In 14:1–24 Luke depicts Jesus’ enjoying the hospitality of a leader of the Pharisees following a synagogue service on the Sabbath (14:1). Given, first, the importance of social status as determined by the perception of one’s contemporaries, and, second, the importance of the reciprocity of gift and obligation in ancient society, Jesus’ assertions on meal etiquette undermine the values and expectations that his meal companions would have taken for granted, constructing a new vision of life and community (Green 1997: 550–51). In 14:8–10 Jesus advises against taking the “first seats,” which are more honorable, because if one’s claim to honor is not acknowledged by the host, then humiliation in front of the other guests will follow. Jesus asserts that it is better to sit at a less honorable place and be promoted by the host to a more lofty seat assignment.
Verse 10, “When you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you,” is a wisdom saying that echoes Prov. 25:6–7, “Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence or stand in the place of the great; for it is better to be told, ‘Come up here,’ than to be put lower in the presence of a noble,” adapting sapiential advice for court etiquette to a banquet setting (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1047). Jesus insists that honor must be given, not taken. The analogous advice in Sir. 3:17–20 is also related to a more general setting: “My child, perform your tasks with humility; then you will be loved by those whom God accepts. The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself; so you will find favor in the sight of the Lord. For great is the might of the Lord; but by the humble he is glorified.” A later rabbinic passage resembles Luke 14:10 much more closely when Rabbi Simeon b. Azzai asserts, “Stay two or three seats below your place [i.e., where you felt you should sit], and sit there until they say to you, ‘Come up!’ Do not begin by going up because they may say to you, ‘Go down!’ It is better that they say to you, ‘Go up,’ than that they say to you, ‘Go down!’ (Lev. Rab. 1:5; cf., similarly, ʾAbot R. Nat. 25; see Lachs 1987: 303; Fitzmyer [1981–1985: 1047] surmises that this rabbinic tradition may have been influenced by the early Christian tradition).
Verse 11 demonstrates that Jesus does more than acknowledge the honor system of the Greco-Roman world, suggesting a clever approach to securing one’s prestige that results in even greater honor. The statement “All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (pas ho hypsōn heauton tapeinōthēsetai, kai ho tapeinōn heauton hypsōthēsetai) recasts the values of contemporary society: God acknowledges the “humble,” and he judges those who seek honorable status. Jesus’ aphorism alludes to Ezek. 21:26 (“Exalt that which is low, abase that which is high” = 21:31 LXX: etapeinōsas to hypsēlon kai to tapeinon hypsōsas; cf. Ezek. 17:24; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1047; Bock 1994–1996: 1265), a text in which Yahweh castigates the “wicked prince of Israel” whose time of final punishment has come (21:25), who is asked to take off his crown (21:26a) because all is ruin “until he comes whose right it is; to him I will give it” (21:27). Also note Sir. 3:19: “Many are lofty and renowned, but to the humble he reveals his secrets.” A similar passage is found in Let. Aris. 263, which answers the king’s question of how one can avoid being arrogant: “By maintaining impartiality, and by reminding himself in the case of each individual that he is a ruler of men and still a man himself. Moreover, God destroys the proud, and exalts the gentle and humble.” The allusion to these OT and Jewish texts in Luke 14:11 indicates that the assertion in v. 10 needs to be seen in a larger, eschatological perspective. The source of honor (doxa [14:10]) in God’s kingdom is derived not from the social order described by affluent friends, siblings, relatives, or rich neighbors (cf. 14:12), but from the judgment of God (note the passivum divinum of hypsōthēsetai in 14:11; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1045), who loves the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind (cf. 14:13). Jesus emphasizes that God implements new values in his kingdom, values that differ from those that control the contemporary social world. The text asserts that “the only commendation one needs comes from God who is unimpressed with such social credentials as govern social relations in Luke’s world” (Green 1997: 552). God acknowledges as guests in his kingdom only those who acknowledge their own poverty.
14:15–24
The parable of the Great Supper (14:15–24) contains several OT allusions that Jesus’ audience would easily have noticed. It has been suggested that the excuses of the invited guests as described in 14:18–20 allude to Deut. 20, which lists various reasons that provide legitimate excuses for not joining an army at war (Derrett 1970: 126–55). It is argued that there is a close relationship between the notion of preparation for holy war and the preparation to enter the great banquet that is celebrated when the kingdom of God arrives (J. A. Sanders 1974: 257–58; C. A. Evans 1990: 225). This is not very likely, since the features of war and king are absent from the parable (Marshall 1978: 586, 588; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1056; Nolland 1989–1993: 756; Bovon 1989–2001: 2:509–10). Jesus does not refer to “fighting” for the kingdom of God. The excuse of the third invited guest in 14:20, “I have just married,” has been said to recall Deut. 20:5–7; 24:5 (cf. m. Soṭah 8:1–6), recognizing the status of newlyweds (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1056). On the other hand, he was invited to a banquet that would separate him from his new wife only for several hours. The dominant factor in this excuse is either the obligation to conceive a child or the weakness of the excuse (Marshall 1978: 589). The suggested links with Deut. 20 depend in a large measure on the question whether Luke’s central section corresponds to the contents and themes of Deut. 1–26. If this is indeed the case, then the parable of the Great Supper can be interpreted in terms of protesting and challenging abuses of Deuteronomy’s theology and ethic of election—that is, the assumption that the blessings and the curses of Deuteronomy are reflected in people’s health and wealth or, respectively, their sickness and poverty, signaling either the righteousness or the sinfulness of individuals (J. A. Sanders 1974, followed by C. A. Evans 1990: 223–26).
Another question relates to “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (14:21) who are invited instead of the original, evidently wealthy and respectable, guests. Some have suggested a link with Lev. 21:17–23, where such people are described as being unqualified for and therefore excluded from priestly service, even if they were Levites (J. A. Sanders [1974: 262] points out that this list in Lev. 21 inspired the stipulations in 1QM VII, 4–6; 1Q28a II, 3–22, texts that exclude such “defective” persons from participation in the eschatological holy war and from the feast). Possibly these were “popular” views (so C. A. Evans 1990: 225) that Jesus rejects with his parable, but this cannot be demonstrated. Some commentators relate the list of the disadvantaged to the OT tradition of Yahweh’s mercy for the downtrodden, the oppressed, the ill, and the weak (Bovon 1989–2001: 2:512, with reference to Isa. 35:5–6a: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy”).
Whether Jesus (or Luke) intended to see a reference to the Gentiles in the third series of invitees (14:23), who live in “the roads and lanes” on the edge of the town, continues to be debated. Luke does not provide any hints in the parable concerning socioreligious identifications. Traditions in the OT of the eschatological banquet help us to understand the parable. Note, for example, Isa. 25:6–10:
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear. And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. Then the LORD God will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.
Granted that the OT tradition of the eschatological banquet scene reverberates through the parable, one cannot preclude the possibility that Gentiles might be included (Green 1997: 561).
14:26
In the context of a passage on the conditions of discipleship (14:25–33), Jesus asserts in 14:26, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” The first part of this stipulation alludes to the commandment “Honor your father and mother” (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Some scholars argue that 14:26 constitutes the annulment of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue (Hengel 1981: 13), while others point out that this is unlikely in the light of 16:17 and that the rabbis were well aware of the fact that the Torah sometimes presented conflicting claims, a situation that did not entail a “deconstruction of Torah but the subordination of one commandment to another” (Allison 2000a: 63, with reference to m. Yoma 8:6; b. Yebam. 5b; 90b). Jesus’ requirement has been explained as echoing Deut. 33:9, where Levi’s devotion to the Torah is highlighted (Marshall 1978: 592; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1063; Bovon 1989–2001: 2:533). Levi is reported to have said of his father and mother, “I regard them not,” because “he ignored his kin, and did not acknowledge his children; for they observed your word, and kept your covenant.” The fact that Deut. 33:9 is quoted in Jewish texts suggests that Jesus’ stipulation does not contradict Torah (Allison 2000a: 64, referring to 4Q175 14–20; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 2.51; Worse 67; Drunkenness 72; b. Yoma 66b; Num. Rab. 1:121; Eccles. Rab. 4:8).
The unit of three parables in chapter 15—the Lost Sheep (15:4–7), the Lost Coin (15:8–10), and the Lost Son (15:11–32)—has been explained as an allusion to Jer. 31:10–20, a text in which Yahweh is a shepherd who gathers his flock (31:10–14), Rachel weeps for her children (31:15–17), and Ephraim is the son of Joseph who repents and receives God’s mercy (31:18–20) (Kossen 1956; for a critique, see Marshall 1978: 598; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1072). Although this suggestion is plausible for the parable of the Lost Son, there are no clearly discernible echoes of Jer. 31 in the first two parables, which makes rather unlikely the view that Jer. 31 explains or dictates the composition of Luke 15.
The view that interprets Luke’s central section against the background of Deut. 1–26 links chapter 15, particularly the parable of the Lost Son, with Deut. 21:15–22:4 (C. F. Evans 1955: 48; C. A. Evans 1990: 234). The parallels are as follows. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 deals with the status of a firstborn son, who will be honored over a second son even if the father loves the second son more than the firstborn; the firstborn son will receive a “double portion” of the father’s inheritance (21:17). Deuteronomy 21:18–21 deals with an obstinate son who does not obey his father and is “a glutton and a drunkard”; such a son will be taken out of the city and stoned. Jesus’ parable stands in stark contrast to this part of Deuteronomistic legislation: the wayward son is not expelled and stoned; rather, the father receives him back into the family (C. A. Evans [1990: 234] points out that Deut. 21 formulates civil law and does not intend to exclude the possibility of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration).
15:4
In the parable of the Lost Sheep (15:4–7) the description of the shepherd who goes after the one lost sheep (15:4) echoes Ezek. 34:11–12, 16:
For thus says the LORD God: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. . . . I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak.
