The Teaching Method of Jesus
As Presented in Luke
Introduction:
Many in Christian ministry are plagued by a couple of problems. First, what do I stress in my teaching as a youth leader, a pastor or a parent? Second, how do I teach so that those I teach are positively affected and therefore helped? Many Christian do not consider their leaders to be effective as communicators. A lot of Christians would tell us that their leaders say what most consider to be the right things but are not impacting their audience in a positive way: No one’s life is being changed in any significant manner for the good. Others would say their leaders or parents seem to expend their energies on tangents. None of us want to be parents or Christian leaders like those mentioned above and it is the goal of this work to help the reader become something better than what most experience in the Christian world. This investigation was born out of my own desire to be an effective teacher of the Christian faith and it this writer’s belief that my answers lie in Scripture itself. It is from the Scriptures themselves that we could learn about effective teaching and what issues we should teach.
The focus on this effort will be to see how truth is communicated in Scripture thus setting out an example of how we may better communicate and teach. I have chosen a Gospel and thus I have chosen to use what a Gospel can tell me about how Jesus taught and what He taught. Through the medium of one of the Gospels, Jesus will be our teaching model. As we investigate His methods of teaching we will also focus on what specific topics and themes He taught so He can be our guide in regards to the content of our own teaching.
This material is gleaned from the Gospel of Luke. It is not a full commentary on the Gospel of Luke; rather it is centered on the Jesus’ teaching method and what He actually stressed in Luke. In this writer’s opinion, the Gospel of Luke is not unique or significantly different in its presentation of Jesus as a communicator from the other three canonical Gospels. They all, in one way or another, present to their readers a remarkable Person, with an unsettling and challenging message, and who had a very striking way of giving truth to His audience. Each Gospel accomplishes this task in different ways but this work will center only on Luke’s Gospel.
I. Luke’s Introduction: one must have a Focus. Luke 1:1-4
Luke’s Gospel has an introduction. Luke briefly told his readers the reasons for writing his Gospel. Luke said his work had an agenda. It had a focus. It could be insightful for us to see what Luke thought was the proper goal in teaching theological truth about the Christ.
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
To whom the Gospel was written:
Was Luke written for us? Luke claimed he had done careful investigation, and that he deemed it good to write an account for a certain Theophilus (Luke 1:4). The question becomes whether we are in Theophilus’ position. Did Luke intend to write to some one like ourselves?
The term “Theophilus” literally means “lover or loved of God.” Whether Theophilus was an actual individual by that name or a term to designate who would be an appropriate reader (one loved of God or who loves God) is hard to determine. It could be both were true. The Old Testament is filled with suggestive metaphor; it seemed to be a cultural trait to their modes of communication. The great narrators of the Old Testament constantly used metaphors that had both a literal and a figurative meaning. Even if there was an actual individual named Theophilus, it is not a stretch to think that Luke was also referring to those individuals who did have a love for God, or who needed to know they were loved of God, or needed to have accurate knowledge since they were the loved of God.
We do not know anything for certain about the historical circumstances of Theophilus (if such a man existed), or Luke’s immediate audience, so perhaps it is appropriate to focus on what we do know. Only we know if we truly understand ourselves to be loved by God. Only we know if we truly are consumed with a love for God. If we are either of the above or want to be, then Luke was written for us. Also, we do know that Luke had a specific goal for his volume. He stated his goal in verse 4: it was to establish strength in his reader: “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (1:4). I think this could be our goal: to help others, through our teaching to become certain or established in the truth about the Christian faith. We know so many who really know nothing of any real depth about their faith or what they know has not impacted them at all.
The Purpose of the Gospel:
Therefore, it would be appropriate to see if we could become like Luke. Luke was not unique among the teachers of the early church: trying to establishing strength in those they dealt with and served. What Luke had in mind for Theophilus (this lover or loved of God) is what is implicit in much of the New Testament writings. The goal of establishing the reader’s “strength” is not merely pious words, but a passionate goal of the early Christian leaders. Luke’s agenda is not a rare one for biblical writers. When a New Testament writer gives us their stated goal, it is often similar to Luke’s. Luke seems to be in line with other canonical writers.
An example would be the Apostle Paul. He seems to be in sync with Luke when we look at some of the goals in his letters. For instance, he prayed that the Colossians might “be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Colossians 1:9). When writing to the Philippians Paul said that his goal for them was that their love would “abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight”… so that they might “be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ” (Phil 1:9-10). Finally, he told the Ephesians (1:17-18) that he was asking God that they may be “given the Spirit of wisdom and revelation,” so that they may know Him better and that the eyes of their heart may be enlightened in that they might know the hope to which they had been called.
I Peter seemed to have the same goal, “I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it” (5:12), or in II Peter which says, “I have written…to stimulate you to wholesome thinking (3:1)…that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (3:17-18). Teaching for these New Testament authors had the goal of establishing people in their faith. These men were not disseminating religious information they were intent on changing for the better the lives of their audience. Paul and Peter had very lofty goals and seemed to have fleshed out in their statements what Luke meant when he said he wished for Theophilus (for us and for our own personal audiences) to know the certainty of the things he had been taught.
Communication to Persons, not Computers
The New Testament writers seemed to be aware that this did not automatically happen and so their goal had to be purposefully pursued. Affective communication was not the mere disseminating of information, but built up people who needed strengthening. To be a believer was not to be like a computer that stored religious “information” or “data”. To be a believer was to be a human being, a person, who struggled, had trials, tests, sorrows and temptations, which had a will and had to use that will to choose the right way continually. Good teaching informed and encouraged proper choices. It had to be the type of teaching that when heard changed people’s minds and strengthened them. Good teaching had to be persuasively presented.
Luke’s Additional Gift
Persuasive presentation is intense presentation. There was intensity to the writers of the New Testament due in part to their lofty and important goals. They were intense also due in part to the catastrophic results if their efforts failed. The same intensity and same drive Luke will show us was in Jesus of Nazareth. Many of us are frightened by such a task. We are frightened that we cannot be properly intense. Here is where Luke could be helpful. He could help us become like himself and the other early church leaders.
Though study of Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ intense methods of communication will not automatically impart the same intensity to us, it will make possible an opportunity. Luke has shown us through Jesus’ example how Jesus obtained that intensity and then how He used it. Luke seemed to desire that one not only was able to view such intensity but know how to obtain it. Luke did this in two ways. First, he took time, before he presented Jesus’ teaching, to give us a little insight into how Jesus as a teacher was formed. It appears he wanted us to be able to see what happened to Jesus before He taught and see how that could be a model for what could happen to us to make us similar to Jesus of Nazareth in our own teaching. Luke began his presentation of Jesus as a teacher in 4:14, but gave us additional information (in 4:5-4:13). Luke did this, in part, for the purpose of helping us see how a teacher was formed and therefore could be formed again. Second, Luke will take time to show us how Jesus was training and trying to reproduce Himself in the lives of the apostles. We could watch what He did with the disciples and how He trained them so that we could be like those disciples for our time and for our age and for those we are commissioned to strengthen.
Our Task
Like you, I have become painfully aware of my lack of skills in multiple areas. I am not a good musician or a good golfer, or as smart as some other people I know, etc. I have been given some gifts though. What I do have must be shared. Not to do so would be selfish: it would be unchristian.
Years ago my grandmother would send me periodically a large box through the mail of cookies (a really large box). I was away at school and when I received these boxes I was overjoyed. I was one of the few people in the school who received such a box. By the time I received such a box my third year I was beginning to grow up a bit. One of my friends with whom I used to share the cookies with had been enlisted in the Army and was no longer at school. So I decided to take part of the box, repack it and ship it to my friend in the army. I now seemingly had less treats to eat, but I discovered something through that experience that I have never forgot. The cookies that remained became sweeter.
Theophilus was given a tremendous gift in the Book of Luke. He was now obligated and indebt to the world to share it. Perhaps, our job is to put ourselves in the place of Theophilus and watch with him the story Luke will tell of Jesus. We will watch what Luke will show of how Jesus was formed as a teacher, how and what He then began to teach and how He trained others (because all we teach will in turn become indebted to the world). We will watch with Theophilus the Master Teacher teach always with the goal of emulating Him.
II. The Forming and Establishing of the Teacher: 1:5-4:13.
A. The Credentials of the Teacher: 1:5-80, 3:1-23.
1. Chapter One: Authentication by John:
Today as then, before one is given the chance to teach, the issues of credentials often come to the fore. The credentials could be proper references, academic credentials, ordination, or experience, but credentials are often needed. Luke was quite aware of this and addressed this issue in a surprising and unusual manner. You are not allowed to just speak in a class or preach a sermon in a church just because you want to. There are barriers. Thankfully there are barriers or we would subject, more often than we are, to horrible teaching. We understandably need authorization to teach a class or preach regularly in a pulpit.
Besides credentials, all of us are aware that teachers do not merely appear out of nowhere. One does not step into one’s first class room or pulpit or teaching experience and succeed. Also, good teachers or preachers do not just appear out of a mist and walk in a classroom or pulpit and begin teaching. Their public teaching is the result of what happened before they stepped into a classroom, or pulpit or any type of teaching setting. There must be preparation, but preparation does not merely gain one credentials but also forms the teacher. In his own manner Luke showed us that before Jesus “stepped into a class room” He first underwent preparation and the gaining of credentials. Luke started with the credentials.
Perhaps, it is this matter of credentials that influenced Luke’s choice as to how he began his Gospel. He did not start with Jesus teaching, nor with Jesus’ birth, but rather with the birth of John the Baptist. Luke’s goal was to establish us in the love of God, and how he began could have meaning for us as teachers. Luke began his story about Jesus by beginning with John. How Jesus’ story began could be terribly important for us.
The building of effective mediators.
Human Credentials
It might help to reflect on our own beginnings. When we were first taught things about God someone we knew or respected introduced us to God or the things of God. God has often chosen to begin our knowledge of Him by introducing Himself though the agency of another person in our lives. For many of us it was a specific teacher, pastor, friend or our parents. In Jesus’ story, those who were instructed by Jesus met John the Baptist first. John would introduce Jesus (God) to the world. John was the mediator between Jesus’ first audience and their first direct encounter with God.
Luke characterized his role (quoting Isaiah) as one who was “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”(3:4). Many times before God can come directly to us there needs to be some preliminary steps, and it is often done by an obedient believer. Sometimes we will not take a class or go hear some preacher or teacher unless someone we trust and respect tells us to do so.
An Unusual Beginning
Luke’s choice of where to start is rather peculiar but instructive. He started with two elderly believers; it started with John the Baptist’s parents (Luke 1:5-25). John’s parents experienced a divine encounter in a tremendous but domestic manner. John was to be born to parents similar to those of Isaac, Jacob (and Esau), Samuel and Samson. His parents were, at first, like the several Old Testament prominent characters. They were incapable of having children. This would signal to any Old Testament reader that God had again begun significant work for the bringing of salvation to His people. Often in the Old Testament, the salvation of the community began with a special birth. So Luke was signaling that God was at work to bring salvation and in Jesus’ case the process began before Jesus was born and even before the one who would announce Him was even born.
This could have implications for our own teaching. True preparation could have started before our own births.
I believe Luke told us the story of John’s birth, which the other Gospels do not, in order to pick up a key element in “teaching truth”. It concerns the role of becoming an effective vessel to do the work of “preparation” for others to see and receive God. How are such people, such effective vessels of preparation formed?
The answer begins with John’s parents. First, we learn that John’s father was a minor priest who was granted a miraculous religious encounter that foretold John’s birth. Zechariah did not first believe the message of the angel who spoke to him and was struck with dumbness (1:20-22) that was lifted only when the boy was dedicated (1:59-63). John’s mother also experienced God in a physical manner as well by becoming pregnant in her old age in 1:24-25. Subsequently, she felt the child in her womb leap for joy when Jesus came near her in Mary, Jesus’ mother’s womb. Then she was given the ability to prophesy to Mary in 1:39-45. Finally, Zechariah was given the ability to prophesy and spoke of the preparatory task of his son in 1:67-79. John was born to parents who had deep religious experiences.
Twin Characteristics
Parents, such as John was privileged to have, were a great asset. We are all aware of how much our parents influenced us. John no doubt had a very positive orientation towards a dynamic, even miraculous faith through the lives of his parents. In addition, Luke gave further instruction on how one could become an effective vessel to prepare others to see God. It was given in verse 1:15: “He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.” Two things were spoken of here: discipline and empowerment. First, John would be raised in the ancient Israelite tradition of the Nazirite vows. These vows were usually taken for one or two years. However, John would be similar to Samson or Samuel by taking a life-long vow with restrictions that were normally temporary ones. He would have long-term special strictures on his life-style; he would live under a life-long extra measure of discipline. Effective vessels are marked by disciplines imposed upon them by God.
Second, John was to be disciplined but more than his own efforts would be involved. God would give him His Spirit from birth. This signals to the reader that empowerment from the Spirit is necessary. In addition, the fact that it came to John before he was born or before he made any decisions shows being filled with the Spirit is a work of God’s sovereign grace. It is a gift. Those who prepare others best to be ready for an encounter with God are disciplined and given the Spirit of God. The one is our effort of obedience and the other is an act of grace from God. It seems that from the beginning of his gospel Luke wanted his readers to see the important relationship between discipline (human action) and the sovereign work of the Spirit of God. True, accurate and effective “vessels of preparation” require both. Both will also be present in life of Jesus.
John’s Work of Preparation:
Spiritual Credentialing from Spiritual People
Luke will also tell us that John played another role in Jesus’ life. John the Baptist was one of the most influential individuals of his day. True, he did not hold public office, nor did he possess wealth or political power (a politician would later kill him), but he was widely known, deeply respected, more respected in spiritual matters than anyone alive at that time. Many thought him to be the messiah or certainly a prophet as John certainly did fit the prophetic mold. By the time of John, the community highly regarded the role and function of the canonical prophets. Therefore, his endorsement of Jesus was tremendous. It gave Jesus accreditation of the highest nature. John also prepared the way by his preaching by preparing hearts through his preaching of repentance. Jesus walked on to the stage and many had been made ready spiritually to hear and receive the more that Jesus gave.
He was a “voice of one calling in the desert, prepare the way for the Lord, and make straight paths for Him” (3:4). Luke saw him as a fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5. Jesus’ preparation was not political and His endorsement was not necessarily what modern secular society would regard as important. The authentication was by the Spirit of God and by important spiritual people who were filled with the Spirit. It could not be acquired by human effort, academic degrees, denominational or religious connections or ministerial talent. God granted it. God anointed Jesus, and God prepared and sent John. Perhaps, it is more important to be vouched for by deeply spiritual men and women than to hold positions or degrees.
Though Jesus was born poor (more on this later), and was not educated in prestigious schools (He was born in Galilee and the important and highly regarded rabbinical schools were in Judea, not Galilee) it would be wrong though to jump to the conclusion Luke shunned all human recognition or human credentials. Luke is not saying that all a good teacher needs is the anointing of God’s Spirit. Luke also reports to his readers that Jesus as a teacher possessed John’s witness. The work and witness of the Spirit and the voice of other humans are not necessarily in tension with one another. Clearly, John gave validity to Jesus’ teaching and person, however John too was filled and directed by the Spirit to perform this task. If there are not John’s in our lives, then we might wonder if something is amiss.
John’s Message
John’s message was two fold. First, it was a typically prophetic one. People needed to be rightly related to God and people sin. So, John called the people to repent. His father Zechariah had prophesized that he would “be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace.” (1:76-79).
John called them to bring proofs of their repentance (3:8) that they had stopped their sinful actions. He was extremely confrontive as His task was to get people to repent and be aware of what kept them from God. This repentance was seen as preparation but not the final goal.
They were to repent because the Lord was coming and they needed to be ready. This was John’s second agenda. He was aware that someone greater than him was coming, and his job was to get them ready: “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the tongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” (3:16) John saw his role as setting up Jesus’ ministry. John was a different type of credential.
2. Chapter Two: Authentication through a peasant girl: Luke 1:46-55
A Humble Mother’s Song
Luke wanted us to see that Jesus’ ministry was authenticated by John and therefore should be attended to. However, another theme dominated Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ beginnings: humility. Before His remarkable public life began, Luke first recorded a song that Mary sang. Mary was pregnant out of wedlock and therefore in a despised social position in her community. Yet she was chosen to declare and articulate the model of Jesus’ ministry. Her song became the master paradigm for those chosen or anointed. John’s witness was public and Mary’s song was private, but it is on her lips that Jesus’ ministry was characterized. She was not an “impressive” figure like John, but rather a humble young woman (no doubt a teen-ager) with an impugned reputation.
She was much like an earlier mother in Israel named Hannah. Hannah’s shame came from a different source (not being able to bear a child in her case) but both women gave birth because of the direct hand of God (I Samuel 1:19 and Luke 1:34-35). Both women sang a song when their shame was lifted. Hannah’s song was not only after she gave birth to a son (the soon to become famous Samuel) but also after she made the decision to give up the son (by great faith) in obedience to keeping her vow. For Mary it came when the wife of a priest, her relative Elizabeth, affirmed her and when she was praised as an obedient believer (1:42-45). Both singers had to have faith/obedience: Hannah gave up her sign of dignity when she gave up Samuel. Mary was willing to have a child when she was not yet married and thus risked losing her dignity and social acceptance by the birth.
Both songs of these obedient women have similar aspects in the record of their faith in God. They were also both given the privilege of singing a song that would characterize the nature of God’s work in the world. Hannah’s song is regarded by many as the philosophical articulation of the teaching on leadership found so prominently in the two books of Samuel. What God desires and will do in the world is foreshadowed by the poem Hannah sings. Mary’s song will characterize in similar language and highly similar themes what God will do through Jesus. The similarities are interesting. Both women are at a socially disadvantaged position, that their own obedience to God had placed them, yet both began their songs with praise of God. Their songs contain no bitterness, no regret and are not dominated by their own needy condition. Instead they focus on the majesty, holiness and surprising activity of the God of Israel. One could summarize their two as songs as follows:
Praise of God: Luke 1:46-47; I Samuel 2:1a
Reasons for their praise: God’s deliverance in dire need: 1:48,49a; 2:1b
Affirmation of God’s holiness: 1:49b; 2:2
Description of His actions as a reversal of expectations: 1:51-53; 2:4-8
Mary’s song opened with God’s mercy extended toward those who fear Him, followed by a celebration of God humbling the proud and exalting the weak and ended with the declaration of God faithfulness to the nation and His covenant with Abraham. The largest section was the middle where God reverses the fortunes of the proud and the humble (1:51-53).
