Luke 6:20–26
In the OT two broad types of beatitudes can be identified. The first type focuses on the ethical conduct that is to be imitated, and blessings are promised for such behavior (Ps. 84:12; Prov. 3:13; 8:34). The second type aims at describing the life of a person as a blessing of God (Ps. 144:12–15). Applied to the community of God’s people, these beatitudes often are framed by the covenantal concerns whereby Israel is blessed precisely because they are God’s chosen people (Deut. 33:29; Ps. 33:12; 146:5; Isa. 56:2) (see Catchpole 1986: 299; Thompson 1999: 111). It is within this covenantal framework that the woes also find their place (Isa. 5:8–25; 31:1; Jer. 13:27; 22:13–14; Amos 6:1; Hab. 2:12–17), although they are also used against those opposing God and his people (Num. 21:29; Isa. 10:5; Jer. 48:1, 46).
In apocalyptic literature the promised blessings often point to the eschatological era (Dan. 12:12). This eschatological focus characterizes many of the beatitudes in Jewish traditions (Tob. 13:16; 1 En. 58:2), although those that point to the blessings in this present age can still be found (4Q525). In terms of form, the list in Sir. 25:1–10 resembles the ones in Matt. 5 and Luke 6, but the content of Sir. 25 is distinctly sapiential, as the focus there is on present living. Closer to Jesus’ Beatitudes is the list in the late first-century AD 2 En. 42:6–12 (Bovon 2002: 222), although the motif of eschatological reversal is noticeably missing in this list.
In terms of function, the apocalyptic framework of Jesus’ Beatitudes shows that they were not to be taken as “entrance requirements” (see Guelich 1973). The earlier proclamation of the dawn of the eschatological era (cf. 4:16–30) together with the narrative framework of the Gospel, which climaxes in the events of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, should prevent this from being understood simply in an ethical sense. The prophetic call to repentance is implicit, however, especially in light of the woes that follow (Green 1997: 265).
The allusions to the OT belong to this discussion of the form and function of the Beatitudes. The influence of Isa. 61:1–2 in particular has been recognized by many (Dupont 1973: 92–99; Neirynck 1997). The ptōchoi (“poor”) in 6:20 in particular reflects the ptōchoi of Isa. 61:1. Although Luke may be drawing on Q for his version of the Beatitudes, the quotation of Isa. 61:1 already in 4:18 shows Luke’s familiarity with this passage. The second beatitude in Matthew, which uses the words hoi penthountes (“those who mourn” [5:4]) and paraklēthēsontai (“they will be comforted”), further evokes Isa. 61:2 (parakalesai pantas tous penthountas, “to comfort all who mourn”), but their absence in the Lukan version has prompted H. D. Betz (1995: 578), among others, to conclude that Isa. 61:1–2 should not be identified as the source behind the Lukan beatitudes. Nevertheless, the appearance of both verbs in the Lukan woes (6:24, 25) seems to reflect Luke’s awareness of the significance of the Isaianic allusion here. Moreover, Luke’s use of hoi klaiontes (“those who weep”) and gelasete (“you will laugh”) could be seen as variations of the Isaianic parakalesai pantas tous penthountas (“to comfort all who mourn”). D. C. Allison (2000a: 104–6) has suggested that the indirect way in which Luke 6:20–23 uses Isa. 61:1–2 found its “near parallel” in 1QHa XXIII top, 12–15 (cf. 11Q13 II, 4, 6, 9, 13, 17, 18, 20). He further notes that the appearance of Isa. 61:1–2 in Luke 7:22, which is immediately followed by a blessing formula (7:23), may provide a significant parallel within the Lukan text to the connection between Isa. 61:1–2 and the form of the Beatitudes.
6:20, 24
While Isa. 61:1–2 provides the context for the Lukan beatitudes and woes, other OT texts may also have contributed to the individual verses. The reference to the poor recalls other Lukan passages that draw attention to the poor ones (1:48; 4:18; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 16:20–22), and the juxtaposition of the “rich” and the “poor” is not foreign to the prophetic traditions of Israel (cf. Isa. 29:19; 57:15; Jer. 5:28; 12:1). As in Isa. 61:1, the “poor” should not be defined primarily in material terms (see 4:18 above). The numerous parallels in the psalms (Ps. 34:6 [LXX 33:7]; 37:14 [36:14 LXX]; 69:32 [LXX 68:33]; 86:1 [85:1 LXX]; 109:22 [108:22 LXX]) and in the Qumran documents (1QM XI, 9; XIV, 6–7; 1QS IV, 3; 1QHa XIII, 22) (see Carson 1984: 131) not only confirm this reading but also show how the Matthean hoi ptōchoi tō pneumati (“poor in spirit” [5:3]) is entirely consistent with Luke’s unqualified use of the term.
6:21, 25
The contrast between hunger and being satisfied appears often in the OT (Ps. 107:5–9, 36, 41; 146:7; Isa. 32:6–7; 58:6–10; 65:13), and the eschatological promise is often symbolized by the messianic banquet, developed in texts such as Isa. 25:6. The significance of the Lukan banquet motif may have found its origin in this tradition (cf. 9:10–17; 11:37–54; 14:8–24; 15:23–24; 22:7–30; D. E. Smith 1987).
The contrast between weeping/mourning and laughing/rejoicing is likewise one that is familiar to the OT context (Esther 9:22; Jer. 31:13, 16; Lam. 5:15; Amos 8:10), although in the LXX the verb gelaō (“laugh”) is often used in a negative sense to denote mockery or laughter of derision (see TDNT 1:660). The theme of rejoicing echoes earlier references to eschatological joy in Luke (1:41; 2:10) as Luke draws on the OT traditions in which the arrival of the era of salvation will be characterized by that of rejoicing (Isa. 9:3; Joel 2:21; Zeph. 3:14–17; Zech. 9:9). In light of the use of Isa. 61:1–2 in the formulations of the Beatitudes, Isa. 61:3 may also have influenced the construction of this contrast when the anointed one receives the divine promise “to provide for those who mourn in Zion—to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.”
6:22–23, 26
The theme of end-time rejoicing follows this note on persecution. The phrase ho misthos hymōn polys en tō ouranō (“your reward is great in heaven”) may recall a similar phrase in Gen. 15:1 LXX, ho misthos sou polys estai sphodra (“your reward shall be very great”). To further support this connection, D. C. Allison (2000a: 76) has further pointed to the eschatological interpretation of Gen. 15:1 in Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The verbal link between the two fails to establish a sure connection, however, and the immediate context of this verse does not explicitly support an allusion to the Abrahamic promises.
References to the persecution of the prophets of old are found throughout the OT (cf. 1 Kings 18:4, 13; 19:10, 14; 22:27; 2 Chron. 16:10; 24:21; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 2:30; 11:18–21; 20:2; 26:8–11, 20–23; 37:15–16; see TDNT 6:834; Bock 1994–1996: 582). Similar sentiment is expressed in the rhetorical question posed by Stephen: “Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?” (Acts 7:52). The motif of the rejected prophet manifests itself in the Jewish rejection of Jesus (Luke 4:24, 29; 11:47–51; 13:33–35; 23:18) and his apostles (cf. Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28). Corresponding to Israel’s rejection of the messengers of God is their fond reception of false prophets (Isa. 9:14–15; Jer. 2:8; 5:30–31; 14:13–16; 23:16–17; Ezek. 22:28; Mic. 3:5). The Lukan parallels to these false messengers are not easily identifiable, however (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:338–39).
Luke 6:27–45
The significance of Lev. 19:2 (“Be holy, because I the LORD your God am holy”) behind 6:36 (“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful”) has long been recognized (see discussion below), but many have attempted to show the wider influence of Lev. 19 for this section. D. R. Catchpole (1986: 316), for example, sees 6:27–35 interacting with Lev. 19:18, while 6:37–45 reflects the concerns of Lev. 19:17. D. C. Allison (2000a: 33) further suggests that the two passages share a set of related themes: imitatio Dei, question of judgment, the Golden Rule, love, and fraternal relations. Read against the context of Lev. 19, the distinct emphases of Jesus are easily identifiable: the call to be merciful, the love of one’s enemies, and the command to extend the act of mercy to those outside one’s community. The dichotomy between “holiness” and “mercy” (cf. Borg 1984) cannot be maintained, however, since the issue at hand is the way God’s holiness is to be manifested (cf. 6:46–49).
6:27
The teaching on nonretaliation finds parallels in Greco-Roman (Plato, Crito 47c–49d; Resp. 1.331e–336a; Diogenes Laertius 8.1, 23) and Jewish (Prov. 24:17; 25:21–22; T. Benj. 4:3; T. Jos. 18:2) traditions (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 637–38; Gill 1991), but the emphasis on loving one’s enemies goes beyond these traditions. “Enemies” are often defined in ethnic terms in Leviticus (e.g., 26:6–46) and elsewhere in the OT (Exod. 23:22; Num. 25:17; Deut. 28:7; 1 Kings 8:44; Isa. 29:5; 59:18; Ezek. 16:27). In light of this background, Jesus’ teaching should not be limited to an individualistic sense, since the challenge to the Jewish ethnic theology of the Second Temple period may also be implied here. This interpretation is further supported by the possible rephrasing of the command “Love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:18) into “Love your enemies.”
6:29
Differing from the parallel in Matthew (5:40), Luke ignores the legal context and mentions himation (“the cloak/coat”) before chitōna (“the tunic/shirt”). In the OT the cloak is an “inalienable possession” (cf. Exod. 22:26–27; Deut. 24:10–13; see Carson 1984: 156). Apart from a legal context, the act of beating accompanied by the removal of one’s clothing may echo Song 5:7: “The sentinels found me; they beat me, they wounded me, they took away my mantle.” In rabbinic traditions slapping a person and pulling off his mantle are considered among the most serious acts of insult (cf. B. Qam. 8:6; see Catchpole 1986: 306).
6:30
The command “Give to everyone who begs from you” appears to be a general saying, but if the Matthean parallel (5:42; cf. Luke 6:35) is to be considered, it appears to be an extension of the Mosaic regulations against usury (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36–37; Deut. 23:19–20; cf. Ezek. 18:8). The intent of these regulations is further expressed by an additional mandate in Luke, “If anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again” (cf. Deut. 15:8; Ps. 37:21, 26; Prov. 22:7).
6:31
Many have identified Greco-Roman (Herodotus 3.142; Seneca, Ben. 2.1.1) and Jewish (Sir. 31:15; Tob. 4:15; 2 En. 61:2; b. Šabb. 31a) parallels to the Golden Rule (see Bock 1994–1996: 596–97), but its connection with Lev. 19 should be emphasized. The connection between Lev. 19:18 and the Golden Rule is made in Did. 1:2; Let. Aris. 207 (Allison 2000a: 31), although it generalizes the commandment to love one’s “neighbor” (cf. Tg. Ps.-J. Lev. 19:18). In its context this rule should not be understood as advocating a “reciprocal ethic” wherein one’s acts are determined by the acts of others (see Ricoeur 1990; Kirk 2003). The commandment to love one’s “enemies” (6:27, 35) and the examples that follow, which climax in the imitatio Dei principle, provide the necessary basis for understanding this well-known saying of Christ.
6:34
What is implied in 6:30 is made explicit here when the Mosaic regulations concerning borrowing and lending are evoked. In Deut. 23:19–20 the distinction between Israelites and foreigners is made, as Israelites are not allowed to charge interest on a loan given to fellow Israelites, but they are allowed to charge interest to foreigners. Although it is unclear what the lender in this example is hoping to receive ta isa (“as much” [see the options in Bovon 2002: 237–38]), the main point is clear: Jesus is pointing beyond the distinction in Deut. 23 in affirming that self-interest should not be the guide of one’s action. Nevertheless, the distinction of Deut. 23 may be important in the use of the Lukan term hamartōloi (“sinners”), since elsewhere in Luke the term is often applied to outcasts (5:30; 7:34; 13:2; 15:1–2; 18:13; 19:7). A subpoint of this passage could be identified in that those who fail to forsake their self-interest are ironically comparable to those to whom they can charge interest. The understanding of “enemies” (6:35) in an ethnocentric sense may support this reading (see 6:27 above), but this ethnic reading certainly does not exhaust the meaning and significance of this verse. Moreover, stronger verbal links between 6:34 and Deut. 23 are necessary to secure this connection.
In the OT the description of God’s people as his huioi (“sons/children”) belongs to the covenant language of Israel (Deut. 14:1; Hos. 1:10; 11:1). In Luke this usage appears when God’s people are redefined according to one’s response to Jesus himself (12:32), and in Luke’s second volume Jews and Gentiles will worship the one God as adelphoi (“brothers”) (Acts 15:22, 36).
6:36
In terms of the form of this verse, commentators have pointed to Lev. 19:2 as a close parallel: hagioi esesthe hoti egō hagios kyrios ho theos hymōn (“Be holy, because I the LORD your God am holy”) (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 641). In Jewish traditions this call to imitate God’s holiness has been used together with the various attributes of God (see Allison 2000a: 30–31; Bovon 2002: 241). In an allusion to Lev. 19:2 in Lev. Rab. 24:4, one finds the call to be pure, and in b. Šabb. 133b and Tg. Ps.-J. Lev. 22:28 the focus is on being compassionate. The use of this form in relation to the different divine attributes may explain the different saying in Matt. 5:48. As in the case of eleos (“kindness”), oiktirmos (“mercy”) applied to God often appears in covenantal contexts (1 Chron. 21:13; 2 Chron. 30:9; Neh. 9:19, 27, 28, 31; Ps. 25:6 [24:6 LXX]; 51:1 [50:3 LXX]; 69:16 [68:17 LXX]; 79:8 [78:8 LXX]; 119:77 [118:77 LXX]; Isa. 63:15; Dan. 9:9, 18 [Θ]; Hos. 2:19 [2:21 LXX]; Zech. 1:16). Thus the command here to imitate the merciful God should be understood not simply as an ethical precept, but as a call to be a faithful partner in the covenant relationship.
6:39
The imagery of the bothynon (“pit”) alludes to the Hebrew proverb that depicts the judgment of God (cf. Isa. 24:17–18; Jer. 48:43–44 [31:43–44 LXX]; see Bovon 2002: 249).
6:41–42
The vivid imagery in these verses serves to explicate the command not to judge in 6:37. An allusion to and a clarification of Lev. 19:17 may be present, especially in light of the significance of Lev. 19 throughout this section (Allison 2000a: 32–33). In addition to discussion on the judicial aspects of this issue of reproach (see CD-A IX, 2–8), one finds a similar focus on moral issues springing from the injunction in Lev. 19:17 (cf. Sir. 19:13–17; 20:2; T. Gad 6:3–4; see Kugel 1987: 57–58). Nevertheless, the emphasis here is not on reproach, but on hypocrisy. A closer parallel to Lev. 19:17 can be identified in 17:3–4 (cf. Matt. 18:15–20).
6:43–45
In the OT “fruit” imagery can be applied to the physical labor of an individual (Ps. 109:11; 128:2), but most often it is applied to moral acts (Prov. 1:31; 11:30; Isa. 3:10; 32:16–17; Jer. 6:19) and speech (Prov. 12:14; 13:2; 18:21; Hos. 14:2). Two related traditions may also have contributed to the use of this imagery here. First, the reference to “grapes” may evoke the OT description of Israel as a vineyard (Isa. 5:1–7; Jer. 12:10; cf. Luke 13:6–9; 20:9–18). Second, the theme of judgment is already present in the “vineyard” imagery in Isa. 5:1–7, and it can be found also in other passages where the “fruit” imagery is used in a judgment context (cf. Ezek. 17:9). These two themes seem to have played a role in Matt. 7:16–21, but neither dominates in this Lukan passage, as the focus here is primarily on the issue of hypocrisy.
6:46–49
The parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders concludes this long discourse by presenting a choice to the readers. Its function is comparable to the conclusion of the Holiness Code (Lev. 26) and the covenant discourse in Deut. 28 (see Catchpole 1986: 298), where warning is issued to those who do not act within the covenantal boundary.
While Jesus’ summary of his own ministry in his response to the messengers of John in 7:22 connects this section to the Isaianic quotation in chapter 4, the two healing stories in this chapter may also recall the stories of Elijah and Elisha evoked in 4:25–27 (for other possible parallels between chaps. 4 and 7, see Ringe 1981: 173–74). In 7:1–10 is the story illustrating the faith of a centurion. If Matt. 8:5–13 serves as a parallel to this healing account, then the Lukan emphasis is easily identifiable. These include the worthiness of the centurion (7:2, 4), the use of intermediaries (7:3, 6), and the omission of the meeting between Jesus and the centurion. Although numerous OT parallels have been suggested (see Derrett 1970: 161–62), the connections with Elisha’s healing of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:1–16 seem evident, especially in light of the use of this story already in 4:27 (see Crockett 1969: 18; Ravens 1995: 130; cf. Brodie 1992). Like the centurion in Luke 7:1–10, Naaman is described as a respected Gentile military officer (2 Kings 5:1). Also, without meeting Elisha in person, he only received instructions from the prophet through an intermediary (2 Kings 5:10). Moreover, the healing resulted in the recognition of the power of the prophet of Israel and the God whom he represents (2 Kings 5:8, 15; cf. Luke 7:16).
The conclusion of Luke’s account (7:9) highlights the response of one who does not belong to Israel. Unlike Matt. 8:13, which explicitly notes Jesus’ words of healing, the Lukan account draws attention not to the healing miracle, but rather to the worthiness of a Gentile to receive divine blessings (see Achtemeier 1978: 155–56). This emphasis on the conversion of a Gentile also paves the way for the conversion account of Cornelius in Acts 10, where again a respected military officer communicates with the messenger of God through an intermediary. If Acts 10 serves as the culmination of the narrative sequence that begins in Luke 4:16–30, then 7:1–10 serves as a bridge between the two texts as Jesus’ mission paves the way for the Gentile mission of his apostles.
Luke 7:11–17
As 7:1–10 finds its possible parallel in 2 Kings 5:1–16, so 7:11–17 may recall Elijah’s raising of the widow’s son in 1 Kings 17:17–24, as already noted in 4:25–26. C. A. Evans (1993a: 76–77) and T. L. Brodie (1987: 134–53) list the following parallels: a widow as the main character (7:12; 1 Kings 17:9, 17), the death of her son (7:12; 1 Kings 17:17), the meeting of the widow at the “gate of the city” (7:12; 1 Kings 17:10), and the clause edōken auton tē mētri autou, “he gave him to his mother” (7:15; 1 Kings 17:23). Moreover, the acclamation “A great prophet has arisen among us” (7:16) resembles the targumic reading of 1 Kings 17:24: “You are the prophet of the LORD.” A similar account of the raising of a woman’s son is found in 2 Kings 4:32–37, where Elisha carries on the ministry of his predecessor. It is also important to note how this narrative surpasses the Elijah account in that Jesus is able to speak directly to the dead son and resuscitate him. Thus Jesus is to be viewed as ho kyrios (“the Lord” [7:13]), not merely as a prophet of old (see Bovon 2002: 268; Green 1997: 290).
7:16
The visitation of God and the raising up of God’s messenger recall 1:68–69, where God’s visitation is manifested by the appearance of a Davidic figure. Although the prophetic ministry of Jesus is connected with that of Elijah and Elisha in 4:25–27, the title prophētēs (“prophet”) should not be limited to the Elijah parallel of this story, but rather is to be understood in the wider sense whereby Jesus is portrayed as the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15; cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37). Nevertheless, the title itself is insufficient to explain the significance of Jesus and his ministry (9:19–20; cf. John 7:40–44).
7:19
The reference to ho erchomenos (“the coming one”) recalls the earlier reference in 3:16, where one detects an allusion to passages such as Mal. 3:1; Ps. 118:26 [117:26 LXX].
7:22
The response of Jesus draws on a number of Isaianic passages, the most prominent being Isa. 35:3–4 (the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear) and 61:1–2 (the blind see, the poor receive good news). Other texts from Isaiah that may have played a role include 29:18–19; 42:7, 18; and especially 26:19, with its reference to the raising of the dead. Only the healing of the leper is missing in these Isaianic passages, although some have suggested that both the healing of the leper and the raising of the dead allude to the stories of Elijah (1 Kings 17:17–24) and Elisha (2 Kings 5:1–16) that appear earlier in 4:25–27 and 7:1–17 (see Tuckett 1982: 353; Neirynck 1997: 50). It should be noted that the inclusion of the raising of the dead in this Isaianic list can already be found in the list in 4Q521, where the Messiah is introduced (2 II, 1), and he is the one who will revive the dead and proclaim good news to the humbled ones (2 II, 12). The connection between the Isaianic list and the ministries of Elijah and Elisha is again present here as the Messiah is portrayed as an Elijah-type figure. Collins (1994: 112) may be right in concluding that “there is good reason to think that actions described in Isaiah 61, with the addition of the raising of the dead, were already viewed as ‘works of the messiah’ in some Jewish circles before the career of Jesus” (cf. Tabor and Wise 1992). Further support is needed, however, to substantiate the suggestion that “it is quite possible that the author of the Sayings source knew 4Q521” (Collins 1994: 107).
The text of 4Q521 is important also for our discussion on the issue of judgment. This fragment confirms that the lack of explicit mention of judgment and vindication in the list should not lead to the conclusion that the omission is intentional, since the judgment theme is emphasized in the context of this list. In a similar manner, the absence of the judgment theme in Luke 7:22 should not prevent one from noticing the presence of this theme in Isa. 26; 35; 61. The verse that follows (“Blessed is anyone who does not fall away on account of me”) should then be considered as a warning to those who consider the delay of God’s judgment to be an excuse for the rejection of Jesus’ messianic ministry.
7:27
A. NT Context: Role of John the Baptist. With 7:24, Jesus speaks directly about the role and ministry of John the Baptist. The Matthean parallel (11:2–19) combines the two discrete Lukan passages (7:18–23; 16:16), and together they constitute the second block of Q material on John the Baptist. This passage is set within the wider context where the identity of Jesus himself is questioned (7:18–23). After situating his own ministry within the Isaianic program of the new exodus as laid out in 4:16–30, Jesus provides a definition of John’s significance in relation to his own ministry. The OT quotation is preceded by Jesus’ declaration of John as one who is “more than a prophet” (7:26). The “greatness” of John is emphasized again after the citation, but it is followed by the enigmatic saying “Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (7:28). J. P. Meier (1994: 142–44) calls this “dialectical negation,” as the eschatological turning point initiated by Jesus surpasses everything that precedes this moment in salvation history.
The presence of this quotation is important because it is a mixed quotation drawing on Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1. At this point, it is sufficient to note that both OT texts are connected with the Isaianic program as outlined in Isa. 40:3 (cf. Mark 1:2–3). The relationship between 7:18–23 and this passage becomes apparent as the significance of John and Jesus are explained within the wider Isaianic program of the new exodus.
B. Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1 in Context. Exodus 23 belongs to the Book of the Covenant (20:22–23:33), where the statutes and ordinances for the covenantal relationship are laid out, and these regulations can be considered as an explication of the Decalogue, which precedes them (20:1–17). The conclusion (23:20–33), to which our text belongs, is of a hortatory nature and forms an appropriate conclusion to this book. Connected with the previous section (23:14–19), this conclusion focuses on the land and thus can be considered as “a homily on the proper use of the land” (Childs 1974: 461). These opening verses (23:20–23) of the epilogue are characterized by the conditional nature of the covenant, where one finds a clear articulation of the warning to Israel against any rebellious act against their God (23:21–22) framed by the references to God’s messenger who guards the way as God’s people approach the promised land (23:20, 23).
The relationship between the malʾāk (“messenger”) and God himself is less than clear in these verses (cf. Exod. 3:2; 14:19). In 23:22 the equation of following “his voice” and “do all that I say” seems to identify Yahweh with his own messenger. J. I. Durham (1987: 335) considers the messenger an “extension” of Yahweh, while others prefer to see the angel as the manifestation of God’s presence (cf. 23:21; see Juncker 2001: 94–95). It is precisely this ambiguity that provides a fertile field of exegetical work.
Although Exod. 23 supplies the language for part of the quotation in Luke 7:22, it is Mal. 3:1 that directly contributes to this quotation. Malachi begins with the failure of God’s people and their leaders to live faithfully as God’s covenant partners (1:6–2:16). The section culminates in their questioning of the one who judges: “Where is the God of justice?” (2:17), a verse that starts off the fourth prophetic oracle (2:17–3:5). Malachi 3:1 provides a response to the rebellious acts of God’s people as it points to the presence of God through his malʾāk (“messenger”). Unlike the messenger in Exod. 23, however, this messenger is directly related to the arrival of God’s judgment: “But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?” (3:2). The theme of judgment dominates the rest of this book, where the wicked (3:7–15) are separated from the righteous (3:16–18).
Unlike the preceding material, this oracle (2:17–3:5) is characterized by its eschatological focus. The image of the messenger draws on Exod. 23:20, while the role of this messenger as one who is to “prepare the way before me” also builds on Isa. 40:3. Unlike Isa. 40:3, where the clearing of the way points primarily to the deliverance of God’s people from the hands of their enemies, in this prophetic oracle the clearing of the way points to the purification that is accompanied by the presence of God. More perplexing is the relationship between “my messenger,” “the messenger of the covenant,” and “the LORD of hosts” in this oracle. Most would affirm that “the LORD of hosts” refers to Yahweh, the God of Israel. Unlike Exod. 23:20, however, the separation between “my messenger” and Yahweh is clearer. What remains unclear is the relationship between “my messenger” and “the messenger of the covenant.” In the context of Malachi the two may be separate beings that represent God (see Hill 1998: 286–89), although the distinction between “the messenger of the covenant” and “the LORD of hosts” is more difficult to discern. Those who advocate the two-character approach have provided a strong case for identifying “the messenger of the covenant” with God himself (cf. Exod. 3:6; 14:19; see Glazier-McDonald 1987: 128–42). In light of 4:5–6 [3:23–24 MT], “my messenger” may be identified with the Elijah figure who prepares the way by proclaiming a message of repentance (Stuart 1998: 1393–96). It is this reading that dominates the Jewish and early Christian interpretation of Mal. 3:1.
As Mal. 3:1 draws on Exod. 23:20, the two also share in their concern with covenantal faithfulness. While Exod. 23:20–33 concludes the Book of Covenant with a word of warning, Mal. 3:1 uses a phrase unattested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, malʾak habbĕrît (“messenger of the covenant”), in highlighting the covenantal framework within which the acts of purification should be understood. The use of Isa. 40:3 (cf. 57:14; 62:10) also locates the eschatological hope within a context of the new exodus wherein God would act as he did in the days of old. The connections between judgment and salvation in Mal. 3:1–5 qualify the jubilant note of Isa. 40:3, however, as the presence of God also brings judgment to his own people.
C. Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1 in Judaism. The precise identity of the messenger of Exod. 23:20 naturally attracts the attention of Jewish exegetes. In the LXX, for example, one finds a separation of the messenger and Yahweh by omitting the references to the pardoning of sins and by identifying the voice as “his [messenger’s] voice” instead of the voice of the God who speaks in Exod. 23:21 (Wevers 1990: 370). In Philo this messenger becomes the agent through which God controls the universe (Agriculture 51), but it could also serve as the divine reason for the guidance of one’s life (Migration 174). Elsewhere, Philo also points to the messenger as the prophetic voice coming from the mouth of God (QE 2.13). In 3 En. 10:5 the messenger becomes the “Prince of Wisdom” and the “Prince of Understanding.” Further speculation concerning the “name” of God as it relates to divine beings may also reflect an influence of Exod. 23:20–21 (cf. 1 En. 48:2–3; Apoc. Ab. 10:3–8; see Juncker 2001: 253, 262).
In Exod. Rab. 32:9 there is an allusion to this verse (together with Mal. 3:10) in the discussion of the theme of divine deliverance. Equally important is the fact that the sending of the messenger in this passage is considered to be a consequence of Israel’s faithlessness (Mann 1940: 479; R. E. Watts 1997: 66). It is the presence of both aspects that affects the reading of this verse in later literature.
The significance of Mal. 3:1 in Jewish literature needs to be discussed in relation to its connection with other passages. As noted above, its connection with Exod. 23:20 is reflected in Exod. Rab. 32:9, where one finds the theme of deliverance. More importantly, situated within the trajectory emanating from Isa. 40:3, this text points to the eschatologization of the “way” motif in the expectation of God’s deliverance (T. Mos. 10:1; 1 En. 1:6–7; Pesiq. Rab. 20:30A). Finally, the connection between 3:1 and 4:5–6 (3:23–24 MT) has given rise to a long tradition of Elijah redivivus (cf. Sir. 48:10–11; 1 En. 89:52; 90:31; 4 Ezra 6:26; 4Q521; 4Q558; Sop. 19:9; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 40:10; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30:4; Tg. Lam. 4:22; m. Soṭah 9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 76a; see TDNT 2:931–34; Collins 1995: 119–22). Consensus is lacking in Jewish literature, however, as far as the role of this Elijah figure is concerned. He may be a priestly figure who takes on a messianic role (4Q541), but whether there is a widespread belief in Elijah as a precursor of the Messiah is debatable (Taylor 1997: 285). One can, however, point to the existence of a certain prophetic figure who would prepare for the work of the Messiah (cf. 1QS IX, 10–11; 4Q175; 11Q13 II, 18–20; see Bovon 2002: 283).
D. Textual Matters. The first part of the verse, idou apostellō ton angelon mou pro prosōpou sou (“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you”), reproduces the first half of Exod. 23:20 LXX, with the omission of the first-person pronoun egō, which is present in both its Matthean parallel (11:10) and Exod. 23:20. Other than the addition of mou (“my”), the LXX accurately reflects the Hebrew text of Exod. 23:20. Although the primacy of Mal. 3:1 behind this verse is to be affirmed (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 674), the influence of Exod. 23:20 on the wording of this citation cannot be denied, especially since it also contributed to the formulation in Mal. 3:1 (see Gundry 1967: 11–12).
The second half of the verse, hos kataskeuasei tēn hodon sou emprosthen sou (“who will prepare your way before you”), is identical to its Matthean parallel, but it departs significantly from both Exod. 23:20b LXX (hina phylaxē se en tē hodō, “that he may guard you in the way”) and Mal. 3:1b LXX (kai epiblepsetai hodon pro prosōpou mou, “and he will survey the way before me”). It does represent the Hebrew text of Mal. 3:1, ûpinnâ-derek lĕpānāy (“to prepare the way before me”), with the change of the first-person pronoun into second person probably because of the context. K. Stendahl (1968: 51–54) suggests that kataskeuasei (“[who] will prepare”) in the citation assumes that the MT reads pnh in the piʿel, but the LXX reads it as a qal. Theologically, one may also argue that by using epiblepsetai (“he will survey”), the LXX intentionally downplays the role of this messenger in the eschatological age (Hill 1988: 266). With the use of epiblepsetai (“he will survey”), the failure of the LXX to recognize the connection between Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3 (hetoimasate, “prepare”) is also evident.
The connection and conflation of Exod. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1 could be made on the level of the LXX with the appearance of the phrase ton angelon mou (“my messenger”) in both verses. On the other hand, Luke’s (or Q’s) apparent dependence on the MT for Mal. 3:1 and the fact that the two are already connected in rabbinic traditions (e.g., Exod. Rab. 32:9) point to the possibility that the two verses were connected on the level of the Hebrew text, where both begin with the participle šōlēaḥ (“sending”) with a first-person singular construction (Exod. 23:20, hinnēh ʾānōkî; Mal. 3:1, hinĕnî) (see France 1971: 242–43).
E. The Use of Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1 in Luke 7:27. In context, the use of these two texts aim primarily at defining the role of John the Baptist in salvation history. The fact that two distinct passages are used further enriches the portrayal of John’s ministry. The use of Exod. 23:20 evokes the foundation story of Israel as it locates the ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist within the framework of the new exodus, which depicts God’s creation of a true Israel at the end of times. The use of Mal. 3:1 points directly to the preparatory role of John the Baptist as he prepares for the climactic moment in history. It clarifies the picture presented in 1:76 as John is here further identified with the Elijah figure through the connection of Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 (3:23 MT). This unique role of John the Baptist explains Jesus’ statements that he is “more than a prophet” (7:26) and that “among those born of women no one is greater than John” (7:28).
Moving beyond the focus on John as an individual, we need to note the covenantal framework in which Exod. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1 are situated. In both passages the call is on Israel to be faithful to their covenantal partner, and judgment is promised to those who rebel against their God (Exod. 23:21; Mal. 3:2–3). In context, this quotation links the presence of John the forerunner and the divine judgment that follows. The Lukan note concerning the rejection of God’s purpose by the Pharisees and the lawyers in 7:30 together with the discourse on tous anthrōpous tēs geneas tautēs (“the people of this generation”) in 7:31–35 (cf. Matt. 11:16–19), a phrase that recalls the rebellious generation in the wilderness (see 7:31 below), clearly shows that the significance of the citations is not limited to John the Baptist.
The shift from the first person of Mal. 3:1 to the second in 7:27 requires further discussion. The change of person can be attributed to the context, as Jesus is now addressing his audience. This change may then reflect “a shift of emphasis from John as going before the Lord to John preparing the people before the Lord comes” (Bock 1987: 113). This reading draws on Isa. 40:3–5 (cf. Luke 3:4–6), with its prophetic call to the people to be prepared for the coming of the Lord. On the other hand, this change of person may be intended to establish a further christological point. When the citation is taken as an independent unit, the change of person “has the effect of making Yahweh address Messiah” (Carson 1984: 264; cf. S. Brown 1969: 132). This is significant in that the role played by “the messenger of the covenant” in Mal. 4:1 is now played by the Messiah. In the Gospel context this Messiah is Jesus himself. With this reading, not only is the relative position between John and Jesus clarified, but also the functional identity between Jesus and God himself is implied. This reading is further supported by the singular form of the second-person pronoun and by the lack of reference to the role of the people in Mal. 4:1 itself.
F. Theological Use. The significance of Mal. 3:1 for the portrayal of John the Baptist has already been hinted at in 1:17, where he is portrayed as one with “the spirit and power of Elijah” who will “go before” and “make ready a people” for the Lord. In 1:76 it is again noted that he “will go before the Lord to prepare his ways.” It is in 7:27, however, that the relationship between John, Jesus, and the Lord is made explicit. It is not surprising, therefore, that the clarification of Jesus’ role and ministry in 7:22 is immediately followed by a discussion of John’s role and ministry. Jesus takes on the role of the “messenger of the covenant” in Mal. 3:1, and the significance of John’s position is derived from the eschatological significance of Jesus himself.
While the clarification of Jesus’ ministry is immediately followed by a word of warning (situated within a beatitude formula) in 7:23, the discussion of John’s ministry is also followed by a word of judgment (7:29–30). This aspect of the ministry of John is clarified through the transformation of the tradition of Isa. 40:3 in Mal. 3. In Isa. 40:3 the idea of preparation is primarily one that points to the joyous anticipation of the dawn of salvation. With the delay of the fulfillment of such promises, Mal. 3 points to another aspect of preparation where the call to repentance is issued to God’s people. While Mal. 3:1 builds on the failure of Israel to be culticly pure, 4:5–6 (3:23–24 MT) concludes with the moral and social transformation that will be accompanied by the turning of “the hearts” (4:6 [3:24 MT]). In the Lukan context the same dual emphases can be found in that while Isa. 40:3–5 appears in 3:4–6 with the announcement of the good news, the use of Mal. 3:1 (together with Exod. 23:20) in 7:27 clarifies the repentance that is required with the presence of God’s Messiah. The prophetic call to repentance dominates the central section of Luke (9:51–19:44), which is preceded by the transfiguration narrative (9:28–36), where again Jesus is in the company of Moses and Elijah.
7:31–35
Several phrases reflect the use of biblical language in Jesus’ comments on the reception of his and John’s ministries. First, the use of the expression hē genea hautē (“this generation”) in this parable (cf. Matt. 11:16–19) recalls other similar formulations in the context of the proclamation of judgment (cf. 9:40–41 [Matt. 17:16–17]; 11:29–32 [Matt. 12:38–42]; 11:49–51 [Matt. 23:34–36]; 17:22–37 [Matt. 24:26–28, 37–39]; Acts 2:40). Pejorative adjectives found in some of these passages clarify the way this expression is used: genea apistos kai diestrammenē (“faithless and perverse generation” [9:41; cf. Matt. 17:17]); genea ponēra (“evil generation” [11:29; cf. Matt. 12:39]); tēs geneas tēs skolias tautēs (“this corrupt generation” [Acts 2:40]). E. O. Lövestam (1968: 8, 14–15) has shown that these expressions find their roots in Deut. 32:4b–5 (“A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he; yet his degenerate children have dealt falsely with him, a perverse and crooked generation [genea skolia kai diestrammenē]”) and 32:20 (“He said, ‘I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation [genea exestrammenē], children in whom there is no faithfulness [pistis]’”). These passages clearly refer to the wilderness generation, which rebelled against their God after experiencing his acts of deliverance. In the prophetic traditions the same term is used in describing God’s disobedient people: “for the LORD has rejected and forsaken the generation [tēn genean] that provoked his wrath” (Jer. 7:29). In this Lukan context “this generation” likewise rejected God’s messengers after witnessing God’s acts through them. The description of the Pharisees and the lawyers as those who “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (7:30) therefore links them with their ancestors who had rejected their God.
The phrase anthrōpos phagos kai oinopotēs (“a glutton and a drunkard” [7:34]) may be an echo of Deut. 21:20. Although the exact meaning of the MT’s zôlēl (“profligate”) is unclear, the Targumim Pseudo-Jonathan, Onqelos, and Neofiti understand the term to refer to gluttony. The tradition behind Luke’s expression may thus reflect the influence of the Targumim, especially when the wording departs from the LXX’s symbolokopōn oinophlygei, “he is given to feasting and drunkenness” (see Allison 2000a: 40). In Deut. 21:20–21 the son who is described as a “glutton and a drunkard” is the rebellious one who is to be stoned to death. In Luke’s context the use of this phrase not only points to Jesus’ refusal to conform to the expectation of the Jewish leaders but also reflects his readiness to suffer under their hands (see Kee 2002: 329).
The final saying of this pericope, edikaiōthē hē sophia apo pantōn tōn teknōn autēs (“wisdom is vindicated by all her children” [7:35]), is difficult, especially when the identity of the teknōn (“children”) is unclear. D. P. Moessner (1989: 103–4) represents many by arguing for the connection between vv. 29 and 35, concluding therefore that those who accept John and Jesus in general, and the tax collectors in particular, are the intended references behind teknōn. In light of the flow of the narrative, however, an equally strong case can be made that the teknōn refers primarily to Jesus and John the Baptist (see Carson 1994b). The Matthean parallel, ta erga (“the deeds” [11:19]), refers then to the works of John and Jesus. The Lukan inclusion of the term pantōn (“all”) may widen the intended references to include John, Jesus, and their disciples (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 679). For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that an explicit wisdom Christology cannot be detected in Matt. 11:19 (contra Witherington 1994: 145, 227) and especially in this Lukan parallel in light of pantōn (“all”) and the plural teknōn (“children”). Moreover, although early Jewish wisdom texts (cf. Prov. 8:32–33; Sir. 4:11; see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:427) do provide a general context for this saying, parallels are lacking in which these “children” provide justification for wisdom.
7:42–43
J. A. Sanders (1993b: 87) has argued for the presence of an allusion to the Jubilee legislation (Deut. 15:1–3; Lev. 25) with the use of the analogy of the cancellation of debts. This is questionable in light of the use of the verb charizomai instead of aphiemi in reference to the “canceling/releasing” of debts. In light of 7:21, which has the only other occurrence of the verb charizomai in this Gospel, however, the connection with the wider Isaianic program as represented in Isa. 35:3–4; 61:1–2 is possible, where the gracious acts of God are promised to be revealed. The appropriateness of this analogy can thus be affirmed even without the presence of an explicit Jubilee reference.
7:48–49
For the issue of divine forgiveness, see 5:21 above.
7:50
The expression poreuou eis eirēnēn (“go in peace”) finds its LXX parallels in 1 Sam. 1:17; 20:42, where divine approval is expressed. This sense fits well in this context, where the woman receives divine forgiveness. Other related formulations point to a request granted (cf. anabēthi eis eirēnēn [1 Sam. 25:35]; badize eis eirēnēn [2 Sam. 15:9]; deuro eis eirēnēn [2 Kings 5:19]). Both senses are present in 8:48, where the same phrase occurs with the clause hē pistis sou sesōken se (“your faith has saved you”) in the context of Jesus’ healing of the hemorrhaging woman.
A. NT Context: Responses to the Word. The parable of the Sower follows a summary statement of Jesus’ preaching of the good news (8:1) and healing of those who are plagued by “evil spirits and infirmities” (8:2). This parable focuses on the different responses to the ministries of Jesus, and the Isaianic quotation in 8:10 focuses squarely on this issue of response. Echoes from the OT provide structure for this parable. Metaphors of sowing can be found in Jer. 31:27; Ezek. 36:9; Hos. 2:23 (see Bock 1994–1996: 723), while Jer. 4:3 in particular should be highlighted in light of its reference to the sowing “among thorns” (Gertner 1962: 272). In light of the focus on the “word of God” (8:11), further parallels with Isa. 55:10–11 should not be overlooked (see C. A. Evans 1985). It is in this Isaianic passage that one finds the “seed” and the “sower” together in the context of the portrayal of the powerful “word of God”: “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth. . . .”
On the assumption that Luke has Mark as his source for this parable (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 700–702), several Lukan emphases can be detected. First, the focus on the seed (8:5; cf. Mark 4:3) draws attention to the word of God itself (8:11; cf. Mark 4:14). The explicit mentioning of the sower who “called out” (8:8; cf. Mark 4:9) may reflect the same emphasis. Second, unlike Mark, who highlights the separation between the crowd and the disciples (Mark 4:10) and therefore sees this parable as an introduction to the teachings to the disciples, Luke uses this parable to emphasize the general response that the gospel demands. The omission of the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mark 4:13) confirms this point.
Although the Markan separation between the crowd and the disciples is not maintained in Luke, the distinction between them is retained. Immediately preceding the allusion to Isa. 6:9–10, it is said that while outsiders will encounter parables, Jesus’ disciples will receive ta mystēria (“the mysteries” [8:10]) of the kingdom of God. The mystērion of the Hellenistic mystery cults is quite foreign to the way this term is used here. R. E. Brown (1968) and others (Tuckett 1988: 15; Bockmuehl 1990: 24–126) have convincingly pointed to the Semitic background where mystērion refers to the eschatological acts of God to be revealed to the elect. Daniel 2 in particular provides a conceptual parallel where rāz refers to the eschatological plan of God that is yet to be revealed (cf. mystērion in Dan. 2:18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47). In the context of this parable the mysteries refer to God’s eschatological plan, but they also point to the specific role that Jesus is playing in such unfolding of salvation history.
B. Isa. 6:9–10 in Context. The proclamation of judgment in Isa. 6 is anticipated by the previous chapters with the listing of Israel’s sins. Isaiah 1 opens with the accusation against Israel, who had “rebelled” against their God (1:2). Their leaders are accused of misleading and confusing them (cf. 3:12–16), and together with the people they will be judged: “Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure; the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude go down, her throng and all who exult in her” (5:14). In the midst of chaos, Isa. 6 begins with a vision of the holy God who sits on the throne (vv. 1–4). This is followed by the prophetic call account proper, which contains an admission of human frailty (6:5), divine affirmation (6:6–7), and the response to the divine call (6:8). This is followed by the message that Isaiah is called to proclaim (6:9–13).
Three related elements in this prophetic message are emphasized throughout Isaiah. First, the obduracy theme is developed with the one of Israel’s rebellion against their God, and it is one found beyond Isa. 6 (cf. 29:9–10; 42:18–20; 43:8; 44:18; 63:17; see C. A. Evans 1989: 43–46). The repeated references to this theme in Isaiah show that it is as much an indictment as it is a diagnosis of Israel’s condition in the presence of their covenant partner.
Second, the connection between sin and exile reflected in 6:11–12 (“Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is utterly desolate; until the LORD sends everyone far away, and vast is the emptiness in the midst of the land”) is already noted in 5:13. This connection can also be found in 27:8–13; 49:20–21. The “sin” of Israel is one that is characterized by idolatry, and this charge of idolatry is paved by 2:5–8, 18–22, which depicts the sins of Judah. G. K. Beale (1991) has shown that the language used in 6:9 in particular (“listening, but do not comprehend . . . looking, but do not understand”) reflects the language used to describe the idols themselves as in Ps. 135:16–17 (cf. 115:5–6). The ironic point established by the use of these metaphors of sight and audition is that Israel has turned into the idols that they had worshiped. Extensive anti-idol polemic occurs in Isa. 42:16–20; 43:8–12; 44:8–20; 47:5–11, where a similar use of this set of metaphors is found in speeches against the idols of the pagans.
Third, a “faint, but sure, ray of hope” (Oswalt 1986–1998: 1:190) may be present in 6:13b in the statement “The holy seed is its stump.” The precise interpretation of this phrase is subject to debate (see J. D. W. Watts 1985–1987: 1:76), but the presence of a hopeful note within the gloomy message is found elsewhere in Isa. 1–39 (cf. 2:2–4; 9:2–7; 11:1–3, 10–16; 25:6–10; 32:14–20; 35). Particularly important is Isa. 40:1–11, which serves as a striking reversal of this passage (see Fisher 1974). In both, one finds a commissioning scene and the use of the metaphor for sight. Unlike Isa. 6, however, Isa. 40 proclaims the arrival of the eschatological era, in which God will reverse his indictment by providing salvation for his own people. Isa. 6, therefore, should not be considered as the final statement on the relationship between God and his people.