Jesus asserts that he does the work of God, whose love and mercy for sinful and weak people is reflected in Jesus’ calling tax collectors and sinners (15:1) to repentance. As Jesus’ audience consists of the Pharisees and scribes who complain about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners (15:2), he challenges them to understand themselves as shepherds. The Pharisees’ and scribes’ lack of concern and mercy for sinners echoes Ezek. 34, in which Yahweh directs the prophet to speak against the leaders of the nation who neglect their duties and leave Israel scattered “like sheep without a shepherd,” announcing that Yahweh himself will seek out, rescue, and care for the sheep. Jesus’ parable indicts the scribes and Pharisees for their failure to be the faithful shepherds of Yahweh’s flock and implies that Jesus’ love and mercy for the sinners is consistent with Yahweh’s mercy and care for his sheep (Green 1997: 574–75). The emphasis on joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner in 15:7 may echo Ezek. 18:23: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the LORD God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?” (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1078).
15:11–32
In the parable of the Lost Son (15:11–32) the younger son asks the father to give him the share of the property that will fall to him (dos moi to epiballon meros tēs ousias [15:12]). Since, according to Deut. 21:17, the firstborn son was to receive twice the amount that a father would give to each of the other sons, the younger of the two sons in Jesus’ parable would receive one-third of the property on his father’s death. The legal situation presupposed by the father’s actions in the parable raises several problems.
(1) A father could dispose of his property in two ways: either by a will (Gk. diathēkē) that is executed after his death or as a gift during his lifetime (Gk. dōrēma; Lat. donatio inter vivos). In OT law the disposal of property upon the death of a father is regulated in Num. 27:8–11; 36:7–9. The possibility of a father disposing of part of his estate by gift during his lifetime is not addressed in OT law, although it is possible that Abraham’s behavior reported in Gen. 25:5–6 (“Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living”) survived in Jewish society and “allowed for a settlement upon younger sons, leaving the main estate intact for the eldest son” (Nolland 1989–1993: 782; Daube 1955: 330–33). Sirach 33:20–24 warns fathers against passing on their property to their children during their lifetime:
To son or wife, to brother or friend, do not give power over yourself, as long as you live; and do not give your property to another, in case you change your mind and must ask for it. While you are still alive and have breath in you, do not let anyone take your place. For it is better that your children should ask from you than that you should look to the hand of your children. Excel in all that you do; bring no stain upon your honor. At the time when you end the days of your life, in the hour of death, distribute your inheritance.
Sirach’s warning confirms that this custom existed in Jewish society of the Second Temple period (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1087; see also Tob. 8:21; b. B. Meṣiʿa 75b, which is also critical). It seems plausible to assume that a Jewish father who (partially) disposes of his estate in his lifetime would follow the stipulation of Deut. 21:17 and give a double share to the firstborn son. Some scholars suggest that the younger son would have received less than one-third, possibly two-ninths (Derrett 1970: 100–125).
(2) It was presumably highly irregular, and certainly strikingly presumptuous, for the younger son to initiate the settlement of his father’s estate and to request his father to dispose of (at least part of) his property. Nothing in the parable hints at plausible reasons for the younger son’s action, such as the prospect of an imminent marriage (cf. m. B. Bat. 8:7) or plans to emigrate with the goal of improving his life situation (see Jeremias 1971: 129). The parable does not explain why the father acquiesced to the wishes of his younger son, whose request signifies his rejection of his family (Green 1997: 580). The father characterizes the son, at the end of the story, as dead and lost (15:24, 32).
(3) The disposition of the father’s property during his lifetime, giving his younger son the portion that was his due, would not have required the father to dispose of his entire estate and give two-thirds to his elder son. However, this apparently is what happened: 15:12 asserts that the father “divided his property between them,” and in 15:31 the father emphasizes in his conversation with the elder son that “all that is mine is yours.” The continuation of the parable suggests, on the other hand, that the elder son does not exercise the main control over the estate: in 15:22–24 it is the father who commands the servants, slaughters the fatted calf, and organizes the feast (Nolland 1989–1993: 782). Perhaps the father had merely assigned capital goods to the elder son rather than the claim of their produce during his lifetime, thus allowing him to retain an interest in the property until his death (cf. m. B. Bat. 8:7; see Nolland 1989–1993: 782).
(4) On the assumption that the father had given property to his younger son, 15:13, “after not many days the younger son gathered together all he had,” seems to imply that the latter liquidated his portion of the inheritance and turned it into cash. The available evidence concerning the legal situation suggests that “if the son sold the property, the purchaser would take possession of it only at the death of the father. In doing so, the younger son would have no further claim on the property, either capital or usufruct” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1087). The younger son acknowledges this when he repents and returns to the father (15:19). If this is indeed the legal scenario, then the father would not have been in a position to reinstate the younger son without infringing on the property rights that he had signed over to the elder son.
(5) Thus the scope of the younger son’s reinstatement is disputed (see below on 15:20–24). If the son is restored to the status of son, then the emphasis may be solely on the father’s surprising forgiveness and compassion, which fly in the face of accepted social custom, and on the honor that the undeserving but repentant son receives (Nolland 1989–1993; Green 1997). If the son is indeed reinstated “with full privileges” (Bock 1994–1996: 1314), then the emphasis is on the authority, possessions, and freedom that the repentant son is given by his compassionate father. In this case, the dramatic setting of the parable simply does not raise the question of the legal status and the further inheritance of the restored son (Marshall 1978: 607).
The reference to “pigs” (Gk. choiros) in 15:15–16 echoes the OT legislation that declared pigs as “unclean” and forbidden as food for Israel (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8; cf. Isa. 65:4). Rabbinic tradition formulates the dictum “Cursed is the man who rears swine” (b. B. Qam. 82b; cf. y. Ter. 8:46b [62]; Gen. Rab. 63:8; see Lachs 1987: 308).
The scene of reconciliation of father and prodigal son in 15:20–24—the embrace, the kiss, and the gifts of robe, ring, and sandals—underlines the restoration of the son to the father and to the family that he had rebuffed. The gift of a robe and of a ring is interpreted by some scholars in the light of Gen. 41:42, where Pharaoh makes Joseph his plenipotentiary, and Esther 8:2, where Mordecai is honored with a ring (see Jeremias 1971: 130; Marshall 1978: 610–11). Others argue that there is no clear evidence in the text that the younger son is invested with his father’s authority: the ring is not identified as a signet ring, and the robe might simply have been a basic necessity, given the destitute state of the son (15:15–16), rather than a dress code symbolizing social status. If the latter interpretation is followed, then the symbolic actions in 15:20–24 simply “signify the restoration of the younger son’s honor as son” (C. A. Evans 1990: 583; cf. Nolland 1989–1993: 785, with reference to Esther 6:11 for a comparable concern with honor).
The application of the parable of the Shrewd Manager (16:1–9) in 16:9, “And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of mammon so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal tents [aiōniai skēnai],” possibly echoes the exodus tradition, as it refers to the “tent” (skēnē) or tabernacle of God’s presence (see TDNT 7:378–79; Bovon 1989–2001: 3:81; Bock [1994–1996: 1333n20] sees an allusion to the Feast of Tabernacles [heortē skēnōn], which celebrates the exodus [Lev. 23:34]). The adjective “eternal” clarifies that Jesus refers not to temporary dwellings, but rather to the permanent place where God’s presence dwells (Marshall 1978: 621).
Jesus’ sayings in 16:10–13 about stewardship and wealth draw lessons from the parable of the Shrewd Manager (16:1–9), describing “a form of stewardship that is firmly rooted in the OT understanding of Yahweh as the true owner and conferrer of all land and property” with the corollary that since property and land are given to God’s people to manage in the horizon of their accountability before God, they are to be used for the good of all, including the poor (Green 1997: 597, with reference to Gen. 12:7; Exod. 3:8; 32:13; Lev. 20:45; 25; Deut. 7:13).
16:15
Verse 15 belongs to the sayings that Luke appends to the parable of the Shrewd Manager (16:1–9), while the reference to the Pharisees in 16:14 strengthens the link between 15:1–32 and 16:1–31, reporting the Pharisees’ negative response to the teaching of the parable (16:1–8) and to Jesus’ assertions about God and mammon (16:9–13). Verse 15 states that money may help a person to secure an image of uprightness in the eyes of fellow citizens, but that this means nothing to God, who knows the depths and desires of the human heart, and who alone establishes the value of human beings (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1112). The statement in 16:15 “God knows your hearts”—that is, the seat of human desire and volition, reaction and emotion—echoes OT passages such as Deut. 8:2; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Ps. 7:10; 44:21; Prov. 21:2; 24:12; Jer. 11:20; 17:9–10 (cf. Acts 1:24; 15:8). The notion that God knows the innermost being of people affirms God’s omniscience. As for the Pharisees, as “lovers of money” who seek to bolster their own righteousness before others, Jesus condemns both their inner disposition and their outer behavior (Green 1997: 602).
The assertion in 16:15b, “What is prized [hypsēlon] by human beings is an abomination [bdelygma] in the sight of God,” echoes OT passages that use the term “abomination” (bdelygma, translating Heb. šeqqûṣ and tôʿēbāh), meaning generally “unclean” (e.g., Gen. 43:32; 46:34; Exod. 8:26 [8:22 MT/LXX]), and more specifically “idolatry” (e.g., Deut. 7:25; 12:31; 1 Kings 11:5; cf. Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). Several OT passages affirm that God rejects self-adoration; note, for example, Prov. 16:5: “All those who are arrogant [hypsēlokardios] are an abomination to the LORD [akathartos para theō]; be assured, they will not go unpunished”; Isa. 2:9–11: “And so people are humbled, and everyone is brought low—do not forgive them! Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust from the terror of the LORD, and from the glory of his majesty. The haughty eyes of people shall be brought low, and the pride of everyone shall be humbled; and the LORD alone will be exalted on that day.” Other OT passages also link pride with idolatry (cf. 1 Kings 11:5; Dan. 11:31; see Lachs 1987: 311). A later rabbinic text closely parallels Luke 16:15b: “All who are lofty of heart are called an abomination, as it is said, ‘Everyone who is lofty of heart is an abomination to the Lord’ [Prov. 16:5]. Idolatry is called ‘abomination,’ as it is said, ‘And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thine house’ [Deut. 7:26]. As idolatry pollutes the land and causes the Shekhinah to withdraw from it, so also does pride” (Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael Baḥodesh 9 on Exod. 20:21).