Hannah’s song/poem opened with a warning to the proud and that God judges according to one’s deeds. This was followed by a celebration of God humbling the proud and exalting the humble or weak (2:4-8). Hannah’s song ended with a promise that God would guard his saints or anointed one, but judge those opposed to Him. Hannah’s song had a phrase in verse 9 that summarizes much of both songs: “It is not by strength that one prevails.”
I and II Samuel unfold the truths of Hannah’s song by showing how they take place in the history of Israel’s first leaders and Kings. The Gospel of Luke will demonstrate the truths of Mary’s song by recording the actions of Jesus and what He accomplishes for the world. Both Samuel and Jesus start with humble births by humble mothers both of which had experienced the saving activity of God in their personal lives. A son could not have a greater influence.
A Ministry of Reversal
Though there are some differences in these songs, especially in the endings, they both are parallel in praise of God for personal deliverance, recognition of His holiness and declaration of His proclivity to do acts of reversal. As the remaining chapters of I and II Samuel act out what Hannah prophesized they illustrates God’s choice of the ones we would not expect to be prominent. God chose the unlikely eighth son, David, to be king or the unknown Samuel to act as judge in Israel while most of the strong or powerfully placed individuals throughout the books of Samuel did not prevail. Hannah’s song was a paradigm for Israel’s experience of God’s work in their midst.
In Luke, the theme of praise rings throughout the Gospel as does the theme of reversal. As we go forward it will become apparent that Jesus’ ministry acted out the principle of lifting the humble and shaming the powerful. Jesus was good to foreigners, prostitutes, and sick people. He humbled the proud religious Pharisees in debate, or the unperceptive and corrupt but powerful politicians. When Luke recounted his version of the Sermon on the Mount this motif of reversal dominated his version of the Beatitudes. It contained 2 sets of 4 statements that were carefully placed in reverse of one another. Each statement is dominated by the aspect of reversal. The blessed ones are the poor, the sorrowful, the hungry and the socially reviled. Woe is pronounced on the rich, the happy, the well fed and highly accepted ones.
Luke saw Jesus as being in the tradition of the great leaders of the Old Testament and in the role of how Yahweh acted with Israel. It was the God of the Old Testament that selected the second son Jacob instead of the first born Esau, and chose a slave race to be the “elect of God”, picked unlikely leaders in Judges, designated David, the eighth son (again, not the first born), to be the greatest king of Israel, etc. It was this God that again acted in Bethlehem through a humble girl. Mary’s song begins a theme that will be repeated in Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ early preparation as a teacher/preacher. It will include aspects of poverty or humility.
3 Chapter Three: The Advantage of Humble Beginnings: Luke 2
Humble beginnings seem to be almost a prerequisite for good teachers according to Luke. For example, the congregation witnessed John’s birth, and it filled the neighborhood with awe. The phrase: “What then is this child going to be?” went through out the region (1:66). They knew the Lord’s hand was with this child. However, Jesus’ birth was somewhat different. His birth stories were equally remarkable, but were filled with a different tenor, they were filled with humility.
Joseph had to travel with his pregnant wife and be on the road during the final stages of her pregnancy. The result was she gave birth to the Son of God in a stable. There was no room at the inn. Oriental stables were not the picture we present today. They were dirty, filled with animal excrement and in some cases, not much more than a cave. For a bassinet, Jesus was laid in the feeding bowl of barn animals (2:1-7).
What was worse was the woman Joseph was traveling with and who was pregnant was not even his wife, but his fiancé and she was pregnant but not by him. It was not a glorious beginning by human standards: born in filth and under the suspicion of being illegitimate.
There were guests who welcomed the child at His arrival on earth, but they were hardly drawn from the social elite. True, angels of God did announce the arrival of the Savior but the announcement was made to low blue collar workers. Shepherds were faithfully and honorably at their task in Luke 2:8, but shepherds were never considered in ancient times to be high on the social scale and neither are they now considered such. The angel that announced John’s birth spoke to a priest (1:5), but the angel that announced Jesus’ birth spoke to a teenager (Mary was no doubt 14-15 years old) and to shepherds. What was said to each was glorious (Luke 1:30-33 and 2:10-14), but their witness would hardly have impressed anyone had they attempted to give credibility to Jesus in a public manner.
As mentioned above, when Jesus came to the Temple to be circumcised (in obedience to His Father’s commandments) He was not recognized by the priests or Temple authorities, but by two unknown and non-influential individuals: an old man (Simeon: 2:22-32) and an old widow (Anna: 2:36-38). To be sure, they were wonderful people, and spiritual people, but would not be seen as valuable witnesses by many who lacked a spiritual nature.
We often place great store in credentials and what prestigious name is behind our degrees or which prestigious school or denomination or organization has endorsed us. Luke says it is not our human credentials but rather who we are or they are who endorse us that are important. Jesus “grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him” (2:40). Grace and wisdom, so necessary for true teachers of God’s Word do not necessarily come from prestigious institutions or human social endorsement. Perhaps, grace and wisdom must be formed in humble beginnings.
God designed Jesus’ humble beginning in regard to His birth and first Temple visit for Him, but Jesus followed the pattern set for Him. When Jesus went to the Temple at age twelve and confounded the teachers and amazed them with His understanding and answers, He was not just showing off. Luke mentioned that He sat among the other teachers listening to them and asking them questions (2:46-47). He was discussing truth, not trying to seemingly impress. He had accepted His humility and so was at peace discussing truth, rather than digressing into a show of His own intelligence, as so many in intellectual discussions do.
What is more, when His parents found Him they were at first upset, but later astonished. They did not know where He had gone and had searched for the young boy for three days. He had caused them worry, and so they properly rebuked Him. His response was interesting. He did not back down and apologize for what He had done, but explained He was about His Father’s business. However, what was equally remarkable was that Jesus returned with His parents to Nazareth and was obedient to them (2:51). Jesus’ obedience to His parents fit the motifs of discipline and humility that are throughout these early chapters, and consistently portrayed as a necessarily complement to Spirit-anointing. Jesus was obedient to the authority of His parents and thus the text says He “grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men” (2:52). Those with true spiritual precociousness, says Luke, grow healthy, wise and relationally strong by obedience to their parents. Jesus was born humble, and He chose to be humble. He was being prepared for the most powerful teaching ministry the world has known.
He had two advantages. First, He was not bothered by His humble beginnings but had come to an inner peace through obedience. Second, He could never be accused of growing up in privilege and therefore being unwilling or unable to identify with the majority of the population who also had humble beginnings. He was neither intimidated by the lack of privilege nor handicapped by it. He would later say, “Blessed are the poor…”, and He had a right to say that.
Summary
Jesus was shown to have credentials. He was announced to the community by John the Baptist, recognized by Simeon and Anna but did not have the backing or the politically powerful or those in his community who were wealthy. The angels sang and announced His birth to shepherds not to the religious elite of the day. He came from humble beginnings being born poor in a non-prestigious area. He was from Galilee. Finally, the Mary’s song says true leadership that reflects the character of God must be infused with a spirit of reversal. What God considers prestigious is not what the world considers prestigious. We are taught by Luke to look for those who see life as God sees it.
Good teachers/preachers should be recognized by other spiritual people or doubt as to their authenticity should arise. They need human attestations or spiritual credentials and they are not the credentials that can be gained by human effort such as coming from noble birth, privilege, or by acquiring degrees. God has to witness to spiritual people about the new teacher’s spiritual authority. Good teachers have humble beginnings and partake of poverty in some manner. They understand were the majority of people come from. Finally, good communicators have a view of life that is different than the world’s view. They take delight in reversing commonly understood roles. They will praise the humble and complement those who make mistakes or are of the wrong race and will confront and criticize the powerful of their day. They will see power, importance, prestige and what is valuable in a manner opposite than their culture.
4. Chapter Four: The Role of the Spirit of God
There are two additional aspects to Jesus’ preparation as a teacher. The first is found in chapter 3. Luke overly maintains that there must be a supernatural component: one must be anointed by the Spirit of God. Before the end of John’s ministry Luke tells us that Jesus appeared at one of John’s baptisms and Jesus was baptized (there is a constant theme of humility). As Jesus prayed the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form similar to a dove and a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased”. The Spirit confirmed Jesus’ identity and inaugurated Jesus’ ministry. This baptism took place before the beginning of His public ministry (3:23). Several things about the work of the Holy Spirit can be drawn from Jesus’ baptism.
First, the Spirit descended in the form of a “dove”. Clearly, it was symbol of gentleness and not a symbol of power or coercion.
Second, the Spirit is the inaugurator of the effective ministry of men. So often the church is tempted to think effective ministry is programs, education or charismatic personalities but Luke said it is tied something else. It did not appear that Luke saw the ceremonies or rituals of men as accomplishing ministry but rather it was the sovereign will and work of the Spirit. Therefore Jesus’ ministry was formally begun in 4:14 with Jesus coming into Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” and in 5:17, it says the “power of the Lord was present for Him to heal the sick.” In similar fashion, the first sermon Luke recorded of Jesus’ preaching (4:16-27) was tied to the action and desires of the Spirit of God (quoting Isaiah 61:1-2).
Third, the Spirit anointed or empowered Jesus to preach and accomplish deliverance for those in need. The Spirit of God empowered ministry that brought about multiple types of deliverance. Luke saw the Spirit, the power to do ministry, and the ability to accomplish effective communication as connected with an emphasis on helping those others would usually not be bothered with.
Fourth, there is another sidelight to the baptism of Jesus and the function of God’s Spirit. Jesus was also affirmed in His identity. He was told who He was: Jesus was God’s son. In addition, Jesus was told of His standing and relation with the Father: God loved Him and was pleased with Him. The Holy Spirit is the revealer of our identity and confirms our worth and standing with God. The Spirit reveals who the believer is when God is pleased. As those in ministry understand, getting a firm and solid grasp of who we are is vital to spiritual and psychological health when one enters the difficulties and trials of effective ministry or teaching.
Finally, the Spirit of God confirmed publicly Jesus’ identity, but the purpose was not for self-satisfaction. John’s identity was given in his anointing (1:15), but his identity and the purpose of the anointing was to fulfill a task for others. John was to announce someone else, not himself. He was to serve the interests of God and therefore He was filled with the Spirit. Jesus was filled with the Spirit of God to announce God’s agenda, and Jesus’ role was that of being an instrument for others (Luke 4:18-19). Being filled with the Spirit was not given to inflate the ego of leaders with low self-esteem, but for them to see that they were given gifts for the sake of others. The very nature of the being filled with the Spirit of God is to be filled with an “other-centered” mentality.
5. Chapter Five: The Preparation of the Teacher through Difficulty/Temptation. Luke 4:1-13.
a. Methodology: the Teacher must be the message.
After Jesus’ baptism by the Holy Spirit and before Jesus’ public ministry began, Luke interrupted his narrative of Jesus’ life to give us his genealogy. It seems to function as a break or pause (much like the genealogies of the Old Testament) before Jesus’ public ministry. He recorded the “wilderness experience” and Luke definitely defined this episode as the direction and will of God’s Spirit. The difficulties and resulting temptations that took place in the wilderness focused on the inner health of the teacher. This emphasis on the inward spiritual well being of the one doing public ministry was paramount in Luke’s record. It not only was demonstrated in Jesus’ early ministry (chapters 4:16- 6:11) but emerged again as Jesus chose and employed disciples. Later in chapters 9 and 10, Luke showed how Jesus was carefully aware of what would happen to those on whom the role of a teacher fell. Luke showed us what Jesus did to help the developing new teachers (His disciples) deal with such a dangerous position of power. Finally, the Gospel drew again on the power and aid that such wilderness experiences bring to a teacher/preacher by how Luke showed their effect on the final choices made in Jesus’ earth ministry before His death, (23:13,37,39). Luke portrayed the temptations as helpful in clearing the emerging teacher’s mind and allowing the possibility of focusing in a unique but sustaining direction when the stress of opposition or success of public teaching began.
There is an additional aspect that is introduced in Luke’s recording of the temptations in the wilderness of Judea. This aspect will surface repeatedly and is one of Luke’s key points in presentation of Jesus’ teaching methodology: the teacher is often the most effective aspect of the teaching, or the “teacher is the message”. Before Jesus would show His disciples how to deal with the difficulties of being used by God in such a powerful way, (from which miracles flow and the destinies of human’s souls are decided) He would first travel such a path in His own experience. He would act first and become what He teaches others to do.
b. Temptations:
1) Challenged to Prove His Identity by Use of the Gifts:
Jesus began His time in the desert by fasting and fasting for a long time. This parallels the ministry of John who was a disciplined man following the disciplines of the Nazirite vows. What is interesting is that discipline did not forestall or eliminate temptation, but provided a context for it. The first temptation came in relation to Jesus’ discipline of fasting. Because Jesus was hungry from fasting, the Devil seemingly began his efforts in that quarter. The temptation though was not solely one of fleshly desires or unsatisfied appetite, but rather one that appealed to Jesus’ pride. He was asked to prove who He was.
Satan’s opening words: “If you are the Son of God…” called for Jesus to prove Himself and to prove that what was said at His baptism was true (3:22). To prove to ourselves that we are competent in our field is an enormous drive that accompanies our role as teachers and ministers throughout our lives. Inwardly, our thoughts accuse us as inadequate and the temptation to dispel such doubts arises. Luke says it comes from the devil.
The temptation for Jesus was to prove His identity by using His giftedness for Himself. He was prodded to do a miracle for His own needs. He was tempted to make bread for His own hunger, a hunger created by His own life of discipline. Jesus faced what we all face in that we would like tangible proof of our competence. The proof would be to make bread for Himself and thus validate His identity. Jesus will later demonstrate that He is quite competent with bread (9:12-17). Jesus would later feed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish. Luke showed in his subsequent narratives that Jesus’ ability was not the issue, but rather how the ability was to be used. Paul would later say the gifts of God are for the common good of the church and by implication, not for the aggrandizement of the teacher (I Corinthians 12:7). The gifting God gives to teachers is not to validate themselves to themselves, but to bless others. Jesus would make bread, but He would do so for others not Himself. He refused the temptation to validate Himself.
The Devil could have begun his attack by noting Jesus’ hunger and the small stones in the wilderness that looked like the small loaves of bread commonly made then. Jesus’ answer was a demonstration of a significant teaching tool. Jesus seemed to answer by turning a metaphor around. Bread was a metaphor for sustenance and representative of the neediness of all human beings. Our human existence has to be sustained. It was designed by God in that manner. Our bodies are not evil, they are made by God (Genesis 1), and we must nourish them. However, though Jesus did not deny this, He turned the metaphor into something deeper. The metaphor was then employed not as an example of what He was in need of, but what He was committed to. His adaptation of the metaphor of bread diverted attention to something else. In addition, He modeled how one fights such temptations and how one positively focuses on what God truly desires in ministry.
He turned the metaphor, by focusing on the fact that our need for nourishment goes beyond the physical. True teachers do not teach mere information but nourishment for the soul. True ministers do not merely do good social work and teach true doctrine, but they feed the spiritual needs of their congregation. “Man does not live by bread alone” (Deuteronomy 8:3). In the stories that follow, Jesus repeatedly showed that He learned this lesson by the remarkable choices Luke records Him making as He began to teach publicly. As we investigate 4:14 through 6:19 there will appear multiple examples of this understanding. Man needs more than physical wellness. It is good and proper to want and receive health for our bodies, but we need more. Jesus was signaling that He was committed to a ministry that included more than just meeting physical needs. For example, He did not merely heal the paralyzed man who was let through the roof, but He gave that man the “better bread”. He forgave his sins.
Jesus seemed to say by His response, “Do not prove yourself, but rather focus deeply on the full or complete needs in your audience”. It is by seeking the higher agenda, by seeking out how to see what complete needs should be met, that Jesus combated the need to prove himself. Healthy teachers focus on the complete needs of their students or audience to combat the need to authenticate or validate themselves. Such a preoccupation is liberating. In contrast, Satan wanted to distract from this focus on others (a sign of the Holy Spirit’s anointing) by tempting Jesus to focus on His own physical needs and on using His anointing to validate Himself. Satan wanted to take away the insightfulness of other-centeredness and humility. If one is continually dominated by the need to validate oneself, then the wisdom of how to use abilities wisely can be compromised. This is similar to the parent or teacher that needs affirmation from their child or student so much that they do not stay aware of the greater needs of the child or student. They could be distracted from giving the greater bread.
The greater bread is obedience to God’s will or His Word. Jesus knew if one heard and responded to the Word (like He did and would in the desert) then they would have sustenance not just for this life, but the life to come. When we obey a word we move beyond meeting our daily needs for sustenance. The lesser bread is not denied but brought into service of “better bread”. Jesus demonstrated this well and every miracle or healing (giving of the bread of health) would be tied to a challenge to obey a “Word”. Jesus learned from the priority of the “better bread” in the desert and practiced it in ministry.
The context for this lesson was not found in a rabbinical school by reading, hearing or debating with good teachers but by the difficulties of the desert. Formal training has its place. Jesus would teach in formal settings. However, according to Luke, it was vital that one must be first stressed and forced to choose to apply truth in a deeper manner than merely knowing the content of the Scriptures. Truth from the Scriptures applied in the stressful situation of the desert demonstrated that knowledge was never enough. The student had to choose under stress to use what one had for the right reasons.
Jesus’ handling of Deuteronomy and His exegetical skills were remarkable. He not only knew the words of Deuteronomy, but perceived their depth and meaning. He knew that this truth had to be applied. Both ingredients are necessary for the teacher’s education. Both knowledge of God’s truth and the pressure of sparse and difficult times that demand application or demand a choice are needed. The teacher must experience this and then he can skillfully teach others.
b. Challenged to Place the Ministry or Teaching Over God.
Jesus was then taken to a High Place. Whether this was in His mind’s eye, or in a vision we are not told. Jesus was shown the kingdoms of this world and was promised them by Satan if He would just worship him. Jesus was offered the kingdoms of the earth, which was the very reason He came to earth. However, He had to violate the most important commandment in the Scriptures, the first of the Ten Commandments: loyalty to God. Jesus’ response was to answer with the reciting of God’s will, which for Jesus was to quote Scripture. Again, Jesus selected a portion from Deuteronomy (6:13). Jesus was tempted to accomplish God’s will by violating God’s will.
The task is not more important than the One who gives us the task. Jesus’ ministry was not more important than God Himself. Loyalty to God trumps loyalty to the mission or task. The pressure to succeed is enormous in any culture and the temptation will always come to put the success of the task for God over the will of God Himself. Many ministers and youth directors as well as teachers can violate the clear teachings of Scripture under the guise of accomplishing God’s will. It is often the case that what is really motivating the teacher/preacher at times is something much more subtle than even the teacher is aware is present. He must again choose early in his or her career to prioritize various “good” elements: accomplishing a good task and obeying the One who gave the task.