Together, these elements serve to unpack the nature and function of Isa. 6. The reality of God’s judgment is to be affirmed, but so is the promised redemption. In terms of function, the prophetic nature of this section likewise points to the emphasis on both the predictive element, which reveals the consequence of Israel’s pattern of disobedience, and the hortatory nature of the call to respond to the one and the only living God. The ambiguity and the creative tension created by these considerations have led to the various uses of this passage in the different conceptual frameworks apart from the constraints of the Isaianic context.
C. Isa. 6:9–10 in Judaism. One of the earliest interpretations of Isa. 6:9–10 is in the LXX, on the assumption that the MT reflects the original Hebrew text. The toning down of the hardening process is reflected in the following changes from the MT. First, the future indicatives akousete (“you will hear”) and blepsete (“you will see”) replace the Hebrew imperatives šim ʿû (“hear”) and rĕʾû (“see”). Second, the aorist passive epachynthē (“has grown dull”) is used instead of the Hebrew imperative hašmēn (“make dull”) and thereby tones down the role of God as an active agent. The hipʿil imperatives hakbēd (“stop”) and hāšaʿ (“shut”) are likewise translated by the indicatives [bareōs] ēkousan (“hard of hearing”) and ekammysan (“they have shut”). Moreover, the insertion of gar (“for”) at the beginning of 6:10 also shifts the focus away from the role of God.
These concerns of the LXX translators represent the general areas of interest of the interpretive traditions deriving from these verses (C. A. Evans 1989: 51–60, 69–80). In the 1QIsaa 6:9–10, for example, the negative particle ʾal (“not”) is strikingly replaced by ʿal (“because”), and thus the negative statement becomes a causal one: “Keep listening, because you may understand; keep looking, because you may perceive.” Moreover, the negative conclusion is turned into a positive one: “Let it understand. . . .” These changes turned this passage into one that is “to warn and aid the elect in protecting themselves from evil” (C. A. Evans 1989: 56).
The Targumic reading (cf. Tg. Isa. 6:9–10) reflects similar concerns. The command to the prophet is transformed into a description of the rebellious nature of God’s people. While the negative tone of these verses is downplayed, emphasis is placed on 6:13b, where one finds further development of the idea of the “holy seed.” The Peshitta reflects the influence of both the LXX and the Targumim, as it emphasizes the stubbornness of the people and downplays the agency of God.
Beyond these attempts to soften the harshness of the prophetic message, this text is evoked in various other ways. In Philo, for example, the antiidol language is overlooked, and the contrasts between listening and comprehending, and looking and understanding, are used to illustrate the lack of ability to discern true reality as in the state of dreams (Joseph 126). Closer to the early Christian uses of this text is Sib. Or. 1:360–364, a text that betrays Christian influences, where the ethnic focus is evident: “And then, Israel, intoxicated, will not perceive nor yet will she hear, afflicted with weak ears. But when the raging wrath of the Most High comes upon the Hebrews, it will also take faith away from them, because they did harm to the son of the heavenly God.”
D. Textual Matters. Unlike Matthew, who includes an explicit quotation of Isa. 6:9–10 in the discussion that follows the parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:14–15), Luke moves it to the end of his work (Acts 28:26–27). The fact that Luke is aware of the textual tradition behind Matthew’s quotation is indicated by the omission of autōn (“their”) after ōsin (“ears”) in his quotation in Acts 28:27 (cf. Matt. 13:15). Instead of the explicit quotation, Luke retains the Markan allusion to the Isaianic text, with two major changes. First, like Matthew, Luke simplifies the Markan compound clauses (hina blepontes blepōsin kai mē idōsin, kai akouontes akouōsin kai mē syniōsin, “in order that they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand” [Mark 4:12a]), although Luke and Matthew seem to be working independently in this case (hina blepontes mē blepōsin kai akouontes mē syniōsin, “in order that looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand” [Luke 8:10; cf. Matt. 13:13: hoti blepontes ou blepousin kai akouontes ouk akouousin oude syniousin, “that seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand”]).
Second, and more importantly, Luke omits Mark’s further allusion to the final words of Isa. 6:10, mēpote epistrepsōsin kai aphethē autois (“so that they may not turn again and be forgiven” [Mark 4:12; cf. Matt. 13:15]). Rather than seeing this omission as an intentional softening of Jesus’ “arbitrary exclusion of some from forgiveness” (Stagg 1997: 218), it seems that Luke has reserved this final word of judgment for the very end of his work (cf. Acts 28:27; see Pao 2000: 104–9).
E. The Use of Isa. 6:9–10 in Luke 8:10. Unlike Mark and Matthew, in Luke this Isaianic quotation appears in the response of Jesus concerning not the purpose of using parables in general, but rather the precise meaning of this parable about the sower (8:9; cf. Mark 4:10; Matt. 13:10). This could be interpreted as an intentional narrowing of the application of this Isaianic text, but equally plausible is that Luke considers this parable to be the key to understanding the rest of Jesus’ teaching. This reading is affirmed by the summary statement that precedes, which points to Jesus kēryssōn kai euangelizomenos tēn basileian tou theou (“proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God” [8:1]). Moreover, the use of this citation in this context provides a link to Luke’s central section (9:51–19:44), where the Jewish rejection of the gospel is repeatedly noted.
The telic force of hina (“in order that”) in Mark 4:12 is retained in 8:10, and the difficulty of this saying should not be resolved by the softening of the force of the hina clause (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 708–9; cf. Nolland 1989–1993: 380). This hina clause has to be understood in its wider literary and theological contexts, however. First, the note on the sovereignty of God in general, and the evocation of the mystēria (“mysteries”) of the kingdom of God in particular, point to the unfolding of the salvation plan of God. Therefore, the telic force of the hina clause should not be limited to the statement on the use of parables. Second, in the context of Isaiah, 6:9–10 serves as a prophetic word of judgment. The pattern of the rejection of God’s plan by his people is highlighted, but the failure of the people to respond does not reflect on the efficacy of God’s word. In Luke, the rejection of the prophetic message is a theme that was already introduced at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (4:16–30), but the implicit call to repentance can still be detected behind this prophetic word of judgment. This “both-and” aspect of prophetic ministry is well illustrated in Luke’s second volume, where the claim to turn away from the Jews (Acts 13:46–47; 18:6) nonetheless does not signify the end of Paul’s ministries to the Jews. Moreover, the prophetic call in 8:8 (“Let anyone with ears to hear listen!”) reflects this continued call to repentance.
Although Luke omits the mēpote clause of Mark 4:12 (see discussion above), he does insert a similar phrase within the parable itself: “The devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not [hina mē] believe and be saved” (8:12). Some commentators (see C. A. Evans 1989: 117) see this as Luke’s attempt to soften the Isaianic saying by shifting the focus from Jesus to Satan as the one who promotes human obduracy. This is insufficient for two reasons. First, the mēpote clause does appear at the end of Luke’s narrative (Acts 28:27), and it is clear that the finality of this word of judgment is not suppressed but is reserved for that significant narratological position. Second, to align human rejection of the gospel with the will of Satan highlights the rejection of the messianic ministry as an act of active rebellion against God and his plan of salvation. This is consistent with the description of the Jewish leadership as those who “rejected God’s purpose [tēn boulē tou theou] for themselves” (7:30).
Finally, as Isa. 6:9–10 uses anti-idol language to depict the failure of Israel to respond to their God, similar use of anti-idol polemic is found in Luke’s second volume. In Acts 7:48, for example, the temple that is supposed to be used as the place where the creator God is worshiped is described as cheiropoiētois (“made with human hands”), a word that is always used in connection with acts of idolatry in the LXX (Lev. 26:1, 30; Isa. 10:11; 16:12; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7; 46:6; cf. tois ergois tōn cheirōn autōn, “works of their hands” [Acts 7:41]). In this context the pattern of Israel’s rejection of the plan of God is again noted: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do” (Acts 7:51). The pattern of Jewish rejection of God’s plan is therefore established, and, as in Luke 8, Israel is described as a people who fail to hear and therefore have aligned themselves with the enemy of God.
F. Theological Use. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the use of Isa. 6:9–10 is not limited to the explication of Jesus’ use of parables. It also serves as an indictment against Israel for repeatedly failing to respond to their God. In light of Acts 28:26–27, the focus on the application of this citation on Israel is made explicit (see Longenecker [2000: 136], who downplays this emphasis by noting Luke’s primary interest in his Gentile audience). The Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus in particular are to be blamed, as were the leaders of Israel at the time of Isaiah (Isa. 3:12–16). In the Lukan context the call of repentance to the people at large is still available (10:1–16; 13:1–9; 14:15–24; 15:1–32; 17:26–37; 19:1–10), even though the Jewish leaders were already discussing “what they might do to Jesus” (6:11).
While the Israel of Jesus’ time is typologically connected with the Israel that rejected the plan of God, the prophet Isaiah also provides the framework to understand Jesus’ own ministry. As Isa. 6 points to rejection as part of Isaiah’s vocation (see McLaughlin 1994: 24), Luke 8:10 confirms the words in Jesus’ inaugural speech, which note that “no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown” (4:24). Significantly, the reappearance of Isa. 6 at the end of Acts 28 connects the ministry of Jesus with that of the apostles. Thus the persecution and suffering that characterize the ministries of the apostles are not to be interpreted as signs of failure.
8:22–25
R. D. Aus (2000: 11–55) has provided extensive discussion of the parallels between the account of Jesus’ calming the storm and Jon. 1, especially in light of the embellishment of the story in various recensions of Midrash Jonah (Pirqe R. El. 10; Tanḥ. Viyiqraʾ 8; Yal. Shemʾoni Jonah 549–51). Many of the parallels noted (e.g., the presence of other boats, the crossing over, the role of the sailors, the presence of the storm, the danger of sinking, the ceasing of the storm) are, however, naturally present in any account of a storm story. Moreover, the fact that Aus (2000: 56–70) further argues for the influence of the account of Julius Caesar’s attempt to cross the Adriatic Sea during a winter storm in 48 BC shows that some of the details in the Gospel account of Jesus’ calming the storm naturally belong to any historical account of sea travel.
What is certain, however, is the presence of a significant OT motif that focuses on the power of God. The mastery of Yahweh manifested in his ability to control the waters/seas is considered “the basic idea of Israelite religion” (Kaufmann 1972: 60; cf. Levenson 1988: 3), and the presence of this idea is most apparent in the liturgical traditions of Israel (Ps. 24:1–2; 29:3–4; 32:6–7; 33:6–7; 46:1–3; 65:5–8; 69:13–15; 77:16–20; 93:3–4; 104:7–9; 124:1–5). In the historical memory of Israel the foundational event of God’s deliverance of Israel from the hands of their enemies is captured in the scene in Exod. 14, where God divides the sea and brings his people out of Egypt (cf. Ps. 66:6; 74:13–15; Isa. 43:2, 16–19; 44:26–27; 51:9–11). The connection between God’s ability to calm a storm in times of distress and the paradigmatic exodus event is made in Ps. 107:23–32, where “individual salvation and corporate salvation are held together as the wonderful work of the LORD’s hesed” (Mays 1994: 347). As in the exodus event, Jesus’ calming of the storm provides yet another historical manifestation of God’s power and control. What is striking in this instance is that Jesus is the one who is able to calm the waters. This miracle, therefore, makes a clear christological claim as Jesus is again recognized to be working as his Father is.
8:26–39
For the Jewish audience of first-century Palestine, the account of the Gerasene demoniac who lived in the graves naturally involves issues of purity and impurity, since touching a corpse rendered a person unclean (Lev. 11:24–28; Num. 19:11, 14–16). For the description of the demoniac, some commentators (Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:480; Bovon 2002: 327) also point to Isa. 65 LXX, where the connection between idols and demons is made (autoi thysiazousin en tois kēpois kai thymiōsin epi tais plinthois tois daimoniois ha ouk estin, “they offer sacrifices in the gardens and burn incense on bricks to the demons, which do not exist” [65:3]) in a context where pagan cults are described in terms of worshiping inside the tombs and eating the flesh of swine (65:4). Both passages do contain a similar conglomeration of ideas, but the connection between impurity and pagan/demonic worship of the idols of the Gentiles is common in prophetic traditions (Ezek. 36:25; Hos. 8:5; Zech. 13:2; cf. Ps. 24:4). Thus it is best to see 8:26–39 as reflecting the general pagan context in which this event is situated.
The word abyssos (“abyss” [8:31]) is an adjective (“bottomless”) that came to be used as a noun meaning “bottomless pit.” It is used in reference to deep places (Gen. 1:2; Deut. 33:13; Job 28:14; Ps. 42:7 [41:8 LXX]) in general, and deep waters (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Deut. 8:7; Ps. 33:7 [32:7 LXX]; 77:16 [76:17 LXX]; 148:7) in particular. It also came to be used to refer to the realm of the dead (Ps. 71:20 [70:20 LXX]), and in Jewish literature this usage is extended to refer to the place for the fallen spirits (1 En. 10:4–6; 18:11–16; Jub. 5:6–7) (see NIDNTT 2:205). In this context it refers to the deep waters that are considered to be the place for demons.
8:43–48
Again the issue of purity forms the background of this pericope. Leviticus 15:19–30 provides the basic regulations on menstrual bleeding, and this Levitical passage is evoked through the expression rhysis haimatos (“flow of blood”), which appears in both Luke 8:43 and Lev. 15:25. In Lev. 15 a woman with “regular discharge” is impure for seven days (v. 19), and “if a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness” (v. 25). The threat of death is present for those unclean who approach the tabernacle (15:31). Detailed regulations are developed in later rabbinic material (cf. m. Zabim 2:14; m. Nid. 3:2; see Weissenrieder 2002: 220n4), but it is not clear how widespread was the observance of such complex regulations in the first century.
Jesus’ interaction with the hemorrhaging woman and his allowing her to touch his cloak seem to have violated the “Pharisees’ core value of maintaining holiness (Lev. 11:44)” and challenged “their exclusive strategy” (Love 2002: 97). Moreover, since purity is primarily a cultic issue, Jesus’ act of healing takes on added significance. It is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus’ final words to her are identical to those he uttered to the woman whose sins he had declared forgiven: hē pistis sou sesōken se, poreuou eis eirēnēn (“Your faith has saved you; go in peace” [7:50; 8:48]). Not only is her health restored, but also the healed woman regains the right to be part of the worshiping community. It is in this sense that both the authority of Jesus and the cultic community that centers on him are established through this healing miracle.
As in 6:12–16, this passage focuses on the Twelve. This commissioning account may remind the readers of Num. 13, where the twelve spies represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Num. 13:2; cf. Luke 22:28–30). Significant verbal parallels are missing, however, and the purposes of the two commissioning reports are quite different (see Bovon 2002: 344). In the Lukan context the Twelve represent Jesus in the proclamation of “the kingdom of God” (9:2). As in the mission of Jesus (4:24), the rejection of the Twelve is also to be expected (9:5).
9:8
Three possibilities are available for understanding the reference to Elijah in this verse. First, there may be an allusion to 2 Kings 2:1–12 whereby the return of Elijah is expected in the person of Jesus. Second, building on 2 Kings 2:1–2, the eschatological traditions in Mal. 4:5 point to an eschatological Elijah figure who is sent “before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.” Third, Elijah might be considered simply as a prophet of old who is able to perform great miracles. In light of the reference to the response of “others” who suggest later in this verse that in Jesus “one of the ancient prophets had arisen,” the third option seems the least likely. The first option, which suggests the unmediated connection between this verse and 2 Kings 2:1–2, is also unlikely in light of Luke’s awareness of the Malachi traditions and the long exegetical tradition that builds on Mal. 3–4 (see 7:27 above). The reference to an eschatological figure is therefore probable, especially in light of the allusion to Mal. 3:1 in 7:27. Two distinct but related aspects of the eschatological Elijah of Mal. 3–4 are developed in Jewish exegetical traditions. First, this prophetic figure is to prepare the people for the coming of Yahweh (cf. Sir. 48:10). Second, the presence of this figure (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 40:10; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30:4) signifies the presence of the eschatological era, as the manifestation of divine power and authority are witnessed through the ministry of this figure. This may explain how both John the Baptist and Jesus could be connected with this Elijah tradition in Luke. John the Baptist fulfills the role as the precursor of God (and his Messiah), while Jesus signifies the presence of divine power and authority. The application of the Elijah paradigm in the explication of the ministry of Jesus in 4:25–26, together with the mention of Elijah in the transfiguration account (9:30), fit well with this reading. The inadequacy of this identification should also be noted, however, and this is implied in the observations by Herod in 9:7–9 and by the crowd in 9:19.
9:10–17
Two OT events are often noted as providing the proper framework in which to understand Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand. First, the short account of Elisha’s feeding of a hundred men in 2 Kings 4:42–44 provides a number of structural parallels (Bovon 1993: 28): the presentation of the bread to the prophet (9:13; 2 Kings 4:42), the prophet’s order for the people to be fed (9:13; 2 Kings 4:42), the reaction of the prophet’s followers (9:13; 2 Kings 4:43), the new order from the prophet (9:14; 2 Kings 4:43), the distribution and eating of the bread (9:16; 2 Kings 4:44), and the note concerning the leftovers (9:17; 2 Kings 4:44).
As the Elisha story builds on the feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness (Exod. 16–18), so may the setting in the account of Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand evoke the same event (9:12; Exod. 16:1–3). Moreover, the connection between fish and quail is already made in Num. 11:22, 31, and thus the “five loaves and two fish” may be a reference to the manna and quail that God had provided for his people during the wilderness journey (see Stegner 1989: 59). Others have further traced this connection between birds and fish through Second Temple and rabbinic literature (cf. Wis. 19:10–12; b. Ḥul. 27b; see van Cangh 1971).
Before suggesting that a tight Moses or Elijah/Elisha typology is developed through these allusions, we should note a few points. First, in its Lukan context this story is framed by two passages that highlight the inadequacy of the Elijah and prophetic paradigms for understanding the significance of Jesus’ ministry (cf. 9:7–8, 19). It is only with the confession of Peter and Jesus’ discussion of his own fate (9:20, 22–27) that the mission of Jesus is properly presented. Second, the general theme of God’s provision for his people can be detected, and the Moses and Elisha miracles should also be considered as individual manifestations of God’s provision. This theme of God’s faithfulness culminates in the eschatological banquet tradition, which utilizes the “meal” imagery to portray the satisfaction that God’s people would experience at the end of times (Isa. 25:6; cf. 55:2; Ezek. 34:14). Third, although the manna tradition did merge with that of the eschatological banquet, no texts provide a convincing parallel for the pairing of manna and fish (or even Leviathan) within the context of the eschatological banquet. It seems best to conclude that the “inclusion of fish is probably due to the proximity of the Feeding Miracle to the Sea of Galilee” (Wong 1998: 180).
With these qualifications noted, it still seems probable that the feeding of God’s people in the wilderness in the time of Moses does provide one viable framework to appreciate the significance of the feeding act by Jesus. The transfiguration narrative that follows (9:28–36) likewise situates Jesus within the trajectory of the Moses traditions. Perhaps it is best to recognize both the continuity and discontinuity of Jesus’ ministry with the ancient prophetic traditions. It is this tension that seems to have dominated this entire chapter, where the presentation of the identity and function of Jesus the Messiah is constantly framed with, but not limited by, traditional paradigms.
9:18–20
Peter’s confession serves as a response to Herod’s earlier question concerning the identity of Jesus (9:7–9). Unlike Matthew, who included Jeremiah in the list (Matt. 16:14), Luke’s account of how others understood Jesus includes the same list as the one in 9:7–8: John (the Baptist), Elijah, and “one of the ancient prophets.” The christos (“Christ/Messiah”) of Peter’s response is a title that first appears in the Lukan birth narrative (see 2:11), and the title is consistently used to refer to the expected royal Davidic figure. The title is absent from the central section of Luke, and its next appearance, in 20:41, followed by the quotation of Ps. 110:1, explicitly relates Jesus’ messianic status to the Davidic expectation.
9:21–22
The expression ho huios tou anthrōpou (“Son of Man”) first appears in 5:24. Here it is used to explicate the messianic ministry of Jesus (cf. 17:24–25). This suffering Son of Man serves to qualify the Jewish expectation of a messiah who is defined by political power and might (cf. Pss. Sol. 17). Jesus’ rejection has been noted (cf. 4:24; 7:31–35), but this is the first explicit note that he would suffer death as the Messiah of God (cf. 9:43b–45; 18:31–34). The precise background for this combination of ideas and titles is unclear. The “Son of Man” title, of course, recalls Dan. 7:13–14, but the connection between suffering and this Son of Man is weak in its context. A more likely candidate is Isa. 53, where one finds the combination of “the motifs of prophetic necessity and the Isaianic NE [new exodus]” (R. E. Watts 1998: 132). The absence of a clear Jewish precedent for the connection between the Messiah and the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53 (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 780) is not a critical argument against the existence of this connection in the NT. Finally, the use of the word apodokimasthēnai (“be rejected”) in 9:22 (cf. Mark 8:31) may have been taken from Ps. 118:22 (117:22 LXX): lithon ho apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes (“the stone that the builders rejected”). Noting that almost all of the other occurrences of this verb in the NT can be found in allusions or quotations of Ps. 118 (Mark 8:31; Luke 17:25; 1 Pet. 2:4, 7), Wagner (1997: 162) concludes that this “strongly suggests that the verb in Lk. 9.22 should be understood as a reference to Ps. 118.22.” In light of the significance of both Isa. 53 and Ps. 118 in the Lukan writings, to have to choose between the two seems arbitrary.
9:26
The description of ho huios tou anthrōpou (“the Son of Man”) who elthē en tē doxē (“comes in glory”) may recall the Danielic figure hōs huios anthrōpou erchomenos (“coming as the Son of Man”), the one who was given hē archē kai hē timē kai hē basileia (“dominion and glory and kingship”) (Dan. 7:13–14 Θ). Rather than suppressing the reference to the Danielic figure (see Juel 1998: 160), Matthew, in explicitly identifying this figure with Jesus himself (Matt. 10:32–33), reflects what is implied in the Markan (8:38) and Lukan texts.