16:16–17
The statement in 16:16a, “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came,” should not be taken to mean that Luke sees the law as no longer having any validity. Luke’s narrative shows that this is not the case (Powery 1999: 197–98): the law continues (cf. 2:23–24) to play an important role after 16:16 (cf. 23:56; 24:44), Paul is presented as respecting the law (cf. Acts 21:20, 24; 24:14; 25:8), and in 16:17 Luke reports Jesus’ assertion “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.” The reference to the temporary nature of the original creation in 16:17 echoes Job 14:12; Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 51:6; Jer. 4:23–26; Amos 9:8 (cf. 1 En. 72:1; 91:16; Tg. Ps. 102:27; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 21:1; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1118).
16:18
Jesus’ stipulation concerning divorce and remarriage in 16:18, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery,” would have been heard against the background of the Mosaic legislation concerning divorce in Deut. 24:1–4, one of the rare cases where the subject matter alone was sufficient to recall a specific OT text (Allison 2000a: 65). Jesus proclaims monogamy and prohibits successive polygamy that divorce makes possible (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1121). Jesus’ fundamental assertion in 16:17 about the inviolable validity of the law indicates that his prohibition of divorce is not understood as an abrogation of the law. Yahweh’s declaration in Mal. 2:16, “I hate divorce,” has a similar ring to Jesus’ words (note that whereas Mal. 2:16 may be interpreted in terms of spiritual unfaithfulness, b. Giṭ. 90b and the LXX interpret the passage as opposing divorce; see Allison 2000a: 65). This verse shows that “Jesus’ affirmation of the authority of the law is qualified by his (implicit) insistence that the law does not speak for itself and is susceptible to erroneous appropriation” (Green 1997: 604).
Jesus’ prohibition of divorce has been explained against the background of arguably similar stipulations in the Qumran community (cf. 11Q19 LVII, 17–19; CD-A IV, 19–21) and in terms of the members of priestly families serving in the temple: “They shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled; neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God” (Isaksson 1965: 147; Fitzmyer 1981–1995: 1121). Jesus’ high standards concerning marriage can be understood as reflecting the fact that his followers have an even higher calling than the priests have, which means that their standards cannot be any lower (C. A. Evans 1990: 247; note Instone-Brewer [2002: 159–60, 166], who argues that Luke presents an abbreviated version of Jesus’ saying).
The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus contains several OT allusions and echoes. Commentators point out that the parable alludes to the injunctions regarding the treatment of the poor and needy in Deut. 24:7–15 (C. F. Evans 1955: 49; C. A. Evans 1990: 250; cf. Marshall 1978: 632). The clothing of the rich man is described in 16:19, “dressed in purple and fine linen,” in OT terms reminiscent of Prov. 31:22, suggesting that he lived like a king (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1130). The name “Lazarus” (16:20), which corresponds to the Hebrew name “Eliezer” (“God helps”), has sometimes been taken to allude to Abraham’s trusted servant of the same name (Gen. 15:1–2), due to the presence of Abraham in the story (Derrett 1970: 86–87): Eliezer came close to becoming Abraham’s heir (Gen. 15:2–4), and he was afraid that he might not be welcome before he met Rebekah at the well (Gen. 24:10–12) (see the critique in Bovon 1989–2001: 3:120). The reference to the dogs who came and licked Lazarus’s sores (16:21) echoes OT passages in which dogs consume the dead (cf. 1 Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; Ps. 22:15–16; Jer. 15:3; see Hultgren 2000: 112). The statement in 16:22 that Lazarus was “carried away by the angels to be with Abraham” has been interpreted as alluding to Enoch, who was taken to heaven by God (Gen. 5:24), and to Elijah, who was taken to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11) (see Hultgren 2000: 113). This is unlikely, however, because these heroes of the OT were extricated from death (Bovon 1989–2001: 3:120–21). The notion of flames (16:24)—that is, fire—in Hades probably echoes Isa. 66:24, “And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (cf. Sir. 21:9–10; 1 En. 10:13; 63:10; Rev. 20:14–15; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1133). Several OT passages refer to thirst as an image of divine judgment (cf. Isa. 5:13; 50:2; 65:13; Hos. 2:3 [2:5 MT]; 2 Esd. 8:59; 1 En. 22:9; see TDNT 2:228–29; Bock 1994–1996: 1371). The notion that the dead can contact the living, especially through dreams (16:27–28, 30), echoes 1 Sam. 28:6–19; 2 Kings 21:6; Isa. 8:19 (there are also Greek parallels [see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1134]). Abraham’s reply to the rich man who wants to have his brothers warned so that they may avoid his fate by repenting—probably from indulging in the same hard-hearted lifestyle—in 16:27, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them,” echoes numerous OT passages that teach how fellow human beings should be treated, especially the poor (cf. Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–3, 7–12; 22:1–2; 23:19; 24:7–15, 19–21; 25:13–14; Isa. 3:14–15; 5:7–8; 10:1–3; 32:6–7; 58:3, 6–10; Jer. 5:26–28; 7:5–6; Ezek. 18:12–18; 33:15; Amos 2:6–8; 5:11–12; 8:4–6; Mic. 2:1–2; 3:1–3; 6:10–11; Zech. 7:9–10; Mal. 3:5; see Bock 1994–1996: 1375).
Jesus’ statement about forgiveness in 17:3–4, “If your brother sins [ean hamartē ho adelphos sou], you must rebuke [epitimēson] the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. And if he sins [hamartēsē] against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive,” alludes to Lev. 19:17, “You shall not hate your brother [ton adelphon sou] in your heart, but you shall reprove [elegmō elenxeis] your neighbor, lest you bear sin [hamartian] because of him,” as the verbal and particularly the material parallels indicate (the parallel in Matt. 18:15 has elenxon, a Matthean hapax legomenon, which corresponds to Lev. 19:17 LXX more closely; see Allison 2000a: 65–66; Plummer 1896: 400; the NRSV translation of Lev. 19:17, “You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin,” and of Luke 17:3, “if another disciple sins,” obscures the parallels). The exhortation in Lev. 19:17a indicates that “hate is not just emotion, but implies a mental activity, namely, plotting countermeasures,” while 19:17b “provides the answer to the prohibition against harboring hatred” (Milgrom 1991–2001: 1646, 1647). The wisdom tradition interprets the outlawed hatred “in the heart” in Lev. 19:17a as covered under a veil of hypocrisy (cf. Prov. 10:18; 26:24–25; cf. Zech. 8:17). In Jewish tradition Lev. 19:17 was interpreted in two ways: (1) in a moral sense, that the unoffended person shall not reproach the offending person so insistently that the offender is moved to swear (cf. T. Gad 6:3–4); (2) in a legal sense, that the reproach of the offender by the offended person is a necessary step in the judicial process, which, if the matter is not resolved, takes the offender to court (CD-A IX, 2–8; 1QS V, 23–VI, 1) (see Kugel 1987: 49–54, 57–58; Hartley 1992: 317). Jesus’ stipulation in 17:3 agrees with Lev. 19:17, which demands that one reprove a brother, while 17:4 emphasizes the need to forgive once the person who has been rebuked repents, even if forgiveness might need to be extended seven times a day—that is, again and again and again. As much as Jesus is interested in correction, he is more interested in forgiveness, which knows no limits.
The demand to forgive seven times a day probably represents a deliberate reversal of a Jewish exegetical tradition concerning the phrase “you shall reprove [hôkēaḥ tôkîaḥ] your neighbor” (Allison 2000a: 67–68). The rabbinic text Sipra 200 on Lev. 19:17 says, “And how do we know that if one has rebuked him four or five times, he should still go and rebuke him again? Scripture says, ‘Reproving you will reprove [hôkēaḥ tôkîaḥ] your neighbor.’ Should one suppose that this is to be done even if his countenance blanches when he is rebuked? Scripture says, ‘Or you will incur guilt yourself.’” A similar interpretation is given in b. B. Meṣiʿa 31a: “One of the rabbis said to Raba: [You will not hate your brother in your heart but] hôkēaḥ tôkîaḥ [you will surely reprove] your neighbor. Perhaps hôkēaḥ means once, tôkîaḥ twice? He replied, hôkēaḥ implies even a hundred times.” If this exegetical tradition lies behind the interpretation of Lev. 19:17 in the first century, Jesus challenges it: “What he demands is not repeated rebukes but repeated acts of forgiveness” (Allison 2000a: 67). Another Jewish text is closer to Jesus’ saying, T. Gad 6:3, 7: “Love one another from the heart, therefore, and if anyone sins against you, speak to him in peace. Expel the venom of hatred, and do not harbor deceit in your heart. If anyone confesses and repents, forgive him. . . . But even if he is devoid of shame and persists in his wickedness, forgive him from the heart and leave vengeance to God” (Kugel 1987; Allison 2000a: 67; Bock 1994–1996: 1389).
17:11–19
The story of the grateful Samaritan leper evokes the OT story of the healing of Naaman, a foreigner who likewise had suffered from leprosy (2 Kings 5:1–19). Some scholars suggest that Luke’s story is a retelling of the Naaman story, investing Jesus with prophetic characteristics and making him greater than Elisha (Bruners 1977: 103–18; for a critique, see H. D. Betz 1981: 339), while others deny any connection with 2 Kings 5 (Glöckner 1983: 131–39). Most scholars take a mediating position, acknowledging allusions to the Naaman account (e.g., Nolland 1989–1993: 844). The allusion is established by several elements: the characterization of Naaman and the Samaritan as lepers and as foreigners, the Samaritan location, the communication from a distance, the delayed cleansing (after leaving the healer), the return of the healed leper, praise from the healed leper, and thanksgiving. The point of the allusion is both christological and theological: the story underscores again the connection between Jesus and God’s prophets in the Scriptures, and it emphasizes that not only do Israelites receive the benefits of salvation, but foreigners do as well (Green 1997: 620).