In addition, it would have been easier to worship Satan to gain the kingdoms of this world than to suffer and go to the cross. Jesus refused to take a short cut that would have excluded pain. Repeatedly in the early chapters of the Gospel, Luke will show how Jesus would not take any short cuts. Jesus would gain the kingdoms of this world, but it would not be done by taking a means that demeaned His Father’s intent. The early church sang a hymn about this, and we think we have the words in Philippians 2:5-11. Had Jesus chosen “praise over the cross” the world would have died in its sins. His followers needed to love people, not seek their approval nor seek power over them. Nor were they to seek the praise that comes from success in their particular task or occupation. The proper type of praise will come in its time as Philippians 2:9-11 shows. Praise must be preceded by the cross and obedience (2:7-8).
c. Challenge to Prove His Special Relationship to God.
Jesus had been quoting Scripture, so the Devil quoted Scripture as well in the third temptation. He referenced Psalms 91:11, 12. Again, Jesus was challenged to do a public miracle and to use the gifts for the sake of displaying His favored position with God. The temptation opened with the same words as the first temptation: “If you are the Son of God….” The drive to justify oneself when self-esteem is at stake is strong. The temptation to satisfy that drive is often presented in the context of following Scripture. It is always easy to find some spiritual justification for our actions if we are not careful and are not fully focused.
In the first temptation the issue of proving one’s giftedness privately, but here it was tied more to public display. Had Jesus jumped from the Temple Mount (no doubt the most prominent place in the country), He would not have been accosted so rudely in the controversies that each Gospel records. His opponents would have been afraid if such a display had been known of or witnessed. Jesus humbly dialogued and debated His religious critics demonstrating for us our need to be willing to face critique. Jesus also taught us how to handle and answer the challenges that come to a true teacher of the Word. The great prophet Jeremiah was not allowed to escape ridicule and critique (for instance Jeremiah 28) as he faithfully delivered God’s will to his people. Jesus did not try to escape this either.
The temptation to silence in some manner or bully our audience into submission instead of meeting them on a human plane will often present itself. The need to logically and passionately seek to persuade them of the truth will be our task. We often do such bullying with titles (letters in front of our names like Dr. or Rev.), lists of publications or our position as professor or pastor, our reputation or our charisma that comes from repeatedly being in front of a group. However, how close we are to God and how true our message is will often come in retrospect, not in the heat of debate. Students or parishioners will often go back to review both our answers and our willingness to serve by being willing to be questioned. We have all experienced the “put down” from a minister or teacher that refused to be questioned. We have all then subtly known they were not completely in the truth. A good teacher must avoid silencing critique, it is a damaging short cut to take.
One of the assets in Jesus’ struggle in the desert was His use of the Scriptures. In all three cases, He responded with God’s Word. All the quotes are taken from the book of Deuteronomy (8:3, 6:13, and 6:16). All the truths found in these quotations are concepts found in other parts of the Torah. Why only Deuteronomy is exclusively used is not clear. One guess would be that the situation of Deuteronomy fit the situation Jesus was in. Deuteronomy was given in the mountains of Moab while Israel was still in the desert and about to enter into the Promised Land. Jesus was about to enter into His ministry and was in the state of learning before He embarked on His task. Israel too was being instructed in the book of Deuteronomy before they embarked on their task of conquering the Promised Land. Also, Deuteronomy stressed that the disaster that befell the generation that came across the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds) could be avoided by obedience. Jesus’ struggle in the desert was committing Himself to obedience of God’s will or God’s Word.
As the experience of hardship alone did not help the early Israelites who died in the desert before inheriting the Land, hardships alone do not make a good preacher/teacher. The choice to learn in them and the choice to apply the truths in the midst of them must be made. Jesus did learn and did work through the difficulties, and it prepared Him for work back in the Promised Land when He left the wilderness.
Jesus did not quote Scripture as if it was a charm or technique, but rather He focused on what God truly wanted and therefore contradicted what would be the path of ease that was offered to Him. Scripture was not used as a talisman but seen as something to be probed, pondered and used as the basis for obedience. Jesus submitted to the direction of the Word. Luke did not tell us how Jesus learned or studied the Old Testament, but His familiarity and insight into it was extensively demonstrated in Luke’s Gospel. His success in the desert was tied to the fact that Scripture was known and understood as well as used in a manner that necessitated action on His part.
Jesus’ use of the Word is a demonstration of how we should use it. He, in effect, reversed the Fall of Mankind as portrayed in Genesis 3. Mankind was tempted to decide what was good and what was evil through the tempting by Satan. Jesus decided to let God decide what was good and what was evil and that was shown to us in His use and submission to the Scripture’s intent. The key verse of Deuteronomy is 6:4 “Hear O Israel….” The word “hear” in Hebrew is also the Hebrew word for “obey”. Jesus obeyed the Word of God. He truly heard it.
He would then call others to obedience but this was something He had already been doing. He was already following the message He would give to others. John would later say, “The Word became flesh….” Luke’s way to show us that same truth was to show us that the very message they needed to hear from God was being acted out in the flesh before their very eyes in Jesus’ life. He truly was the message. He was the Word of God. This is exquisite communication.
The desert experience was part of Jesus’ preparation and therefore He modeled for us a necessary aspect of becoming a good communicator. Teachers cannot call others to the Word of God unless it is first part of their own experience. It appeared that testing and temptation in difficult circumstances was the necessary prerequisite for the “incarnation” of ministerial truths. Early in Jesus’ public life He faced the temptation to “prove Himself” and thus get derailed from the agenda of salvation.
This early battle would bare fruit. It will be shown in the following chapters that Jesus was acting in concert with what He declared to Satan in His battles in the desert. Jesus will avoid pit falls so common in successful ministry. He will not be side-tracked nor wither when He is attacked due in part to preparation given in these early struggles.
He also will display psychological credentials, for lack of better terms. Jesus had gained the right, or gained the credentials to speak authoritatively into the hearts of others. He had faced temptation and suffered in the desert. Jesus was His message, by being one who heard and did and He could now call others to similar actions (8:19-21, 11:27-28). Two teachers or preachers can say the same thing but in the mouth of one there is often an authority that causes the words to stick deep. Jesus had gained authority in part from the experience of the stress encountered in the desert.
Finally, in the last moments of Jesus’ public ministry before His resurrection He would face again the temptation to “prove Himself”. In Luke 23:33-43 He would be taunted three times to come down from the cross and prove Himself the Chosen One (23:35), King of the Jews (23:37) or the Messiah (23:39). He never responded to the taunts as He had settled that issue in the sparse desert. He had already won that battle in the wilderness of Judea. Instead, He focused, not on His own needs, but on the needs of others (23:34, 43).
II The Method Deployed: Six Sermons. Luke 4:14-12:2537
A. The First Sermon: to the Crowds at Synagogue. 4:14-6:16
1. The Sermon in Nazareth: Understanding the poor. Luke 4:14-30.
a. The Sermon and its Results.
The first mention of Jesus’ public ministry began with His work in Galilee. Luke 4:14-14 is a general summary. It stressed four things. First, Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit. The same Spirit that drove Jesus into the deprivations of the desert now empowered His ministry. Second, its effect was startling as the news about Him spread throughout the area. We are not told specifically what caused news to spread but from 4:23, the implication was that He did miracles or healing. Third, Jesus was teaching in their synagogues. This is the first time that the word “teaching” is used in connection with Jesus in the book of Luke. Fourth, the teaching was well received. Everyone praised him. Praise is delicious and addictive, and it can dilute our nerve to teach and confront tough issues. One becomes addicted to the praise and is loath to lose it. It can imprison you, but if you have been in the desert…. Often it is the desert that shows the teacher that success is not the key but rather loyalty to God. Jesus has already faced this in the second temptation.
We notice that He spoke in their synagogues. He used the normal, established venues open to Him for communicating truth to His culture. Luke 4:16 tells us He went to the synagogue often. As a visiting Rabbi, He would be asked to teach (4:15). What followed this brief description was a particular teaching session and no doubt selected by Luke to demonstrate what sort of message and manner of teaching Jesus was practicing in verses 14-15. This particular session took place in His hometown of Nazareth in 4:16-30. It will be our first look at His teaching to the crowds.
It would be reasonable to assume that the pressure to succeed in front of the home crowd was enormous. He stood up to read (as He was a visiting Rabbi), and they handed Him the scroll of Isaiah. He turned to and read Isaiah 61:1, 2. Then He sat down, as was custom and began to teach. He had their complete attention and while all eyes were fixed upon Him, He claimed the text applied to Him. This was bold and alarming.
The Isaiah reading that He selected let His audience know what He considered to be the source of His teaching: the Spirit of God (4:18a or Isaiah 61:1). The reading also made clear what the reasons for His teaching were: to set free those whose blindness had made them captive or bound and to set free those that many would not bother with (4:18b-19).
Jesus’ teaching came from the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit had been operative already in Him (Luke 3-4), but now it empowered Him as He rose to teach. What was also clear was that the Spirit desired to help those caught in allusion and those nobody cared about. It wished to give good news to the poor and to set free the blind. Many in opposition to Jesus (who is led by the Spirit of God) avoid mentioning the blindness of the blind or focus their ministry on a different part of the population, a more elite audience, one that can tithe, or pay tuition, but the will of the Spirit of the Lord was expressed in what Jesus read.
The goal is not to gain a positive response from the audience. The goal is to give to those who are oppressed good news, to announce freedom for those who are captive, to clear up their perception of truth, to release the oppressed and to speak such freedom into existence because it was spoken in the Name of God. Jesus’ ministry had a particular focus; it was to announce the work of God’s desire to extend grace and to extend grace to the most unlikely audience.
The time had come; it was the time God had decided to extend favor. It was time, Jesus said, to act as God had always acted: to release His grace on those least expected to receive it. God, long ago, called the people of Israel out of Egypt and made them the elect of the earth. He selected an oppressed race. He selected the poor. It was the true story of the Master Instructor. The “Law of Moses” is best translated “the instructions of Moses”. Moses was a teacher of God’s will and God’s great Law or instruction was intentionally given to a poor audience: a slave race captive in Egypt.
The response to Jesus’ teaching that day moved in three waves Luke tells us. First they were deeply interested. All eyes were fixed on Him; He had their attention (4:20). Second, Jesus was seemingly successful at first. “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from His lips.” They wondered how a hometown boy could turn out to be so gifted. They wondered how a local young man, the son of the carpenter Joseph, could speak so well (4:22). Jesus had the audience in the palm of His hand. Then “He closed His hand.” An impressive preacher or teacher who is well thought of has not accomplished anything yet if all the audience does is praise the speaker/teacher. The work of freedom or release has to be completed, and so Jesus began to go further with His audience. He had learned in the desert the goal was not to “impress” but “bless” (Luke 4:3-4). They needed the “better bread”.
He referenced the previous miracles they had heard about or whatever He had done in Capernaum (4:23), knowing they would like to see some of the same. They would like to be further impressed. He seemed to indicate that such was not the bread they needed (4:4). They did not need the bread of healing (as necessary as it was at times) but the bread of God’s Word. He then predicted that they would not like it (4:24). He refused to perform for them in such a way as to please them. He did not need to prove Himself although the pressure must have been great to look good in front of those He grew up with. Instead, He turned to the familiar stories of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha and began to point out a feature in their lives they no doubt had not attended to. He knew they needed more than “bread alone”; they needed freedom, spiritual freedom. Jesus had great respect for the Scriptures and their ability as the bread of heaven, as the Word of God, to heal, sustain and enlighten the soul.
He told the story of the widow who was miraculously saved through the blessing of Elijah (4:25-26). She was given continual bread in the midst of her hunger or personal desert, much like the Israelites were given bread by Moses in the desert. Jesus then pointed out that she was not an Israelite. He noted that there were many Israelite widows in need at that time, but the prophet was sent to none of those. She was a poor Gentile and had the good news of the nature and love of the God of Israel revealed to her. She had become the elect of God as Israel had. He then proceeded to relate how Naaman was a Syrian (a military captain of Israel’s enemies) and though there must have been many with leprosy in Israel in those days, the prophet healed only the foreigner who had leprosy (4:27). Naaman experienced the miracles of God much as the early Israelites had in their desert wandering. Naaman had become the elect of God and the proof was in the provision of God for his need (his leprosy was cured).
The third response of the audience in this episode was quite different than the first responses. They were furious and drove Him out of town and decided to throw Him off the cliffs on which the city sat. They tried to kill the teacher. Jesus had ruined His position of popularity. He deliberately threw it away because He loved them more than He wanted to please them. He confronted them in their tribalism or racism. They were captives and could not see the truth of their own history. They were not who they were designed to be; they were, as the elect of God, to be the “light of the nations”, not the self satisfied narrowly introverted people they had become. They were angry with Him for attempting to help them where they did not want help. They were in synagogue (or in church), and in the synagogue the Word of God was read and commented on, but they only wanted to hear certain things. God’s Word comes from the Person of God, and if it is “left a text” that can be used only to bolster our prejudices, then it has ceased to be the “Word of God”; the revealed Will of God. Scripture in the hands of an anointed teacher who has been in the desert moves from being a “text” to the creative, powerful “Word of God”.
Such preaching is dangerous to the teacher. Jesus is almost killed. There is a cost to such teaching as there was a cost paid by Moses and by all the prophets. Moses’ first criticism did not come from the Egyptians, but from his own people (Exodus 2:14).
b. His Teaching Method: confidence, O.T., courage, and glitches.
Five additional comments would be appropriate on the manner of Jesus’ teaching. First, Jesus was bold, directive and courageous, the result of being schooled in deprivation. Courage is a by-product, if allowed to be, of being in the desert or a by-product of the Spirit’s work. Facing difficulty early in life or ministry makes one stronger to face hardship when it comes after one has begun to serve in public and formal service.
Second, he lulled them to sleep before He pounced upon them. He approached them indirectly. He first quoted their Scriptures and had all of them very satisfied with His performance. Then He struck with the two stories of foreigners being the recipients of God’s grace. They were expecting Him to do miracles as He had done (see 4:23) and thus further impress them. Instead, once He had their attention, He went after their greater need. He gave them what they needed instead of validating His ministry with His home town.
Third, He knew how to use the Scriptures. In Luke 4:4, 8, 12, 18-19, 25-26 and 27 Jesus quoted or alluded to the Old Testament.
He knew how to properly use the Scriptures and saw the Word as coming from a living God. He had become aware of the Devil’s techniques of using Scripture in the desert. He did not see the Word as a lifeless set of words that could be used at the whim and will of the reader. The Scriptures were not a text to be operated upon but a living Word to operate upon the reader or listener. The Word came from a living God who was still present via the Spirit, and was now present in their midst in Jesus. For example, Jesus saw the Gentiles as the weak and the poor. In our world, they are the non-churched and are not to be despised or feared but to have the good news preached to them (4:18). The Spirit was active and the Spirit had spoken in that synagogue at Nazareth. It did not set well with the preconceptions of His audience, and some preconceptions can imprison us and Jesus knew through the Spirit which ones they were. He used the Word to reveal their poverty. Luke shows for the first time an example of Simeon’s prophesy in 2:34-35: “and to be sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.”
Fourth, this was the first time Luke has shown us Jesus encountering hostility as a teacher. It would not be the last time. Could it be that Luke wanted us to see that, at times, encountering hostility is part of good teaching? Many of those who wish to minister are shy of stirring controversy or of encountering hostility. If we are to truly love people we must be willing to encounter such pain. We naturally fear hostility, but perhaps, the cure of such fears is the decisions made in the desert.
Finally or fifth, Jesus used a technique here in this sermon that will be repeated in the next five sermons (and is part of the essence of most of the parables). He deliberately upset His audience or said something unexpected to them. His first sermon recorded in Luke was a classic example of it, and He would do it repeatedly in the next four extended examples of His teaching. He seemed to be duplicating an aspect of Old Testament narrative technique found so often in the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament, there were glitches placed deliberately into some of the narratives that caused the hearer to be jolted and disturbed (or upset). This was done deliberately. Our common practice is to smooth out such disturbances, (or delete them from consideration as unworthy of our more advanced theology) but the narrators were highly skilled and knew they were upsetting their audience.
To give an example from the narratives of Moses might help make this clearer. It is appropriate to choose one of these narratives since we have seen parallels to Jesus’ ministry and that of Moses’ efforts. The chosen example comes from the story of when God tried to kill Moses on his way to Egypt after arguing with him to accept the task of delivering his people for most of Exodus 3and 4. Moses finally obeyed, and then the glitch appears in Exodus 4:24-26. Yahweh tried to kill the agent of His plan of salvation. In our passage, Jesus announced His messianic role and had the audience positively impressed and then threw in the glitch about dealing with foreigners (gers). Jesus was completely in line with the Spirit of the Old Testament by using this technique of startling his audience (i.e. as in Exodus 4 when Yahweh trying to kill Moses). Both the reader of the Exodus 4 passage and the audience of Jesus’ day were startled. Why was this done?
Perhaps, the deliberate attempt to startle the audience at such a high cost (they attempted to murder Jesus) should lead us to ponder and carefully note what agenda was being pushed. It should lead us to see how important that particular issue was to Jesus. It was important to Jesus for those who went to synagogue and listened to the Scriptures to truly listen to them. They were in place of revelation but it was not taking place. He believed the glitch could lead them to the key meaning of His Isaiah quote.
In similar fashion the glitch in the Pentateuch demonstrated what was extremely important to Yahweh, when applied to the story of the Torah’s greatest positive example of leadership, namely, Moses. What is our glitch here in Luke 4? It is: who were the poor or prisoners or oppressed that needed to hear the proclamation of the Lord’s favor? He first applies it to Gentiles (not at all what was anticipated by the Jewish community when Jesus announced His being the messiah). It shocked them, and this shock would continue throughout Luke’s Gospel as the narratives that follow will show. This was an important agenda to Jesus. Who are the proper recipients of the Lord’s favor? Then, by implication, the glitch applied the passage to the audience by exposing their lack of openness to non-Jewish people being more perceptive of God’s action than the believers of that day.
Here perhaps is the rule about glitches or startling statements or actions: the glitch is a pointer to an important truth. When there is a startling glitch in a sermon or parable it is parallel to similar glitches in the narratives of the Old Testament narratives.
To further develop our O.T. example, Moses was extremely important to the Torah as a model for leadership. He was the necessary tool; it appears, to the salvation of the elect of God and to the giving of the “Law”. God had preformed a miracle to keep him alive at his birth, gave him the best education the son of a slave could have thanks to his surrogate mother being the Pharaoh’s daughter, and pushed him into the desert for forty years (much like Jesus’ forty days). However in Exodus 4:24-26, God seemed to be willing to start over and eliminate the chosen vessel: He sought to kill him. The passage is quite alarming; it contains quite a glitch.