Luke 9:28–36
Allusions to a number of OT texts can be identified in the Lukan transfiguration narrative, and together they provide a picture of Jesus’ identity and the mission he will accomplish. Allusions to the exodus context have been noted by many (see Liefeld 1974; Moessner 1989: 60–62; Strauss 1995: 268–72). Two texts are particularly relevant for this account: Exod. 24:9–18; 34:29–35. First, the mountain as a place of revelation parallels the Sinai setting of Exod. 24. Second, the presence of the cloud may recall God’s guidance of his people by the cloud (Exod. 13:21–22; 14:19–20, 24; 16:10; 19:9, 16), but the voice coming from the cloud finds its possible parallel in the later passages where Moses is said to have “entered the cloud” (Exod. 24:15–18) and received divine revelation (Exod. 25–31). These paradigmatic events may have contributed to the later uses of the “cloud” imagery as signifying God’s eschatological presence (Isa. 4:5; 14:14; 19:1; Ezek. 10:3–4; Dan. 7:13–14). Third, Luke’s to eidos tou prosōpou autou heteron (“the appearance of his face changed” [9:29]) may echo to de eidos tēs doxēs kyriou (“the appearance of the glory of the LORD” [Exod. 24:17]) and/or dedoxastai hē opsis tou chrōmatos tou prosōpou autou (“the appearance of the skin of his face shone” [Exod. 34:29]). Fourth, the unique Lukan note on the conversation among Jesus, Moses, and Elijah is particularly relevant with the appearance of the phrase tēn exodon autou (“his exodus/departure” [9:31]). In context, it is clear that Luke considers Jesus’ death and resurrection/ascension to be an exodus (cf. Luke 9:31; see Garrett 1990). Moreover, this term has been used to refer to the death of an individual (Philo, Virtues 77; Josephus, Ant. 4.189; 2 Pet. 1:15). A secondary reference might be present, however, in light of the frequent usage of this term in the LXX in reference to the historical exodus event when God saved his people from bondage (Exod. 19:1; Num. 33:38; 1 Kings 6:1; Ps. 105:38 [104:38 LXX]; 114:1 [113:1 LXX]). P. Doble (1996: 211) has highlighted the significance of Wis. 3:1–3 for this discussion, with its reference to the death and vindication of the righteous individual in a context where the historical paradigm of the exodus event best illustrates God’s role in such acts of vindication (Wis. 8–19). This double reference in Wis. 3:1–3 may also be present in Luke’s transfiguration narrative, where the foundational event of Israel is connected with the life of an individual. Fifth, a typological reference to Moses is present in the command autou akouete (“listen to him” [9:35]; cf. akouete autou [Mark 9:7; Matt. 17:5]). The Lukan word order makes it clear that it should be taken as an allusion to Deut. 18:15: autou akousesthe (“you shall listen to him”). Finally, the mention of the skēnas (“booths” [9:33]) may again be a reference to the extensive discussion of to paradeigma tēs skēnēs (“the model of the tent/sanctuary” [Exod. 25:9]) in Exod. 25–28 (Stegner 1989: 88) and possibly also to the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:43), which came to be understood as a reference to God’s eschatological presence (Jub. 32:27–29; Tg. Neof. Lev. 23:42–43). Admittedly, not all of these allusions are of equal strength, but together they are sufficient to show the relevance of the Moses/exodus framework for this narrative. The presence of Moses himself in 9:33 secures this connection, and this is consistent with the Lukan portrayal of Jesus as the Mosaic prophetic figure (Acts 3:19–24; cf. 7:37).
With this evocation of the Moses/exodus paradigm, the presence of other paradigms that clarify the significance of this event also needs to be noted. First, the presence of Elijah recalls 4:25–26; 9:8, 19. While the ministries of both John the Baptist and Jesus are related to the prophecies of Mal. 3–4, John fulfills the role of Elijah as the precursor of God (and his Messiah), as Jesus fulfills the eschatological hope embedded in this prophecy and brings in the eschatological era. The appearance of Moses and Elijah may draw attention to a number of parallels between these two OT figures: their unusual departure (Deut. 34:6; 2 Kings 2:11), their experience of God’s glory (Exod. 25–31; 1 Kings 19:8–18), their pivotal prophetic status, and their possible representation of the law and the prophets (Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:557–58; Carson 1984: 385). The expectation of their appearance together at the end of times is also attested in rabbinic traditions: “Moses, I swear to you, as you devoted your life to their service in this world, so too in the time to come when I bring Elijah the prophet to them, the two of you shall come together” (Deut. Rab. 3:17 [on 10:1]; cf. b. Soṭah 13b; see C. A. Evans 1993a: 81n47).
Second, the address of Jesus as ho eklelegmenos (“the chosen” [9:35]) by the heavenly voice is likely an allusion to Isa. 42:1 (“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen [ho eklektos mou], in whom my soul delights”), especially in light of the allusion to the same verse in the heavenly voice of the baptismal account: en soi eudokēsa (“with you I am well pleased” [3:22]). As in the qualification to Peter’s confession where the suffering of the Messiah is explicitly noted (9:22), this glorious experience on the mountain is also qualified by the mission of the Suffering Servant, who will be rejected.
Third, as ho eklelegmenos (“the chosen”) points back to Jesus’ baptismal experience, so the phrase ho huios mou (“my son” [9:35]) is identical to ho huios mou of 3:22, where one finds the allusion to the Davidic psalm of Ps. 2:7. As in that context, here the royal messianic sense is clear. This use of the “Son” terminology is found elsewhere in the Lukan writings (4:41; 18:38–39; 20:41, 44 [cf. 8:28; 10:22; 22:70; Acts 9:20]).
With these allusions appearing in one context, a Mosaic figure emerges who is also the Suffering Servant and the Davidic royal figure appearing at the end of times. These paradigms help to clarify the mission of Jesus, even though by themselves they are inadequate to explicate fully his significance.
9:41
The expression genea apistos kai diestrammenē (“faithless and perverse generation”) again alludes to the wilderness generation of old (see discussion on 7:31–35).
9:44
It is tempting to see the use of the verb paradidosthai (“to be betrayed”) as alluding to Isa. 53:6b, kai kyrios paredōken auton tais hamartiais hēmōn (“and the LORD handed him over for our sins”). The context would support this connection, although the use of this verb in the LXX is not limited to this context.
9:49–50
For the significance of this dialogue between John and Jesus, some commentators (see Bovon 2002: 396) have pointed to the relevance of the story of Eldad and Medad in Num. 11:24–30, where Joshua tried to stop these two from prophesying because they were not part of the seventy who received the Spirit. Moses, however, said, “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them” (Num. 11:29). A similar concern is expressed in this short dialogue, and Jesus’ response likewise prevents John from stopping those who are not within the inner circle from carrying out their work.
Luke 9:51–19:44
At 9:51 we come to the central section of Luke, which deserves an extended introduction. Unlike Mark (10:1–52) and Matthew (19:1–20:34), Luke includes an extensive travel narrative that spans a third of his Gospel. Most would agree that 9:51 signals the beginning of Luke’s journey report, but consensus is lacking as to the location of the end of this section. Suggestions range from 18:14 to 19:48 (see Bock 1994–1996: 957), but the explicit note of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (and its temple) is found only in 19:45 with travel notes of his approach to the city leading right up to this point (cf. 9:51, 53; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28, 41). Moreover, a significant shift of focus comes in 19:45, where Jesus enters the temple, and his daily teaching there culminates in the passion account.
Although notes of Jesus approaching Jerusalem are found throughout this section, detailed temporal and geographical references that characterize typical journey narratives (such as those in Acts 12:25–21:16; 27:1–28:16) are noticeably absent in this lengthy account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. This well-known discrepancy between the “form” and the “content” of Luke’s central section has led to numerous proposals concerning its theological purpose. These include christological (Conzelmann 1960), ecclesiological (Miyoshi 1974), catechetical (Gill 1970), and representation of Jewish rejection (Egelkraut 1976). One’s view of the theological purpose of this collection of material is affected by one’s view of the role that scriptural paradigms play in this section.
On the formal level, C. F. Evans (1955) has provided the first sustained attempt to argue for the significance of Deuteronomy for Luke’s central section. According to Evans, not only are there a significant number of allusions to Deuteronomy in Luke’s central section, but also the ordering of the events in this section resembles that in Deut. 1–26. These parallels include the journeying motif (10:1–3, 17–20; Deut. 1); the sending of messengers (10:4–16; Deut. 2:1–3:22); the Shema (10:25–27; Deut. 5–6); foreigners (10:29–37; Deut. 7); on serving God alone (11:27–36; Deut. 10:12–11:32); laws on clean and unclean (11:37–12:12; Deut. 12:1–16); wealth (12:13–34; Deut. 12:17–32); communal judgment (12:54–13:5; Deut. 13:12–18); restoration and loss (15; Deut. 21:15–22:4); and the poor and the oppressed (16:19–18:8; Deut. 24:6–25:3). J. Drury (1976: 138–64) follows Evans in labeling this Lukan section as a “Christian Deuteronomy,” but many have suggested that the parallels listed by Evans are too vague to be convincing, and parallels to major portions of Deuteronomy are missing in Luke (cf., e.g., Deut. 14; 19; 21:1–14; 22:5–23:14; 25:4–19; see Blomberg 1983: 217–28).
In response to these criticisms, others have provided further refinements of this Deuteronomy hypothesis. In particular, C. A. Evans (1993b) has provided clearer definitions and qualifications for this hypothesis. First, “neither the evangelist Luke nor earlier Christian tradents composed the contents of the central section as homilies (or midrashim) on the parallel passages from Deuteronomy” (p. 130). Second, although Luke is responsible for arranging the material in the order of Deut. 1–26, “the redaction is infrequent and slight” (p. 132). Third, not all parallels are equally clear, and it is “in the most general sense” that one can claim that Luke is writing a commentary on Deuteronomy (p. 133). Finally, a full-blown Deuteronomy hypothesis can be established only when individual parallels are evaluated with the criteria of dictional, thematic, and exegetical coherence (pp. 137–38). While C. A. Evans aims at defending the Deuteronomy hypothesis, his conclusion is strikingly similar to Blomberg’s in that the significant presence of Deuteronomy in selected passages of Luke’s central section cannot be denied (cf., e.g., 14:15–24, 28–33; 15:1–7, 11–32; 16:1–18; see Blomberg 1983: 227–28). The critical issue is whether the agreement of order between the two works can be established. In this sense, C. A. Evans’s work actually prepares for studies that focus primarily on thematic parallels without the corresponding emphasis on the ordering of passages.
D. P. Moessner’s (1989: 91–206) detailed analysis of Luke’s central section represents the best example of this thematic approach. Instead of focusing on the formal elements and the ordering of the events, Moessner focuses on the Deuteronomic view of history and how this influences Luke 9:1–50 and Luke’s entire travel narrative. According to the delineation of Deuteronomic themes done by O. H. Steck (1967), four themes are repeatedly emphasized by Luke: (1) like their ancestors, this generation is a faithless and rebellious generation (11:14–54; 12:54–13:9; 17:20–37); (2) God sent his prophet to reveal his will and to call his people to repent (10:1–16; 11:14–54; 12:54–13:9; 13:22–35; 14:15–24; 15; 17:22–37; 19:1–27); (3) but Israel rejects his prophets (9:52–58; 10:25–37; 11:37–54; 12:35–53; 13:22–35); and (4) as a result, Israel will be judged (11:31–32, 50–51; 12:57–59; 13:24–30, 35; 14:24; 17:26–30; 19:27, 41–44). Ecclesiologically, the rejection of the Jews is considered to be the focus of this section, and christologically, Jesus is portrayed as belonging to a long line of rejected prophets. Moessner’s work is successful in highlighting the role of Deuteronomy in Luke’s central section without imposing arbitrary labels on Lukan passages to establish the parallelism with the Deuteronomic ordering of subjects. Moreover, these themes do highlight major concerns of Luke in this lengthy narrative. Two issues remain, however. First, even if these themes accurately summarize Luke’s concern in his central section, it is questionable whether they accurately represent what is known as Deuteronomic theology (Denaux 1997: 285). Second, one wonders if this Deuteronomic theology is sufficient in explaining the theology of Luke’s central section.
The question of the sufficiency of the Deuteronomic framework and of the Mosaic prophetic Christology is addressed in the work of M. L. Strauss (1995: 294–96), which highlights both the significance of the Isaianic new exodus and the centrality of the Davidic royal messianic paradigm in Luke’s Christology of the central section. The link between the Isaianic new exodus and the Davidic expectations is already found in Isa. 11, and the explicit mentioning of the “sure love for David” in Isa. 55:3 confirms the significance of David for Isa. 40–55. Later uses of the Isaianic new exodus also include the Davidic figure playing a major role in it (cf. Pss. Sol. 11:2–5; 4 Ezra 13; Tg. Lam. 2:22). The Lukan journey that ends in Jerusalem may also reflect the goal of Isaiah’s journey of the new exodus in Jerusalem, where the promise of the revelation of God’s glory is to be fulfilled (Isa. 40:5; 52:10). Strauss’s work supplements Moessner’s in showing the complexity of Luke’s Christology, a complexity already found in the figure of the Suffering Servant, who reflects both Mosaic and Davidic traits (see Hugenburger 1995). Moreover, the significance of the paradigm of the new exodus in the Lukan writings merits emphasis.
A few points are sufficient to conclude this survey. First, the significance of Deuteronomy can no longer be denied, although one might want to point further to the wider exodus paradigm (Mánek 1957). Second, the rejection of the prophet is indeed a central concern of this section, and this concern is to be situated within the allusions to Israel’s wilderness experience (Mayer 1996: 134–73). Third, our discussion has shown that Luke’s central section represents the meeting point of a number of scriptural traditions. Beyond Deuteronomy and Isaiah, the significance of the Elijah/Elisha narrative for this section also should be recognized (Brodie 1987; C. A. Evans 1993a). This search for a proper scriptural context should resist becoming a reductionistic one, and the complexity of how these traditions work in Luke’s arrangement of the historical events of the life of Christ should be recognized. Finally, the parallelism between the journey narrative in Luke and the one in Acts also should be considered when the role of Scripture is discussed (Pao 2000: 150–67). The interpretation of one necessarily affects our understanding of the other.
9:51
This verse introduces the Lukan central section with a note that points to Jerusalem as the destination of Jesus’ journey. As 4:16–30 introduces Jesus’ Galilean ministry with an emphasis on his rejection, so also 9:51–56 introduces a major section with that same theme. In this verse the phrase tas hēmeras tēs analēmpseōs autou (“the days of his being taken up”) may be a reference to his death, but the use of the verbal cognate analambanō (“take up”) in Acts 1:11, 22 points to the inclusion of the resurrection/ascension events in this expression (Green 1997: 403). In light of the influence of the Elijah traditions in 9:51–56, an allusion to the translation of Elijah is possible (cf. 2 Kings 2:10–11).
The expression autos to prosōpon estērisen (“he set his face”) may reflect Jesus’ determination to move forward (cf. Gen. 31:21; Dan. 11:17–18; see Bock 1994–1996: 968), but C. A. Evans (1982; 1987) has suggested that a sense of judgment is often implied in the use of this expression in the prophets (Isa. 50:7; Jer. 3:12; 21:10) and in Ezekiel in particular (6:2; 13:17; 20:46 [21:2 LXX]; 21:2 [21:7 LXX]). Evans points to Ezek. 21:2–6 as providing contextual parallels to this verse. In both texts one finds this expression together with references to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Luke’s awareness of the wider section of Ezek. 20:45–21:7 is reflected in 23:31. Moreover, Jesus’ weeping over and words of judgment on Jerusalem (19:41–44) may also bring to mind Ezek. 21:2–6. This theme of judgment fits well with the wider concerns of Luke in this central section.
9:52–53
With these verses, the term “Samaritans” makes its first appearance in the Lukan writings. In tracing the history of the Samaritans, 2 Kings 17 has often been mentioned. That chapter does contribute to our understanding of the residents of Samaria in the eighth century BC, but these “Samarians” are not to be equated with the “Samaritans” of the NT, Josephus, and rabbinic literature. Syncretistic practices as noted in that chapter should not be considered as the only factor that contributes to the “Samaritan schism.” From the writings of Hosea and Jeremiah it is clear that syncretism is not a label that could be attached to the northern kingdom alone. Moreover, the continued interaction between Judah and Israel after 722 BC (cf. 2 Chron. 30:25; 34:9) shows that 2 Kings 17 is not the pivotal point in the development of Samaritanism.
The time of Ezra and Nehemiah points to increased tension between the two people groups. Some would see this as yet another critical point in the process that defines them and their relationship with each other (Coggins 1975: 35). The Samaritans of the north were called the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1), and Nehemiah called them people “of foreign descent” (Neh. 13:3; cf. 13:30). There is no doubt that the building of the temple on Mount Gerizim after the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple further signaled the rivalry between the two groups. The animosity between the two groups culminated in the destruction of Shechem and the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus in the second century BC. The existence of these two distinct groups with their distinct identities is symbolized by the development of the Samaritan Pentateuch, “through which the cultic traditions of Jerusalem were declared illegitimate” (Purvis 1986: 86). Thus the Samaritans whom we encounter in the NT are a people whose identity was formed through a long process of interaction and conflict with the Judeans. It is in this light that the Samaritans’ refusal to receive Jesus in Luke 9:52–53 is to be understood. The reason for such refusal is “because his face was set toward Jerusalem.” The issue centers on the existence of competing cultic centers, and this would explain the Samaritans’ resentment of Jewish pilgrims who pass through their land on the way to the Jerusalem temple (Hamm 1994: 276).
Luke’s interest in the Samaritans is further reflected by their repeated appearances in the narrative (9:52; 10:33; 17:16), which climaxes in the reconciliation between the two groups in Acts 8 when the Jerusalem apostles testify to the fact that “Samaria had accepted the word of God” (v. 14). Not only are the Samaritans symbols of the outcast in Luke’s theology, but also they represent Luke’s wider salvation-historical concerns, which point to the restoration of God’s people at the end of times. Jesus’ refusal to follow his disciples in condemning the Samaritans should therefore be understood within this wider perspective.
9:54
Clear allusions to the Elijah narrative can be detected in this verse. In 2 Kings 1:1–17 fire came down twice at Elijah’s request to kill the messengers of Ahaziah, king of Samaria, who rejected the God of Israel by turning to Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron. The fact that early Christians were fully able to recognize this connection with the Elijah story is evidenced in the scribal insertion of the phrase hōs kai Ēlias epoiēsen (“as also Elijah did”) in a number of manuscripts (A C D W Θ Ψ f1.13). Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples’ request to destroy the Samaritans who reject Jesus is therefore unexpected in light of the scriptural precedent. It does, however, point to the arrival of a new era when God will act in a new way. The theme of reversal should not be missed when Jesus travels to Jerusalem to proclaim judgment on God’s people while he apparently refuses to condemn the “foreigners” or “outcasts.”
9:58
In comparing ho huios tou anthrōpou (“the Son of Man”) to ta peteina tou ouranou (“birds of the air”), there is a possible allusion to Ps. 8, where in one context one also finds huios anthrōpou (“son of man” [8:5 LXX]) and ta peteina tou ouranou (“birds of the air” [8:9 LXX]) (see Allison 2000a: 160). However, the focus of the second half of this psalm (8:5–8 [8:6–9 LXX]) is on the dominion of human beings over the creation, including animals and birds, whereas in this saying of Jesus the point is that the condition of the Son of Man is worse than that of the birds because he “has nowhere to lay his head.” Psalm 8 is not foreign to early Christian writers (1 Cor. 15:25–28; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:5–9), who use this psalm for the exaltation of Jesus, but D. C. Allison (2000a: 160–61) has suggested that these verses are closer to another exegetical tradition that “disparage(s) Adam, Israel, or humanity” (Midr. Tehillim Ps. 8:5; t. Soṭah 6:4–5; b. Sanh. 38b; cf. Job. 7:17–18; Ps. 144:3). The focus on the mortality of human beings in v. 4 (v. 5 LXX) should also be noted, wherein created beings are compared to the Creator, and the implicit identity of Jesus with the vulnerable ones may also be detected in the use of this psalm.
9:59–61
In these verses many commentators have again detected the presence of Elijah traditions (see Brodie 1987: 216–26; Bovon 1991–2001: 2:33–34). Verse 59 echoes the story of 1 Kings 19:19–21, where Elijah allowed Elisha to bid farewell to his family before following him. The significance of this passage is further supported by the wording in 9:61–62, where the phrase akolouthēsō soi (“I will follow you” [9:61; cf. 1 Kings 19:20]) appears with arotron (“plow” [9:62; cf. ērotria, “he was plowing,” in 1 Kings 19:19]). The contrast between Jesus and Elijah not only highlights the unique authority of Jesus but also points to the eschatological urgency present in Jesus’ ministry.
M. Bockmuehl (1998: 564) further suggests that Jesus’ demand not to bury one’s father aims at symbolizing the impending judgment on Israel (cf. Jer. 16:5–9; Ezek. 24:16–24). Nevertheless, the historical practice of secondary burial that requires the dead to be reburied after one year may be sufficient in explaining the urgency of Jesus’ note (McCane 1990). The theme of judgment cannot be denied, however, in light of the immediate context of this section (10:1–16) and of the wider emphasis in Luke’s central section.
Finally, the act of looking back in 9:62 may also be an allusion to the story of Lot’s wife, who “looked back” and “became a pillar of salt” (Gen. 19:26) (see Allison 2000a: 79). In both texts verbs of looking (blepōn [9:62]; epeblepsen [Gen. 19:26]) appear with the phrase eis ta opisō (“to the back” [9:62; Gen. 19:26]). The use of the Sodom story in its Lukan context (10:12) further supports the presence of this allusion in 9:62. Again, one finds the presence of the theme of urgency in the context of divine judgment.
The textual problem surrounding the numbers “seventy” and “seventy-two” in this verse (and in 10:17) is well known. The inclusion of dyo (“two”) is supported by major Alexandrian and Western witnesses (𝔓75 B D), but its omission is also attested by significant manuscripts (א A C L W Θ Ξ Ψ f1.13). Two major conceptual parallels have been suggested, but neither one settles this textual issue. First, in light of the possible allusion to Num. 11 in 9:49–50, also conceivable is an allusion to Num. 11:16–30, where Moses is told to choose seventy (or seventy-two if Eldad and Medad are included) elders “so that they shall bear the burden of the people along with [Moses]” (11:17). This interpretation is strengthened by Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as the prophet like Moses elsewhere (9:35; Acts 3:22; 7:37). S. R. Garrett (1989: 47) further sees the bestowal of the Spirit in Num. 11:17, 25 as foreshadowing the ministry of the apostles as they are filled with the Spirit in Acts.
The second possible allusion is to the list of nations in Gen. 10–11, where the Hebrew text has seventy while the LXX has seventy-two. For those who see Gen. 10–11 as the framework for the interpretation of Jesus’ commissioning of the seventy(-two), the foreshadowing of the coming mission of the Gentiles is the primary point of Luke 10 (see Parsons 1998: 163). The reference to seventy-two princes in the world in 3 En. (17:8; 18:2–3; 30:2) and the seventy-two translators of the LXX for the pagan world (Let. Aris. 35–51) (see Green 1997: 412) may likewise reflect the use of this number as a reference to the Gentile world. Both Num. 11 and Gen. 10–11 point to the significance of 10:1–16 for Luke’s second volume, while various other possible allusions behind the number seventy(-two) could be further identified (Metzger 1959).