Jesus’ command in 17:14, “Go and show yourselves to the priests” (epideixate heautous tois hiereusin), alludes to Lev. 13:49: “If the disease shows greenish or reddish in the garment, whether in warp or woof or in skin or in anything made of skin, it is a leprous disease and shall be shown to the priest [deixei tō hierei]” (cf. Lev. 14:2–4). A priest was required to assess whether the skin disease had cleared up before the leper could be readmitted into society. The action of the Samaritan in 17:15 is startling: when he realizes on the way to the temple (on Mount Gerizim?) that he is healed, he evidently does not continue on his journey, but rather returns to Jesus, acknowledging that God’s healing power is present in Jesus (Green 1997: 621).
17:21
Jesus’ declaration that the kingdom of God cannot be determined through scientific analysis, and that it cannot be localized in a particular place or nation (Green 1997: 629), because “in fact, the kingdom of God is among you,” possibly echoes Isa. 45:14, “God is among you,” if Jesus indeed emphasizes that the kingdom of God is closely related to his person, message, and activity (see Bock 1994–1996: 1416).
17:24–25
Jesus compares the coming of the Son of Man with the flashing of lightning, which lights up the sky (17:24), echoing OT passages in which the image of lightning is tied to theophanies, suggesting that the return of the Son of Man involves God acting on behalf of his people (cf. Exod. 19:16–20; 20:18–20; Ps. 97:2–4; Ezek. 1:4, 13; see Bock 1994–1996: 1429). In Jesus’ fifth passion prediction, in Luke in 17:25 (see 9:22, 44; 12:50; 13:32–33; cf. 18:32–33), the use of the verb paradidōmi is probably an allusion to the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53, since “here, as nowhere else in the Old Testament, are the sufferings of the (Messianic) figure explicitly and consistently attributed to the activity of Yahweh” (Moo 1983: 95–96; cf. Lindars 1961: 80–81; Strauss 1995: 328; differently, France 1971: 126; Hooker 1998: 94). The verb apodokimasthēnai may echo the “rejected stone” of Ps. 118:22 (117:22 LXX) (Constant 2001: 282–83).
17:26–37
In 17:26–37 Jesus describes the “days of the Son of Man” (17:22–25) and compares them with “the days of Noah” (17:26–27) and with “the days of Lot” (17:28–29), warning against the indifference and nonchalance of “this generation,” which will face judgment on the day of the Son of Man (17:30–35).
The reference to the “days of Noah” in 17:26–27 alludes to Gen. 6–7; the reference to Noah entering the ark (eisēlthen . . . eis tēn kibōton) alludes to Gen. 7:7, “And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark [eisēlthen . . . eis tēn kibōton] to escape the waters of the flood”; the reference to the “flood” (kataklysmos [only here in Luke-Acts]) alludes to Gen. 6:17; 7:6, 7, 10, 17; and the reference to the destruction of humankind alludes to Gen. 7:21–23, “And all flesh died that moved on the earth . . . everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth.” One commentator has called Luke’s text “a composite Genesis commentary” (Stendahl 1968: 93).
Luke’s typological appeal to the flood in the “days of Noah,” which he compares to the “days of the Son of Man,” has roots in the Jewish tradition that uses the flood as a prototype of the last judgment or of the end of the world (cf. Isa. 24:18; 3 Macc. 2:4; Jub. 20:5–6; 1 En. 1–16; 67:10; 93:4; L.A.B. 3:1–3, 9–10; 49:3; Josephus, Ant. 1.72–76; see also 2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6–7; 2 En. [J] 70:10; Apoc. Adam 3:3; 3 En. 45:3; Mek. Exod. 18:1; b. Sanh. 108a; see Lewis 1968: 10–100; Schlosser 1973; Allison 2000a: 93). Jesus does not focus on the sins of Noah’s contemporaries, as the rabbis did (cf. m. Sanh. 10:1; see Str-B 1:961–64), nor on Noah’s righteousness, but rather on the unexpectedness of the cataclysm (cf. Jesus’ statements in 17:22–24, 28). Interpreted against the background of Jewish traditions about Noah, the text’s emphasis is not on the impossibility of knowing the day on which the last judgment will arrive, but rather on the unwillingness of Jesus’ contemporaries to reckon with the possibility and prospect of divine judgment (Nolland 1989–1993: 860).
Several explanations have been given for the fact that Luke uses neutral terms to describe the “days of Noah” (17:26) as monopolized by people who were “eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark,” when “the flood came and destroyed all of them” (17:27). First, it can be argued that Luke uses neutral or indifferent activities to connote the “wickedness of humanity” and the “evil inclination” of people’s hearts (Gen. 6:5) and the “corruption” and “violence” (Gen. 6:11) of Noah’s generation (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1170; Bock 1994–1996: 1432). Second, it has been suggested that the list of everyday activities describes people then and now as unsuspecting and unprepared for the judgment that God announced (Zahn 1988: 602; Marshall 1978: 663; Stein 1992: 439). Third, it can be argued that Luke lists activities, not inherently bad, that can prove to be potentially disastrous distractions from the necessity of recognizing and obeying God’s purposes (Green 1997: 635). Fourth, read against the background of the description of Noah’s contemporaries in Gen. 6, “eating and drinking” might have been understood in terms of pejorative connotations, and “marrying and being given in marriage” may have recalled the giants of Gen. 6:1–4 and their intercourse with human women (Allison 2000a: 94). These interpretations are not mutually exclusive: although it is indisputable that the list of everyday “neutral” activities underlines the unpreparedness of the generation of Noah’s contemporaries, and that eating and drinking can distract from the much more serious question of God’s revealed purposes, it is equally evident that they were destroyed in the flood not because they were distracted or unprepared, but because they deserved God’s judgment. This is confirmed by the Jewish traditions that allude to the flood, emphasizing the certainty of judgment rather than the suddenness of its arrival (see Schlosser 1973; Nolland 1989–1993: 860).
The opening words of 17:26, “just as it was in the days of Noah,” may also allude to Isa. 54:9–10, which begins with the words “this is like the days of Noah to me” (thus the reading in 1QIsaa and the reading presupposed by Symmachus, Theodotion, the Peshitta, the Targum, and the Vulgate; cf. NRSV, NIV; MT has kî-mê noaḥ, and LXX translates apo tou hydatos epi Nōe; see Allison 2000a: 118; Oswalt 1986–1998: 2:413n14). Isaiah 54:9–10 continues, “For this is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you.” Whereas Isaiah recalls the days of Noah in order to emphasize God’s compassion, Jesus offers no reassurances and announces judgment. It is possible, although this cannot be demonstrated, that Jesus changes the tone vis-à-vis Isaiah (so Allison 2000a: 118).
The reference to the “days of Lot” (17:28) alludes to the people who lived in “the cities of the plain,” particularly of Sodom, where Lot lived after his separation from Abraham (Gen. 13:12–13; 19:1–11). While Gen. 13:13 describes the people of Sodom as “wicked, great sinners against the LORD,” Luke’s reference to Sodom’s people as “eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building” (17:28), again, does not explicate the sinfulness of these people. It is not clear whether the fact that some of these activities are referred to by Luke as “distractions from what human existence should be about” (Fitzmyer [1981–1985: 1171], who refers to 14:18–19 for buying, to 12:18–19 for eating, drinking, and building, and to 19:45 for selling; cf. Schneider 1992: 356–57; Green 1997: 635) is relevant for the interpretation of 17:28, characterizing their existence as culpable nonchalance. We should note that Luke does not indicate that these activities can be distractions. Nor does the list of activities by itself suggest the activity of immoral 348 people (so Bock [1994–1996: 1433], who refers to Deut. 32:32–33; Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46–52). The activities of the people of Sodom are listed as normal rhythms of everyday life (Nolland 1989–1993: 860). They underline the unexpectedness of God’s judgment.
The reference to Lot leaving Sodom (17:29a) alludes to Gen. 19:16–17, omitting the note that Lot “lingered” in the city before the angels forced him to leave. The statement that “it rained fire and sulfur from heaven” (ebrexen pyr kai theion ap’ ouranou [17:29b]) alludes to Gen. 19:24 (ebrexen . . . theion kai pyr para kyriou ek tou ouranou). Fire and sulfur, signifying volcanic eruptions, occur elsewhere in the OT as references to divine judgment of the land or of apostates and sinners (cf. Deut. 29:23; Job 18:15; Ps. 11:6; Isa. 30:33; Ezek. 38:22; cf. 3 Macc. 2:5; Philo, Moses 2.10; cf. also Rev. 9:17–18; 14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8; see Bock 1994–1996: 1433–34; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1171).
In order to reinforce his emphasis in 17:31 on the necessity to act decisively in view of the approaching catastrophe, to flee without stopping to collect personal possessions and without looking back to house and home in order not to be swallowed up by the coming judgment, Luke reminds his readers in 17:32 of Lot’s wife (“Remember Lot’s wife!”). Genesis 19:26 describes Lot’s wife as “looking back” (epeblepsen . . . eis ta opisō), a phrase that is perhaps echoed in 17:31, where Jesus warns against “looking back” (mē epistrepsatō eis ta opisō). Jesus does not mention the OT statement that she became a “pillar of salt,” as he could assume his listeners’ familiarity with this story and its tradition. Note that Josephus claims that he has seen this pillar (Josephus, Ant. 1.203). In Wis. 10:7 Lot’s wife is described as “a monument to an unbelieving soul.” Jesus’ reference to Lot’s wife may be interpreted, similarly, as a general warning to his unbelieving contemporaries to accept and heed his announcement of the impending divine judgment (Stein 1992: 440); or, it may be interpreted as a warning to his followers that belonging to the rescued group does not absolve them from taking decisive, radical action, particularly renouncing personal possessions and pursuits (Marshall 1978: 665; Nolland 1989–1993: 861).