The glitch has to do with Moses’ role. Moses would become the “law giver” par excel lance. His job was not merely to deliver the people from their slavery to Egypt but from sin as well. They were to be the elect of God and to be that they needed to know God’s will. They needed the Torah, the Law. How could the “law giver” be a true lawgiver if he did not follow the law himself? The Israelites had at that time one distinctive law and that was circumcision. Moses had not circumcised his son. The lawgiver also had to follow the law. Or put in other words: Moses had to be the message, not only teach it. This was not a minor issue to God but a major one. He was willing to eliminate Moses if Moses was unwilling to be the incarnate message of God’s will. The Law Giver must also follow the Law. Moses was to teach repeatedly about the danger of the holiness of God. After the event of Exodus 4:24-26, he knew of that danger personally. The experience became an asset to him.
In the following narratives it can be seen how Luke illustrated the glitch’s main point. Just as the main meaning to the story in Exodus 4:24-26 was not quite apparent until one saw the rest of the Exodus story and Moses moved from being a deliverer to a law giver. So we, as readers of Luke, must watch to see what it means to be an anointed teacher and who the poor or captive are. There are roughly 10-12 sections that will follow the sermon in 4:14-30 (depending on how you group them) and before the second sermon in 6:20-40. In the middle are seven stories that will define or explain the “glitch” about to whom He was sent. If we are anointed by the Spirit of God and our ministry is not aimed and focused at those Isaiah 61:1 speaks of then we prove we are not anointed or have lost our way.
Luke will progress in his presentation of Jesus as a teacher at this point using two organizing teaching motifs: How did time in the desert affect His equilibrium as a teacher and how does one define the “glitch” of who are the intended recipients to whom Jesus was sent to proclaim “the year of the Lord’s favor”. Luke defined in what followed the first sermon both the intended audience of the “anointed teacher” and why “wilderness experiences” are so necessary for the health and success of a teacher.
2. Immediate Response and definition of the word “poor”. 4:31- 44.
In the immediate aftermath are three vignettes (4:31-44). The first story is about His ministry in Capernaum of Galilee (4:31-37). There are several observations that could be made about His teaching. He was still using popular convention by teaching on the Sabbath in the synagogues. This is the second (4:31) and third reference to Jesus teaching the people (4:32). This time we are told not about His popularity with the crowd but about the amazement that seized them because His message had authority. Luke does not explicitly tell us what produced this “authority”.
This success causes us to ask some questions. Is this part of what it means to be “filled with the Spirit”? What did these people sense? Did the authority they recognized come in part from the desert? Do we not listen to the counselor who has been through what we have been through? Is not the former cancer patient much more likely to speak with authority to others dealing with cancer? Is this similar to what we all have noticed that some men or women have within them a positive authority, and it is often born of struggle or hardship? However, not all those who suffer gain such authority but gain only bitterness. Jesus suffered in the desert as God’s anointed and in addition, He was obedient.
In the first story after the synagogue at Nazareth event, Jesus did similar things. As He attacked the Devil’s stronghold of tribalism in His hometown, He attacked the Devil’s control of this poor man (4:33-35). This man was bound, oppressed and a prisoner and Jesus announced his deliverance. He did not want demonic praise (see Acts 16) but He insisted on demonic obedience and got it. He spoke with authority and demonstrated that authority. Again all the people were amazed by the authority and power of His teaching. The news spread everywhere. The Holy Spirit may cause sparse times for the bearer of the Spirit (4:1), but it also brings power and authority over evil and freedom to those oppressed. He healed many (4:36) and made those healed another example of who was to have pronounced upon them “the year of the Lord’s favor”.
The second story was away from the public nature of a synagogue service and took place in the home of Simon (4:38-39). Again, He demonstrated power with just a word and healed Simon’s mother-in-law of her fever. Anyone who has entered a Middle Eastern home would know of the great shame Simon’s mother-in-law would have faced by being unable to attend to her guests, especially this special Rabbi. She was freed now to retain her pride and dignity and to serve. She was the favored of God and like Jesus’ mother, or like Simeon, she could now serve. Who was favored of God in this story? It was an older woman, the mother-in-law of a fisherman.
The reception of favor in this case was privately received. Many today would only want such power for healing if it could be displayed where it got proper public exposure. In this case, Jesus performed an act of power privately and to meet a seemingly common or domestic need.
The third vignette comes in the evening as people now come to Simon’s home. These were not important, powerful, rich or highly prestigious people but those with various kinds of sickness and those demon-possessed. He touched them all, and they were healed (4:40). They received the Lord’s favor. He again refused the testimony of demons. He was refusing their spectacular witness to His deity much like He refused to jump off the Temple Mount (4:41). He did not need to prove anything.
Our story has an interesting ending that is quite instructive for teachers who are anointed by the Spirit. He stepped away from where He was popular and successful. Similar to the experience in the synagogue in Nazareth where He threw away popularity in the first sermon, He announced in this instance His intention to leave where He had been popular and accepted by the people due to His performance of miracles. People were looking for Him and tried to keep Him from leaving, but He spoke about priorities. They, no doubt, wanted healing, but He knew their long-term need was for the “greater bread”. Jesus knew teaching/preaching would save for the long term and that only the word, not healings or physical blessings, had long term effect. Humans need more than physical sustenance, and Jesus had settled on that priority firmly in the desert. Meeting physical needs was well and good and Jesus did it, but “man does not live by bread alone”.
There are two interesting issues that Luke is consciously presenting to us. The first concerns the crowds. He was popular with them in 4:15, but as Luke begins to assign verbs to the “crowds” he shows they do not get it. They are fascinated in Nazareth (20 c), amazed (22); furious and attempted to murder Him (28-29), amazed in Capernaum (32) and amazed again (36), before finally trying to stop His purpose for coming to the world (42). Luke showed us Jesus loved the crowds, but did not try to please them or order His agenda around their expectations (4:23) or desires (4:42).
The second issue is that of private prayer. Jesus showed us repeatedly that we need to be an incarnation of our message, and so He did that in teaching us about prayer. Time alone with God preceded His public ministry (4:1-13), and after spectacular success he went back into a solitary place to pray (42). He showed how to regain a proper focus and not get caught up with success. Jesus would do this several times as Luke tells us. He was highly successful in chapter 5:12-15 due to the public healing of the leper, but He again retreated to the lonely places and prayed (Luke says He often withdrew to such places: 5:16).
Finally, before the presentation of the second sermon in Luke 6:20 Jesus engaged in some hot debates about how one should do ministry in light of the prevailing customs (6:1-11). His actions culminated in the religious and powerful leaders becoming furious and the second plot was made for His death (6:11). Luke then reported that Jesus went to a mountainside to pray and spent the night praying to God (6:12). The threat against His ministry and against His life did not cause Him to cower or stop His work, but rather after a night in prayer He made efforts to expand the ministry and selected the twelve apostles (who were going to be “sent-ones”).
He modeled for us prayer before public ministry, after public success and after rejection by the powerful and before an important decision was to be made. Prayer seemed to keep success or rejection from distracting Him. Guidance (6:13-19) or proper focus (4:43-44) was given through prayer. His prayer times seemingly brought Him back to the obedience He purposed in the desert.
3. Further Defining the word “Poor”. Luke 5:1-39
This chapter has four parts: the call of Peter, the healing of the man with leprosy, the healing of the paralytic, the call of Matthew which would bring to the surface questions about the nature of Jesus’ ministry and a resulting parabolic answer. The four parts could be called the “Call of Peter”, the “Healing of the Leper”, the “Healing of the Paralytic” and the “Call of Levi”. However, all four parts contain both “calling” and “healing”. Jesus heals but gives more than physical healing to each of the four individuals (man does not live by bread alone). All four are “called” to a particular and specific task; each task appropriate to the individual. The teaching of Jesus involved commitment or calling to a specific physical task, and it involved healing of the very soul.
All four episodes could be seen in light of the first temptation. Each person is given the greater bread and then helped to focus on a task. Jesus did not stop with meeting mere physical needs, but moved on to the better bread which included the giving of a task. Part of the greater better bread or part of the great need is to have significance. That is often gained the issuing of or having a task. Jesus dealt with His temptations in part by focusing on the task given to Him by God.
In addition, all through chapter 5 Jesus would continue to answer the question as to whom the “year of the Lord’s favor” was announced (the four vignettes could be seen as the 2nd through the 5th definition). He would call Peter to ministry, a blue-collar worker and call Levi, a hated tax collector. They were alarming selections, but they were typical of who Yahweh selected in the Old Testament. Yahweh selected the second son when He selected Jacob over Esau, the eighth son in David, and the choice of the judges was, by in large, in this same manner. The celebrated judges were an unusual lot: a bastard (Jephthah), a woman in the man’s world of warfare (Deborah), a coward (Gideon), and an undisciplined man (Samson). In similar fashion the choice of a left handed man (Ehud) was clearly symbolic of this theme. The very selection of a slave race to be the elect of God, the recipients of the Torah and the bearer of the messianic line ran in this same vein. The Old Testament nature of what Jesus was doing dominated Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ value system and procedures.
a. The Call/Healing of Peter: 5:1-11
There are always problems in teaching and preaching. Sometimes these problems are logistical. Physical location is important for optimum communication. Anyone who has ever taught in a room that is too hot or has poor acoustics can relate. In the opening teaching situation of Luke 5, the crowd was large and was pressing in on Him, no doubt because of the healings, and He wanted to teach. He saw an opportunity. As a teacher, Jesus was adaptive and creative. He seemed to have sized up the problem or situation and then creatively came up with a solution. He got into one of the boats He saw and requested of Peter that he push off a little way from shore. It would be culturally inappropriate to refuse the request of a Rabbi and so Peter complied. He not only provided Jesus with a solution to the pressing crowds, but also gave Jesus a seat and a form of magnification to his voice because sound travels quite well over water. This arrangement did something else; it guaranteed a captive audience in the person of Peter.
A good teacher sees and solves logistical problems that work against good communication and does so with the help of others. Every teacher has experienced the affect of asking the more unruly student for aid in collecting pencils or doing some manual act of aid and the resulting openness of that student to listening to the teacher. Simon was invested now in the ministry of Jesus, the use of his boat had already made him part of Jesus’ efforts to teach.
What was rather charming was that Jesus then offered to pay for the use of the boat. Involving Peter’s boat had a double edge to it (it helped Him logistically and got a fisherman involved) and so in similar fashion this offer to pay for the boat’s use (5:5-7) had a double edge to it. They were fisherman and needed to catch fish for a living. Jesus had taken time from their work (though they finished fishing for that day) and so repaid them in the currency they could understand and appreciate. By miracle He filled their boats with fish. Obviously, they were paid for the use of the boat and paid substantially (5:6) as it needed two boats to haul in the catch in Peter’s nets and then both boats almost sunk.
The catch of fish was not merely for Peter’s financial benefit, but for his soul. Peter was asked to fish again after he, as a professional, had not caught a thing. Simon Peter, at this point was asked to do something tangible or physical to gain spiritual insight (5:4-5). Peter was asked to cast out his nets when every good fisherman of the day knew that the request was a foolish one. To gain from Jesus, however, Peter had to obey by doing something with his body. This concept of demanding physical response in the process of spiritual insight would dominate much of what Jesus did to help people see God. We will see in the next chapters that repentance or faith will always include a physical aspect. This particular action was a risk, Peter has just cleaned the nets, and he was asked to trust or risk that the Rabbi should be obeyed. The risks a good teacher asks of a student must come from something they are already familiar with and Peter knew fishing, so the risk or act of faith involved fishing. The large catch, coupled with his obedience had its intended second affect: it awakened Peter’s soul (5:8). He received true bread.
Peter recovered his sight for he was blind. The miracle (or theophany if you please) revealed to Peter who he was (see also 2:35). He saw his sinfulness. The miracle had opened Peter’s eyes to the divine activity present before him, and Peter then used a different title than in verse 5 (“Master”), and called Jesus: “Lord”. The action of revealing Peter’s sinfulness was not to dominate him or control him, for Jesus quickly follows with: “Do not be afraid”. The prohibition to not fear was the same one addressed to the shepherds, Mary and Zechariah. All those mentioned above had experienced a powerful religious event and were involved in the divine plan and similar to them Peter was told that he too would be part of God’s saving activity. Repentance was not to lead to low self-esteem but was the precursor of being entrusted with God’s task (see Isaiah 6:5).
Luke saw Jesus, as being in the Old Testament tradition in many ways, and here was another. Peter’s call is interestingly very similar to the prophet Isaiah’s call (Isaiah 6:1-8). He too experienced or saw God and this experience revealed to the prophet his own sinfulness. God cleansed him, and then the prophet overheard the need and chose to be God’s spokesman
Like Isaiah, the task had to be chosen. Peter had to choose to be a “fisher of men” as Isaiah had to choose to be God’s spokesman and so Luke recorded that Peter left everything behind. To get to the will of God requires that one leave their past and embrace a new future and follow God (see Genesis 12:1-6). The leaving for Peter was the leaving of his security, his job. The immediate financial gain of the fish created the situation that caused him to give up fishing, the very means of financial gain.
As Peter left, so did some of his fellow fisherman. They too saw the miracle and Peter’s obedience affected and involved them (as they no doubt learned much trying to pull in all the fish and probably heard the sermon from the shore). One individual’s obedience or involvement can open the doors for others.
b. The Healing/Call of the Leper: 5:12-16
In the next story, the man was covered with leprosy, and he was aware of his lowly position and so bowed to the ground and called Jesus: “Lord”. He then proclaimed his belief that Jesus could heal him if He so desired. Jesus said the words: “I am willing”, but He communicated His willingness before the words and therefore the words had a double effect. He touched the man. Jesus, as a teacher, communicated with body language. He asked others to commit themselves physically, but did so first with His actions. He was willing to get involved physically and even become dirty. It is questionable if a minister or teacher is anointed by the Spirit of God if they are not willing to physically demonstrate what they say.
Jesus communicated the willingness of God to deal with diseased human beings (and therefore unclean human beings), but man does not live by bread alone. Jesus did not leave it there. He then followed with instructions (Torah). Moses delivered the people from Egypt, but that was not enough. He gave the Israelites instructions or Torah. In this instance the man had received from God, and then he was given a chance to obey or respond. As by grace the Israelites had been given salvation from Egyptian oppression and then were given a chance to respond or obey when they were given the Law. The Law afforded them the opportunity to respond to salvation, and Jesus was the new Moses.
As will be demonstrated throughout Luke, Jesus was not against the Mosaic Law. He told the man to tell no one, but go and show himself to the priest for a testimony so that they could either see the works of God or so he could be pronounced clean and thus able to reenter society. Perhaps, both were intended. Luke chose not to tell us what he did but we do know the news about Jesus spread everywhere.
The ending demonstrates how to handle success. A good teacher is not to lose their focus on the real needs of people. Man does not live by bread (physical healing) alone. By focusing on the man’s greater need and demanding that he immediately goes to the priests Jesus focused on the man’s need to obey Torah instead of His success in curing leprosy. He refused to garner praise but rather demanded response from the man much like He did with Peter (5:4-5, 10).
As mentioned above, the freedom from the temptation of success must be fought for. Jesus showed us that we must make an effort for balance in our lives. With crowds everywhere Jesus withdrew to lonely places for prayer (5:16).
c. The Healing/Call of the Paralytic: 5:17-26.
1) The story: Interruption and Teaching.
The following story is one of perception in the midst of interruption. Most teachers have experienced interruptions and a good teacher knows how to handle them. The next story opened with Jesus doing what He intended to do and that which He put priority on, which was to teach (see 4:43). Jesus was teaching in a home and surrounded by the teachers of the Law. Then, as now, it might help to remember it was particularly important to teachers/preachers to be accepted and appreciated by their peers as it was in any profession. How our peers perceive us has great affect upon us.
There was a curious addition to the “setting to the scene” in this episode that Luke chose to give to us. He added that the power of the Lord was present for Him to heal the sick. Does this mean that it was not always present, or is Luke reminding us that Jesus is truly what we should be as a teacher? Is Luke saying that the power should be present? Could Luke also be saying that because this power was present and others knew of it, that some individuals only wanted healing and not teaching? Perhaps, this latter situation is in Luke’s mind because he immediately mentioned that some men came with their friend on a stretcher and could not get their friend into the presence of the Healer.
The men interrupted Jesus’ teaching by tearing up the roof in order to get their paralyzed friend to the front and center of Jesus’ attention. Jesus’ response was highly instructive. Instead of being frustrated or angry, Jesus used the interruption of His teaching to teach. He did so, Luke says, because He was perceptive. He did not see an interruption, but perceived faith (5:20). He was not angry for He called the man “friend” and then forgave the man’s sins.
This set off a firestorm of protest from the religious leaders (5:21), and Jesus must have known it would. There would not have been the controversy had Jesus healed the man and gone on teaching. However, the religious leaders were scandalized because Jesus seemed to usurp what belonged solely to God: the forgiveness of sin. The text says Jesus was aware of their reasoning and so proceeded to ask rhetorical questions to lead their reasoning process into a more productive stream. He asked which was easier to say: “you are forgiven or you are to rise up and walk.” Then He helped them make a logical deduction about who He was by telling them before He did it that they were to see that both powers resided in the Son of Man.
2) Jesus’ Teaching Method.
Jesus clearly taught the religious leaders something vital to their lives. They were instructed through the interruption about the nature of who Jesus was. Jesus had turned the interruption into a perfect opportunity to teach them a vital truth. The presence of God was right before them.
Just to do healings or do the miraculous accompanied by teaching does not often produce long term positive effect. Power and the Word are not enough. Without commitment on the part of the receivers of the healings or teachings Jesus knew His long term effect would be minimized. Typical of Jesus’ method of teaching truth was to demand a response on the part of the hearer or receiver. His demands were filled with variety and were appropriate to the particular audience addressed. On the part of the religious teachers it was to make logical deductions (5:22-24, it would have been revolutionary if they had done it), and on the part of the ill man on the stretcher it was to do something physical. He told the man to get up and walk, which was the very thing the man, could not do (5:24). After all he was lowered through the roof because of that very inability.
The sick man did respond and potentially led the way for the religious leaders by his obedience and reception of God’s blessing. Like Peter was to the two sons of Zebedee, the paralytic was also a potential catalyst for others in the room. They were all filled with awe and reported verbally that they had seen remarkable things that day (5:26). It appears good teachers produce leaders not teachers’ pets. Jesus produced a leader in Peter (Peter’s friends followed him) and in the paralytic (everyone was enlightened through his obedience/healing) and seemed to have tried to do so for the leper (the command to go to the priests). It is instructive that the paralytic left the scene praising God in 5:25 and his actions and reception of healing produced a praising of God from among the crowd. This aspect of the production of leaders will continue into the next pericope or story about the tax collector Levi.