10:3
Reading the metaphor of arnas en mesō lykōn (“lambs in the midst of wolves”) in its wider context, where the eschatological significance of this commissioning is noted (cf. 10:17–20), suggests an allusion to Isa. 11:6: symboskēthēsetai lykos meta arnos (“the wolf shall feed with the lamb”) (cf. Isa. 65:25; see Bovon 1991–2001: 2:55). In the immediate context, however, divine protection in the midst of hostility and rejection seems to be the focus, and the use of this “lamb/sheep” imagery is found already in the prophetic literature (Isa. 40:11; 53:7; Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 34; Mic. 2:12). The use of this metaphor for the theme of divine protection together with the mentioning of the seventy nations is found later in Midr. Tanḥuma Toldos 5 (see TDNT 1:340): “There is something great about the sheep [Israel] that can persist among 70 wolves [the nations]. He replied: Great is the Shepherd who delivers it and watches over it and destroys them [the wolves] before them [Israel].”
10:4
The command neither to carry sandals (hypodēmata) nor to greet (aspasēsthe) anyone may allude to both the Mosaic and the Elisha tradition, where the theme of urgency appears (see Allison 2000a: 41–42, 145). In Exod. 12:11 the Israelites were commanded to eat their first Passover with their hypodēmata (“sandals”) on their feet, and in 2 Kings 4:29 Elisha sent Gehazi on his way with this command: “If you meet anyone, ouk eulogēseis auton [‘give him no greeting’].” These traditions highlight the point of Jesus’ commands, as the eschatological urgency of his ministry surpasses that of the first Passover, and the command not to offer greetings reflects the same concerns. Verbal connection is not exact, however, and Jesus may be using general expressions rather than appealing to specific texts.
10:12
The evocation of Sodom in this context points to the inhospitality that the city had shown to the messengers of God in Gen. 19. Three sets of related texts may have contributed to the use of this symbol here. First, the theme of sin and judgment is inextricably tied with this symbol (cf. Deut. 29:23; 32:32; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18; 50:40; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Jub. 20:6; T. Naph. 3:4; T. Ash. 7:1; T. Benj. 9:1; L.A.B. 45:2; see Bovon 1991–2001: 2:58). Second, the specific sin that Sodom is often remembered to have committed is inhospitality and the rejection of God’s messengers (cf. Ezek. 16:49–50; Wis. 19:13–14; Josephus, Ant. 1.194; Sipre Deut. 11:13–17 (43); b. Sanh. 109a–b; Pirqe R. El. 25; see Allison 2000a: 81–82), and it is precisely this aspect that may have prompted Jesus to use this symbol here (cf. 10:10–11). Third, the comparison of Jerusalem/Israel with Sodom appears often in prophetic literature (Isa. 1:9–10; 3:9; Jer. 23:14; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:43–58), as it does in this verse. It is this aspect that leads to the further pronouncements of judgment in 10:13–14.
10:13–14
In the OT Tyre and Sidon came to be cities condemned for their worship of foreign gods (Isa. 23; Ezek. 26–28; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9–10). Their arrogance is best captured in Ezek. 28:2, where Tyre is described as claiming, “I am a god; I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas.” It may be no coincidence that the following verse, concerning Capernaum (Luke 10:15), also focuses on the issue of pride. Beyond the focus on the sin of inhospitality in the previous verses, this section further illustrates the consequence of Israel’s failure to repent and respond to Jesus’ ministries.
“Sackcloth and ashes” are often mentioned in contexts of mourning (Esther 4:1, 3; Jer. 6:26) and petition (Isa. 58:5; Dan. 9:3). This expression survives in Jewish traditions (cf. 1 Macc. 3:47; Josephus, Ant. 11.221; 20.123; Jos. Asen. 13:2; T. Jos. 15:2; see Allison 2000a: 124), although in the NT it appears only in this passage (and its parallel, Matt. 11:21).
10:15
The evocation of OT symbols of judgment and destruction continue with this verse, which contains an allusion to Isa. 14:13–15 in the prophetic oracle against Babylon: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God . . . I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the pit.” A similar pattern of thought is found in Ezek. 28:2–10. In Acts 12:22–23 the fall of King Herod is described in similar terms (see Pao 2000: 199–201). What is striking is that warnings once directed against Israel’s neighbors are now applied to Israel as they too refuse to acknowledge their God.
10:18
As does 10:15, the description of the fall of Satan draws on Isa. 14. The phrase ek tou ouranou pesonta (“fall from heaven”) in particular echoes exepesen ek tou ouranou (“has fallen from heaven”) in Isa. 14:12. The application of this verse to the fall of Satan in this context is particularly appropriate. First, Isa. 14:12 seems to have used ancient Near Eastern mythic language in portraying the downfall of Babylon (Marx 2000), and Jesus’ use of similar language (assuming that Jesus is the subject of the verb etheōroun, “I/they saw” [see Hills 1992]) to apply to Satan may recall the background behind Isaiah’s language. Second, Jewish interpretive traditions also apply Isa. 14:12 to the fall of Satan/Lucifer (2 En. 29:3; L.A.E. 12:1). Third, as in the Qumran documents where the fall of the evil one is accompanied by the exaltation of the righteous in cosmic battles (cf. 11Q13; see Garrett 1989: 51), this fall of Satan may also point forward to the exaltation of Jesus.
10:19
The pairing of opheōn kai skorpiōn (“snakes and scorpions”) may allude to ophis daknōn kai skorpios (“biting snakes and scorpions”) in Deut. 8:15, where God’s protection of Israel in the wilderness is noted. The imagery of treading may be a reference back to Ps. 91:13 [90:13 LXX], where this imagery is applied to leonta kai drakonta (“lion and serpent”). Commentators have debated as to which imagery dominates (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 863; Bock 1994–1996: 1008), but choosing between the two may be unnecessary. First, Deut. 8 and Ps. 91 have already appeared together in the Lukan temptation narrative (4:4, 11–12, see above). More importantly, D. C. Mitchell (1997: 277–78) has shown that Ps. 91 draws on Deut. 6–8 and the wilderness traditions, and this would explain the conceptual parallels between the two. In 10:19 Luke may have alluded to both texts in reference to the promise of divine protection. In light of the possible use of Ps. 91 in Jewish traditions as an exorcistic psalm (see 4:1–13), the continuation of the theme of victory over Satan in the previous verse may also be present.
10:20
The presence of the “book of life” is assumed here (cf. Exod. 32:32–33; Ps. 69:28; Isa. 4:3; Dan. 7:10; 12:1; Mal. 3:16–17; 1 En. 47:3; 104:1; 108:7; Jub. 5:13–14; 23:32; 30:19–23; 1QM XII, 1–3; Rev. 3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27; see Creed 1930: 147; Bock 1994–1996: 1008). This book, which is not explicitly mentioned, is not the focus of this verse, however. In 10:17 the submission of the demons is tied with the use of the name of Jesus. In 10:20 both ideas are present again, and the emphasis is on the disciples being counted as belonging to Jesus, who will be exalted in heaven.
10:21–22
In the LXX the verb exomologeomai (“I confess/thank”) could be used for the confession of sins (e.g., Dan. 9:4, 20), but it is most often used in the sense of praise and thanksgiving. This use of the verb exomologeomai could be explained by the fact that eucharisteō (“I thank”) is rarely used before the second century BC. The interchangeability of the two verbs in the first century is reflected in the writings of Philo, who frequently replaces exomologeomai of the LXX with eucharisteō (Audet 1959: 654). The content of this thanksgiving prayer of Jesus falls within OT prayers of praise and thanksgiving where the focus is on the mighty acts of God (cf. Exod. 18:8–11; Pss. 77; 136; Isa. 12:4–5). In its Lukan context this prayer constitutes the climax of Israel’s long tradition of thanksgiving psalms and prayers as it points to the fulfillment of the eschatological promises in the person of Jesus.
D. C. Allison (2000a: 43–51) has provided detailed arguments for reading this focus on Jesus as the exclusive recipient and revealer of divine knowledge in light of Exod. 33:11–23, where the unique role of Moses as the mediator of God’s revelation is noted (cf. Num. 12:6–8; Deut. 34:10). This connection is supported by the Moses/exodus connection elsewhere in Luke. Nevertheless, clear verbal links are missing, and one wonders if the emphasis on the unique and exclusive nature of Jesus’ role could be explained primarily by references to the Mosaic paradigm that was considered inadequate earlier in Luke’s narrative (cf. 9:8, 19). The authority of Jesus as emphasized in his ability to choose to whom divine revelation is to be delivered further moves beyond the Mosaic paradigm. More importantly, the father-son relationship also points beyond the Mosaic traditions, as it draws on the Davidic messianic expectations in explicating the distinct relationship between Jesus and God (see 3:21–22 above). Perhaps Jesus’ transcendence over both the Mosaic and the Davidic paradigms is the point, and this would explain Jesus’ statement in 10:24, where it is said that his presence will reveal more than what polloi prophētai kai basileis (“many prophets and kings”) had seen.
10:23–24
The use of the verbs blepō (“see”), horaō (“see”), and akouō (“hear”) in one context brings to mind Isa. 6:9–10, where those three verbs are used (Allison 2000a: 115). Luke’s awareness of this passage (8:10; Acts 28:26–27) cannot be doubted, but the reversal of Isa. 6:9–10 is found already in Isaiah where metaphors of sight and vision are used to describe the arrival of God’s salvation (cf. Isa. 18:3; 29:18; 32:3; 42:18–19; 52:15). Isaiah 52:15, of the fourth Servant Song, in particular provides a closer conceptual parallel, where the uniqueness of God’s eschatological acts through his servant would surprise even basileis (“kings”): hoti hois ouk anēngelē peri autou opsontai, kai hoi ouk akēkoasin synēsousin (“For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand” [cf. Rom. 15:21]).
10:27
A. NT Context: Definition of One’s Neighbor. The quotations of Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 appear in the dialogue between Jesus and the expert of the law concerning the way to “inherit eternal life” (10:25). In its Lukan context this dialogue focuses on the definition of one’s neighbor as the dialogue continues in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (10:30–37). Some (Marshall 1978: 450; Kodell 1987: 419) further suggest that the pericope of Mary and Martha (10:38–42) is meant to complement this discussion on loving others by focusing on the love of God.
Reviewing the Lukan context of this dialogue, one cannot avoid noting its relationship with its conceptual parallels in Mark 12:28–31; Matt. 22:34–40, especially when the same two OT texts appear together when Jesus is questioned by Jewish scribal leadership. Significant differences between Luke’s text and its Markan and Matthean parallels are equally noteworthy, however. First, unlike Luke, who places this dialogue earlier in Jesus’ ministry, Mark and Matthew place this passage in the final days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Second, the question that Jesus is addressing in Mark and Matthew centers on the “greatest command,” while the way to inherit eternal life is the topic in Luke. Third, Jesus is the one citing the OT in Mark and Matthew, while the lawyer cites the two OT texts in Luke. Finally, the parable of the Good Samaritan, which follows in Luke, is missing in Mark and Matthew. Therefore, it seems best not to consider Mark as the source for Luke 10:25–28 (Marshall 1978: 441; Barrett 1988: 232; Kimball 1994b: 119–20).
B. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18 in Context. Deuteronomy 6 belongs to a wider section that contains “the stipulations, decrees, and laws that Moses gave them [the Israelites] when they came out of Egypt” (4:45). This verse serves as a response to the first line of the Shema, which points to the pillar of Israel’s faith: “The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (6:4). In response, Israel is called to “love” (ʾāhēb) their God (6:5). This “love” must be interpreted within its covenantal context, where faithfulness and loyalty are to characterize the life of Israel as God’s covenant partner (see Moran 1963). Both the focus on the exclusive devotion to the one true God and the command to love this God of Israel rest on God’s faithful acts on behalf of his people:
It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery. . . . Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. (Deut. 7:8–9)
These two aspects form the foundation of the rest of the detailed commandments and stipulations. The way the material is presented reflects covenant formulations that aim at clarifying the relationship between the suzerain and the vassals. As J. D. Levenson (1985: 84) rightly notes, “One must first accept the suzerainty of the great king, the fact of covenant; only then can he embrace the particulars which the new lord enjoins upon them, the stipulations.”
The total dedication required for Israel the covenant partner is expressed by the references to one’s lēbāb (“heart”), nepeš (“soul”), and mĕʾōd (“strength”). Similar expressions are found throughout Deuteronomy (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10). It is well known that in the Hebrew mindset lēbāb (“heart”) points to one’s will or intellect, and together with one’s life and physical abilities, this combination of terms refers to the totality of one’s personhood.
The command to love one’s rēaʿ (“neighbor”) is found within the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26), where the focus is on the holy living of individual Israelites. A strict separation from the previous chapters cannot be maintained, however, since cultic concerns that dominate chapters 1–16 are found also in this section (e.g., 17:1–9; 19:5–8; 23:4–43). Moreover, recent scholarship has cast doubt on the hypothesis that posits an independent existence of a holiness code (see G. J. Wenham 1979: 240–41; Hartley 1992: 251–60). In terms of theological coherence, the center of this section is in 19:2, which forms the basis for the covenantal relationship between the one God of all and Israel, his chosen people: “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” The call to love one’s neighbor in 19:18 builds on this imitatio Dei command while summarizing the concern of a subsection (19:11–18) that focuses on the Israelites’ relationship with and responsibilities to their fellow citizens.
The meaning of the word rēaʿ (“neighbor”) has to be understood within this context in Leviticus. The wider literary context, which focuses on cultic concerns, shows that this section is addressed primarily to the people of Israel, and the phrase “one of your people” in the first part of this verse confirms this observation. The existence of a separate provision concerning the “aliens” in 19:34–35 complicates the picture, however. Although this provision does confirm that the primary reference behind the word rēaʿ (“neighbor”) is the fellow Israelites, these verses require that the Israelites also extend the mandate of 19:18 to aliens: “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself.” It is precisely this perceived ambiguity that forms the center of Jesus’ dialogue with the expert of the law in Luke 10:25–37.
C. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18 in Judaism. As part of the Shema, Deut. 6:5 belongs to Israel’s confessional statement, which was recited twice daily (see m. Ber. 1:1–4), and allusions to this verse are found in Hellenistic and Palestinian Jewish traditions where the worship of the one true God is affirmed (see Philo, Decalogue 64; 1QS V, 9; Sib. Or. 8:482; T. Dan 5:3). Rabbinic traditions make it clear that the affirmation of the one God in 6:5 is to be understood as the basis of all commandments (m. Ber. 2:2), and to recite the Shema is to affirm the sovereignty of God (m. Ber. 2:5) (see Levenson 1985: 84–85).
The call to love one’s neighbor is likewise repeatedly made (CD-A VI, 20–21; 1QS VII, 8–9; Sib. Or. 8:481; cf. Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8). In rabbinic traditions this command is also considered to be the foundation of the whole Torah (b. Šabb. 31a; cf. t. Peʾah 4.19; see E. P. Sanders 1992: 258). In these traditions the definition of one’s rēaʿ (“neighbor”) receives further attention. Most rabbinic interpreters see the word as referring to fellow Israelites, while the foreigners and the Samaritans are explicitly excluded (Mek. Exod. 21:35), although full proselytes are included in this category (cf. Sipra Qed. 8; see TDNT 6:135; Neudecker 1992: 499).
The combination of the commands to worship one God and to love one’s neighbor can be identified in Jewish traditions (cf. T. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; T. Dan 5:3; Philo, Spec. Laws 2.63; see Creed 1930: 152; Bovon 1991–2001: 2:86), although they did not appear as explicit quotations/allusions to Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18. The difficulties in determining a date for the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs make it hard to conclude whether these traditions predate the time of Jesus.
D. Textual Matters. In describing the total devotion demanded of one who belongs to the covenant community, the list in Deut. 6:5 LXX, which accurately reflects the MT, has three items, kardia (“heart”), psychē (“soul”), and dynamis (“power”), while Luke has four, kardia (“heart”), psychē (“soul”), ischys (“strength”), and dianoia (“mind”). Although Luke has followed the LXX’s order, dynamis is replaced by the rough synonym ischys along with the insertion of dianoia (“mind”) to the list. Regardless of their literary relationships, the fact that Mark 12:30 also has four identical items (though in different order) may suggest that the insertion of dianoia to the list did not originate with Luke, and Matt. 22:37 confirms this observation, since it also contains dianoia (but without ischys). In terms of structure, Luke is closest to the LXX, where kai en holē tē dianoia sou (“and with all your mind”) is inserted at the end of the LXX list, and this (probably pre-Lukan) insertion may be motivated by the clarification of the sense of the word kardia (“heart”), which is to be understood as referring primarily to the intellect rather than to emotions. In terms of wording, however, Mark is closer to the LXX in the use of ek in all four phrases, while Luke has ek in the first and en in the final three, and Matthew uses only en.
Luke’s citation of the second half of Lev. 19:18 follows the LXX verbatim, which in turn is an accurate translation of the MT. Its connection with Deut. 6:5 may reflect the use of gezerah shavah through agapēseis/ʾāhabĕtʾā, “you shall love” (see Kimball 1994b: 129). Nevertheless, the obvious conceptual connections between the two, and the appearance of these two commands together in Jewish traditions apart from an explicit evocation of these two texts, render the appeal to gezerah shavah unnecessary.
E. The Use of Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18 in Luke 10:27. Unlike Mark 12:29–31; Matt. 22:37–40, where Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 are separately listed as the prōtē (“first”) and the deutera (“second”) of the greatest commandments, the two are merged into one in Luke in Jesus’ dialogue with the expert of the law. The contexts of both passages are also alluded to in Luke’s account. First, these two passages appear in a dialogue concerning the inheritance of eternal life: ti poiēsas zōēn aiōnion klēronomēsō (“What must I do to inherit eternal life?”). An allusion to the wider context of Deut. 6 can be detected in that the observance of these commandments is required for the inheritance of the land: “Do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may go in and inherit [klēronomēsēs] the good land that the LORD swore to your ancestors to give you” (Deut. 6:18; cf. 6:1). In addition, the reference to zōēn aiōnion (“eternal life”) may also be an allusion to Deut. 6:24: “the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes . . . so that we may live [zōmen]” A Mosaic typology might be detected behind these allusions (see Wall 1989: 21–22), and the attainment of salvation is understood in light of the ancient promises to Israel.
An allusion to the wider context of Lev. 19:18 can also be identified in the verse that follows Luke’s citation of the OT texts: touto poiei kai zēsē (“do this, and you will live”). This verse brings to mind Deut. 6:24, but its affinity with Lev. 18:5 is to be noted with the use of poieō (“do”) and zaō (“live”): “You shall keep all my commandments, and all my judgments, and do [poiēsete] them; and if a person does [poiēsas] so, he shall live [zēsetai] by them” (see Verhoef 1997; Noël 1997).
In the Lukan context the focus is on the definition of one’s “neighbor,” as illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Two specific OT passages may have further contributed to this parable. First, the story of the compassionate Samaritans in 2 Chron. 28:8–15 provides a conceptual parallel to Jesus’ parable (Furness 1969; Spencer 1984). Second, Hos. 6:6 may also have played a part, where one finds the discussion of mercy (or love) in the context of the cultic practices of Israel (Bock 1994–1996: 1029). To appreciate the power of this parable, the listing of priest, Levite, and Samaritan should be further explored. M. Gourgues (1998) has shown that forms of the trilogy “priests, Levites, and people” are common in postexilic texts (1 Chron. 28:21; 2 Chron. 34:30; 35:2–3, 8, 18; Ezra 2:70; 7:7, 13; 8:15; 9:1; 10:5, 18–22, 25–43; Neh. 7:73; 8:13; 9:38; 10:28; 11:3, 20; cf. 1QS II, 11, 19–21), and this is what first-century Jews would have expected. The appearance of the Samaritan instead of a lay Judean is therefore striking, and this directly challenges the Jewish interpretation of the “neighbor” of Lev. 19:18.
F. Theological Use. Luke’s concern for the redefinition of God’s people resurfaces here in Jesus’ dialogue with the expert of the law. The clarification of the range of application of Lev. 19:18 challenges the exclusivist theology reflected in Jewish interpretive traditions. This is particularly significant when the pillar of Jewish election theology is evoked with the use of Deut. 6:5 in this interchange. The term “Samaritans,” as introduced in 9:52–53, becomes a symbol for those who would be able to participate in God’s people. The fact that the Samaritan is able to prove himself to be a neighbor when the priest and the Levite fail may also reflect the Lukan theme of reversal, where the failure of Jewish leadership is highlighted through acts of mercy performed by an outcast.
In christological terms, Jesus is presented as one who has the authority to interpret the law. With this parable, the implicit challenge to the scribal leadership is accompanied by the critique of the Jerusalem cult. Some commentators (see Graves 1997) have further suggested that the beaten man symbolizes Jesus, who is the rejected one left to die by Jewish leaders. This would fit well with the theme of Luke’s central section, but this christological theme is not further developed in this passage.
10:38–42
Although it has no clearly identifiable allusions to the OT, the story of Mary and Martha has been seen by some as an illustration of Deut. 6:5, as the parable of the Good Samaritan is for Lev. 19:18 (see 10:27 above). Others have pointed to the emphasis on the obedience to the word of God in Deut. 8:1–3 as providing the framework for this passage (see Wall 1989). It is clear that this story operates within the thought world of the OT, but further verbal links are required to establish the influence of texts beyond the explicit citations found in 10:27.
Numerous parallels to the Lord’s Prayer have been identified in Jewish prayer traditions, and two in particular stand out. First, the kiddush that focuses on the name of God and his kingdom provides a striking parallel to the first part of the Lord’s Prayer. It is unclear, however, whether this prayer was widely circulated in the first century. Second, the Shemoneh Esreh, or Eighteen Benedictions, provides parallels to the second half of the Lord’s Prayer, where one finds the focus on divine forgiveness and provision. In light of these prayers, the uniqueness of the Lord’s Prayer clearly stands out (Davies and Allison 1988–1997: 1:595): (1) simple and intimate address, (2) brevity, and (3) eschatological orientation.
Although the father-son relationship has been applied to God and his people in the OT (cf. Exod. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 3:4; 31:9) and in other Jewish literature (Tob. 13:4; Wis. 2:16; 3 Macc. 5:7; Jub. 1:28; Josephus, Ant. 7:380), “nowhere in the entire wealth of devotional literature produced by ancient Judaism do we find ʾabbāʾ being used as a way of addressing God” (NIDNTT 1:614). In the Gospels Jesus often addresses or refers to God as “father” (cf. Matt. 11:27; 20:23; 25:34; 26:29, 39, 42, 53; Mark 8:38; 14:36; Luke 2:49; 10:22; 22:29; 24:49; John 2:16; 5:17, 43; 6:40), and this practice is followed by early Christian authors (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The use of the “father” imagery in the Lord’s Prayer is consistent with these usages, as they draw attention to the reality of the eschatological era that is brought about by the life and ministry of Jesus. The relationship between God and his people is thereby defined in light of this event.
