This appears at odds with the compassionate side of Jesus but maybe the context will help us.

In verse 50, Jesus spoke of a “baptism” that He had to undergo, and He expressed how much it gripped or held Him tight (the word in Greek does not have emotional or psychological connotations, but means to be gripped or pressed close) until it was completed.

In verses 51-53, Jesus spoke of the division He came to bring in families. He was the prince of peace and was announced as such in 2:14. He was peace or shalom to those who accepted the cost of discipleship but not to others. Israel was Jesus’ family and His ministry had already split it into two camps with some praising God and others filled with rage.

Jesus did not fear rejection from the authorities or the religious elite, nor even death. Jesus was not anxious about clothes or food. His mission gripped him, by His seeking of the Kingdom of God (12:31). His ministry was one of fire. His very presence brought men to the brink of crisis and forced them to choose. The same nation that thronged to hear Him and be blessed was also the same nation (the same family) that would seek His death. If they accepted Him they entered in shalom (7:50), but for many it was the sealing of their spiritual death. Simeon had predicted that Jesus would be the cause of a discriminating judgment.

“This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed” (2:34-35).

His mention of His own coming experience was appropriate at this point (and it was not the first time, see 9:22; 9:31) as He was asking His disciples to focus on taking good care of the sheep and He did not tell them to do things He was not willing to do (contra the Pharisees, see 11:42). He was also foreshadowing the fire that would not only burn in His presence and that would culminate on the cross but also the fire that would burn others through the disciples. He knew that they would need to fear God more than what humans could do to them (12:4-5), but all those who opposed them and their motives would be disclosed in the end and their hypocrisy known (12:1-3). He knew that the disciples would not be forgotten by God (12:6) if they had the courage to acknowledge the Son of Man (12:8). He knew what He was asking of them but He knew the victory they could achieve if they accepted His challenge. They were not to be held captive with financial anxiety but rather be held closely or gripped with the task of the kingdom (12:31). He was gripped by the baptism that He was to under go, and He was calling on them to be focused on the welfare of those they were given authority over (12:42-48).