The statement in 17:34–35 possibly also alludes to the Noah narrative: despite the wickedness of the era preceding the flood, there was Enoch, who “walked with God” (Gen. 5:21–24), and whom “God took” (Gen. 5:24), a phrase that was understood to mean that Enoch was transported to heaven (Sir. 49:14; 1 En. 14:8; 70:1–3; Jub. 4:23; 10:17; Philo, Names 38; L.A.B. 1:15–16; cf. Heb. 11:5; Ascen. Isa. 9:9 [Ethiopic]; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 5:24). Readers who had just been reminded of the flood at the time of Noah might draw the conclusion that just as Enoch the righteous was snatched by God from the midst of a wicked generation, so also the righteous will be “taken” in the last days when the final cataclysm destroys the world (Allison 2000a: 94–95).
In the parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge (18:2–5), the characterization of the judge in 18:2 evokes OT passages against the background of which he appears as a negative character. The statement that he does not fear God possibly echoes 2 Chron. 19:7, where King Jehoshaphat appoints judges in Judah, charging them, “Let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care what you do, for there is no perversion of justice with the LORD our God, or partiality, or taking of bribes.” Despite the emphasis on impartiality in 2 Chron. 19, the OT repeatedly speaks of the obligation to show special regard for the alien, the orphan, and the widow (see Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut. 14:28–29; 24:19–22; 26:12; cf. James 1:27; on widows, see also Exod. 22:22–24; Deut. 10:16–18; 24:17; Ps. 68:5; Isa. 1:16–17; 54:4; Lam. 1:1; Mal. 3:5) (see Green 1997: 639).
In Jesus’ comments on the parable in 18:7, after directing the disciples to learn from the judge’s behavior that God, who is just, surely will respond to the persistent prayer of his people (18:6), Jesus asserts with a rhetorical question that “God will vindicate his chosen ones” who cry to him day and night. The term “the chosen ones” (hoi eklektoi), used in Luke-Acts only here, echoes texts such as Isa. 42:1; 43:20; 65:9, 15, 22; Ps. 105:6, 43 (cf. Sir. 47:22), which use the term “chosen” in a context that emphasizes election to serve Yahweh (see Delling 1970b: 215–16; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1180; Green [1997: 642] also refers to Deut. 4:37; 7:7; 1 Chron. 16:13; Ps. 77:31; 88:3). The widow in the parable represents God’s elect, who are thus characterized as people who persevere in faith and prayer (18:1, 8) in the midst of hostilities during the time in which they wait for the visible consummation of the kingdom of God (note the context in 17:22–37).
18:9–14
In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, Jesus uses the subject of prayer in order to continue to explain the character and the behavior that are demonstrated in people who are fit for the kingdom of God (Green 1997: 644). Jesus contrasts a Pharisee and a tax collector in stark terms with the intention of prompting the audience to identify with the tax collector as the (paradoxical) positive model. The text contains several OT allusions (for an interpretation against the background of Deut. 26, see C. A. Evans 1994).
In 18:9 Luke records that Jesus told this parable “to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous [tous pepoithotas eph’ heautois hoti eisin dikaioi] and regarded others with contempt.” This situational comment echoes Ezek. 33:13, a text in which the prophet had criticized his contemporaries for trusting in their own righteousness: “Though I say to the righteous [tō dikaiō] that they shall surely live, yet if they trust in their righteousness [pepoithen epi tē dikaiosynē autou] and commit iniquity, none of their righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that they have committed they shall die” (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1185). The pride of self-righteousness is condemned in several Jewish texts (cf. 1QS XI, 1–2; 1QHa XV, 34; Josephus, J.W. 1.110; m. ʾAbot 2:4–5; b. Ber. 28b; b. Sanh. 101a; b. Sukkah 45b; note also t. Ber. 6:18, where a male Jew thanks God that he is not a Gentile, a boor, or a woman; see Jeremias 1971: 142–43; Bock 1994–1996: 1161).
In the prayer of the Pharisee in 18:11 the reference to “thieves, rogues, adulterers” echoes the seventh and eighth commandments of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:14–15; Deut. 5:18–19), with the middle term, “rogues” (adikoi, “unrighteous” or “evildoers”), being a generic reference to lawlessness.
The reference to fasting in 18:12 echoes the stipulation to fast on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29, 31; 23:27, 29, 32; Num. 29:7), during Purim (Esther 9:31), and during further annual days of fasting (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19), as well as OT passages that report fasting by individuals as an expression of mourning (2 Sam. 12:21), penance (1 Kings 21:27; Ezra 10:6), and supplication (Neh. 1:4; Dan. 9:3) (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1187; Nolland 1989–1993: 876). Verse 12 is the earliest text that attests the Jewish custom of fasting twice a week (according to b. Taʿan. 12a, on Mondays and Thursdays; cf. y. Pesaḥ 4:1). Fasting involved eating only bread and drinking only water. The reference to tithing recalls Lev. 27:30–32; Num. 18:21–24; Deut. 14:22–27.
The tax collector’s reticence to “look up to heaven” (18:13a) echoes Ezra’s prayer upon hearing of the numerous mixed marriages in Jerusalem: “O my God, I am too ashamed and embarrassed to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens” (Ezra 9:6) (see Nolland [1989–1993: 877], who also refers to Josephus, Ant. 11.143). Both of the situational comments in 18:13a—the downward gaze and the breast-beating—speak of a deep sense of unworthiness and embarrassment.
The tax collector’s prayer in 18:13b, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” (ho theos hilasthēti moi tō hamartōlō), echoes Ps. 51:1, 3 (50:3, 5 LXX), “Have mercy on me, O God. . . . For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me” (50:3, 5 LXX: eleēson me ho theos . . . kai hē hamartia mou enōpion mou estin dia pantos) (see Marshall 1978: 680; cf. Fitzmyer [1981–1985: 1188], who for the spirit of the prayer refers to 1QS XI, 3–5, 9–12; 1QHa XIX, 15–22). The verb hilaskomai occurs only here in Luke-Acts, in the sense “be merciful/gracious,” which is found also in Add. Esth. 4:17h (13:17 NRSV), “Hear my prayer, and have mercy upon your inheritance”; Lam. 3:42, “We have transgressed and rebelled, and you have not forgiven”; Dan. 9:19 (Θ; NRSV), “O LORD, hear; O LORD, forgive; O LORD, listen and act and do not delay! For your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people bear your name!”
Jesus’ declaration in 18:14, “For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted” (pas ho hypsōn heauton tapeinōthēsetai, ho de tapeinōn heauton hypsōthēsetai), echoes Ezek. 21:26: “Exalt that which is low, and abase that which is high” (21:31 LXX: etapeinōsas to hypsēlon kai to tapeinon hypsōsas) (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1189). The suggestion that this conclusion of the parable parallels the confession of Deut. 26:5–10, in which the father tells his family of Israel’s disgrace and eventual glory (C. A. Evans 1994: 351), has no linguistic basis in the text, and the material parallels are remote.
18:18–20
A. NT Context of Exod. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:17–20: The Question about Eternal Life. Near the end of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, Luke recounts an encounter with a magistrate who asks Jesus how he can inherit eternal life (18:18–23). This encounter follows after the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (18:9–14), which highlights the attitude of humility that God commends in order to be justified and God’s openness to sinners who contritely appeal for mercy, and after Jesus’ calling little children (18:15–17), which emphasizes the notion of complete trust as a precondition for receiving the kingdom of God. The question of the magistrate, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (18:18), is identical with the question asked in 10:25 by a scribe who, unlike the magistrate in Luke 18, seeks to “test” Jesus. The notions of “being justified” (18:14), “receiving the kingdom” (18:17), and “inheriting eternal life” (18:18) are related in Luke-Acts (Nolland 1989–1993: 884).
The expression “eternal life” (zōē aiōnios [18:18]) occurs for the first time in Dan. 12:2 in the context of Daniel’s prophecy of the final deliverance of Israel, in the days when “Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people” will arise, days of anguish “such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence” (12:1). At that time, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life [ḥayyê ʿôlām; LXX: zōē aiōnios], and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2). Daniel 12:2 predicts a bodily life on earth, while v. 3 speaks of the wise teachers and of those who lead others to righteousness as being exalted to the heavenly realm and shining “like the brightness of the firmament” and “like the stars forever and ever.” Many see this as an allusion to the scenario in Isa. 65:17–25, which speaks of the creation of a “new heavens and a new earth” and of days when the righteous will live long lives in the new Jerusalem. In texts of the Second Temple period the phrase “eternal life” becomes increasingly frequent (cf. 2 Macc. 7:9; Pss. Sol. 3:12; 1 En. 37:4; 40:9; 58:3; 4 Macc. 15:3; in the Qumran literature, see 4Q181 1 II, 4; CD-A III, 20; for belief in eternal life, see also 1QS IV, 6–8; 1QHa XI, 19–23; XIX, 10–14).
Jesus’ answer, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (18:19), echoes the OT theme of the goodness of Yahweh (cf. 1 Chron. 16:34; 2 Chron. 5:13; Ps. 25:8; 34:8; 100:5; 106:1; 118:1, 29; 136:1; Nah. 1:7), combined with an allusion to the monotheistic belief in the oneness of God in the OT (cf. Deut. 6:4). The emphasis that true goodness belongs to God implies neither that Jesus asserts his divinity nor that he acknowledges his sinfulness; rather, it finds fault with the notion that Jesus is a teacher, even a “good” teacher, but nothing more (Marshall 1978: 684). Jesus’ answer perhaps also suggests that Jesus rejects the word game rooted in contemporary traditional concerns with status that the ruler plays by commending Jesus as “good,” refusing to be defined by the standard values of society by expressing a similar commendation in return (Green 1997: 655).