The petition on the sanctification of God’s name is not an appeal to God to sanctify himself, but rather one to God to act in his people so that his name would not be profaned by them. Ezekiel 36 provides a clear conceptual background, where God’s condemnation of Israel’s profaning to onoma mou to hagion (“my holy name” [v. 22]) is followed by this promise: “I will sanctify my great name [hagiasō to onoma mou to mega], which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD . . . when through you I display my holiness before their eyes” (v. 23). The petition for God’s name to be sanctified is therefore a call to fulfill his own promises.
This call for God to act is more explicitly noted in the petition concerning the arrival of God’s kingdom. It is well known that in the Synoptics the kingdom of God is portrayed as being present (cf. Matt. 12:28–29; Mark 1:15; Luke 11:20; 17:20), although its consummation lies in the future (cf. Matt. 6:10; 25:1–13; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 19:11). This petition presupposes this tension and points forward to the fulfillment of God’s salvation program, which is inaugurated by Jesus himself.
The meaning and significance of the petition for bread is complicated by the difficulties surrounding the understanding of the term epiousios. Intense debate on this term has failed to produce a consensus as to whether it should be understood in an eschatological sense (see Hultgren 1990: 41–42; Boismard 1995). Regardless of the reading adopted, the theme of divine provision is clearly present (cf. Ps. 145:15–16; 146:5–7). This general theme finds its roots in the manna tradition of Israel, where God’s faithfulness to his people in the wilderness provides the foundation for Israel’s trust in their God. Exodus 16:5, in particular, may provide the language for Luke’s to kath’ hēmeran (“daily”) (see Allison 2000a: 51), and they both address the manifestation of God’s faithfulness. The eschatologization of the manna tradition (cf. 1 En. 10; 2 Bar. 29:5) may also be relevant if ton arton (“the bread”) of this petition is further identified with the arton (“bread”) of 14:15 that one partakes en tē basileia tou theou (“in the kingdom of God”).
The appeal to divine forgiveness is not foreign to OT liturgical traditions (cf. Exod. 32:32; 34:9; 1 Kings 8:33–34, 46–53; Ps. 19:12; 25:11; 32:1; 65:3; 78:38; 79:9), but the correspondence between human and divine forgiveness is not emphasized in ways that it is in this Gospel (cf. 6:37–38; 23:34). In the OT the appeal to divine forgiveness is instead often grounded in God’s own previous acts of kindness (cf. Num. 14:19: “Forgive the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even until now”).
The final petition, on peirasmos (“trial/testing”), recalls the beginning of this prayer, where God’s holiness is noted. The role of God in the testing of Israel is frequently noted in the OT (cf. Exod. 16:4; 20:20; Deut. 8:2, 16; 13:3; 33:8; Judg. 2:22; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 906). Many have attempted to address the apparent theological problems raised by this petition (see Porter 1990), but in its context this petition primarily serves to reaffirm the sovereignty of God while acknowledging the way his people can participate in the unfolding of his plan of salvation.
11:13
The Holy Spirit has already been introduced in Luke’s birth narrative (1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25–27), and in this verse the bestowal of the Spirit is promised as a response to prayer. This connection is rooted in the OT (Num. 11:29; Ps. 51:11), and it is an emphasis found elsewhere in Luke (3:21–22; Acts 1:14–2:4; 4:31; 8:15; 9:11, 17) (see Shepherd 1994: 143).
11:20
In the LXX daktylos theou (“the finger of God”) points to the presence of God and his involvement in history (Exod. 8:15 LXX [8:19 ET]; 31:18; Deut. 9:10; see Klingbeil 2000). While these passages assume an exodus setting, Exod. 8:15 LXX (8:19 ET), which recounts the contest between Moses and the Egyptian magicians, is particularly relevant, as Moses was able to prove that the power of the one true God was on his side. In Luke’s context Jesus likewise affirms the presence of divine power when he is challenged by his competitors (see Garrett 1989: 132–33).
Some commentators (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 918) would assume that Luke’s version is original here because it is difficult to imagine Luke changing Matthew’s en pneumati theou (“by the Spirit of God” [Matt. 12:28]), while others (see M. Turner 1996: 259) point to Luke’s interest in the exodus typology as the reason behind his preference for the reference to “the finger of God.” In any case, it should be noted that in the OT both “the finger/hand of God” and the “Spirit of God” are used to refer to the same reality (cf. Ps. 8:3; 33:6; Ezek. 3:14; 8:1–3; 37:1; see Davies and Allison 1988–1997: 2:340).
11:21–22
The parable of the Strong Man finds its conceptual parallels in two Isaianic passages. The overcoming of the strong man echoes Isa. 49:25, “Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken,” while the dividing of the spoils brings to mind Isa. 53:12, “I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong” (see Garrett 1989: 45). It is unclear, however, whether the wider biblical context is also evoked with the use of such language.
11:23
With this verse, the imagery shifts to one of shepherding. This imagery has been used in the OT and subsequent Jewish traditions for the ingathering of God’s scattered people (cf. Isa. 11:12; 40:11; Ezek. 5:12; 34:13, 21; Zech. 11:16; Tob. 3:4; T. Naph. 8:3; T. Benj. 10:11; Pss. Sol. 8:28; 11:2; see Bovon 2002: 165; Green 1997: 458).
11:29–30, 32
The different emphases of the Lukan (11:29–30) and Matthean (12:38–41) use of the sign of Jonah have often been noted (see Swetnam 1987; Rusam 2003: 219). In Matthew there is an explicit reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection (12:40), while in Luke the focus appears to be on the prophetic ministry of Jesus that culminates in the judgment of Israel. Nevertheless, the Matthean emphasis on the resurrection is located in the context of judgment, while the Lukan discussion of the sign presupposes the vindication of Jesus the prophet. To clarify the function of the “Jonah” imagery in this Lukan passage, two aspects should be highlighted. First, implicit in the reference to the future (cf. estai, “will be” [11:30]) act of the Son of Man as a sign is a reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which are yet to come. Jesus’ preaching, therefore, should not be considered as the primary reference of this symbol. Second, moving beyond the vindication of the righteous, this symbol also focuses on the judgment of Israel. The significance of the expression genea ponēra (“evil generation” [11:29]) has already been noted (cf. 7:31–35), and here it is again used to compare Jesus’ contemporaries with the rebellious wilderness generation of old. The theme of judgment continues in 11:31–32, where condemnation is promised to those who fail to recognize the presence of this greater sign.
Both uses of the Jonah symbol can be identified in Jewish interpretive traditions (see Chow 1995: 27–44). In some texts the deliverance of Jonah comes to symbolize God’s deliverance of his own people (3 Macc. 6:8; De Jona 69–99a; m. Taʿan. 2:4). In other texts Jonah becomes a symbol of God’s judgment for those who are disobedient to his will (Josephus, Ant. 9.214; Tg. Neof. Deut. 30:12–13). Particularly relevant are those passages that see Jonah as a symbol of judgment for Jerusalem (Liv. Pro. 10:10; Pirqe R. El. 10). Although many of these texts cannot be dated to the first century AD, one can at least detect the presence of the different uses of the symbol of Jonah. In Jesus’ reference to the sign of Jonah both aspects are present: his death and resurrection point to God’s vindication, and this vindication demands a proper response, without which judgment will be delivered.
11:31
This verse alludes to the visit of the Queen of Sheba with Solomon (1 Kings 10:1–13; 2 Chron. 9:1–12). As in the case of the Ninevites, a pagan approaches the messenger of God and listens to him. Implicit is the judgment on God’s own people, who are characterized as the “evil generation” that rejects the mighty acts of God.
11:37–41
In Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees the issue of cleanliness is raised. Jesus’ comments on the concerns of the Pharisees may reflect the dominance of the Shammaite opinion in the time of Jesus that the cleanliness of the outside of a cup does not affect the cleanliness of the inside (see Neusner 1976). Jesus’ statement on the inner impurities of the Pharisees should therefore be seen as a critique of this distinction.
11:42
In the OT Israelites were required to tithe for the priests, the Levites, the poor, and the support of Jerusalem and its cult (Lev. 27:30–32; Num. 18:21–32; Deut. 14:22–27), and these regulations receive extensive treatment in rabbinic literature as they are developed into a twelve tithe system (cf. m. Maʿaś.; m. Maʿaś. Š.; see E. P. Sanders 1992: 147–50). Jesus’ comments may be directed against those who focus on these detailed systems of regulations instead of the intent of the law. Jesus’ accusation of the Pharisees for their neglect of tēn krisin (“justice”) and tēn agapēn tou theou (“the love of God”) may further echo the discussion of the commandments to love God and one’s neighbors in 10:27 (cf. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), although similar sentiments are common in prophetic traditions (cf. Hos. 12:6; Amos 5:15; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:9).
11:44
Jesus’ comparison of the Pharisees to unmarked graves assumes a knowledge of OT purity laws concerning contacts with corpses (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:5–8; 9:6–7; 19:11–16). The irony of Jesus’ statement cannot be missed (see Gowler 1994: 234): the Pharisees’ zealous concerns to maintain boundaries of purity (11:38) fail to protect them from being impure in the eyes of God. In neglecting justice and the love of God, they became the impure objects with which they so zealously avoid contact. Moreover, everyone interacting with them is also rendered impure.
11:49–51
While the identity of Abel is clear (cf. Gen. 4), the identity of Zechariah is subject to debate. In spite of some who would point to an unknown figure (Ross 1987), most identify this figure with the Zechariah of 2 Chron. 24:20–25, who was killed in the temple court (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 2:325). The identification of Zechariah as representing the last of the martyrs may reflect the MT order of the canonical list, which concludes with Chronicles. Allison (2000a: 149–51) has noted additional parallels with 2 Chron. 24:17–25: the sending of the prophets (11:49; 2 Chron. 24:19), the blood of Zechariah (11:51; 2 Chron. 24:25), and the reference to the temple precinct (11:51; 2 Chron. 24:21). These parallels further support the identification of the Zechariah of 11:49 with the one in 2 Chron. 24.
The reference to hē sophia tou theou (“the wisdom of God” [11:49]) is unusual. The understanding of wisdom as an extension of God’s will is common in Jewish traditions (cf. Prov. 8; Job 28; Sir. 1; 4; 14–15; Bar. 3–4; Wis. 6–11), and the rejection of Wisdom’s envoy is also a recurring motif (e.g., Sir. 24; Bar. 3:9–4:4; 1 En. 42). In light of the Matthean parallel (23:34) and early Christian identification of Jesus as God’s wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24, 30), it is possible to see this expression as referring to Jesus himself, especially in his identification with the role of his Father. Nevertheless, in the Lukan context it is also possible to see this as a general reference to the divine wisdom that speaks without explicitly emphasizing the identification of Jesus as the personified Wisdom (see Marshall 1978: 502–4).
Jesus’ warning here to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” has been interpreted against the background of the Mosaic instruction not to allow leaven (zymē) in the Passover bread (Exod. 12:14–20) (see Danker 1988: 244; Bock 1994–1996: 1133; Bovon 1989–2001: 2:248). However, the only connection between Exod. 12:14–20 and Luke 12:1 is the term “leaven.” Neither Israel’s history in general nor the Passover festival in particular is alluded to in the context of 12:1. The “leaven/yeast” metaphor was a familiar figure of speech (cf. Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 109; Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 10.15, 19) suggesting, according to J. B. Green (1997: 480), corrupting influence and the capacity to penetrate in a concealed fashion, connotations that are absent from the Passover tradition. While it may be debated in the case of the parallel passage in Mark 8:15 whether “leaven” has a neutral meaning (“influence”) or a negative one (“corrupting influence”), the sense in Luke 12:1 is clearly negative, as Luke interprets “leaven” in terms of the hybris of the Pharisees.
12:2
Jesus’ saying about the futility of hypocrisy in 12:2, “Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed [apokalypthēsetai], and hidden [krypton] that will not be known,” may echo Eccles. 10:20, “Do not curse the king, even in your thoughts, or curse the rich, even in your bedroom; for a bird of the air may carry your voice, or some winged creature tell the matter.” There are no verbal parallels, and since the wisdom is proverbial, it is uncertain whether Jesus, or Luke, wants to point the listener to this passage. There are similar passages in rabbinic literature: Tg. Qoh. 12:13, “In the end every thing in this world which is done in secret will be publicized and made known to mankind, and for this reason, fear the Lord”; m. ʾAbot 4:4, “R. Johanan b. Beroqa says: Anyone who profanes the name of Heaven in secret, they exact the penalty from him openly” (see Lachs 1987: 185). Note also Sir. 1:30: “The Lord will reveal your secrets [apokalypsei kyrios ta krypta sou] and cast you down in the midst of the congregation, because you did not come in the fear of the Lord, and your heart was full of deceit” (cf. 2 Bar. 83:3). In the context of Luke 12 Jesus asserts not only that what is hidden inside a person’s heart will be manifest, but also that the true identity of his followers will come to light as they experience persecution and that secret (i.e., private) conversations will become public at the eschaton (Green 1997: 481).
12:5–7
Verses 4–5 belong to Jesus’ exhortation to bold confession in vv. 2–9, encouraging and warning the disciples to be fearless in times of persecution, even in martyrdom. After the announcement that all deeds that are done in secret will be exposed (12:2–3), Jesus calls on his followers to fear God and not human beings (12:4–7), and to confess Jesus and not to disown him (12:8–9). The call to fear God and not human beings consists of two parts.
First, Jesus challenges his disciples to fear the one who has the authority not only to cause physical death but also to hurl into Gehenna (12:4–5). The statement in 12:5, “Fear him who after he kills has authority to cast into Gehenna [meta to apokteinai echonta exousian embalein eis tēn geennan],” echoes three OT passages that refer to Yahweh’s authority over life and death: Deut. 32:39, “See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god besides me. I kill and I make alive [egō apoktenō kai zēn poiēsō]; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand”; 2 Kings 5:7, “When the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, ‘Am I God, to give death or life [mē theos egō tou thanatōsai kai zōopoiēsai], that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me’” (see also Job 1–2); 1 Sam. 2:6, “The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up” (kyrios thanatoi kai zōogonei katagei eis hadou kai anagei), which is the closest echo. Note the reference to God’s authority to kill and the reference to Gehenna/Hades in 12:5 and in 1 Sam. 2:6. In Hannah’s prayer Yahweh is praised as the “God of knowledge” who weighs the actions of every human being (1 Sam. 2:3) and who reverses the fate of the mighty and of the feeble, of the wealthy and of the hungry, of the barren and of the women with children (2:4–5), of the living and of the dead (2:6), of the poor and of the rich (2:7–8), of the faithful and of the wicked (2:9). This section in Hannah’s prayer does not praise the righteousness of Yahweh, who makes all people equal; rather, it praises God for his “lordly might which is exercised in a mercy which condescends to the needy” (Hertzberg 1964: 30). Luke, who employs the reversal theme in 12:3, emphasizes in 12:4–5 that “disciples are not to fear loss of physical life at the hands of other human beings; they should rather fear the consequences of apostasy” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 957). Fear of those who may persecute Jesus’ disciples should be replaced by the fear of God (Marshall 1978: 513), who oversees events not only in this world but also in the world to come.
The term geenna is the Grecized form of the Heb. gêy(ʾ) hinnōm (Aram. gêhinnām [see BDF §39.8]), “valley of (the son[s] of) Hinnom,” a phrase translated in the LXX as pharanx Onom (Josh. 15:8), pharanx huiou Ennom (2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31–32; 39:35), napē Onnam (Josh. 18:16), Gaibenenom (2 Chron. 28:3), and Gaienna (Josh. 18:16 [in Codex B], written by a Christian scribe and thus possibly influenced by the NT spelling of geenna; Codex A reads epi gai onnom; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 959; EDNT 1:239–40). The Valley of the Sons of Hinnom is a ravine (Wadi er-Rababi) at the western edge of Jerusalem that runs north-south before entering the Kidron Valley. The traditional view that the valley was the place where Jerusalem’s citizens burned their garbage and that the rising smoke and the stench of corruption connoted the fiery punishment and torment of the damned could be correct, but it cannot be supported from ancient sources (Davies and Allison 1988–1997: 1:515). In OT times, during the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh, the valley was the site of a high place where Judeans sacrificed children as burnt offerings to Baal-Molech (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 32:34–35) and was associated with judgment in the prophets (Jer. 7:32; 19:4–6) (see ThWAT 8:744–46). In the OT, Sheol, the dwelling place of the dead, was associated with fire (Deut. 32:22) (see NIDOTTE 4:6–7). In Jewish traditions the abode of the sinners after death is described as a lake or abyss of fire in which the wicked are punished (Jdt. 16:17; 1 En. 10:13; 18:11–16; 26:4; 27:1–3; 54:16; 90:26; Jub. 9:15; cf. 1QHa XI, 29–36). Several Jewish texts refer to the “hell of fire” as gehinnom or ge hinnam, without reference to the topography of Jerusalem (cf. 4 Ezra 7:36; 2 Bar. 59:10; 85:13; Sib. Or. 1:103; 2:292; see EDNT 1:239).
In the Gospels geenna is used as a term that stands for “the place of punishment in the next life, hell” (BDAG 191), as in Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5 (cf. James 3:6), the state that John calls “the second death” (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). Jesus states in 12:5 that God will judge human beings after death, and he asserts that disciples should fear God, the judge who punishes the wicked, rather than their persecutors, who have no real authority (see TDNT 2:566–67).
Second, Jesus challenges the disciples to understand that God cares for them, as his providence knows no limits (12:6–7). Five sparrows cost only two assaria (one assarion [Lat. assarius], a Roman copper coin, which was worth about one-sixteenth of a denarius, one day’s wages for a laborer)—that is, only about one hour’s worth of work. Sparrows (strouthion, used in the LXX to translate Heb. ṣippôr), the cheapest of the birds, were part of the diet of the poor. The privileged status of sparrows that Jesus refers to echoes Ps. 84:3: “Even a bird finds a home, and a swallow a nest for herself, where she can put her young near your altars, O Yahweh Sabaoth.” The birds that nest in the temple precinct near the altars “are truly blessed, for they have found a safe residence in the house of the living God” (Tate 1990: 358). Here, Yahweh’s holy temple is “the epitome of the undisturbed, fulfilled life” (Kraus 1993: 2:168).
Some commentators find in 12:6 an allusion to Amos 3:5, “Does a bird fall in a snare on the earth, when there is no trap for it? Does a snare spring up from the ground, when it has taken nothing?” (LXX: “Will a bird fall on the earth without a fowler?” ei peseitai orneon epi tēn gēn aneu ixeutou [the parallel Matt. 10:29 reads, hen ex autōn ou peseitai epi tēn gēn aneu tou patro hymōn, “Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father”]). If Jesus’ audience was familiar with the reading of Amos 3:5 that speaks of a “fowler” (LXX, Targum, Peshitta), then the replacement of the fowler by God (“Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight”) would make Jesus’ assertion more forceful and memorable (Allison 2000a: 130).
Jesus’ qol vayomer argument that no disciple will ever be forgotten by God, who takes notice even of sparrows (12:6), has been compared with a similar argument in Isa. 49:15: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.” In the context of Isa. 40–49 the assurance that Yahweh has neither deserted nor forgotten Jerusalem refers specifically to his commitment that the city would be rebuilt (cf. Isa. 49:14; see Blenkinsopp 2000–2003: 2:310). It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty whether Jesus wants to direct his audience to Isa. 49:15. A closer parallel is found in the later rabbinic text y. Šeb. 9:1, 38d (22): “No bird perishes without God, how much less a man” (cf. Gen. Rab. 79:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10 [88b]; Midr. Ps. 17:13 [27b]; Esther Rab. 1:9; Eccles. Rab. 10:9; see Str-B 1:582–83; Lachs 1987: 185; Marshall 1978: 514; Bock 1994–1996: 1138).
The assertion in 12:7 that “even the hairs of your head are all numbered” takes up an Israelite idiom that spoke of not having a single hair fall from one’s head as a metaphor for “total deliverance in a situation of potential danger” (Nolland 1989–1993: 678; cf. Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 960). Note 1 Sam. 14:45, “As the LORD lives, not one hair of his [Jonathan’s] head shall fall to the ground; for he has worked with God today”; 2 Sam. 14:11, “As the LORD lives, not one hair of your son shall fall to the ground”; and 1 Kings 1:52, “If he [Adonijah] proves to be a worthy man, not one of his hairs shall fall to the ground; but if wickedness is found in him, he shall die.” Other scholars emphasize that the context focuses less on divine protection than on divine knowledge that surpasses all human knowledge and thus on the fact that God’s purposes cannot be fully grasped even by his followers. This focus echoes Job 38:37: “Who has the wisdom to number the clouds? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens?” If Jesus wants to point his listeners to this text, he asserts that God numbers not only the clouds, but also the hairs on people’s heads, emphasizing God’s infinite knowledge of even the minutest details of human existence, including the lives of his followers, even when they are persecuted (Allison 1989–1990, with further reference to Sir. 1:2; 4 Ezra 4:7; 1 En. 93:14; see Green 1997: 483). This proverbial statement is repeated in Jesus’ admonitions about the coming persecution that his followers will face (21:18).
The assertions that God does not forget even a single sparrow (12:6) and that he knows the number of hairs on a person’s head (12:7) do not state, in the present context of persecution, that the disciples will be protected from or kept safe in dangerous situations. Rather, Jesus asserts that as God cares for the most insignificant creatures and counts what human beings cannot count, his sovereign design cannot be fully grasped by human beings, and his knowledge surpasses any human knowledge. This means that the followers of Jesus should understand that “the mystery of God’s incomparable wisdom makes evil endurable” because “God is not absent from or unaware of persecution” (Green 1997: 483). They are not spared persecution or martyrdom, but they have little reason to fear their persecutors, because God in his limitless providence takes care of them and because their names are already written in heaven (10:20).
12:8–9
This “Son of Man” saying in 12:8–9, “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God,” has been interpreted as an allusion to Dan. 7:13–14. Both texts concern the last judgment, speak of the Son of Man as the central figure, describe this Son of Man as being “before” (enōpion [12:9; Dan. 7:13 Θ]) the divine court, refer to the angels, and refer to a situation of persecution (Allison 2000a: 130–31). Luke describes Jesus as God’s appointed eschatological agent asserting a role for himself at God’s side on the day of judgment (Bock 1994–1996: 1139).
Others suggest that the juxtaposition of acknowledging or denying the Son of Man alludes to the two ways of life and death, prosperity and adversity, blessing and judgment, that Moses places before Israel (cf. Deut. 30:15–20; see Bovon 1989–2001: 2:257). If Jesus’ saying is indeed a deliberate allusion to Deut. 30 and thus to one of the most fundamental covenantal passages in the OT, then Jesus defines loyalty to the covenant in terms of loyalty to himself, implying possibly the notion that the promised new covenant has been inaugurated. As the decision that Israel faced in the plains of Moab involved not only an affirmation of loyalty to covenant and the law but also an entire way of life based upon that decision (Craigie 1983: 366), so loyalty to Jesus determines his followers’ entire life.