In all four of these stories about the attempt to produce leaders: Peter, the leper, the paralytic and the tax collector there was an oddity. These are hardly the pool most teachers would draw from to develop leaders. However, Jesus continued to define who was to have proclaimed to them the favorable year or the time of the Lord’s dynamic saving action. It is easy to see in the leper, the paralytic and in Levi that these particular men were prisoners of various sorts and needed their freedom to be proclaimed (4:18).
d. The Calling/Healing of Levi: 5:27-38.
As Jesus took a risk in touching the leper and risked contracting the man’s illness and certainly becoming ritually defiled, and as Jesus risked the theological disapproval of the religious leaders by pronouncing forgiveness on the paralytic, Jesus then risked social defilement by His acceptance of Levi as a follower. Jesus was aware of what He was doing in all of these cases. He was aware of the risks. He was aware of who He was talking to. He told the leper to become ritually clean (5:14), and He referred to Levi as one needing a doctor, someone who was not filled with the health of righteousness, but was indeed a sinner (5:31-32). A teacher has to get his hands dirty if he is going to get to the people he wishes to reach. To stay safe is not an option.
As different as Peter and Levi were they also had some similarities: they were both at work, not at church. When they were called, Levi was doing evil work (tax-collecting for an oppressive foreign government) whereas Peter was doing acceptable work. However, both were at their place of employment when Jesus called them. Perhaps, being “on their turf” in some regard is vital to teaching effectively. This aspect of Jesus’ teaching will be repeated several times. He taught in the streets, or a dinner party, etc. as well as in a synagogue.
These two have other similarities in their learning about God. They both left their occupations (5:11, 28). They both left the past behind. Radical decisions are necessary for those from good homes or acceptable employment as well as bad homes or occupations. Peter was called after a teaching session (5:4) whereas the teaching followed the call of Levi (5:31-38). Calling and teaching are intertwined in both episodes.
The criticism of Jesus calling Levi to follow Him was due probably not to the call for Levi to leave his detestable occupation but that Jesus truly meant the part about following Him literally. Levi was asked to associate with Jesus (5:27). Levi was apparently thrilled with this change of events and so threw a party for other tax collectors (they were his associates). Jesus attended. To eat with someone is to commune with them in Hebrew culture. This sparked the criticism. Jesus was ruining His image or reputation.
The criticism was directed to the disciples not directly to Jesus Himself. However, Jesus took this question and dealt with it. Good teachers tackle the tough questions given to beginning students. Then the students can learn, watch and then later imitate.
In response to the criticism, the answer showed the disciples on later reflection that their master knew intimately what He was doing. One has to understand well what he is doing if one is able to define the action with a clever and accurate metaphor. The metaphor was far reaching. It not only met the requirements of the situation but also defined philosophically the approach of Jesus. He knew the criticism was against His action, and He deliberately owned that action.
We are not told how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus’ proclaimed ministry focus, but it is reasonable to think they did not like it. They follow their first criticism with a second: the lax nature of Jesus’ disciples. They and even the dynamic John the Baptist taught their disciples to fast and pray. Perhaps, they are reaching here but are no doubt upset with the feast or banquet that the disreputable Levi has provided. Extending His acceptance and teaching to those who really need teaching can bring criticism.
What was remarkable about the criticism in this instance was that it seemed to miss the point. The issue of Jesus’ dealing with tax-gatherers was not fasting but salvation. The leaders were not excited that a tax collector had been rehabilitated. They were not interested in salvation for the ones that Jesus, under the direction of the Spirit, had brought health to. Luke would emphasize this clear hard-heartedness on the part of the religious establishment in his next two vignettes (6:1-11). They brought up minor issues about fasting ignoring the main emphasis of what was taking place before their eyes.
Luke told us that John, Elizabeth, Simon, and Anna recognized the presence and activity of God because they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Luke explicitly told us about who recognized Him at the Temple when He was a child and implicitly that there were those who did not recognize that God’s messiah was present. In this story, Luke was explicit that these leaders do not perceive the activity of God and the deduction to be drawn is that was because the Spirit of God was not in them. Others were learning and growing into being leaders of faith, while these men were obstacles to God’s work of salvation.
Jesus did not address their hard-heartedness. He took the fasting agenda in another direction, actually, in two other directions. First, He patiently showed that He did not disagree with religious discipline or fasting being appropriate at the proper moment. His disciples would have their times of religious discipline ahead of them. (Jesus did not mention His own 40 day fast. A good teacher does not brag.) The reason for the delay of their fasting was His very presence. He was the bridegroom. He taught them about Himself (as He did with the interruption in 5:17-26). Fasting was inappropriate because of who He was. He was present and that made fasting inappropriate. He was the bridegroom, and the wedding of souls was taking place and that should be cause for joyous celebration. Perhaps, fasting should occur when that is not taking place. Perhaps, our churches should fast or their disciplines should increase because the lost are not getting married to the bridegroom.
Second, Jesus moved on to define the nature and impact of His presence on those He was bringing to salvation. Again, He knew clearly what He was doing so He could put it into metaphors or parables (5:34-39). He told them two similar parables from situations all of them could relate to (5:36-39). As Jesus instructed Peter about the nature of his sin and his future commission in terms he could understand (namely fishing) Jesus employed metaphors that could be understood by this particular audience.
Jesus went on to define His ministry and did so by means of contrasts. He knew His ministry was similar and yet not similar to what had gone before in these communities. He also knew it was controversial. Certainly, wanting to deliver the Israelites from Egypt was controversial to Pharaoh. Therefore, Jesus spoke of not mixing the new with the old. It would ruin both. One could not patch the old (garment) with the new (a new patch). The non-shrunken patch of new cloth would shrink when washed and thus in that process tear away from the old garment making the rent larger.
In the same fashion, one could not mix the new dynamic converts to salvation (the still fermenting and still young wine) with the old religious forms (the old wineskins). Those procedures (old wineskins) would not deal properly with the new converts (new wine). Jesus’ presence and ministry was not different in nature from what was given by His Father in the Old Testament (both were garments, both were wine). The constant respect and use of the Old Testament by Jesus clearly bore this out. However, to mix the revived lives of those lost or sick with those who did not consider themselves lost or ill would not work. It would hurt the new wine (new converts), destroy the old forms and the new converts would not be appreciated by those used to the old. The old tried to eject and commit murder violating Torah in 4:28-29 while those who were sick did not want Jesus to go away but to stay near them (4:41). Clearly, Jesus’ actions were controversial to some and attractive to others.
4. The Cost of Such Preaching: Prelude to Rejection and Expansion.: 6:1-16
a. Two Controversial Sabbaths: 6:1-11
1) The first Episode: defending the Disciples. 6:1-5.
Luke continued to describe Jesus as a teacher/communicator in chapter 6, but in a different tone. There is a subtle shift that begins in chapter 6. We have hinted from the first sermon that good teaching is often controversial teaching that produces negative reactions in the audience indicating their rejection of the content of the teaching. What was surprising was the source of the tension that would fill the next two vignettes (6:1-11). The attack came from the very place, which one would least expect: which was the leadership of God’s people. In addition, the locality of the attack was in a place where one would least expect the attack to come against the Son of God: in the church of that day. It is also surprising that these episodes demonstrated His opponents were not reacting against the actions of a revolutionary young man, but were against someone who was in some ways actually more conservative than they were.
The issue in this story and the one that follows concerns what was lawful to do on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a concept going back to the very understanding of the creation of the world that helped give God’s people a small cycle of rest or relief from a life of toil. It was a discipline though, one that blessed those that followed it, but a discipline none-the-less. Each week God’s people demonstrated their submission to God and acknowledgement of His lordship in the Covenant as well as His lordship over creation because as Creator He rested on the seventh day. However, every religious act, however good, can be corrupted and misunderstood. Jesus was not against the Sabbath, but rather against misunderstanding it. He was not against a conservative position, but a false conservative position.
The first story about the Sabbath had a seeming double function and a tie back to some of the stories in chapter 5. Some of those stories were tied to a typical element in Jesus’ teaching, namely the making and calling of disciples (see 5:1-11 and 5:27-32). The call of Levi had already raised some questions in the minds of the local leadership. In addition, the actions of the disciples in not looking pious in partaking of the feast of Levi drew Pharisaic fire about the nature of Jesus’ mentorship. Jesus’ followers did not seem as disciplined as their own disciples and John’s disciples (5:33-39).
Jesus defended His disciple’s actions in 5:34-35, and He did the same in 6:1-5. We will later see Jesus redirect, challenge and correct His staff (or disciples) but here He protected them. He did not let the disciples take the heat even for their own actions. Good teachers protect their disciples or as a great teacher once told me: “A teacher should always be willing to die for his students but never allow his students to die for him.” Here Jesus took ownership of their action and shielded them from the criticism (as He did in 5:33-34).
In the first pericope (6:1-5), what caused the criticism seemed rather trivial, but it was caused by Jesus’ disciples or ministerial staff. As the disciples traveled through the grain fields, they picked some of the heads of grain and with their hands, cleaned away the husks and ate the kernels. Some Pharisees saw this as an unlawful act because the disciples worked on the Sabbath. They were harvesting by the actions of their hands rubbing the grain husks free from the kernels and therefore disobeying the Torah. They were not stealing. Deuteronomy 23:24-25 clearly says people may assuage their hunger if they take from a field as they pass through only what they need and can pick with their hands. The law protected property rights but was merciful and practical. It was the rubbing of the hands together that constituted their supposed error and caused the controversy.
Jesus did not buy their critique, or seemingly their understanding of Sabbath laws and proceeded to instruct them from a text in I Samuel using King David and the High Priest of that day. Jesus began to display again His great ability to handle exegetically the Scriptures. He did not reject tradition, but corrected their understanding of it. The story of David clearly showed that hunger trumps ritual as David was never criticized by the narrator of I Samuel and was given permission to eat bread reserved for priests. The decision to give David bread was made by the High Priest himself. The High Priest knew the law and its intent.
Luke ended the episode with a quote (6:3-5) from Jesus but recorded no response from Jesus’ detractors. Jesus’ speech had two parts: the long rhetorical question and the statement in verse 5. Jesus had won the debate in verses 3-4. He asked a rhetorical question that basically showed their understanding of the sacred text needed to be reviewed. However, Jesus did not stop there but cryptically added: “Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”. What did Jesus mean?
On the one hand, did Jesus mean the obvious in taking the phrase “son of man” to mean what it means in Ezekiel 1: son of humans or a human being (or a mortal)? Was Jesus saying that the Law was designed, as creation was (Genesis 1, 2), to be a blessing for the humans? The humans were not designed for the Law but the Torah was designed for the humans. Jesus was not abrogating the Old Testament as He was quoting it as authority in the defense of His disciples. He was teaching the very nature and heart of the Old Testament Law. Man was to submit to Torah but the Torah was designed to bless the humans who followed it. Authority in the Old Testament did not emphasize domination, but blessing.
On the other hand, did Jesus mean the phrase was to be taken with Daniel 7:13-14 as referring to a divine being that the Daniel text makes mention? If the phrase “son of man” was to be taken in the sense of Daniel 7:13-14 then Jesus implied that God was Lord over His own laws. What is more is that Jesus often referred to Himself by this title. Was Jesus subtly claiming deity? Jesus could have meant both and this double meaning to a word or phrase was typical of how much of the Old Testament was written. It was not an ambiguity but rather a double richness, a double richness in theology. In later years the church was to review these texts and declare what has become termed “orthodoxy”. It declared that Jesus meant both: He was vere homo, vere dios, i.e. Jesus was completely human and completely divine. Did Jesus mean both or just one of the two? Luke did not tell us, nor did Jesus seemingly tell His audience.
What does this tell us about teaching? Should we learn the great technique so prevalent in the Old Testament of using a word or phrase with two meaning so it can function in both and thus render a richer meaning? This seems to be the case as Jesus would deliberately incorporate some familiar word plays in later chapters (for example 11:28 and the play on the word “hear” or shamah). Was Jesus being coy with the blind Pharisees? Was Jesus setting up a saying in their memory that would continue to instruct as time rolled on? Luke does not tell us. We do learn a bit though about Jesus’ understanding of teaching tradition: understand intent. Know why laws were given by God and know why they were to be followed.
2) The Second Episode: Healing on a Sabbath. 6:6-11.
a) The Story.
The second vignette also took place on a Sabbath and this time inside of a synagogue. In this instance, the text plainly tells us, Jesus was formally teaching. Present in the audience was a man with a withered hand. Whether the man was planted there or whether the situation was created because the man with the shriveled hand just happened to be there is not told us, but his presence during the teaching became of intense interest to the religious leadership. They wondered if Jesus would work on the Sabbath because they seemed to have regarded the strain or effort to heal as work. The situation could be a troublesome one for Jesus. He could offend the Pharisees by healing or show none of the compassion He normally showed. This man was maimed in such as way as to compromise his ability to work and therefore to have self esteem and maintain his family and his dignity.
Luke told us Jesus was aware of what His audience was thinking (but did not tell us how, or wishes us to see this too as an effect of His anointing). The response of Jesus is highly instructive. He responded aggressively. He did not avoid the problem but actively pursued it. He could have told the man He would contact him on the following day and help him. He could have challenged the man to return and his act of returning the following day could have been an act of faith (which was so dearly prized by Jesus). However, Jesus opted to demand the act of faith immediately in a very tension filled atmosphere. He charged the man to come forward and the man did respond. Then He asked the audience the purpose of the Sabbath with a rhetorical question (was the Sabbath for the purpose of good or evil). He then asked the man to do what was impossible and that was to stretch out his hand (which was the problem because the hand was shriveled). The man did respond to the challenge and received healing.
b) Teaching Method: Demanding Involvement, Double audience.
What was Jesus modeling for us as far as teaching goes? First, we can clearly see that He did demand active participation by the man. This was something He repeatedly did. In addition, the man was learning by doing how to contact God again for himself: obey the challenging words of God.
Second, more disturbing was Jesus’ deliberate involvement with controversy. Does good teaching imbibe of such a technique? Jesus clearly could have avoided the trouble by healing the man on the following day. It appears Luke wanted us to see another side to Jesus than mere compassion for the sick. He also had compassion on the misinformed and was willing to do the dangerous work of properly informing those religious people who wanted no correction (for example: Proverbs 12:1). Jesus was seemingly teaching two different audiences two different messages at the same time. He was teaching the man how to have faith and the Pharisees that God saw the Torah differently than they supposed. They could now be seen, along with the man in need of healing as objects of need for the proclamation of the year of the Lord’s favor. These could be the 6th and 7th examples of commenting on the “glitch”. They were in need, as the miracle proved that God approved Jesus’ interpretation. This was something the Torah had clearly taught them about signs (see Numbers 16). They missed it because they too were captive and in need of healing just as much as the man with the withered hand was. Their captivity was to their preconceptions. They had already decided that to heal was to work and so to heal on the Sabbath was to break the Sabbath. They had stopped thinking about the Scripture and focused purely on their interpretation of Scripture.
Therefore, the Pharisees missed the intention of the Law by focusing on a narrow, legalistic (in the negative sense of that term) interpretation of how to deal with Sabbath. They objected to Jesus’ healing, because it was work, but ironically enough He healed the man by merely speaking (which should have reminded them of Genesis 1) and not exerting a lot of effort. They spoke on the Sabbath, and so were they also out of compliance?
What was remarkable was that any one would object to helping a man regain his dignity or ability to work and become a useful member of society. They seemed to have missed the purpose so clearly taught in the Torah or in the Prophets or Wisdom Literature that the purpose of power or a leadership role was to serve the people (Proverbs 11:17, 25). It was also remarkable they were not awed by the miracle itself and see that the source of the power was the very God who had given them the teachings found in their tradition. They had seemingly separated the text from the Giver of the text. Jesus, using the text in the first story and the clearly implied teaching of the Old Testament in the second tried to reunite the two for them.
c) The Conclusion: Demonstrated Compassion brings Rage.
Their response was rejection (as was the response in the synagogue in 4:29). They were filled with rage and began to plot what to do with Jesus. They would eventually succeed and kill Him. Luke is laying the foundation for what even some very good teachers could experience. Jesus had healed a man and gave the man an opportunity to be able to work again and thus be blessed himself and useful to society but that was not focused on. Jesus had stepped on their religious toes and that was all they saw.
b. Response to Criticism: Prayer and Plans for Expansion. 6:12-16.
What was even more remarkable was Jesus’ response to their rage. Jesus had given a true reading of the Word of God and was rejected for it. However, Jesus separated the religious leaders in His mind from the God they supposedly served. We find Luke telling us that Jesus was praying to God in verse 12. He modeled for us that the proper response to disappointment from corrupt leadership is to pray all night. The threat did not seem to unnerve, discourage, or frighten Jesus and this is proved by His response. His response was to pray and prayer could have given Him direction on not only how to handle the past but in what manner He was to proceed in the future. The actions recorded in verses 13-16 were clearly forward looking. Though, no doubt, concerned with what had happened in the earlier episodes on the Sabbath, the prayer seemed to have a primarily forward looking effect to it. It appeared it was some days later (12a) after both the disturbing incidents and the time of prayer that the selection of the twelve disciples took place.
In 6:12, Luke clearly indicates that before an important decision is made in the life of a teacher/preacher it should be bathed in prayer. After such a traumatic and disappointing response from leadership one could be embittered or frightened. Jesus was neither. This is proved by what Luke recorded next. First, it is apparent that a large part of the content of the next sermon (6:20-49) was dominated by a theme that could only be possible when someone has spent extensive time with God in prayer. They plotted to destroy Jesus for being good to someone and yet Jesus chose the theme of loving your enemies to be a large part of the next sermon. When first rejected, many young teachers have their idealism crushed and get bitter. They would hardly preach a sermon on loving one’s enemies (6:27-49) after an experience similar to 6:1-11 without prayer.
Second, Jesus was seemingly not consumed with dread. The disciples around Jesus were many, and Jesus selected some to be apostles in 6:13-16. It is interesting they were not called “close ones” but “sent ones”. In light of the death threat implied in 6:11 Jesus did not form a body guard, and He never would. In the end, He would continue to protect these “sent ones” as they were the future and not peons for His immediate use. Maybe His prayer did this as well. After success in 5:12-15 Jesus spent time in prayer, and it focused His priorities and in rejection it was also prayer that kept His priorities alive.
Jesus was seemingly not consumed with fear for His life. Instead He chose to expand the ministry by acquiring more assistants. Today, prayer could be an antidote that supersedes threats to the loss of tenure at a school, or the loss of denomination guarantees of employment for ministers.
B. The Second Sermon: to the Disciples on the Plain. 6:17-7:58.
1. The Sermon on the Plain: 6:17-49.
a. Introduction to the Sermon: 6:17-19.