In contrast to Luke 10:25–28, where the discussion about eternal life quotes from Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18, which focus on loving Yahweh and on loving one’s neighbor as oneself, Jesus quotes in Luke 18:20 five commandments from the Decalogue: “You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother’” (Exod. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:16–20; for the commandment to honor father and mother, see also Lev. 19:3). These are commandments seven, six, eight, nine, and five from the second part of the Decalogue. The commandment “You shall not bear false witness” [mē pseudomartyrēsēs] abbreviates the longer commandment “You shall not bear false witness [ou pseudomartyrēseis . . . martyrian pseudē] against your neighbor” (Deut. 5:20). The reduced form brings the citation formally into line with the other commands (see Nolland 1989–1993: 886). This is the only explicit OT quotation by Jesus that Luke includes in the central section of his Gospel.
B. Exod. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:17–20 in Context. In Exodus the Decalogue in 20:1–17 follows Moses’ encounter with Yahweh on Sinai (19:1–13) and the consecration of Israel for the nation’s encounter with God at the foot of the mountain on which Yahweh’s presence was revealed (19:14–25; cf. 20:18–21). The Decalogue is followed by an exposition of Yahweh’s laws (20:22–23:33) and the confirmation of Yahweh’s covenant that he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (24:1–18; cf. 2:24; 6:2–5; 19:5). The Decalogue is understood as an “essential segment of the account of Yahweh’s presentation of himself to Israel” (Durham 1987: 278). In Deuteronomy the Decalogue is repeated in 5:6–21 in the context of the second major section of Moses’ address to Israel on the plain of Moab in 4:44–26:19, after the historical prologue in 1:6–4:43. After a brief introduction to the declaration of the law (4:44–49), Moses’ exposition and exhortation of the basic commandments follow (5:1–11:32): the summons to obey the law (5:1–5) is followed by the Decalogue (5:6–21), followed by an explanation of Moses’ mediatory role at Horeb (5:22–33). In Deuteronomy the Decalogue is again presented as the foundation of the covenant relationship that Yahweh has granted to Israel: it is legally binding as an expression of Israel’s response of love for Yahweh (6:4–5), who saved the nation from slavery in Egypt (7:6) (see Craigie 1976: 149–50). Apart from Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, the commandments of the Decalogue are rarely cited in the OT, but note the reflection of the Ten Commandments in Exod. 34:17–26; Lev. 19:1–4, 11–19, 26–37; Deut. 27:15–26; Ps. 15:2–5; Jer. 7:9; Ezek. 18:5–9; Hos. 4:1–2 (see Durham 1987: 280–81).
C. Exod. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:17–20 in Judaism. There is ample evidence that the Decalogue was a central piece of Jewish tradition in the Second Temple period: the Nash Papyrus and the tefillin found at Qumran suggest a liturgical significance of the Ten Commandments, and the evidence of early rabbinic texts indicates that the recitation of the Decalogue was an integral part of the daily temple service (cf. m. Tamid 5:1; see ABD 6:386). In contrast to later Christian commentators, the rabbis never isolated the Decalogue from the rest of the Torah. However, the fact that some sources classify the 613 commandments of the Torah under the ten headings of the commandments of the Decalogue underscores the foundational significance of these commandments (cf. Philo, Decalogue; Num. Rab. 13:15–16).
D. Textual Matters. Luke’s list of the commandments of the Decalogue is remarkable for two reasons. First, the form of the commandments uses mē and the aorist subjunctive (as in Mark 10:19), while the LXX uses ou with future indicative in both Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 (as in Matt. 19:18–19). This indicates that “Luke is here dependent on the tradition followed by Mk” (Marshall 1978: 685; differently, Kimball 1994b: 135–36). Second, Luke inverts the order of the first two commandments quoted by Mark and omits “You shall not defraud,” which is not among the Ten Commandments (also omitted by Matthew, who, however, follows the order of commandments in Mark). While Mark and Matthew preserve the order of the first four commandments in the MT and in LXX Codex A of Exod. 20:12–16 and Deut. 5:17–18, Luke preserves the order of the first four commandments as found in LXX Codex B of Deut. 5:17–18; Nash Papyrus lines 18–19; Philo, Decalogue 51 (cf. Rom. 13:9; James 2:11). Many scholars explain this divergence of order from the MT (which is followed in the parallel texts in Mark and Matthew) in terms of Luke following a catechetical pattern that was in use in the early church (Stendahl 1968: 62; Gundry 1967: 17–19; Holtz 1968: 81–82; Thomas 1975–1976; Marshall 1978: 685; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1199; Kimball 1994b: 139; Powery 1999: 222; Albl 1999: 191).
E. The Use of Exod. 20:12–16; Deut. 5:16–20 in Luke 18:20. Jesus quotes in 18:20 the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth, and fifth commandments from the second part of the Decalogue, answering the magistrate’s question concerning the requirements for being granted eternal life. After accepting the magistrate’s response that he keeps the law (18:21), Jesus asserts that what he lacks is selling his possessions, giving the proceeds to the poor, and following him (18:22). Jesus thus emphasizes that keeping the law and maintaining covenant loyalty to Yahweh is no longer sufficient for entering eternal life: it is now necessary to be loyal to him, to acknowledge the significance of his person and message for God’s covenant with Israel, to recognize the authority of Yahweh in his ministry and thus to be willing, if summoned, to sell all possessions, trusting God to supply all needs in the following of Jesus. Obedience to God’s revelation in the covenant and in the Mosaic Torah is no longer sufficient to inherit eternal life; such obedience must be coupled with obedience to Jesus. Jesus’ initial answer to the magistrate confirms “the validity and continuing life-giving significance of the OT commandments of God” (Nolland 1989–1993: 886; cf. Powery 1999: 223). In the next verses Luke contrasts the reaction of the magistrate (18:23) with the disciples who have left everything to follow Jesus (18:24–30).
Jesus’ assertion in 18:19 that “no one is good but God alone” echoes texts such as 1 Chron. 16:34; 2 Chron. 5:13; Ps. 34:8; 118:1, 29; Nah. 1:7 (cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.14; Dreams 1.23). Jesus directs the ruler’s attention to God and to the will of God as the source of everything that is good—that is, of what pleases God (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1199). This means that since nobody is “good” as a result of personal behavior and achievements, nobody can be saved and inherit eternal life as the result of religious and moral achievements: only God can save and grant entrance into the kingdom of God (18:25–27).
F. Theological Use. Jesus’ quotation of the commandments of the Decalogue (18:20) is not meant as a provocation for the Jewish leader who had asked him about the entrance requirements for eternal life, suggesting that if the leader thinks that he has indeed obeyed these commandments—which he does (18:21)—he is misguided. Jesus’ directive that the archōn sell all possessions and follow him (18:22) is not a test to establish whether he has kept the law only “externally” or whether he truly loves God and neighbor (cf. 10:27); rather, Jesus makes it clear that to obtain eternal life now requires more than obedience to God’s revelation in the law: it requires following Jesus (18:20), linked with the recognition that it is Jesus who provides entrance into the kingdom of God (18:24, 29). Thus Jesus’ reference to the Decalogue and his directive to sell all possessions and follow him aim not at demonstrating the necessity of repentance (so Rusam 2003: 122), but rather at establishing for the Jewish leader the connection between himself and the kingdom of God and thus of his authority to ask what only God can ask (selling all possessions).
The OT quotation in 18:20 is therefore intended to show the way to eternal life: the keeping of the commandments of the Torah needs to be linked with following Jesus—that is, with the active recognition that Jesus embodies and inaugurates the kingdom of God, that Jesus has divine authority and can expect full obedience even in matters such as personal possessions.
18:24, 27
Jesus’ statement that it is “hard for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” in 18:24 echoes OT passages that warn not to think of wealth as an automatic sign of blessing (cf. Prov. 28:6; 30:7–9; Jer. 5:27–28; Amos 8:4–8; Mic. 2:1–5; cf. Sir. 10:22–23; for OT passages that could be appealed to for such a notion, see Deut. 8:1–10; 26:1–9; 28:12–14; Prov. 6:6–11; 10:4; 28:19; see Bock 1994–1996: 1484–85). On the background of the pervasiveness of a theology that linked divine blessing and wealth and that attributed poverty to laziness and wickedness, Jesus emphasizes that in the new world order of the kingdom of God, status distinctions based on wealth—used by leaders such as the magistrate who had asked Jesus the question about entry into eternal life (18:18), people who generally were in charge of the interpretation of Scripture, as a source of legitimation—have become irrelevant and certainly do not determine one’s standing before God (Green 1997: 657–58).
Jesus’ reply to his disciples’ astonished reaction in 18:27, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God” (ta adynata para anthrōpois dynata para tō theō estin) echoes Gen. 18:14 LXX (mē adynatei para tō theō, “nothing is impossible before God”), in a passage in which Yahweh assures Abraham that his promise that he will have a child through Sarah will certainly come to pass despite the fact that she is too old to have children. Since God can work the impossible, he can break the spell that wealth and possessions hold on people (see Bock [1994–1996: 1487], who also refers to Jer. 32:17; Zech. 8:6).
18:31–32
Jesus’ declaration to his disciples in 18:31, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be fulfilled,” sets the stage for scriptural prophecies concerning Israel’s promised savior to “play a major role in the unfolding of events” (Wagner 1997: 165). If the reference to the Son of Man is understood as a reference to the messianic figure who suffers, then both Isa. 53 and Dan. 7:13 may be in view (Nolland [1989–1993: 895] points out that the book of Daniel is not among the prophets in the Masoretic divisions of the Hebrew Bible, which may suggest that Jesus has a broader scope of texts in mind, cf. Bock 1994–1996: 1496). Jesus’ declaration alerts Luke’s readers to expect allusions to Scripture in the passion narrative that follows. It is thus plausible to argue at least for the possibility that the use of the verb paradidōmi in 18:32 represents (as in 17:25) an allusion to the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53 (Lindars 1961: 80–81; Moo 1983: 92–96; Strauss 1995: 328).