12:10
The saying about forgiveness in 12:10 is best regarded as addressed to opponents, warning against blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, whereas the preceding saying in 12:8–9 is addressed to the disciples, warning against denying Jesus in times of persecution (Marshall 1978: 519). The phrase “who blasphemes the Holy Spirit” (to hagion pneuma blasphēmeō) echoes OT passages that link Moses’ successors who share in his possession of God’s Spirit, who is eventually grieved by the people of Israel in the desert (cf. Num. 11:17; 27:18; Deut. 34:9; Ps. 106:32–33; Isa. 63:7–14; on blasphemy, cf. Lev. 24:11–23; Num. 15:30–31; see Lövestam 1968: 7–57; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 966). The closest parallel is Isa. 63:10: “But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he became their enemy; he himself fought against them.” This verse belongs to the first part of the communal complaint in Isa. 63:7–64:11, in which the prophet recounts Israel’s praise of God for past mercies (63:7–14). Isaiah 63:10 introduces the theme of Israel’s rebellion and of God’s judgment that followed. The description of Israel’s disobedience to God in terms of grieving (LXX: paroxynomai) the Holy Spirit (rûaḥ qodšô; LXX: to pneuma to hagion) is rare in the OT (cf. Ps. 51:11: “Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me”). The “Spirit” is “the holy presence of Yahweh, which is a form of his outward manifestation to Israel theologically retrojected to the period of the nation’s inception” (Childs 2001: 524). The prophet describes the Israelites’ rebellion against God’s saving revelation at the time of the exodus as grieving God’s Spirit.
In 12:10 the phrase to hagion pneuma blasphēmeō, then, describes not simply blasphemous speech but “the denial or rejection of the manifest saving intervention of God on behalf of his People” (Nolland 1989–1993: 679). The rejection of the Son of Man—that is, the rejection of Jesus during his earthly ministry—can be forgiven, whereas the rejection of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven, as persistent and obdurate opposition to the influence of the Spirit is opposition to God himself and rejection of his saving power (Marshall 1978: 517; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 964–65). At the same time, the saying is linked with Jesus’ proclamation of the good news and the call to repentance: the radical proclamation of the criteria of God’s future judgment aims to challenge the audience to repent and find salvation through acceptance of God’s gracious revelatory presence (see Lövestam 1968: 67–68).
12:12
The saying in 12:12, “The Holy Spirit will teach you in that hour what is necessary to say,” provides the reason for Jesus’ instruction to his disciples not to worry about how to defend themselves when they are brought before Jewish and Gentile authorities (12:11; cf. 21:14–15). This logion that promises the help of the Holy Spirit (12:12) follows after the saying about speaking against the Holy Spirit (12:10). Verse 12 possibly echoes Yahweh’s words to Moses in Exod. 4:12, “Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to say.” Although there are no direct verbal connections between the two passages—Exod. 4:12 LXX has symbibazō (“instruct, teach, advise,” for Heb. yārâh [hipʿil], which the LXX translates five times with symbibazō and eight times with didaskō) and ho melleis lalēsai (“what you will speak”), while 12:12 has didaskō (“instruct, teach”) and ha dei eipein (“what is necessary to say”)—both passages promise the leader(s) of God’s people divine inspiration and guidance on what to say in potentially dangerous situations. Similarly, Yahweh promises the reluctant prophet Jeremiah that he will give him words to speak: “Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth; and the LORD said to me, ‘Now, I have put my words in your mouth’” (Jer. 1:9; note the context in 12:6–10). If the echoes of Exod. 4:12 and Jer. 1:9 are intentional, then Jesus promises his followers the same kind of divine assistance in critical situations that the prophets since Moses experienced (see also Ps. 119:41–46). Note also Philo’s paraphrase of Num. 22:32–35 in Moses 1.274, where the angel says to Balaam: “I shall prompt the words you need without your mind’s consent, and direct the organs of your speech as justice and convenience may require. I shall guide the reins of your speech, and, though you understand it not, use your tongue for each prophetic utterance” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 966).
12:14–15
Jesus’ answer to an unnamed man who asks Jesus to settle quarrels between him and his brother over an inheritance (12:13) in 12:14, “Man, who appointed me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” (tis me katestēsen kritēn ē meristēn eph’ hymas), reflects the phraseology of Exod. 2:14 LXX: “Who made you a ruler and judge over us?” (tis se katestēsen archonta kai dikastēn eph’ hēmōn). The variant reading in some manuscripts reflects the influence of Exod. 2:14 (or of Acts 7:27, 35, which quotes the OT passage), replacing kritēn with dikastēn (e.g., A Q W Θ Ψ 28 𝔐 [see Metzger 1994: 135]). In Exod. 2 the statement is uttered by two Israelites, living in Egypt, quarreling with each other who are confronted by Moses, who attempts to stop the fight. In Luke 12 Jesus refuses to be recruited as the arbitrator in a dispute over the division of family holdings, “addressing instead the dispositions out of which he apparently perceives the man’s dispute to have arisen” (Green 1997: 488). The similarity of language does not seem to be intentional. (For the OT laws of inheritance, see Num. 27:1–11; 36:7–9; Deut. 21:16–17.)
Jesus’ admonition in 12:15, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions,” provides a commentary on the previously narrated request for arbitration, warning against the danger of the possession of material wealth, even when it is inherited. Life is defined not by objects, “but by relationships, especially to God and his will” (Bock 1994–1996: 1150). Several OT passages state the same perspective: Job 31:24–25; Ps. 49; Eccles. 2:1–11 (cf. Sir. 11:18–19; T. Jud. 18–19; 1 En. 97:8–10; see Manson 1949: 271).
12:20
In the parable of the Rich Fool (12:16–21), which illustrates Jesus’ teaching about greed, 12:20 narrates God’s reaction to the rich landowner who arranges for sufficient storage space for his crops, which he does not want to lose, and who concludes that he can henceforth live in leisure and self-indulgence: “You fool! This very night your life [lit., ‘soul’] is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?” The word for “fool” (aphrōn) in the OT refers to a person who acts without God or without wisdom concerning the possibility of destruction (cf. Job 34:36–37; Ps. 14:1 [13:1 LXX]; 53:1 [52:2 LXX]; Eccles. 2:1–17; see Bock 1994–1996: 1153; see also Donald 1963). The note that “they” will demand his soul from him may refer to “angels” of death (cf. Job 33:23 LXX; Heb. 2:14; cf. Grundmann 1978: 258; Marshall 1978: 524) or, more likely, reflects a Semitic circumlocution for God (cf. Job 4:19; 6:2; Prov. 9:11; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 974; Bock 1994–1996: 1153).
The final (rhetorical) question underlines that the pursuit of possessions is futile in view of one’s ultimate priorities and the real meaning of life. Some OT passages that convey similar notions are Job 27:16–22; Ps. 39:6; 49:6; 90:10; 103:15–16; Eccles. 2:18–23 (see Plummer 1896: 325; Bock 1994–1996: 1154).
12:22–34
In the passage about Jesus’ call to avoid anxiety, Jesus challenges the disciples in 12:24: “Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!” The reference to the ravens recalls Ps. 147:9 [146:9 LXX]; Job 38:41, where ravens are mentioned as crying for food, and Lev. 11:15; Deut. 14:14, where they are declared as forbidden food for Israelites. Jesus’ saying underscores that if God cares even for unclean animals, surely he will care for the disciples. Some scholars see an echo of Prov. 6:6–11, which also appeals to nature: “Go to the ant, you lazybones; consider its ways, and be wise. . . . it prepares its food in summer, and gathers its sustenance in harvest,” to which the LXX adds another illustration: “Or go to the bee, and learn how diligent it is, and how earnestly it is engaged in its work, whose labors kings and private citizens use for health, and it is desired and respected by all; although weak in body, it is advanced by honoring wisdom” (Healey [1989] points out that Luke 12:24/Matt. 6:26 and Prov. 6:7 LXX, “without having any cultivated land,” ekeinō gar geōrgiou mē hyparchontos, are the only passages that make the striking assertion that the animals do not harvest). If we follow the lead of Cyril of Alexandria (in Aquinas, Catena aurea on Luke 12:24–26), we may see Luke 22:22–31 as an allusion to Prov. 6:6–11, with Jesus turning the moral of the Proverbs passage ironically upside down; whereas Prov. 6:6–11 points to the ant and the bee in order to promote work, Jesus points to the ravens and the lilies in order to emphasize the providential benevolence of God, who supports creatures that do not work for food and clothing (Allison 2000a: 173–74).
The reference to Solomon’s glory in 12:27 echoes OT passages that describe King Solomon’s proverbial wealth (1 Kings 10:4–23; 2 Chron. 9:13–21). The following verbal connections can be detailed (for these, see Allison 2000a: 153–54). The word doxa often was associated with Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 3:13; 1 Chron. 29:25; 2 Chron. 1:12; T. Sol. 5:5; Josephus, Ant. 8.190). Over half of the occurrences of the word krinon (“lily”) in the LXX are used in connection with Solomon, particularly with the temple that he built (e.g., 1 Kings 7:8, 12 [MT 7:19, 22, 24, 26]; 2 Chron. 4:5), and the traditional ascribed author of Song of Songs, Solomon, is described as “a lily of the valleys” (Song 2:1). In the LXX the verb kopiaō (“toil”) is connected with traditions about Solomon as well (cf., e.g., Eccles. 1:3, 8 [Aquila]; 2:18 [B]; 2:24; 4:6 [Symmachus]; Ps. 126:1 [127:1 MT]; Prov. 4:12; cf. Wis. 3:11). The reference to anxiety concerning food, drink, and clothing in 12:22–31 recalls Solomon’s sumptuous food, drink, and clothing (1 Kings 4:20, 22; 10:5; 2 Chron. 9:4) as well as the information that Solomon received all this from God because he sought wisdom and knowledge (1 Kings 3:11–13; 2 Chron. 1:11–12; cf. Wis. 7:10–11). In 12:22–31 Jesus similarly asserts that those who seek the kingdom of God will have their physical needs met.
The a minori ad maius argument in 12:28, which stresses God’s providence even for grass, “which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven,” echoes OT descriptions of the transitory and passing nature of grass (cf. Ps. 37:2; 90:5–6; 102:11; 103:15; Isa. 37:27; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 979).
The description of his disciples as “little flock” in 12:32 echoes OT passages that use the figure of the “flock” for God’s people, who are fragile yet cared for by God (cf. Ps. 23:1; 28:9; 74:1; 77:20; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 13:17; Zech. 11:11; 13:7; see Ellis 1974: 179; Bock 1994–1996: 1165). The statement “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” has been interpreted as a possible allusion to Isa. 41:14 LXX, “Jacob, smallest of Israel, I shall help you,” emphasizing that Jesus promises to his followers, a small community, God’s greatest gift (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 980). We should note, however, that the term “flock” is not used in Isa. 41:14.
12:35–46
Jesus’ sayings about vigilance and faithfulness in 12:35–36 contain several allusions to OT passages. In 12:35 the phrase “let your loins be girded” (estōsan hymōn hai osphyes periezōsmenai) may be an allusion to God’s instruction given to the Israelites in directing them to be ready for a hasty departure from Egypt (Exod. 12:11: hai osphyes hymōn periezōsmenai). In other OT texts the phrase is used as an expression for readiness or service (cf. 1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 4:29; 9:1; Job 38:3; 40:7; cf. 1QM XV, 14; 11Q10 XXX, 1; XXXIV, 2–3; Philo, Sacrifices 63; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 987–88; Green 1997: 500). The addition “and your lamps burning” also emphasizes watchfulness (cf. Exod. 27:20; Lev. 24:2). Whether the allusion to Exod. 12:11 suggests a connection between Exod. 12:8, where the Israelites are directed to eat the Passover lamb with unleavened bread, and Jesus’ warning of the “leaven of the Pharisees” in 12:1, suggesting that he teaches that the Pharisaic mind-set that must be avoided is a lack of watchfulness with regard to Yahweh’s eschatological coming (Green 1997: 500), seems less plausible; note that 12:1 is too far removed from 12:35–46. But the allusion to Exod. 12:11 is clearly more than decoration: it expresses the conviction that the last redemption will be reminiscent of the redemption of the exodus (Allison 2000a: 60; cf. Bovon 1989–2001: 2:325–26; the suggestion that this probably reflects the belief that the Messiah will return on Passover night agrees with Mek. Exod. 12:42; Frg. Tg. P Exod. 15:18; Frg. Tg. V Exod. 12:42; Targum Neofiti, but it overinterprets the allusion in 12:35).
The theme of watchfulness, related to the eschatological day of Yahweh, which is the emphasis of the parable of the Waiting Servants (12:35–38) and the parable of the Unexpected Thief (12:39–40), echoes several OT passages (cf. Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Amos 5:18; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:14–18; Mal. 4:5–6; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 987).
The parable of the Faithful and Prudent Manager in 12:42–46 possibly alludes to Gen. 39:4–5: “So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him; he made him overseer of his house [katestēsen auton epi tou oikou autou] and put him in charge of all that he had. From the time that he made him overseer in his house [meta to katastathēnai auton epi tou oikou autou] and over all that he had, the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field.” Note the opening rhetorical question of Jesus’ parable in 12:42: “Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his servants [hon katastēsei ho kyrios epi tēs therapeias autou], to give them their allowance of food [grain] at the proper time?” (Allison 2000a: 87–92; C. F. Evans 1990: 336; cf. Bovon 1989–2001: 2:334). The words of 12:42 are often quoted in Jewish writings about Joseph (Allison [2000a: 88] refers to Jub. 39:3; 40:7; Philo, Joseph 37, 38, 117; T. Jos. 2:1; 11:6; Jos. Asen. 4:7; 20:9; Josephus, Ant. 2.39; see also Acts 7:9–10). Key words of 12:42 are prominent in the traditions about Joseph: ho kyrios, “the master” (e.g., Gen. 39:3–4); phronimos, “prudent” (cf. Gen. 41:33, 39; cf. Ps. 104:21 LXX [105:21 MT]); doulos, “servant” (cf. Gen. 39:17, 19; 41:12, but using the term pais; note that T. Jos. 1:5; 11:2, 3; 13:6, 7, 8; 15:2, 3 use doulos for Joseph), grain (to sitometrion, “measured allowance of grain,” is a Lukan hapax legomenon, but sitos, “grain,” is a key term in the Joseph narrative; see the LXX of Gen. 41:35, 49; 42:2–3, 25–26; 43:2; 44:2; 47:12–14). Jesus’ declaration in 12:44, “Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions [epi pasin tois hyparchousin autou]” is a variation of the original declaration, “Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time?” The same kind of variation is found in Gen. 39: after the twice-repeated statement that the master appointed Joseph over his household (39:4–5a), another declaration follows: “The blessing of the LORD was on all that he had [en pasin tois hyparchousin autō], in house and field” (39:5b [this phrase occurs only one other time in the LXX, at Jdt. 8:10; see Allison 2000a: 91]). Biblically informed readers of Luke’s Gospel would find in Joseph an example of a faithful servant who is eventually rewarded, the antithesis of the servant in the parable who reasons that since his master is delayed in coming, he can begin “to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk” (see Allison 2000a: 91–92).
The reference to the delay of the return of the master possibly echoes Hab. 2:3: note 12:43, “blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives [elthōn]”; 12:45, “if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming [chronizei ho kyrios mou erchesthai]’”; 12:46, “the master of that slave will come [hēxei] on a day when he does not expect him.” Habakkuk 2:3 raises the delay of eschatological salvation as a possibility: “For still the vision awaits its time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come [erchomenos hēxei], it will not delay [ou mē chronisē].” The interpretation in Targum of the Prophets on Hab. 2:3 is clearly eschatological: “For the prophecy is ready for a time and the end is fixed, nor will it fail; if there is delay in the matter wait for it, for it will come in its time and will not be deferred.” The allusion is established through (1) the verbs erchomenos/elthōn, hēxei/hēxei, and chronisē/chronizei, (2) the juxtaposition of a servant who is “faithful” (pistos) and one who is “faithless” (apistōn) in vv. 42–44/45–47 and the juxtaposition of people who “live by faith” (ex pisteōs) and people whose “spirit is not right in them” in Hab. 2:4, and (3) the statement in Hab. 2:5 that wine is treacherous (MT and Targum, not the LXX) and the description of the faithless servant in 12:45 who drinks and gets drunk (Allison 2000a: 132). If Jesus’ disciples noticed this allusion, they would have been comforted by the notion that the delay of the day of judgment was part of prophecy and thus “nothing to be surprised or too anxious about” (Allison 2000a: 132).
The parable-like saying in 12:47–48 contrasts a disobedient servant who knows his master’s wishes and one who is ignorant and does something that deserves punishment. This contrast is based on the OT distinction between deliberate sins—sins committed with a “high hand”—and sins done in ignorance, as is described in Num. 15:27–30 (cf. Wis. 6:6–8; 1QS V, 11–12; 4Q83 3–10 IV, 15; CD-A VIII, 8; 10:3; m. Šabb. 7:1; b. B. Bat. 60b; see Manson 1949: 119; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 992; Bock 1994–1996: 1184).
12:49–59
Jesus’ sayings about the coming crisis contain several OT allusions. Verse 49, “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” echoes OT passages that speak of fire as a figure of judgment (Jer. 43:12; Ezek. 15:7; Hos. 8:14; Amos 1:4–14; 2:2, 5; Nah. 3:13; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:2–3; cf. 1 En. 18:15; 102:1; 2 Bar. 37:1; 48:39; 4 Ezra 13:10–11; Pss. Sol. 15:4–5; Jub. 9:15; 36:10; 1QHa XVI, 20; see Bock 1994–1996: 1192n6).
In 12:50 the “baptism” with which Jesus has to be baptized has been interpreted in terms of the “inundation of the waters of divine judgment” against the background of the metaphorical sense of being overwhelmed by catastrophe (see TDNT 1:538–39; Marshall 1978: 547) and the OT imagery of floods for persecution or judgment (cf. Ps. 18:4, 16; 42:7; 69:1–2; Isa. 8:7–8; 30:27–28; Jon. 2:3–6; see Bayer 1986: 81): Jesus announces that he will be “uniquely inundated with God’s judgment, an allusion to rejection and persecution” (Bock 1994–1996: 1194; cf. Green 1997: 509). In Ps. 11:6 the image of God raining fire upon the wicked is combined with the image of a scorching wind as the content of the “cup” that the wicked have to drink. If this passage is echoed in 12:50, then the “baptism” that Jesus refers to “may have the sense of deluging someone from above with fire” (Marshall 1978: 547, referring to Delling 1970a: 248). Some scholars derive the notion of a “baptism of death” from Isa. 53:10, “yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him with pain,” translated in the LXX as “and he will cleanse [katharisai] him from the wound,” while the Targum writes that “before the Lord it was a pleasure to refine and to cleanse the remnant of his people, in order to purify their souls from sins.” If this is correct, then Jesus possibly combined the two meanings of the Hebrew verb dikkāʾ, “crush” and “cleanse, purify,” in the image of the “baptism,” which signifies death, asserting that it is the will of God to “crush” his servant so that “the many” will be “cleansed” on account of the vicarious death of the righteous servant (O. Betz 1996; 1998: 84–85).
Jesus’ assertion in 12:51–53 interprets (12:52) and alludes to (12:53) Mic. 7:6: “For the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies are members of your own household.” The breakdown of the solidarity of society in general and of the members of households in particular that the prophet laments is interpreted as the result of Jesus’ message and ministry (see Manson 1949: 121; Kessler 1999: 292; cf. also Jub. 23:16, 19; 4 Ezra 6:24; m. Soṭah 9:15). As Luke formulates three pairs of comparisons (father against son, mother against daughter, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law), which are in each case reversed (son against father, etc.), the effect is heightened (Ernst 1977: 414–15; Bock 1994–1996: 1196). Jewish texts apply Mic. 7:6 to the messianic days (cf. Jub. 23:19; 1 En. 99:5; 100:1–2; 2 Bar. 70:6; 1Q14; see Ellis 1974: 183). Jesus links the time of his mission with discord rather than with peace and emphasizes with the allusion to Mic. 7:6 that the new age that the prophets predicted has not yet come and that it does not come without tribulation (Allison 2000a: 133).
In the passage about tragedy and the need to repent (13:1–5), Jesus asks the rhetorical question whether people “think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans” (13:2). The notion that calamity, including illness, is the result of sin echoes several OT passages (cf. Exod. 20:5; Job 4:7–8; 8:4, 20; 22:5; Prov. 10:24–25; cf. 1Qap-Gen ar XX, 16–29; John 9:1–3; see Plummer 1896: 338; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1007). Jesus does not endorse this conviction, but rather calls his audience to repentance.
Jesus’ plea to repent is substantiated in 13:3 by the warning “Unless you repent, you will all perish as they did.” He argues that repentance is the only way to avoid eternal death, a fate that will fall upon everyone who does persist in sin. This echoes Jer. 12:17, “But if any nation will not listen, then I will completely uproot it and destroy it, says the LORD,” and Ps. 7:11–16 (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1008).
13:6
Jesus’ parable of the Barren Fig Tree (13:6–9), directed at his Palestinian contemporaries whom he calls to repentance after learning about the incident in which Pilate had killed Galileans in Jerusalem (13:1–5), uses a familiar metaphor. Since fig trees are among the most common fruit trees in Palestine, a comment on fruit bearing and fruitlessness would naturally use the symbol of a fig tree, whether it is a common OT symbol for Judah or Israel (cf. Jer. 8:13; 24:1–10; Hos. 9:10; Mic. 7:1; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1008; C. A. Evans 1990: 206; Stein 1992: 370; Bock 1994–1996: 1208 with note 12) or not (Marshall 1978: 555; Nolland 1989–1993: 718). For fruit trees planted in vineyards, see Deut. 22:9; 1 Kings 4:25; 2 Kings 18:31; Mic. 4:4. The fact that the fig tree is situated in a vineyard may suggest that Jesus wanted his listeners to think of Isa. 5:1–7, in which the prophet compares the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the people of Judah with a vineyard that yields only wild grapes. If this is correct, then the vineyard stands for Israel, and the fig tree represents Israel’s barren leadership (cautiously, Green 1997: 515n126). Jesus challenges his listeners not to delay repentance and to live fruitful lives, as God, who mercifully holds back judgment at the present time, will not spare those who refuse to orient their heart and life around God’s purposes (Green 1997: 515n126).