The disciples descended with Jesus from the mountain, and Luke says there were a large number along with a great number of people from many of the surrounding regions. The crowd had a double motivation to come to Jesus: to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases. Exorcisms and healings were taking place, and the crowd wanted to touch Him because power was coming from Him and healing them. He would not do miracles in His own behalf because “man does not live by bread alone”, but He would do miracles in the face of other’s needs. It appears the miracles were a draw but He did more than give them the physical bread but Jesus gave them the divine Word as well.
It is a very uncomfortable observation to make but the two are tied together by Luke: teaching and healing. From the present, common, Western Christian perspective this seems to be something most are uncomfortable with. We can only teach. We cannot heal with power but only rely on resources that our wealth has allowed us. The Western Church has tried to deal with this discrepancy in a variety of ways. The new churches growing so rapidly in the poorer countries of the globe are experiencing some of the balance that is portrayed in the Gospels. The source of this missing power will be discussed in future chapters by Luke. However, when Jesus called His disciples, the first sermon Luke recorded that was deliberately addressed to them did not address the issue of miraculous power. It had another center.
“Looking at his disciples, he said:”
Before we examine the second sermon (the so-called Sermon on the Plain) it might not be too much a stretch to claim that Jesus was speaking again to a double audience. What was said was clearly to the disciples (see 20a “looking at his disciples”) but was also heard by the crowd (A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases (6:18-19). Jesus did not have secret, hidden words for the elect or chosen few, but what He said to them could be heard by all. Luke 6:20-49 could help a disciple understand the nature of the Kingdom and their role and responsibility. Hearing Jesus could also help someone decide whether they wanted to be a disciple. By the way, we will call this the second sermon but it is really the 11th sample teaching Luke presents. Jesus had preached the two sermons in 4:18-27 and 6:20-49, but He had also preached 9 times by actions: 3 in chapter 4, 4 in chapter 5 and 2 in chapter 6.
b. The sermon itself: 6:20-49.
1) Defining Blessedness and Woe: the glitch 20-26.
The sermon opened with a very rhythmic and stylized rhetorical form drawn from familiar material His audience was accustomed to hearing: the psalms and prophetic woe oracles. It was a use of wisdom and prophetic literary and verbal forms similar to those in the Old Testament. Later in this sermon Luke would show that Jesus employed or adapted many literary forms from a variety of locations in the Old Testament: wisdom, legal and prophetic forms or genres. It was wise to draw from the proverbs, the poetry and the literary forms familiar to that culture. To connect with what someone already knows is helpful to bridge over to what they need to learn that is challenging.
Though Jesus opened with a familiar sounding cadence, He loaded the very first line with a glitch that must have caught his listeners by surprise. He used familiar forms, but used them in a surprising manner. As there was a glitch in the first sermon on who the messiah would announce favorable tidings, the glitch in this new sermon followed much in the same path. Who was blessed and who would have woe pronounced against them? Again, it was not whom His audience would have expected.
The Form
The section from verses 20 to 26 opened with a positive four-fold description of whom was blessed and why they were blessed followed with a negative four-fold description of who would have a woe oracle aimed at them and why. The form was simple and had two parts: who was blessed and the reason and who was cursed and the reason.
Blessed is…for….
Woe to you who…for….
The Glitch or Surprising Element
The disciples were beginning a new chapter in their lives. They were the specially selected group that was to be sent out. It is very possible that they felt pride in being part of the selected group. They, no doubt, felt blessed. It is in this light that it appears that Jesus wanted them to know who was truly blessed of God and who was cursed. To understand this concept appeared to be imperative for those entering discipleship.
As noted above, the manner in which He taught this key thought was rather surprising, but that would be expected of a great teacher. Those in the blessed category were a surprising lot: the poor, the hungry, those who wept and those who were hated by men. Those in the woe category were just as surprising: the rich, the well-fed, those filled with laughter and those who were well spoken of. This seemed to be contradictory to common sense. No one raised a child hoping they would be poor, racked with hunger, filled with sorrow and rejected by society. No one in their right mind writes a letter today claiming calamity for their family as a sign of a blessed year. This was truly alarming. We would be happy if we were successful financially, with all we could eat, filled with joy and filled with the esteem of our community, church or family.
a) The Blessed Ones: Luke 6:20-23.
Most people in the audience probably did come from the category of the poor, of those with sorrows, hungry (many were hungry for food, or hungry for healing or cleansing from demons), and not from the ranks of those high in their community’s esteem. What did they feel when they heard these words? We are not told by Luke. Were they encouraged, or puzzled? The crowds must have certainly been surprised and perhaps given hope. I believe the disciples were primarily puzzled.
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. (6:20-23)
Most people wished they could be financially blessed and saw those who were as blessed of God (no doubt stemming from the general teaching of Deuteronomy and the Proverbs). If you are wise, diligent and loyal to Torah then God would bless you. The great ending chapters of Deuteronomy (29-33) or the teaching of the Wisdom teachers in the book of Proverbs clearly encouraged the Israelite population to be intelligent, disciplined and aggressive in their day to day lives. The Scriptures taught them to live with a high self esteem because they were the elect of God who had covenanted with the Almighty at Sinai. If they were not blessed it could be that they had broken the covenant and spilled its potential blessings out of their own hands. If they did not have the blessings of the covenant then maybe they had violated its terms and thus sinned. Unconsciously we often think the same way: those who have such misfortunes as poverty, sorrow, hunger or social rejection must have done something wrong.
In Jesus’ four-fold pronouncement of blessing the second part of each blessing was easier to grasp than the first. The “reason” why someone was blessed (the reason for each beatitude is begun with the word “for”) was easier to understand than the opening statement of what category was blessed. What was alarming to Jesus’ audience and is still so to us is that the first of the four-fold blessings was tied to poverty.
In the first pronouncement, you were blessed if you were poor because it was to you that the Kingdom of God would belong. How the two relate was hard to understand, but what the second part meant was a bit easier to understand. What was the Kingdom of God? Perhaps, simply this: to be under the reign of God. God has come to be your king, and if you are on good terms with that king then you have gained the reign of God. Certainly one is blessed to be in the Kingdom of God or under the reign of God.
If we return to the difficulty of how being poor was blessed and how it could relate to the Kingdom of God, it seemed that Jesus had cut across and differed from the standard understanding of reality encased in the Old Testament. He seemed to deny Torah, or did He? He clearly understood the depth of the teaching in the Old Testament and that was evidenced in the two encounters about what was lawful earlier in the chapter (6:1-11). Those examples are easier to understand and Jesus’ statements helped us to understand His actions. Why did Jesus not explain this present riddle while He was teaching? He left His audience hanging.
What did He mean when He said blessedness was decreed upon those hungry? The “reason” or phrase starting with the word “for” was again more understandable. It is understandable that one would feel blessed when they were satisfied and the pangs of hunger had therefore ceased. Who has not enjoyed the ending of hunger pangs or any type of physical pain and then counted themselves at the moment extremely blessed? However, why was it blessed to be found in the state of hunger? Was it not best to skip the experience of pain altogether in the first place? A good parent is one who provides daily sustenance for His children, not one who stresses them by not doing so. Is God (or Jesus) less good than a good parent? Again, Jesus did not explain.
The third announcement of a state of blessedness was much like the second. You were blessed when weeping because the weeping would end. Would it not be better to not weep at all?
Finally, blessed were those who were hated, excluded, insulted and who had their reputation spurned as evil. They were commanded to rejoice in that day and to rejoice with exuberance (leap for joy). Again, the reason to be happy was understandable: your reward will be great in heaven, and you will be counted with the elite of heaven, the great prophets. They were horribly treated but though the prophets suffered much in their life times they were now the heroes of the nation and the loved of God. The people of that day understood this. The prophets (Moses being the chief among them) were the foundations of Israel’s understanding of reality and of their elect status. To be classified with such an august group was quite an honor.
It is in this fourth announcement of blessing that Jesus began to give a sense of how to understand all of them: timing (the ability to wait) and motivation. All knew that the prophets were first hated, insulted and rejected because they had the courage to “wait upon the Lord”. They proved heroes because they could delay gratification and because they were loyal to the will of God. This issue of timing seemed to dominate the curses too.
b) Defining the State that Brings Cursing from God: 6:24-26.
It seems that the reason that those who have a Woe Oracle pronounced against them was primarily due to timing. The stress was upon when these four states were entered upon: wealth, satisfaction from hunger, joy and public esteem.
But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. (6:24-26)
In the first three instances all of that which we would normally prize was seen as negative because of when they were received (and therefore a state of Woe is entered upon). The positive states came first. This does not necessarily make sense. Why is it wrong that a child is well fed when young or has a happy childhood? Or does the Old Testament in some fashion subtly agree? Is the writer of Lamentations 3:25-27 giving us a hint?
Again, the final cursing is helpful to understand the riddle Jesus had proposed. One had entered a state of Woe when one was well spoken of because they were like the false prophets of old. Did not the false prophets sell their souls and their nation’s fortunes with their grasping for temporal popularity and acceptance? They wanted self esteem, but they would not wait for it. The good prophets did wait and did receive it.
But what else did Jesus mean? He did not tell us. He will speak another 23 verses in this sermon but not go back and explain further what He meant or what He wanted His audience to do about verses 20-26. Perhaps, the key can be found in two items. First, Jesus was primarily speaking to disciples. The sermon would end but not their educational process. They would soon embark on a series of journeys with Him as He continued to teach and interact with people. He knew He had frustrated them, and He seemed to have done it deliberately. It would not be the last time He did it. The answer to the puzzle would come, but not until the next chapter. Jesus would solve the riddle and explicate the puzzling statements in a way they would never forget. The explanation came later. This seemed to have been done deliberately.
There are four puzzling statements. They were important to Jesus and we know that because they were repeated in a negative form after first being formulated in a positive one. The Hebrews always repeated what they considered important. It was their way of writing an exclamation point and Jesus used His culture’s forms of communication. Jesus saw this issue as vital to discipleship. Whatever He wanted them to know was extremely important to being a follower of His.
Second, it needs to be made clear that Jesus was not one to complain. He was not complaining about His own poverty, hunger, sorrow or experience of rejection. True, He was not a rich man in a financial sense (8:1-3). He would die with only the clothes on His back (23:34) and would be designated with the great prophet Isaiah’s prediction as a “man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”. However, just to take the last of the four statements about public acceptance, Jesus had had His fair share of praise if we stay just with what Luke has already told us. It is complex, for Luke showed us that He had already been criticized in 5:30, 6:2 and 6:7 and been hated or incited rage in 4:28 and 6:11, but He had also been publicly praised in 4:15, 4:22 and had amazed the crowds in 4:32, 33, and 5:26. He had also attracted huge crowds in 5:1, 5:14, and 6:17. Finally, some men had left everything to follow Him in 5:11 and 5:28. He had experienced both the praise and admiration of others and the scorn and hatred of others.
He was focused and Luke wanted us to see that the battle of compromising in the area of public esteem had been fought and won in the wilderness. Jesus was not complaining of the costs of being loyal to God but rather He was teaching us how to get blessed and how we could avoid a pronouncement of woe or experience judgment in our lives.
To Him it was absolutely vital to understand who God would bless or curse as one entered upon discipleship or how one could enter into discipleship if one was so inclined. In the first sermon Jesus surprised us with “who He was anointed to preach good news to” and in this sermon He surprises us again. The surprise in Luke 4 peaks our interest and surprises us with His action. Luke continued to surprise after the sermon with the stories that followed (4:31-6:10) explaining who the objects of His anointing were. The stories that followed would help us understand in a fuller way how to gain the alarming perspective He had towards who should be ministered to. In similar fashion, the stories that would follow the second sermon (7:1-50) would explicate the alarming statements in how one was blessed. But before Jesus would explain Himself, He started a new agenda and taught on another topic. The explanation of 20-26 would have to wait.
2) Defining How to Bless Others: 6:27-49
Or How to Love Your Neighbor
In my opinion the sermon could be seen as containing only two major divisions: 20-26 and 27-49. The opening section was concerned with who was blessed by God and the rest of the sermon fell under one rubric: forgiving your enemies. How did an individual obtain God’s favor (6:20-26) and then how and why did one extend the favor of God to others (in this case one’s enemies in 6:27-49). The disciples were taught to acquire God’s blessing and then how to give away that blessing. They were being trained for leadership. Luke tells us that good leadership and good teaching is receiving (6:20-23) and giving (6:27-49).
Jesus opened this second section on forgiveness with another four-fold statement in 6:27-28.
But I tell you who hear me:
Love your enemies,
Do good to those who hate you,
Bless those who curse you,
Pray for those who mistreat you. (6:27-28)
This was not a description of blessedness but pointed the way towards how to bless. Each of the four statements in these opening two verses was a repetition of a similar theme (6:27-28) and then the rest of the sermon (29-49) was an attempt to motivate or persuade His audience to comply with this most difficult of tasks. Perhaps, to become a disciple who can forgive those who do them harm was so important to Jesus that it was given extensive space and must be placed right along with the definition of how to be in a state where God called you blessed.
This latter part of the sermon did not contain glitches or puzzling riddles as the first did. The subject was difficult to convince an audience to do (as anyone who has tried has experienced), but it was very clear what Jesus wanted. What Jesus demonstrated, so far as teaching goes, was that difficult subjects must be pounded home with creative and persuasive repetition.
A word before this section is started. This is the first fairly long discourse that Luke gives us of Jesus’ teaching. We are therefore afforded a good look at many of His techniques in these 30 verses. We will look at how Jesus approached this discourse piece by piece and then recap what He has done as far as His teaching method is concerned.
a) The Basic Instruction: a four-fold command: 6:27-28
The opening words were prefaced with the phrase: “to those who hear”. In Hebrew a disciple hears and a disciple obeys. One who could hear could be a disciple and one who heard was one who did what he heard. The Hebrew word behind our English word “to hear” doubles for the concept “to obey”. They used the one word “shamah” or to “hear” to signify two meanings. Again, this was a common Hebrew teaching technique.
If they were to hear (and obey) Jesus, they must love their enemies (6:27a). They were to love those they did not like. Love (ahav) in Hebrew was not mere feeling but was an act of will so it was natural that the next phrase followed with a definition of love: to love someone was to do well to them (6:27b). It was clearly to move beyond spontaneous feeling.
In addition, what is interesting is that the formulation here of these two statements has similar roots in the Torah. A good example is found in the Covenant Code in Exodus 23:4, 5. The Torah taught how to treat your enemy well when he was in need (to do well to them) in Exodus 23:4 (Luke 6:27a) and then followed with the command to be sure to help the person who hated you (Exodus 23:5, Luke 27b). We were to love those who we saw as enemies (6:27a) and do well to those who from their perspective saw us as their enemies (27b). In both the covenant code and Jesus’ sermon the point was made from both perspectives. In addition, they were not merely encouraged to bless their enemies in Exodus 23 but were commanded to do so. Jesus agreed with the Covenant Code.
The third imperative was to bless those who have already displayed negative attitudes and acted upon them: they have cursed you (6:28a). Cursing was a verbal act so Jesus covers the issue more extensively and said to pray for those who have mistreated or acted against you (6:28b). It was one thing not to curse back, but they were told to positively ask God for their antagonist’s well being.
In all of these instructions there is a way to learn how to approach an enemy. Love them, do “good” to them, bless them and pray for them. In a sense, Jesus has given a check list of what to do with such distasteful people, and it can be a list that would not only guide the disciples but it could be a guide or check list that could reveal to them whether they truly loved their enemies. It is one thing to say we love our enemies and another to do positive good things for them or their property (Exodus 23:4, 5), bless them and pray for them.
Finally, in all four commands the disciples were to be actors (i.e. aggressive) and not re-actors. They were to have a different value system and perspective and so no matter what others did their enemies did not define what the disciples were to do. Their enemies were not to control them or dictate to them by their behavior what the disciples were to become. Jesus was subtly teaching an interesting form of gaining freedom from the negative people they would all encounter. He, of course, would later demonstrate such behavior. It is only Luke that gives us the sayings Jesus uttered on the cross: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34). Jesus was not a victim, but rather in complete control, and He wanted similar freedom for His disciples.
b) Motivation for Forgiving Your Enemies: 6:29-49
(1) Aggressive Goodness. 6:29-36.
The issue of freedom that comes from forgiveness was practically applied in the two areas that cause most people to hate: people became enemies because they were a source of their losing money or pride. So Jesus anticipated what issues would be most pressing. The teaching was in an “If…then…” form. It is typical of Old Testament legal forms (for example see Exodus 22:1). It is sometimes called “case law” (although there are a variety of other names for this type of literature as well).
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.
If someone one takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. (6:29)
Case law understood that the “case” was to function as a precedent for other similar situations. In a sense, the turning of the cheek was to stand as a type or example of the principle as was the giving of the tunic after the taking of the cloak. The metaphor was to function not merely in a literal fashion but as a “type” to be applied in a variety of situations.
If a disciple was struck on the cheek (insulted), then they were to turn the other cheek. If someone took their cloak (defrauded them in some financial manner), then they were to let him take their tunic as well (and allow further financial destruction). The issue was: “do not retaliate”, but rather hold on lightly to your pride and possessions. The issue of aggressiveness was also present. The disciples were not to just “take the abuse”, but to decide to take charge of the situation and initiate action. They took control when the “turn” of the other cheek was made.
When someone takes from a disciple via fraud or violence their money or their inheritance then they would naturally want to get them back. If insulted then it is natural to want revenge. Jesus said think this out and the forgiveness of enemies must be present in these two areas.
If we are honest though, this is neither easy to do, nor something we naturally want to do. Jesus was aware of this and knew motivation was needed. It would soon follow.
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (6:30-31)
When an individual believer was defrauded and thus cheated financially or their reputation was impugned, it was very easy to apply the maxim: “cheat me once, shame on you; cheat me twice, shame on me.” Jesus disagreed. They were to give to “everyone” who asked of them, and if they were stolen from they were not to demand it back. If someone took their reputation away and then asked a favor of them, and it was right to do such a favor, then they should do it (30). They were not to demand first that they returned their dignity.
The famous Golden Rule (31) was seemingly in a different setting than in Matthew but perhaps that is not the case. In both textual situations the Golden Rule was in the context of “tension with others”. In Matthew 7:12, it was in the context of praying for those we would like to judge (7:1-5 and 7-11) and in Luke it was in the context of believers being treated with hate or as enemies. The disciples were not to emulate their enemies but to treat everyone as they would like to be treated. They were not to be passive but to obey the teaching in this verse required that they thought out how they would really like to be treated in this situation and then aggressively made up their minds and let their thinking direct their steps. They were to re-direct their thinking away from their own reception of poor behavior and focus on what was good behavior and let that guide them.