18:38–39
The blind beggar in Jericho who was healed by Jesus (18:35–43) addresses Jesus as “Son of David” (huie Dauid [cf. 1:27, 32; 2:4])—the first public declaration that Jesus is the long-awaited Son of David—a royal messianic designation that alludes to 2 Sam. 7:12–16, a text in which Yahweh promises David a descendant whose throne would be established forever and who would be Yahweh’s son (cf. Ps. 89:3–4; Pss. Sol. 17–18; 1QM XI, 1–18; 4Q174 I, 10–13; 4Q161 8–10 III, 18–21; 4Q175 9–13; 2 Esd. 12:31–32; see Green 1997: 663). The expectation of a healing miracle that would allow the blind man to regain his eyesight is derived from the expectation of the servant of God who would give sight to the blind (Isa. 61:1; note the link that Jesus establishes between Isa. 61:1 and his ministry of restoration and healing). The blind man evidently inferred from the reports about Jesus’ miracle-working activity that he possessed divine authorization to wield divine power and that his mission could, or should, be understood in messianic terms—the mighty works of Jesus legitimate him as the Son of David, who does the work of Yahweh’s servant (see Marshall 1978: 693; Green 1997: 665). Some scholars interpret the blind man’s cry for mercy as an echo of David’s plea in the penitential lament of Ps. 51:1 (cf. Ps. 6:2; 9:13; 41:4, 10; 123:3; see Bock 1994–1996: 1508; Ernst 1977: 510).
Zacchaeus’s declaration in 19:8, “If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much,” alludes to Exod. 22:1, “four sheep for a [stolen] sheep,” and 2 Sam. 12:6, “he shall restore the lamb fourfold.” The LXX of 2 Sam. 12:6 has “sevenfold” (cf. Josephus, Ant. 16.3): rustlers were required to repay the amount plus a threefold penalty. Since the legal restitution for monetary extortion was the amount plus twenty percent (Lev. 5:16; Num. 5:7), Zacchaeus’s resolve is an expression not only of his willingness to restore the damage that he has caused but also of his inward transformation resulting from his encounter with Jesus (Nolland 1989–1993: 907; for a critique of Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1225, cf. C. A. Evans [1990: 280] and Green [1997: 671–72], who argue that Zacchaeus describes in 19:8 his regular practice and not his postconversion intention; see also Nolland 1989–1993: 907; Bock 1994–1996: 1519–20; Bovon 1989–2001: 3:275).
The assertion in 19:10, “for the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost [zētēsai kai sōsai to apolōlos], concludes the Zacchaeus story and sums up the soteriological message of Luke’s central section: Jesus has come to seek and save the lost. This formulation echoes Yahweh’s self-description in Ezek. 34:16 as the true shepherd who will seek and save the lost sheep of Israel: “I will seek the lost [to apolōlos zētēsō], and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak” (see France 1971: 96; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1222; Bovon 1989–2001: 2:277). Jesus describes his mission in terms of the will of Yahweh, who seeks out the lost in Israel, healing and restoring the people who have been mistreated by Israel’s leaders.
19:23
In the parable of the Ten Pounds (19:11–27), the master’s question, “Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest” (19:23), echoes Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36–37; Deut. 23:19–20, passages that prohibit Israelites from charging and collecting interest (from Israelites). Perhaps the parable implies that even lending the money to non-Jews would have been better than inaction (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1237).
Luke 19:28–40
Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ royal entry into Jerusalem contains several allusions to and echoes of OT passages.
The geographical reference not only to Bethphage and Bethany but also to the “Mount of Olives” in 19:29 has been treated as a possible allusion to Zech. 14:4 as the place where the Messiah will show himself; according to Zech. 14:4, “On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward” (see Rusam 2003: 225). However, since there are no verbal parallels besides the reference to the Mount of Olives, and since the messianic implications of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem surface only later in the narrative, it is more plausible to assert that Luke makes nothing of this point (Bock 1994–1996: 1553).
The reference to the “colt” (pōlos [19:30, 33, 35]) that had never been ridden (19:30), and the use of the verbs epibibazō (“to cause someone to mount, to put on” [19:35]) and chairō (“rejoice” [19:37]), suggest an allusion to Zech. 9:9 LXX, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion . . . your king comes to you . . . riding on a new donkey” (chaire . . . epibebēkōs epi hypozygion kai pōlon neon), a text that speaks of a humble and gentle king who is victorious because God has delivered him and who brings peace and prosperity (see France 1971: 105; Bock 1994–1996: 1556; Green 1997: 685; Wagner 1997: 165; Tan 1997: 150–51; differently, Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1244; Kinman 1995: 109–15). Zechariah 9 begins with a judgment oracle against Israel’s enemies (vv. 1–8) to the northwest, west, and southwest of Jerusalem, ending with the promise that Yahweh will establish a garrison in Jerusalem that will guarantee the city protection. The following oracle begins with the announcement that Zion’s king is coming to the city (for potential links of Zech. 9:9–10 with the narrative of Solomon coming to Zion in 1 Kings 1, see Kinman 1995: 54–56). As Luke brings out this allusion more clearly than Mark, he emphasizes (again) the nature of Jesus’ messiahship: Jesus arrives in Jerusalem not as a conquering warrior, but riding on a colt—that is, as the triumphant yet humble king (Strauss 1995: 314). Some scholars refer to Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen. 49:11 for the association of a colt with the Messiah (Wagner 1997: 166, with reference to Blenkinsopp 1961; Green 1997: 684).
Other scholars refer to the account in 1 Kings 1:28–53, depicting Solomon riding on David’s mule (hēmionos), which was symbolically significant for the new king’s claims to be David’s legitimate successor (Fernández-Marcos 1987; Kinman 1995: 49–54, 91–94, 109–13). If the narrative of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem alludes to Solomon, then Luke may want to reinforce the idea that even though Jesus’ royal credentials are authentic, “he will not usurp political power but, like Solomon before him, will wait to receive it at the appropriate time” (Kinman 1995: 112–13). Since both the verbal and the material links with Zech. 9:9 are stronger, the parallels with 1 Kings 1 appear to be reflections of royal motifs. Note that although in 1 Kings 1 the motif of an orchestrated welcome is significant, the motif of entry is not: Solomon moves from the city to the spring of Gihon in the Kidron Valley and back to the city, movements that are mentioned only in passing; also, the animal on which he rides is not described as a pōlos.
Some suggest an allusion to Isa. 1:3, “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not understand,” with the argument that the context of Isa. 1 accounts for Luke’s inclusion of the Pharisees’ criticism of the excited crowds in 19:39 and of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem’s ignorance (Danker 1988: 312). This interpretation may be too subtle. If Zech. 9:9 is taken as the most plausible background, then Jesus’ symbolic action of riding on a donkey implies the claim that he is the viceroy of Yahweh who fulfills the promises of the restoration of Jerusalem (Tan 1997: 151; cf. J. A. Sanders 1993a: 179).
The assertion in 19:36 that people were “spreading their cloaks on the road” (hypestrōnnyon ta himatia autōn en tē hodō) has been interpreted as an echo of the homage paid to the newly anointed King Jehu in 2 Kings 9:13 LXX (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1250; Green 1997: 685; Kinman 1995: 95; Rusam 2003: 227; cf. Lachs [1987: 344], who points to Yal. Exodus 168 and b. Ketub. 66b for parallel practices reported in later rabbinic literature).
The reference to the Mount of Olives in 19:37 is probably not an allusion to Zech. 14:4, one of two OT texts (cf. also 2 Sam. 15:30) that mention the Mount of Olives. Zechariah states that “on that day” Yahweh (Bock [1994–1996: 1553] speaks of the Messiah) “shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley.” Luke makes nothing of the passage in the context of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Kinman 1995: 95).
The greeting in 19:38a, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” (eulogēmenos ho erchomenos ho basileus en onomati kyriou), is an allusion to Ps. 118:26 (117:26 LXX: eulogēmenos ho erchomenos en onomati kyriou). The acclamation corresponds formally to acclamations of kings in the OT (cf. 1 Sam. 10:24; 1 Kings 1:34, 39; 2 Kings 11:12; see Kinman 1995: 96; Rusam 2003: 226). The addition of “the king” may reflect a reference to the historical context of Ps. 118, which perhaps was originally addressed to the king (see Weiser 1962: 724–27); or, the term ho basileus was added in order to emphasize Jesus’ royal status more clearly than Mark does. If Luke generally follows the text of Mark in this passage, then he has omitted the Grecized Aramaism hōsanna (Mark 11:9), either because he follows the wording of Ps. 118:26 (117:26 LXX) or—the Hebrew hôšîʿâ nāʾ (transliterated in Greek as hōsanna occurs in Ps. 118:25, where the LXX translates it as sōson dē (“save indeed”)—due to his custom of eliminating Semitic words or phrases (Zahn 1988: 12n20; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 58, 1250; for other connections between 19:38 and Ps. 118, see Constant 2001: 289–91). The addition of “the king” may also reinforce the allusion to Zech. 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you [ho basileus sou erchetai soi] triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (see Rusam 2003: 227). Interpreted in the context of the first quotation of Ps. 118:26 in Luke 13:35, where the positive reception of the king in Jerusalem was at least a possibility, it is significant that here it is “the whole multitude of the disciples” (19:37) who welcome Jesus with the words of the psalm, indicating that “Jerusalem” has not received Jesus as king-messiah (see Wagner 1997: 167; Kinman 1995: 98). The fact that Jesus planned the event of his entry into Jerusalem (19:28–32) “suggests his awareness and promotion of its messianic connotations” (Kinman 1995: 97).