13:14–17
In the miracle story that narrates the healing of a crippled woman on the Sabbath (13:10–17), the leader of the synagogue, eager to uphold and enforce proper legal observance of the Torah, reminds the people who are present, “There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the Sabbath day” (13:14). This statement alludes to the Mosaic legislation prohibiting work on the seventh day (Exod. 20:9; Deut. 5:13). The synagogue ruler does not argue for a particular interpretation of the Sabbath law, but rather implies that this position represents the self-evident will of God (Green 1997: 523): the woman had suffered from her illness for eighteen years, her condition is not life-threatening, and she could easily wait one day for her cure.
Jesus responds in 13:15 by questioning the synagogue ruler’s interpretation of the law, reminding him that the Sabbath legislation applies not only to human beings but also to oxen and donkeys (Deut. 5:14), arguing that if this is the case, then people should not be allowed to untie their animals, and animals should not be allowed to walk to a trough for water. Jesus’ reference to “ox or donkey” in his reply echoes OT passages that mention the same pair of household animals: ox/cow (ho/hē bous) and ass/donkey (ho/hē onos). We should note, however, that the LXX uses the terms bous and onos only in Isa. 32:20, “Happy will you be who sow beside every stream, who let the ox and the donkey [bous kai onos] range freely,” and in the narrative texts Gen. 32:5; 34:28. The legal texts that form the general background for Luke 13:15 translate with hypozygion (“donkey, ass” [Deut. 5:14]) and moschos (“calf, ox” [Deut. 22:4]). The Damascus Document limits the provision of pasture and water to animals on the Sabbath to a distance of two thousand cubits for members of the Essene communities (CD-A XI, 5–6). For rabbinic texts about the care of animals, particularly on the Sabbath, see m. Šabb. 5:1–4; 2:2; 15:1–2; b. Šabb. 113a; m. ʿErub. 2.1–4; b. ʿErub. 20b–21a (see Lachs 1987: 298; Marshall 1978: 558–59). Jesus argues in 13:15–16 that what is permissible for cattle is all the more permissible for a human being, and he calls his critics “hypocrites” for not understanding God’s purpose and for not understanding the meaning of the Scriptures (Green 1997: 524).
The comment in 13:17, “all his opponents were put to shame” (katēschynonto pantes hoi antikeimenoi autō), echoes Isa. 45:16, which speaks of the shame (aischynthēsontai) of opponents (oi antikeimenoi autō) in the context of producers of idols, which are contrasted with Israel’s God, who saves with an everlasting salvation (Isa. 45:15, 17). The description of the crowd that rejoiced “at all the wonderful things [epi pasin tois endoxois] that he was doing” echoes OT language, particularly Exod. 34:10, “Before all your people I will perform marvels [poiēsō endoxa] such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the LORD; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you,” stressing that the miraculous deeds of Jesus are the work of God (Marshall 1978: 559; Bock [1994–1996: 1219] also refers to Deut. 10:21; Job 5:9; 9:10).
13:19
The parable of the Mustard Seed, in which the seed grows into a tree (dendron) in whose branches (en tois kladois autou) “the birds of the air” (ta peteina tou ouranou) make nests (kateskēnōsen) alludes to Dan. 4 LXX and Ezek. 17:22–24. In Dan. 4 LXX, note the following verbal links: basileia (13:4, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37); dendron (13:10, 20, 22, 23, 26); ta peteina tou ouranou (13:12, 21); kladoi (13:12, 17). In Ezek. 17:22–24, note pan peteinon hypo tēn skian and ta klēmata (13:23); the tree is specifically a cedar (see also Ezek. 31:5–6). In Dan. 4 the tree represents Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom; it is eventually cut down. In Ezek. 17 the parable about the cedar implicitly depicts the kingdom of Israel, which will replace pagan kingdoms, and communicates the messianic promise of a Davidic king whom Yahweh will grant growth and comprehensive rule under which people will find peace and refuge (Zimmerli 1969: 389–90). The Targum interprets the text as expressing the hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. Jesus’ parable of the Mustard Seed, by alluding to Dan. 4 and Ezek. 17, not only implies scriptural authority but at the same time reaffirms the expectation of the arrival of the restoration of Israel, when God establishes his kingdom, which Jesus proclaims (Allison 2000a: 136; cf. Kogler 1988: 149–62; Reinhardt 1995: 120–23). Thus it is not surprising that Jesus begins the parable by pointing out that it illustrates the kingdom of God (13:18). The allusion to Ezek. 17:23 provides the parable with a messianic nuance, implying the claim that Jesus’ messianic ministry inaugurates the kingdom of God (Kogler 1988: 166; Reinhardt 1995: 123). The fact that the parable does not speak of the growth of a mighty cedar tree, as Ezek. 17:23 does, illustrates the “dissonance” of Jesus’ message: the kingdom of God that he proclaims is established not through bullying power but through developments that initially seem inconsequential (Green 1997: 526).
Some scholars suggest that the verb kateskēnōsen (“made nests”) alludes to the OT traditions of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion, particularly to Zech. 2:11 (2:15 LXX), “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD on that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you,” a text that combines the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations with the promise of a continuous sojourn (kataskēnōsousin) of the nations in the midst of Israel (Jeremias 1971: 146–49; Reinhardt 1995: 123–25). This suggestion has not convinced every scholar (see Kogler 1988: 169; cf. Fitzmyer [1981–1985: 1017], who points out that Luke does not add his favorite word “all”).
13:27–29
In his discussion of the question of how many will share in the salvation promised in the kingdom (13:22–30), Jesus asserts that entry into the kingdom depends on the master of the house, who is indirectly identified in 13:26 as Jesus himself (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1022). The question in 13:23 has no parallel in the OT but was often addressed in Second Temple Judaism; note 4 Ezra 8:1: “The Most High made this world for the sake of many, but the world to come for the sake of few” (see also 4 Ezra 7:47; 9:15). Isaiah 37:32, a text that is sometimes referred to in this context, speaks of a “remnant” and a “band of survivors” who shall go out from Jerusalem, but the context in Isa. 37 is limited to a temporary restoration of fortunes for Jerusalem.
The assertion in 13:27, an answer given to those who stand outside the door appealing to the householder as contemporaries who shared food with him and who listened to his teaching, has two parts, both containing OT allusions. The statement in 13:27a, “I do not know where you come from,” recalls OT passages that speak of people being known by God (Jer. 1:5; Hos. 5:3; 13:5; Amos 3:2)—that is, people who are chosen by God (cf. Ps. 138:6; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1022).
The second part of 13:27, “Depart from me, all doers of evil” (apostēte ap’ emou pantes ergatai adikias), alludes to Ps. 6:8 (6:9 LXX), “Depart from me, all you workers of evil, for the LORD has heard the sound of my weeping,” to emphasize not only that Jesus does not know them, but also that he positively excludes them (Marshall 1978: 567; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1025–26; Allison [2000a: 166] and Bovon [1989–2001: 2:435] speak of a [unmarked] quotation). Luke’s text agrees exactly with the first four words of Ps. 6:9 LXX (apostēte ap’ emou pantes hoi ergazomenoi tēn anomian). He changes the second part of the quotation in accordance with his style: he exchanges the nominalized participle hoi ergazomenoi, which he never uses, for the noun ergatai (cf. Luke 10:2a, 2b, 7), and he replaces the noun anomia, which he never employs, with adikia (cf. Luke 16:8–9; 18:6; Acts 1:18; 8:23; note Holtz [1968: 159], who surmises, unconvincingly, that Luke did not recognize that his source was quoting from Ps. 6:9). Unless Jesus uses the words of Ps. 6:8 only to add solemnity, we note that in Ps. 6 the speaker is someone who suffers and is subsequently vindicated by God, and that in 13:27–28 he refers to weeping and to the gnashing of teeth. This suggests that Jesus may have used the language of Ps. 6:8 in order to describe himself as the one who has suffered at the hands of hostile opponents and will pronounce judgment against those who heard but opposed his message to be excluded from the heavenly banquet (Green 1997: 531; cf. Allison 2000a: 166).
In 13:28–29 the image of the joyous banquet of the kingdom echoes OT passages that describe, first, a gathering of Israel from all corners of the earth (Ps. 107:2–3; Isa. 43:5–6; 49:12; Zech. 2:10 LXX [on the textual problem in Ps. 107:3, see Allison 2000a: 168]); second, the worship of Yahweh by the Gentiles (Isa. 45:6; 59:19; Mal. 1:11); third, the eschaton as a great banquet (Isa. 25:6–8; 55:1–2; 65:13–14; Zeph. 1:7; 1 En. 62:14; 2 Bar. 29:4) (see Crockett 1966b: 294–95; France 1971: 63; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1026). The “gnashing of teeth” (brychō [“gnash”] + odous [“tooth”]) appears in the LXX as an expression of hatred (Job 16:9; Ps. 34:16; 36:12; 112:10; Lam. 2:16), with 13:29 resembling Ps. 112:10 (111:10 LXX) more closely: “The wicked see it and are angry; they gnash their teeth and melt away; the desire of the wicked comes to nothing.” Since both of these texts depict the judgment of sinners, since both use a future tense, and since the gnashing of teeth is linked in both texts with the sinners seeing the good fortune of the righteous, 13:29 most probably should be regarded as an allusion to Ps. 112:10, although it is possible that the motif of “gnashing of teeth” is merely an eschatological topos (cf. Sib. Or. 2:205–206; 8:104–5, 231, 350; see Allison 2000a: 169). The weeping of those who are barred from access to the heavenly banquet of God’s kingdom is contrasted with the joy of those who have entered through the “narrow door” (13:24)—that is, those who have gained entry into the banquet hall of the kingdom of God (Green 1997: 532).
13:31–35
In 13:31–35 Luke reports Jesus’ fourth announcement of his violent death (after 9:22, 44; 12:50), following a warning from sympathetic Pharisees that Herod Antipas plans to kill him. Jesus comments that he will continue his ministry of casting out demons and healing the sick for as long as it was intended and that he will then go to Jerusalem, where he will be killed. Jesus implies that his fate is determined not by Herod’s plot, but by the will of God, to which he submits (Bovon 1989–2001: 2:449). The passage ends with Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (13:34–35).
Jesus’ assertion in 13:33, “It is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem,” echoes several OT texts. Jeremiah 26:20–23 narrates the killing of the prophet Uriah in Jerusalem by King Jehoiakim. During the reign of King Joash, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was killed in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 24:20–22). Zechariah was a priest rather than a prophet, but he is mentioned in Luke 11:51, together with Abel, as prophets whose blood has been spilled (Stein [1992: 343] comments that Luke designates both Abel and Zechariah son of Jehoiada as prophets because he regards the entire OT as prophecy). According to Jer. 38:4–6, an attempt was made on Jeremiah’s life in Jerusalem. The comment in 2 Kings 21:16 that King Manasseh “shed very much innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” was understood in Jewish tradition to refer to all righteous Jews, including the prophets: “He spared not even the prophets, some of whom he slaughtered daily, so that Jerusalem ran with blood” (Josephus, Ant. 10.38). Later traditions claim that the prophet Isaiah was killed in Jerusalem (Mart. Isa. 5:1–14; Justin, Dial. 120.14–15). Other OT passages and Jewish tradition refer to the murder of prophets more generically (cf. 1 Kings 18:4, 13; 19:10, 14; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 2:30; Jub. 1:12; Acts 7:52; note Tan [1997: 75–76], who points out that with the exception of Jer. 26:20–23 and Josephus, Ant. 10.38, the OT and Jewish traditions assert only that the nation killed the prophets). Stoning was the most common form of execution, used in, for example, cases involving blasphemy (Lev. 24:14, 16, 23) and apostasy (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 13:10). Since stoning was a standard punishment for other crimes as well, this OT background cannot be taken to signify that Jerusalem attributes blasphemy or apostasy to those whom God has sent (so Green 1997: 538). Jesus’ statement does not quote an existing proverb, but asserts the appropriateness of death in Jerusalem: since Jerusalem kills prophets (13:34), “it is appropriate that Jesus as a prophet should die there too” (Marshall 1978: 573; cf. Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1032).
Jesus’ statement in 13:34, “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” recalls several OT passages that use illustrations from nature to describe Yahweh’s care for Israel: “Like an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them aloft on its pinions . . .” (Deut. 32:11); “Hide me in the shadow of your wings” (Ps. 17:8); “All people may take refuge in the shadow of your wings” (Ps. 36:7); “In the shadow of your wings I will take refuge” (Ps. 57:1); “And under his wings you will find refuge” (Ps. 91:4); “May you have a full reward from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge” (Ruth 2:12) (see also 4 Ezra 1:30; 2 Bar. 41:3–4; 1 En. 39:7; Sipre Deut. 296:3; 306:4; 314:1; b. Soṭah 13b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:1; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1). Rabbinic texts use the image of finding refuge under wings for proselytes who come under the wings of the Shekinah (cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 12a; Sipra Qed. pq. 8:205; Sipre Num. 80:1; Sipre Deut. 32:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 13b; b. Šabb. 31a; Gen. Rab. 47:10; Pesiq. Rab. 14:2). As this figure speaks of care and protection, Jesus, the preacher of the dawn of God’s kingdom, describes his mission in terms of bringing the Jewish people “into the care which he was sent to manifest as the new herald of God’s salvific kingdom” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1036). The OT background of the figure suggests that Jesus identifies with God’s care for his people.
In 13:35a the threat of eventual judgment on Jerusalem is formulated with the phrase “See, your house is left to you” (idou aphietai hymin ho oikos hymōn). This phrase recalls the language and the images of Jer. 12:7, “I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage” (enkataleloipa ton oikon mou aphēka tēn klēronomian mou), and Jer. 22:5, “This house shall become a desolation” (eis erēmōsin estai ho oikos houtos) (see also Ps. 69:25; Ezek. 8:6; 11:23). The term “house” refers not to the temple alone, but to the “household” of Jerusalem—that is, Jerusalem, the center of Israel, as God’s people who are opposed to God’s will (see Tan 1997: 114–15; Green 1997: 539). While Jer. 22 speaks of the possibility of exile for the nation if the people continue to oppose the will of God, Jesus announces that a time of abandonment has come: “Rather than being gathered under God’s wings, their house is left empty and exposed” (Bock 1994–1996: 1250). An allusion to Jer. 12:7, which recalls the martyred prophet Jeremiah, serves to reinforce the declaration of Luke 11:49–51 that Jerusalem has often rejected prophets, implying that Jesus is like Jeremiah, who met hostility in Jerusalem (Allison 2000a: 127–28). It should be noted that 13:34–35a are linked with Jer. 12:7 via the words aphiēmi (“let go, abandon”) and oikos (“house”), and via the word oikos with 2 Chron. 24:17–25 (alluded to in 13:33; Jer. 12:7 and 2 Chron. 24:17–25 also share the word enkataleipō [“forsake”]) and Ps. 118:26 (quoted in 13:35b), illustrating the hermeneutical principle of gezerah shavah (Allison 2000a: 128).
The phrase “you will not see me” in 13:35b probably recalls OT and Jewish traditions of figures who were translated to heaven and expected to play a future eschatological role, particularly the translation of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11–12 (cf. 4 Ezra 6:26; see Zeller 1985: 515–16). If this is the background of Jesus’ statement, then he asserts that he will depart (through death) and go to heaven until the time comes in which he will fulfill his eschatological role (Nolland 1989–1993: 742).
13:35
A. NT Context: Lament over Jerusalem. In 13:35b Jesus announces that the people of Jerusalem will not see him until the time comes when they say, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord,” an allusion to Ps. 118:26 (Marshall 1978: 577; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1037; Bock 1994–1996: 1250). It is unlikely that Luke did not recognize these words as a quotation from Ps. 118 (so Holtz 1968: 160).
B. Ps. 118:26 in context. Psalm 118 (117 LXX) has the form of an individual thanksgiving, with a summons to praise Yahweh in 13:1–4, 29, and with communal praise for the main speaker’s thanksgiving in 13:22–25, 27, whose adversity from which he has been rescued is the subject of 13:5–18. There is no consensus who the main speaker is: some suggest a liturgy for the circumcision of a proselyte, some argue that the “I” stands for the people and that the psalm is a communal thanksgiving, while others suggest that the psalm celebrates the military victory of a king that was celebrated at the autumn festival (Dahood 1966–1970: 3:155; Allen 1983: 123). As a result of the last suggestion, many scholars classify Ps. 118 as a royal psalm. Many scholars think that Ps. 118 was used in the annual rite of reenthronement of the king. Interpreted against this background, “the psalm speaks to the saving acts of Yahweh, but also recognizes the place of humiliation and rejection in the divine plan” (Green 1997: 709). (On Ps. 118, see P. Constant [2001: 27–187], who argues for a messianic understanding in an OT canonical context, with reference to Pss. 18; 132; Exod. 15; Isa. 8; 12.)
C. Ps. 118:26 in Judaism. Several scholars claim that Ps. 118, and indeed the entire body of Hallel psalms, had eschatological and messianic connotations, at least toward the end of the Second Temple Period (see Jeremias 1966: 255–61; Lindars 1961: 173; Kraus 1986: 193; Lachs 1987: 345; Allison 2000a: 163). Some NT scholars accept these claims (see Bock 1987: 118; Kimball 1994b: 159; Kinman 1995: 57), but others point out that texts that are quoted in support of a messianic interpretation of Ps. 118 or of the entire body of Hallel psalms—for example, b. Pesaḥ 118b (Ps. 118:1); b. Pesaḥ 118a (Ps. 115:1); y. Ber. 4d [2:4] (Ps. 118:27–28); Midr. Ps. 36 [6] (Ps. 118:27); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 17:5 (Ps. 118:15)—cite rabbinic authorities that date to the late second century AD at the earliest, while midrashic eschatological interpretations (Midr. Ps. 26 [6]; 27 [1]; 36 [6]; 118 [8, 12–14, 22]) have no attributions and date not earlier than the third century (Wagner 1997: 158–59). There seem to be no quotations of Ps. 118 in Second Temple literature.
On the other hand, the canonical form of the Psalter suggests to some scholars that the royal psalms were interpreted in the context of the messianic hope of Israel, since the postexilic editors’ arrangement of the psalms is “highly eschatological in nature”: at a time when the institution of Israelite kingship belonged to the distant past, the earthly king of the psalms would have evoked God’s Messiah (Childs 1977: 516, 518; cf. Wagner 1997: 159). Also, the use of Ps. 118 in Jewish liturgy may have suggested an eschatological interpretation: Ps. 118 was sung as part of the Hallel at the Feasts of Tabernacles (m. Sukkah 3:9; 4:1–8), Hanukkah (m. Taʿan. 4:4–5), and Passover—both at the sacrificing of the lambs and at the meal—(m. Pesaḥ. 5:7; 10:5–7; t. Pesaḥ. 10:8–9; cf. Mark 14:26; Matt. 26:30), and on the first day of the Feast of Weeks (t. Sukkah 3:2). The association of Ps. 118 with the divine deliverance that was celebrated at these festivals may have suggested “readings of the psalm that focused on the hope of God’s future deliverance of Israel through the agency of his Anointed One” (Wagner 1997: 160). These lines of evidence establish the possibility of an interpretation of Ps. 118 in terms of the royal Messiah, but due to the lack of specific evidence there can be no certainty. The argument that the widespread use of Ps. 118 suggests that the messianic interpretation predates the writing of the Gospels (Wagner 1997: 161, with the NT references listed in nn. 24–25) is plausible, especially if we allow for the possibility that this interpretation goes back to Jesus.
D. Textual Matters. The quotation from Ps. 118:26 in 13:35: “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” (eulogēmenos ho erchomenos en onomati kyriou) reproduces verbatim the LXX text (117:26), which accurately translates the MT’s bārûk habbāʾ bĕšem Yahweh.
E. The Use of Ps. 118:26 in Luke 13:35. The first explicit quotation of Ps. 118 in Luke’s work (see also 19:38; 20:17; Acts 4:11) belongs to a context in which Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ warning that King Herod is actively involved in a plot to kill him (13:31). This may remind the readers of the Gospel of the first allusion to Ps. 118, in the context of John the Baptist’s imprisonment by Herod (7:19, with the term ho erchomenos, “the coming one”). Since John was executed by Herod, the Pharisees’ warning carries weight, prompting Jesus to assert that it is not fitting for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem and to lament Jerusalem’s violent resistance against God’s messengers (Wagner 1997: 163).
There are several different answers to the question concerning the intended reference of the quotation from Ps. 118:26. First, Jesus’ OT quotation refers to the parousia, the return of the Messiah, a time when Jerusalem would respond with the words of Ps. 118:26, positively recognizing Jesus as Messiah (Zahn 1988: 543; Strauss 1995: 315–17; Constant 2001: 279–80; Bovon 1989–2001: 2:458–59; Bock 1987: 117–21; 1994–1996: 1251, with reference to Luke 21:24; Rom. 11:11–32). In the context of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in Matt. 23:37–39, introducing the eschatological discourse in Matt. 24, the reference of Jesus’ quotation of Ps. 118:26 to the parousia is much more explicit. Luke placed Jesus’ lament and the quotation of Ps. 118:26 before Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, however, which makes this interpretation less obvious.
Second, since the same words from Ps. 118:26 are cited in 19:38, and since Luke places Jesus’ lament and the quotation in the context of the travel narrative, the reference in 13:35 is to Jesus’ anticipated arrival in Jerusalem (Danker 1988: 162; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1037; Lindars 1961: 172; Wagner 1997: 163; Döpp 1998: 41; Rusam 2003: 224). If this was Luke’s intention, the words of Ps. 118:26 would have a heavily ironical meaning. We should note also that Ps. 118:26 is not quoted exactly at 19:38, and there it is spoken not by Jesus, but by the people of Jerusalem (Marshall 1978: 577).
Third, Jesus’ assertion in 13:35b, taking the form of a conditional promise, means that if Jerusalem repents from its refusal to acknowledge God’s messenger, and if the people receive “the one who comes in the name of the Lord” with blessing, then disaster and judgment will be averted and Israel will experience the coming of salvation (Green 1997: 538; Allison 1983; Kinman 1995: 97; cf. Wagner 1997: 163–64). It should be noted that the second and third explanations are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.
F. Theological Use. The quotation of Ps. 118:26 creates dramatic tension as Luke evokes images of opposition and hostility awaiting Jesus in Jerusalem and builds suspense with the suggestion that Jerusalem will receive Jesus as King (and Messiah) once he arrives in the city. This possibility contrasts with Jesus’ repeated prediction of his rejection and death (Wagner 1997: 163–64). The words of the psalm about worshipers blessing the one who comes in the name of the Lord and about a blessing that comes from the house of the Lord (i.e., the temple) are consistently interpreted in 13:34–35 as a prophecy concerning the “forsaken” house—that is, presumably both the temple and Jerusalem: since Jerusalem and the temple have opposed God’s messengers and fallen into sin, they are headed for disaster and judgment, which means that the temple and the city (which at present refuse to bless the one who comes as the Son of Man) can no longer be the source of God’s blessing (Allison 2000a: 163–64).