The decision to treat others well is easy when thinking of a good friend or those who treat us well. Jesus applied it to enemies as the following verses show. He then asked three Rhetorical Questions.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that.
And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. (6:32-24)
As we will see, typically of Jesus, He wanted His audience to think and to see the reasons of His instruction. The first two questions asked His audience to ponder whether it was a credit to love, or be good to those who were similarly disposed towards them. He assumed there is not much credit given because even sinners do that (32-33). The third Rhetorical Question followed the same line of thinking but Jesus applied it to the realm of finances. In effect, Jesus said if one thinks about it, it would be clear to them that there was no credit or positive reward (because of virtue) for loaning to those from whom they expected full payment.
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (6:35-36)
Jesus went on to say that they were to love and do good (35a) in the manner in which they would define goodness (31) and apply that behavior to their enemies, and He wanted them to lend to those who might not pay them back. They were to be good because they thought good behavior was what they would like to receive. Jesus’ teaching freed His disciples from just doing “good” because they got something out of it, or because they enjoyed doing it because they liked the individual, but simply because it was right to do. What was right to do? What would we like done to us by our enemies?
Rhetorical Questions ask the listener to think and usually to ponder the obvious and thus this type of question makes a point. If we are honest these Rhetorical Questions are not as obvious as they appear. If we are honest, we do think it virtuous to love and treat well those who have loved and treated us well. We are just. We also, if we are honest, think it virtuous to lend to those who are honest or well enough disposed to pay us back. We naturally want justice. Jesus was not trying to dull or abrogate our sense of justice (doing that which is appropriate is how “justice” is defined in Hebrew). However, Jesus was working from a more complex perspective when addressing His disciples on this issue. He saw the issue from a perspective that was greater than the human-to-human plane.
Jesus taught that obeying such behavior as He was encouraging all through verses 27-49 brought God into the situation. The motive clause for such loans and positive behavior towards enemies as mentioned in the first part of verse 35 was not that they would get paid back, and they would receive justice, but they would receive from the hand of God. Jesus believed there was a God, and He was an active God in the affairs of men in this life and the life to come. Treating your enemies well demonstrated your belief in God’s sovereignty.
Jesus went even further with His motivation at the end of verse 35: “You will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.” Jesus was aware that the enemies to whom the disciples lent money to might forget that they had been extended a kindness. Therefore the motive for the disciples to treat their enemies well was because they chose to be like Him. They were given the opportunity to be “godly”, in essence to be like God.
Godliness now has been put within the reach of all: not merely into the realm of the clergy or the amazingly pious, but to all disciples who have enemies. This was accomplished by directing the focus not on getting justice on the human-to-human plane but by faith believing God would reward the effort because they were trying to imitate Him. Jesus then finished with the capstone statement: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” The disciples were to re-direct their focus from their own need to receive justice from the hand of their enemies or those who hated them to focusing on the fact that they had the opportunity to imitate God.
Jesus was trying to motivate His disciples to love their enemies, do “good” to them, bless them and pray for them so that they would be free of the burden of their pride and possessions. Then they could become a truly godly person and indeed a son or daughter of the Almighty. They were given the key to directly please and imitate God in the push and pull of everyday life. What is more, Jesus would model such behavior for the disciples in how He handled His enemies. His Resurrection and future glory would be fulfillment of what Jesus promised would be the end results of their forgiving their enemies.
(2) Do Not Judge, but Receive. 6:37-38
When we have been treated unjustly it is natural to judge the people who have perpetrated the injustice. Jesus however, demanded that his disciples did not judge and did not condemn but rather forgave.
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (6:37-38)
Here His motive for doing so was different and has partially moved back on the human plane. If His disciples would not judge or condemn but rather choose another approach then they would receive freedom. They would receive pardon from their deserved judgments (their deserved condemnation) and positively receive forgiveness. They were asked to give mercy because God did in verse 36 and now they were to give mercy because they would need mercy. This is partially on a human to human plane. God is still involved as He would guarantee and implement the result of forgiveness that humans so desperately need as sinful human beings.
Jesus went one step further (38). They were to give forgiveness in the measure that they would like to receive it. If they gave bountifully it would be bountifully returned and even more “and running over”. The teaching is formulated in the positive, and so the verse is brimming with promise. This promise has often been taken to mean finances (and could be applied this way) but in this context it is best applied to the realm of receiving forgiveness or grace. Anyone who has experienced the “running over” of the grace of God knows how much more valuable a promise of this type would be.
As the recipients of injustice or maltreatment we often feel like victims, but Jesus promised His disciples that they could turn their situation into one of blessing. They could be in control of the situation by choosing to submit to His instruction. They could move from the realm of victims or the realm of being the recipient of injustice to the realm of a recipient of grace. What is more they could control the amount of what they would receive by their actions. Jesus taught that forgiveness brought freedom. One moved from a victim to an aggressor, aggressively acquiring good things.
(3) Leadership Leads by Example: 6:39-40.
It must always be remembered that all of these teachings were in the setting of instructions for disciples who would be leaders. It was also in the context of forgiving enemies. Jesus continued to pound away in a variety of ways to get this particular behavior deep into His disciples.
He also told them this parable: Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. (6:39-40)
Here we see Him appealing in a different manner: the way to gain insight and benefit for others and to be like Him. His next approach was to stir the nobleness that can reside in humans in two greatly prized virtues: helping others and being loyal.
He opened with another Rhetorical Question in verse 39. He asked His audience to ponder the obvious and make a logical deduction. If they were blind, how could they lead others from the dangers that are present in life? One of the most destructive things in human relationships is an attitude of revenge or a heart full of resentment for wrongs suffered. It is a deep pit. Good leaders can help others avoid such pits, but they cannot be involved in such a noble task if they themselves are blind due to the desire for revenge. If the disciples were to lead others into freedom from the injustice they had received at the hand of hateful and wicked people then they must first be free themselves. Forgiveness, Jesus implied, would bring insightfulness and such insightfulness would be for the benefit of others. Others could be helped, but the opportunity of helping others out of such captivity would be forfeited if the disciples refused to love their enemies.
However, in contrast to the verse above (38) it was not formatted in a positive manner but in a negative manner. This negative formulation amounted to a threat. If the disciples did not forgive would they not become blind leaders of the blind? Jesus threatened His followers with blindness and loss of being helpful to others if they did not obey 6:27-28.
When the Hebrew prophets attempted to persuade their followers to avoid disaster and gain blessing they would motivate positively and negatively. They would threaten and promise (in similar fashion to Deuteronomy 28). A large number of the motive clauses in the prophetic literature take this form, and so it was very familiar to Jesus’ audience. We still use it today. A teacher can promise insight and learning to those who will study, but it also helps students to threaten them with a low grade as a motivation to make the most of their educational experience. The threat of verse 39 is followed with a promise in verse 40. If we forgive we can become like our teacher, who in this setting was Jesus. The disciples were both promised (40) and threatened (39) and thus doubly motivated.
Jesus did not first offer His disciples power and super abilities if they followed Him. They had seen them demonstrated in 6:18-19, and He would later offer them such power in 9:1, but He first offered them something more essential. He offered the way of discipleship: which was to imitate character. The healings of 6:19 could have had a sinister element to them if the healer was not one whose character resembled that of Jesus’. We have all seen false leaders or parents give things to people in order to manipulate, control and eventually harm them, but good things coming from good people are different. God was kind to the ungrateful and wicked (6:36) and no doubt some of those healed in 6:19 were horrible people. It was the teaching that followed the healing that could heal their wicked hearts. God had given freely to them, and now they were shown the way to give back and become like the One who had given to them. Jesus wanted to lift them up to the level on which He dwelt. Good teachers wish to empower and develop their students and good teachers show their students not merely how to improve their abilities, but also how to improve their character.
(4) Be Free and Then Insightful. 6:41-42.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,” when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from y our brother’s eye. (6:41-42)
The teaching given by Jesus about pulling the speck from their brother’s eyes was in parabolic form. He wanted to persuade by use of a picture and a picture that they could all relate to. All of us have gotten something in our eye. In addition, Jesus used hyperbole or overstatement to make His point. It is hard to imagine actually having a plank in one’s eye but one can imagine what it would look like. It is a bit comical and overdrawn but that is part of the point: we are blind to help others with their faults if we do not see our own. The point is made not only in a parabolic form and with hyperbole, but in Rhetorical Questions. He then followed the two Rhetorical Questions first with a stinging title of address (you hypocrite) and then a command to correct their own behavior and that was concluded by a promise. The promise was how to gain the ability to see clearly so as to help their brother. It was the opposite effect on people’s lives that was threatened in verse 39.
The promise was the hint that Jesus was giving procedure for leaders who wished to avoid harming others (nothing is as harmful as a hypocrite) and to gain an insightful perspective so to help others remove their harmful behavior. All of this was in the context of forgiving enemies. So how does one bless his enemy or do well by him? The procedure was plainly given: clean the lumber out of your own eyes. All of us have been turned off by leaders who pontificate and show us our errors, but some of us have been remarkably helped by those who have made similar mistakes and show us the way out of the damning behavior. They have openly tried to clean up their own act. Their success gave hope, and they knew the way out because they had already traversed the path.
The motive to forgive their enemies and not judge them (as wrong and as stupid as they may be) was to gain insightfulness for the very brother they wished to condemn in judgment. Choosing to not judge them and to judge themselves first was a choice in and of itself to forgive them. The freedom from the judgmental attitude that becomes so deadly to disciples was gained by re-directing one’s energies to their own faults.
Jesus did not call them to not think or to be dead to injustice. The form of the Rhetorical Questions at the beginning let them know Jesus wanted them thinking about justice and injustice. He did not want them to stop pondering the fact of injustice but to re-direct that effort onto themselves. We are naturally disposed to understand or perceive justice and naturally disposed to be affected by injustice. Our way of or procedure for not letting injustice destroy us was given here.
(5) You are a Leader. 6:43-45
In the context of teaching disciples Jesus hammered away once again on the theme that the leader, “was to be their message”. The parabolic statements or metaphors Jesus used to communicate His point stressed the aspect of “pulling up from within”. A leader produced from what was inside. Thus the good tree bore good fruit meant a good tree was a leader that had internalized the teaching on forgiving one’s enemies and others who were lead by that person could see the results. In similar fashion, a good man brought forth good treasure and an evil man brought forth evil treasure because that was what was within them. Jesus capped off these two metaphors with a proverb: For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth spoke.
No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thorn bushes, or grapes from briers.
The good man brings good tings out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. (6:43-45)
Leaders could be known by what they did or said. Thus the leader could do self evaluation and learn who and what they were by watching what came out of their own mouths. It was a helpful self-corrective procedure. It was also a challenge to realize that what they would give to people was primarily what they had become. Mc Cheyene, the great Bible expositor of the19th century, was known to say, “The best gift I can give to my parishioners is a holy life.”
Faith is necessary
It is hard to believe if we are honest with ourselves that we have a plank in our eye or that people will know what is truly in our hearts. If we are honest, we have confidence in our ability to hide such things. Therefore, it takes faith to believe even the motive clauses. It takes faith to believe that we will harm others or that we could bless others (again Jesus used both negative and positive examples in verses 43-45) in the manner in which we forgive. It takes faith to believe that others will somehow know the nature of who we are by how we deal with this issue. However, the faith needed to act like Jesus demands would become the coveted “obedience” so prized by the Scriptures.
Eventually what Jesus is saying here moves, by experience, from the realm of faith to fact. Those who have obeyed the injunction to take care of their own faults slowly see that there was a lot more (fault) lumber that resided in their eyes (perception of the situation) than they were ever aware of. They find that Jesus was correct after all. They soon realize that their very words were laced with traces of hidden bitterness from past wrongs. It is by faith that the disciple would act before gaining the tremendous promised insightfulness.
(6) The Test of Discipleship. 6:46
There are two final motivations given by Jesus to move His disciples into the realm of seeing enemies as He did. First, Jesus cut to the heart of the issue of teaching leaders and disciples when He gave them a simple test to enable them to determine whether they were disciples: “Do what I say”.
Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (6:46)
So many in the Christian world think their own profession of faith was the deciding issue. Jesus dispelled that notion with one quick blow. He challenged the validity of professions of faith that are not backed up by obedience to God.
It was done in the following manner. The phrase, “Lord, Lord” was an ancient profession of faith drawn from the Old Testament. The phrase in the Hebrew Bible would sound like this: Adonai Yahweh. It literally meant: Yahweh was lord. The word for “lord” (one who was their master and whose words were obeyed) in Hebrew was Adonai. However, by Jesus’ time, the Jewish community had grown so worried about taking the Lord’s name in vain which was the third commandment of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7 or Deuteronomy 5:11), that they had stopped saying the divine name (Yahweh, Yahve, or Jehovah). When they wanted to refer to Yahweh (or the divine four consonants or the Tetragrammaton) they piously used the word “Lord”. This practice is found in most English translations of the Bible. When Yahweh is translated into English we usually translate it as capital: L, O, R, D. Thus when we read the phrase “Lord, Lord” what the ancient listeners were hearing was an ancient profession of faith: Yahweh was lord. In the early church, the first profession of faith among Christians was Kyrie Jesu. Literally, “Lord Jesus”, but understood as “Jesus was Lord” in imitation of “Lord, Lord”, or “Yahweh was Lord”.
Therefore, what Jesus was saying here was that those who said “Lord, Lord” yet did not do what He said were really not His disciples. They said they were His disciples but their actions proved that their profession was a false one. If they did not forgive their enemies then Jesus was not their Lord, no matter what profession of faith they had made or what proper beliefs they believed they held. The proof of discipleship was in the forgiving of their enemies. The lack of forgiving their enemies invalidated their profession of loyalty. You simply were not a Christian if you said you believed in Jesus Christ as your lord if you did not forgive your enemies as your Lord repeated demanded.
(7) Building a Solid Foundation for Times of Trial. 6:47-49
Finally, the so-called “Sermon on the Plain” ended with the same parabolic statement or metaphor that concluded the Matthean “Sermon on the Mount”. I believe Jesus must have used this metaphor in a variety of settings. In the Sermon on the Mount the net was cast wider to include multiple teachings, but here it is more narrowly applied. It was, no doubt a fitting conclusion to all of 6:20-49, but also a final attempt at persuading His disciples to forgive their enemies.
I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete. (6:47-49)
The metaphor contained both a threat and a promise (similar to earlier formulations). Jesus opened with the positive example of the house built on a solid foundation withstanding the storm because of its foundation. He concluded with the threat that inadequate foundations in a human being’s life ended in disaster. The entire context of 27-49 has been one of how to forgive enemies. The final metaphor was given so that a disciple during times of trial or stress would have a solid foundation to their faith and would survive. What laid that foundation was their obedience to His commands to forgive those who had treated them poorly or who hated them.
This final metaphor of the house built either on the rock or on the sand is so familiar that it could run the risk of being unhelpful. However, seen in the context of 6:20-49 being addressed to disciples and 27-49 seemingly being all about forgiveness of enemies this metaphor takes on an added nuance. If believers in Jesus Christ did not forgive their enemies, then their spiritual lives would collapse when rough times came. Similarly, if they did forgive then when rough times came they would stand firm. Most of us as teachers or preachers have witnessed those who started out well in the things of the faith or in the role of a teacher or preacher, but did not stay healthy spiritually. Jesus said one of the key and necessary elements for spiritual survival was forgiving enemies.
Most of us know Christians who no longer go to church and most of them, if honest, would attribute their lack of attendance to the actions of someone else in the church. If 6:27-28 was obeyed then they would still be in fellowship and still be in contact with what they needed to withstand the coming trials that the storms represented in this final metaphor.
In addition, if this last metaphor is to function in a double duty manner, then it must also be the final motivation for the mysterious and perplexing teachings in 6:20-26. If one was in line with what He meant by being “poor”, “being hungry”, “weeping” and “being rejected” then one would be on solid ground. One would not fall and thus the blessing promised would extend into time and even into those times of difficulty which come to us all. Similarly, if we were “rich”, “full”, “laughing” and “well received” then we are heading for disaster.
2. The explanation of the glitch in the Sermon on the Plain. 7:1-50.
The Sermon on the Plain was followed by four short stories in Luke 7. They were related to Luke 6:20-26 which also had four puzzling parts repeated twice (6:20-23 and 6:24-26). These four statements were not completely made clear in the Sermon and Jesus seemed to have deliberately spoken about the blessing of being poor, weeping, persecution and hunger and the curse of being rich, well-fed, laughing, and being well liked without fully explaining all that He meant. Is it best to tease your audience? Are we to get them thinking with challenging statements that are not fully explained? Obviously the goal is not to be vague but to stir their curiosity as the answer to the riddle is to come later. When the answer is finally figured out the lesson stays longer.
It takes great courage to teach this way for people often do not like to be left hanging until later. A speaker/teacher can often feel the tension in the room if the audience has been stirred and the answer to such stirring is not given. However, Jesus modeled some things for us that good teachers can do. First of all, the bulk of the Sermon on the Plain was clear: in 6:27-49 they had to forgive their enemies to be a disciple. Second, the unclear parts were put in memorable form. They were put in familiar poetic form and repeated. The teaching was hard to fathom but memorable. Third, the sermon was addressed to the disciples and they were not yet dismissed from class. For the disciples the understanding of Luke 6:20-26 was to come in Luke 7. The answer did not come in another sermon or in propositional statements about the meaning of being poor, hungry, etc. but in actual experiences they were to have as they went with Jesus day by day. They were to see the answer in the very actions of Jesus and in the very push and pull of life. The disciples were to literally “see” the message, not just hear words. Jesus’ teaching was not mere religious concepts, but actual descriptions of life.
The first explanation came when they changed towns: “When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.”
a. Blessed are those who hunger. 7:1-10.
What happened in Capernaum opened with a description of a certain military officer in the army that occupied the Jewish lands against the will of the Jewish people. This “centurion” would have his modern day complement in a captain or any military officer who was posted in a foreign country and his government “occupied” the region against the will of the people. The description of the centurion began with his relationship to one of his servants whom the officer highly valued and that servant was sick and about to die. The centurion heard about Jesus and sent word to Jesus through the local elders of the town asking for Jesus to come and heal his servant. Luke says the elders “pleaded earnestly” with Jesus because this particular officer was well liked by them. He loved them, they felt, and the proof was that the centurion had built them a synagogue.
A curious statement was made by the elders: “This man deserves to have you do this.” Is anyone worthy of grace from God? Does any foreigner “deserve” a miraculous healing? Jesus’ response was to go and acquiesce to their request. He often picks apart statements made to Him (i.e. 8:20-21; 11:27-28; 14:15 ff; and 18:18-19), but here Jesus seems to accept their statement and see it (graciously) as a testimony to their appreciation of this foreigner. He started on the way to the home of the Roman officer. This decision to acquiesce speaks volumes about Jesus’ humility.
The next speech in the story was on the lips of the centurion who did not come in person (which he would later explain) but sent “friends” with the instruction that the Master was not to trouble himself in coming to his home. He felt he did not “deserve” to have Jesus under his roof. Of course, this was an expression of utter cultural sensitivity. Jews regarded going under the roof of a Gentile to be an act that defiled them. The man did not see himself as even worthy to come into the Rabbi’s presence and so sent friends, no doubt, to protect Jesus’ reputation of being associated with the enemies of the Jewish people. If Jesus had come into the home or even publicly interacted with the centurion, there would be a negative reaction. The man was considerate, but the man was also hungry, and so he pressed on.
He told Jesus (the Rabbi of a foreign culture and religion), “just say the word and the healing can happen.” He explained from his own understanding of his position in life what authority was. He saw Jesus as having extraordinary authority. Actually, the centurion, whether consciously or not, understood Genesis 1 quite well. God created the world by His voice. In addition, all through the Old Testament, a priest or prophet could speak words of power that acted dynamically in the actual world if they came from God. He told Jesus, through the emissaries, that just Jesus’ words were sufficient to heal his servant. Either the man believed because he deduced from his own life-experiences that authority over evil was possible because good should have such authority, or the centurion truly believed the teachings of the Jews. He could have had faith that what he had heard of Genesis and the stories of the prophets were indeed true. In either case, the centurion had extraordinary faith.
Jesus’ responded in an even more extraordinary manner. He heard and was amazed. It is quite a feat to amaze the heart of God, but this man accomplished that. He then spoke, not privately to the centurion’s friends, but to the crowd, the very crowd that the centurion was trying to keep Jesus from getting in trouble with. He told the crowd this man had greater faith than anyone He had met in the believing community of that day. In other words, this man’s faith was greater than everyone in church even though he was not a church member (an Israelite). We are not told the reaction of the crowd, but we are told that when the men who came to Jesus on behalf of the centurion returned home, they found the servant well.
Jesus had just concluded a teaching seminar for His disciples. First, Jesus demonstrated amazing courage in His praise of the military officer of a foreign occupying army. Real teaching is committed to the truth, no matter what the cost to one’s image or whether it squares with what is politically correct. Second, Jesus had defined for them what it meant to be blessed when we are hungry. “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.” Blessed are you who hunger now for the welfare of your employees for you will be satisfied with their receiving what you desire. Blessed are those who hunger for the welfare of others. Jesus had tapped into the great “intercessory prayer” fountain that flows through the Old Testament. The great ones of Israel’s past history, like Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, David, etc., were blessed because they cared about someone besides themselves and interceded for them. Abraham was hungry for the welfare of Lot in Genesis 18:16-33. Moses was hungry in Exodus 32:7-14 and 32:32. He was hungry for the welfare of his people.
“Blessed are you who hunger now.” Such pain or inward hunger can be avoided by not caring for others who are sick whether with sin or illness. One can focus only on their own health, but then they will miss the state of blessedness. They will also feel satisfied but later be filled with hunger. How many of us have gone to the funeral of those who were never hungry for anyone else’s needs but their own? “Woe to you who are well fed now.”
b. Blessed are those who weep. 7:11-17.
Again, the next lesson for the disciples or explanation of 6:20-23 would take place in another location, this time near the town of Nain. A large crowd was accompanying Jesus, but Luke carefully tells us that His disciples were also with him (7:11). A dead man was being carried out; the only son of a woman now left destitute in her widowhood and bereft of any means of support. She had no husband and now no son to help her. Jesus saw her and Luke says “His heart went out to her” (7:13).
Jesus then went up and ruined the funeral. First, He defiled Himself by touching the coffin and this must have shocked the pallbearers because they stood still. Second, He spoke to the dead man because no one is beyond the call of God. He commanded the dead man to get up. The dead man obeyed: he sat up and began to talk. Jesus “gave him back to his mother” Luke says. The crowds were filled with awe as any of us would be, and they began to praise God because a great prophet had arisen in their midst who had come to help God’s people.
Good teaching will step beyond the rules of propriety if a great good is to be accomplished. Compassion is part of teaching and part of what should direct our actions as a teacher. Good teaching will not merely articulate, but demonstrate truth. Jesus was not afraid of the impropriety of becoming defiled (He touched the coffin), and He had authority over death (He raised the man from the dead). Good teachers are consumed with compassion rather than with what is acceptable or what would keep them from criticism. Elijah and Elisha had done the same. They had lain on a dead boy (I Kings 17:19, II Kings 4:34) and then prayed before God, and they too had restored a boy to his mother. The boys in question in Elijah and Elisha’s time were also his mother’s only son. Perhaps, this action of Jesus had reminded the people of these prophets’ action. Elijah and Elisha were also defiled by touching the dead. In Elisha’s case the prophet had commanded Gehazi, his servant to place the prophet’s staff on the child (so as not to defile the servant), but it did not work, it required the touching of a body by Elisha, and Elisha did what was needed.
The widow at Nain had no doubt suffered greatly in the hours before the funeral. She had experienced the grief that so many have had when a child precedes a parent in death. However, this woman’s tears had placed her in the realm of the blessed. She was the first to see a precursor of the resurrection. She had an insight into the doctrine of the resurrection that few of would ever have. Pain is still pain. Jesus was not glorifying pain. However, pain would not have the last word, but rather the pain that is experienced now will some day be redeemed. Perhaps, the disciples were directed to look differently on their sorrows if they were to enter into discipleship with Jesus. Perhaps, it is only through their sorrows that certain joys and understandings could be reached. In the discipleship of Jesus it is blessed to weep now.
It is dangerous and it moved the disciples into the realm of “woe” if they could in some fashion avoid sorrow in an inappropriate manner. There are those who do that. There are those who insulate themselves from the sorrow of others: the plight of the homeless, the sick, the elderly, or those caught in sin. There are churches that do the same. They can refuse to weep now as a body of believers, and they will reap the judgment of God (6:25).
c. Blessed are those who are persecuted. 7:18-35.
The third vignette centered on the person of John the Baptist. He had heard, according to verse 18, all the news about Jesus that was spreading throughout the region (17). John had some doubts that Jesus was the Messiah. Perhaps the manner in which Jesus was conducting himself was puzzling to John. The people Jesus dealt with might have caused him concern or the fact that his disciples did not fast, etc. Perhaps, Jesus had not judged those filled with corruption, and John had believed Jesus would do that (3:7-9). We are not told by Luke what exactly John thought except that John was not someone to criticize without finding out the facts. So he sent two men to ask Jesus if He was indeed the One who was to come.
Jesus responded by first allowing the two disciples of John to view his work of healing and exorcism, and then He told them to report what they had seen roughly quoting the beginning of Isaiah 61 (Luke 7:21-22), the very text used in the first sermon in Luke 4. He ended it with an additional statement. Jesus added that one was blessed if they were not offended on account of Him. Even the great John was challenged.
Jesus then demonstrated a remarkable ability to handle criticism and doubt. It would be discouraging if the very individual God used to announce your ministry had serious doubts about you. It could make you defensive; Jesus was surprisingly not defensive but rather modeled for us how to handle doubts from good people about our teaching. First, He did not alter His work because of the cross examination, but continued on with what He was doing in the presence of the two messengers from John. Second, He began to praise John (7:24-26) by use of a series of rhetorical questions but did so after the messengers from John had left (7:24 a). He was not trying to kiss up to John with His praise but was pointing out to the audience what He truly thought. If one can see the good points, fine character and exalted ministry of our doubters they are certainly not dwelling in a state of defensiveness. Jesus began by calling John a prophet, but went on to say John was more than a prophet (a thing hard to conceive), but given the exalted position of being a forerunner he indeed was (27). Finally, Jesus ended with the statement that the greatest man born was John (7:28). Jesus still saw John as His witness. He was not put off or angry with John’s doubt.
Jesus gained the approval of the crowds with His statements because they knew John to be from God and had submitted to His ministry of baptism. Jesus’ statements about John were to the crowds, and it is very instructive for people to see how leaders view one another. A minister once remarked to me that the pastor’s demeanor in the pulpit will be transferred to their congregation. If they see ministers or teachers with different styles or ministries get along and the ministers or teachers see one another as part of a greater good, then the congregation or the students will have a greater chance of doing the same among themselves.
Jesus ended His talk by comparing and contrasting the differences in who the people perceived Jesus and John to be. One appeared quite ascetic and disciplined and the other quite gregarious and friendly, but both met with unfair criticism. Jesus was saying the difference in styles and approaches the two men demonstrated had each, in their own way, garnered criticism. However, both would be justified in the end by the results of their work. Both would die for their work. Jesus on the cross, and John was to die a horrible and demeaning death (beheaded because of a rash promise made at a party) because of his loyalty to the truth. Jesus left no doubt in the audience’s mind as to how He perceived John and his work. No mention was made of the temporary doubt John had. Jesus was not defensive; He has been in the desert. He knew who He was.
In all of this Jesus had not lost sight of the disciples in their quest for their answer to the riddle (6:20-26). John was highly praised by Jesus: “the greatest man that has been born among women”, but the praise was not meant to put John on a pedestal. The praise was not given to cause despair in those hearing these words of ever gaining the same type of praise. So often we go to funerals of good people only to leave depressed because of the manner in which they were eulogized. All along, Jesus had a double agenda: express His views of John and teach the disciples how to be blessed. The statement of inclusion, not exclusion, is found in 7:28: “I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John, yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” All the disciples could achieve blessedness by their own experience of exclusion or rejection because as teachers they were loyal to God and the truth. We can get to similar greatness. Perhaps, seeing such a great man as John brought down to within range of our efforts brings alive a hope and stirs a resolve to be loyal. Again Jesus was teaching by example, an historical, contemporary example.
For many in the crowd John was a model to be followed, but in contrast, the leadership of the community had not allowed themselves to be humbled with a rite that was reserved in their minds for Gentile converts (baptism by water) and had thus rejected God’s purpose for them. They had rejected John and were soon to turn on Jesus. Jesus was also rejected by the leadership of that day as evil. However, wisdom was to be justified by her children (the product).
The Israelites had before them ample examples in the Old Testament of the false prophets who turned against the truth for “temporary” acceptance. Our world is full of priests and ministers who do the same and all of us face a pronouncement of woe if we follow in their wake.
The choice still exists to be loyal like John was to the truth. Choosing loyalty is presented as costly, but the choice will also place that individual into the state of blessedness by the experience of rejection that loyalty to the truth will cause. Blessedness in all of these three cases entailed pain: hunger for the welfare of others, weeping for the life of those we love, and the rejection by humans that loyalty to God will sometimes bring. The latter results or rewards were clearly ones to be prized. Not only were positive gains achieved for others but the one experiencing the pain had entered into a state of other-centeredness. They had entered into the state of blessedness.
d. Blessed are poor. 7:36-50
The final episode in Luke 7 took place at a dinner party. We were told of the party Jesus attended when Levi had invited him (5:29-30) and how that had brought criticism of Jesus and no doubt had tarnished His reputation (7:34), but now we are told of a different dinner engagement. Jesus finally received a proper and reputable invitation. This was one dinner party that would not tarnish His reputation or bring into doubt His piety. He went to dinner with Simon the Pharisee. It was a formal dinner, they reclined at table and other respectable people were also present.
It was then that things got a bit out of hand. A prostitute seemed to have been overwhelmed with guilt and sought some form of release from her life of sin or from guilt. She found out where Jesus was dining. She must have sensed something in the teaching she had heard or in reports she had heard about Him that He was approachable. Therefore, she entered the party and began to wet His feet with her tears, wipe them with her hair and pour perfume on His feet. Her tears were an expression of her repentance, and wiping His feet with her hair was an act of repentance. The word “repent” in Hebrew means to literally “turn” and the woman was turning or repenting not only in her mind but was attempting to turn by expressing it with her body.
In those days, as it is still in much of the Middle East, a woman’s sexual attraction was strongly tied to her hair (perhaps this is why pious Islamic women today wear the cover over their hair). She washed the feet of Jesus (who wore sandals on dusty, donkey dung covered streets) with her hair. Her hair must have been filthy after this, and then she went further and poured perfume on His feet. Perfume was an item only the wealthy and or prostitutes could afford (Proverbs 7:17). She was getting rid of the tools of her trade. The sexual allurement of her hair and perfume was being discarded. She was turning from her past illicit behavior.
She must have been overcome with grief at the realization of who she had become and therefore was willing to brave the searing stares of the guests. Simon, the host, Luke records, saw Jesus’ allowance of such action as proof that He was not a prophet because He did not seemingly perceive what kind of women was touching Him. The text does not tell us what her feelings were, but Jesus seemed to have perceived her growing discomfort in the presence of the “guardians of the Word of God”.
Her actions were embarrassing and she put herself in a vulnerable position, but Jesus’ immediate response did the same for Himself. Jesus did not push her away. Jesus had again lost credibility in the eyes of the proper folks. He first lost it because of how He defined His ministry in Luke 4. How Jesus defined who was to hear the “good news” had brought Him into an increasing conflict with the church (synagogue) leaders of His day. This woman had created an embarrassing situation (or distraction) for this instructor in God’s Word, and so He decided to use it to instruct (see also 5:17-20).
He began by answering Simon’s doubt and asked permission to speak with the Pharisee. Simon’s title of address for Jesus was an interesting one: Simon called Jesus a teacher. So the teacher began to teach. He told a mini-parable about two debtors of unequal debt who were both forgiven. The parable was told in such a manner, typical of that day, as to allow a question that required a judgment. In this case, Simon was to decide who would most appreciate the canceling of the debt. By the question, Jesus put Simon into the place of the teacher and Rabbi. Simon was to make the decision about who of the two debtors would be most loving towards the creditor. Simon was forced to be an active participant in the teaching event. Simon gave a cautious but accurate reply. His reply was not greeted with scorn, but with approval. Jesus affirmed his reading of the story with its attached question. Simon was declared by Jesus to be correct and to be regarded as insightful.
Had Jesus stopped there He might have escaped with only minor criticism. He had forced Simon to acknowledge that the woman’s actions were out of love for the grace of God known so widely to exist throughout the Old Testament. It was what Jesus did next that excited increased controversy. Jesus went further to express His love for the woman and finally for the Pharisee. Had Jesus not been such an intensely concerned teacher His troubles would have been less. Had He set His sights just a bit lower, He would have avoided sorrow. However, a good teacher will go on to gain all he or she can for their students. Jesus would not avoid “weeping” (6:21) in the now; He would act out His own teaching. He was hungry then for people’s redemption, (6:21) willing to be hated then than walk away from an amazing teaching opportunity (6:22), and He was willing to be poor in the short run of things (6:20) so another could gain the Kingdom of God. He gave the better bread.
So He began a threefold comparison, much like the comparisons found in some of the sayings in the book of Proverbs. He compared the woman and Simon as hosts. Of course, the woman never saw herself as a hostess or her actions as an attempt to make up for the short comings of the actual host, but the comparison was valid. Simon had not properly provided water for Jesus feet to be washed, but the woman personally washed His feet with her hair. Jesus had not received the customary oriental kiss of greeting, but the woman had kissed His feet. Simon had not given Jesus the honor of having the refreshing oils poured over Him that were often accorded guests in proper dinner settings, but the woman had anointed His feet. After presenting this new contemporary parable or metaphor drawn from the proceedings right before their eyes, He made a rabbinical judgment.
Jesus was teaching and trying to hit two birds with one stone (maybe even four). Luke tells us as much with the phrase: “He turned toward the woman but said to Simon”. So Jesus fixed the woman in His gaze and spoke His words to Simon. This mention of body language indicated Jesus’ desire to again have a double audience. First, Simon was shown that He needed to repent and gain the necessary state to enter into “blessedness”. Simon had been judgmental and rude as a host and therefore inferior in his actions to the town whore. He had sins (and had no doubt sought forgiveness at the Temple for them), but they had produced little love in him. Second, the woman was being told that she was accepted and all that she had done was not rejected by Jesus nor seen by Him as embarrassing. Rather, no doubt, much to her surprise, her actions were glorified and elevated as loving and appropriate actions. Jesus did not approve of illicit sex or prostitution as He calls her sins many, but He did approve of her repentance and therefore of her attempts of turning to God.
He then went towards another audience beyond the woman and the Pharisee; He aimed at the other guests. He pronounced the woman forgiven and the guests thought this bordered on blasphemy. Similar to what He did with the religious leaders in the house who saw the paralytic man lowered through the roof; Jesus claimed the right and authority to forgive sins. He seemed to want the guests to know that. They were scandalized and normally Jesus would take up objections to His actions and explain Himself like He had in 5:22-25, 5:31-32, 5:33-39, 6:3-5, 6:8-10 and 7:22-23. This time Jesus broke His pattern. The circumstances dictated He do so.
Jesus spoke not to His detractors but went back to the woman. She was vulnerable and clearly now the object of scorn. She needed to be taken care of, and Jesus’ normal action of explaining Himself was trumped by her vulnerability and need. He did two things for her. First, He explained how to get to God by the saying: “your faith has saved you”. No doubt she would need to get to God again in her life time. She was saved by her faith; she had been saved by her brave actions. She would again need to take such risks. Jesus termed what she had done as faith. She has risked the demeaning looks and stares of the religious leaders in her drive to find God. Her risk had paid off and her risk now took on its proper name: faith.
He then released and dismissed her with the command to go, but she was to go in peace, in shalom. The Hebrew word shalom did not exactly mean what we mean by peace, but it had more the connotation of “communion”. The name for the final sacrifice in the Jewish sacrificial system was the sholamim. It was a communal sacrifice in which all partook. The one sacrificing, the priesthood, the family and extended family and even God ate a meal together. As to eat together was to commune together, she was to know that she was on good terms with God; she was in shalom with God and with Jesus. He was not mad at her, nor angry that she had caused Him such trouble or ruined such a fine dinner party.
Throughout this entire episode there were four audiences being taught: the fourth audience was the disciples. They were learning by the actions of Jesus the final answer to the fourth part of the riddle as to who is blessed. Blessed are the poor and the woman defined what it meant to be poor. She was not necessarily poor financially, but certainly poor in self-esteem and in self righteousness. She had surely been admitted to the reign or kingdom of God (6:20 and 7:50). Her poverty (humility), expressed in her actions in 7:38 had brought her into the kingdom of God. Others had missed it: the Pharisees and experts in the Law had refused to be poor (humble) and accept the baptism of John and so had “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (7:30). The dinner guests ran the risk of being outside of the peace or shalom of God because they did not recognize their need of repentance. They had little love for God or how God had extended love for this woman. They cared nothing for the woman, but only stood about as her condemners. They were rich and they had already received their comfort (6:24). It was temporary, and it would doom them.