The shout in 19:38c, “Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!” (doxa en hypsistois), echoes Ps. 148:1, “Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights!” (LXX: aineite ton kyrion ek tōn ouranōn, aineite auton en tois hypsistois). In Tg. Ps. 148:1 the heavenly beings and the hosts of angels are called upon to praise God (Lachs 1987: 345). The phrase “peace in heaven” suggests that the messianic peace that Luke connects with Jesus is realized now only in heaven; since the Jerusalem leadership rejects the “peace on earth” (2:14) of the kingdom of God (19:42), it must await the parousia to be realized. Although Jesus is indeed the king of Zech. 9:9 and Ps. 118:26 who brings peace to Jerusalem, “this peace is presently available only in the spiritual realm” (Strauss 1995: 315, with reference to Luke’s other citation of Ps. 118:26 in 13:35).
In 19:40 Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ request for the disciples to stop the celebrating crowd, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out” (hoi lithoi kraxousin), possibly alludes to Hab. 2:11, “for the stone will cry out from the wall” (LXX: dioti lithos ek toixou boēsetai), in a passage in which the prophet levels charges against the Chaldeans and predicts their eventual destruction, calling in v. 11 inanimate objects to witness the divine judgment (Ellis 1974: 226; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1252). If Hab. 2:11 is in view, then Jesus’ reply may imply a comparison of Habakkuk’s Chaldeans with the citizens of Jerusalem, expressing the notion that Jesus regards the Jerusalemites’ failure to welcome him as more heinous than the sins of the Chaldeans (cf. 10:12–14), or it may be a veiled threat of the future destruction of the city (see Kinman 1995: 99). The later rabbis used Hab. 2:11 similarly (cf. Midr. Ps. 73:4 (108a); b. Ḥag. 16a; b. Taʾan. 11a; see Lachs 1987: 346). Some commentators have argued that in 19:40 the stones of the temple are in view (cf. Ps. 118:26: “We bless you from the house of the LORD”), advancing three reasons for this interpretation: (1) there is a wordplay on “stone” in the temple scenes in 19:44; 20:6, 17–18; 21:5–6; (2) after his arrival, Jesus immediately enters the temple (19:45–46); (3) in his references to Ps. 118:22 Luke contrasts the stones of the temple with Jesus as the divinely chosen cornerstone (J. A. Sanders 1993a: 150; Wagner 1997: 168). Others see Jesus’ reply as a straightforward metaphor, similar to OT texts that speak of creation responding with joy to the coming of God (Ps. 96:11–13; Isa. 55:12). These scholars suggest that the responses of Jesus’ disciples and the response of the stones are equivalent: “This moment is of such importance that it must find a response—if not a human one, then another” (Kinman [1995: 100], who points to Cicero, Pis. 52, as a non-Semitic parallel; cf. TDNT 4:270; Green 1997: 688n27).
19:41–44
In the Lukan narrative of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in 19:41–44, several OT allusions have been identified.
In 19:41 Jesus’ weeping at the sight of the city is a prophetic sign for the destruction of Jerusalem, which is predicted in the following verses. Weeping as a prophetic sign has parallels in 2 Kings 8:11; Jer. 9:1 (8:23 MT). In 2 Kings 8:11 Elisha weeps in the presence of Hazael and explains that he knows the evil that Hazael will do to the people of Israel; note 8:12: “You will set their fortresses on fire, you will kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their pregnant women.” In Jer. 9:1 (8:23 MT) the prophet cries out: “O that my head were a spring of water, and my eyes a fountain of tears, so that I might weep day and night for the slain of my poor people!” Note Jer. 14:17: “Let my eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease, for the virgin daughter—my people—is struck down with a crushing blow, with a very grievous wound” (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1258; Bock 1994–1996: 1560).
The five descriptions of hostile activity against Jerusalem in 19:43–44 echo several OT passages. First, “your enemies will set up ramparts around you” (parembalousin hoi echthroi sou charaka soi [19:43]) echoes Isa. 29:3: “And I will encamp against you round about [balō peri se charaka]; I will besiege you with towers and raise siegeworks against you” (cf. Isa. 37:33; Jer. 6:6–21; Ezek. 4:1–3; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1258). Second, “your enemies will . . . surround you” (perikyklōsousin se [19:43]) echoes 2 Kings 6:14: “So he sent horses and chariots there and a great army; they came by night, and surrounded the city.” Third, “your enemies will . . . hem you in on every side” (synexousin se pantothen [19:43]) echoes Jer. 52:5; Ezek. 4:2; 21:22. Fourth, “they will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you” (edaphiousin se kai ta tekna sou en soi [19:44]) echoes the taunt addressed to the “daughter of Babylon” in Ps. 137:9, “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” (136:9 LXX: hos kratēsei kai edapiei ta nēpia sou pros tēn petran), and also 2 Kings 8:12; Hos. 10:14; Nah. 3:10 (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1258; Neyrey 1985: 116). Fifth, “they will not leave within you one stone upon another” (ouk aphēsousin lithon epi lithon en soi [19:44]) echoes the prophecy of Mic. 3:12: “Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins.” These several OT echoes suggest that Luke portrays Jerusalem’s rejection of Jesus as reminiscent of Israel’s betrayal of the covenant that caused the first destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (Green 1997: 691).
The concluding statement in 19:44, “because you did not recognize the time of your visitation [episkopē] from God,” probably refers, positively, to the coming of God’s grace and power, echoing LXX texts such as Gen. 50:24–25; Exod. 3:7, 16; Job 10:12; 29:4 (cf. Wis. 2:20; 3:13; see Marshall 1978: 719; Bock 1994–1996: 1563). If “visitation” is understood negatively in terms of divine judgment, then appeal is made to the LXX texts Isa. 10:3; Jer. 6:15; 10:15. The “visitation” that was intended to bring salvation for the nation, as proclaimed by Jesus, now becomes the basis for divine judgment in the future (Marshall 1978: 719).
19:45–46
A. NT Context: The Messiah and the Temple. After recounting Jesus’ royal entry into Jerusalem (19:28–40) and his lament over the city (19:41–44), Luke narrates Jesus’ arrival in the precinct of the temple (19:45). Before the note that Jesus taught in the temple precinct (to hieron) “daily” (kath’ hēmeran [19:47]), Luke includes the episode of Jesus’ “cleansing of the temple,” as the episode is traditionally referred to. The purpose of this episode has traditionally been linked with Jesus’ action: he begins to “drive out” (ekballō) the vendors who sold animals for the various sacrifices (oxen, sheep, pigeons [cf. John 2:14]) and other forms of offerings (19:45) (Luke omits from Mark references to the buyers, the money changers, and the dove sellers [cf. Mark 11:15]). The focus on Jesus’ action prompts scholars to interpret it as a prophetic act that purges the temple of those who profane it by corrupt commercial activity (see Nolland 1989–1993: 938). It seems preferable, however, to interpret the purpose of Jesus’ action in connection with his accompanying teaching.
Luke summarizes Jesus’ teaching on this occasion with an OT quotation from Isa. 56:7 and with an allusion to Jer. 7:11 (and perhaps echoing Zech. 14:21; Mal. 3:1): “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a ‘den of robbers’” (19:46). Interpreted in the context of these OT texts, Jesus—standing in the court of the Gentiles, in which the temple authorities tolerated the commercial activities—proclaims the holiness of the entire temple area and thus announces the beginning of the (messianic) transformation of the temple and of its role, and, indeed, the destruction of the temple.
B. Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11 in Context. The text from Isa. 56:7 belongs to a larger context in which Yahweh announces that his salvation will come soon and his deliverance will be revealed (56:1). This will be a time in which foreigners and eunuchs, people who had been excluded (for eunuchs, see Lev. 21:20; Deut. 23:1; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.290–291; for foreigners, see Exod. 12:43; Lev. 22:25; Deut. 23:3–7; Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13:1–3, 23–31; Ezek. 44:9), will no longer be separated from God’s people (56:3). Some scholars caution that since our knowledge of postexilic Jewish history is limited, there is insufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the measures against the proselytes against which Isa. 56:1–8 protests (56:6 implies that the foreigners who keep Yahweh’s covenant are proselytes) were those of the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Rather, the text may address a movement that demanded the exclusion of proselytes (Van Winkle 1997). In 56:4–7 Yahweh addresses in two parallel sections the eunuchs (56:4–5) and the foreigners (56:6–7), each of which begins with a threefold characterization of these groups of people. They have in common that they keep the Sabbath and Yahweh’s covenant (56:4, 6). God promises the eunuchs who keep his covenant “in my house and within my walls” both “a monument” and “an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (56:5). And God promises the foreigners who come to love his name and hold fast his covenant that he will bring them “to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (ho gar oikos mou oikos proseuchēs klēthēsetai pasin tois ethnesin [56:7]). In other words, the foreigners/proselytes are promised full access to and participation in the cult in the Jerusalem temple. The Lord “who gathers the outcasts of Israel” promises that he will “gather others to them besides those already gathered” (56:8); in other words, non-Israelites, non-Jews will be added to God’s people to enjoy his salvific presence, extending God’s promise of integration into his people beyond the proselytes to “all nations.” In the context of 2:2–4; 60:1–9, 14; 62:2; 66:18–21, the promise in 56:7 receives an eschatological-messianic dimension: a time will come in which Gentiles will be allowed to worship in the temple, and when they even will be involved in priestly ministry (66:21). B. F. Meyer summarizes the eschatological perspective regarding the temple in the book of Isaiah: “The temple, then, would have a role not only in Israel and for history but for the whole world at time’s end in the reign of God (Isa. 2:2–4; 56:1–8). This would be the last and eternal—the eschatological—temple, located on a Zion (Isa. 2:2–4; 28:16) rebuilt in carnelians and sapphires (Isa. 54:11). . . . This temple no one could build but God himself—or the Messiah transcendently enthroned at his right hand” (Meyer 1979: 184). Understood in this context, Isa. 56:7 promises the Gentiles, together with Israel, participation in Yahweh’s eschatological salvation in the eschatological temple.
The second part of Jesus’ teaching focused on Jer. 7:11—linked with Isa. 56:7 by the reference to “this/my house”—a text that belongs to the larger context of Jer. 7:1–20, in which the word of the Lord, proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah, standing in the gate of the temple, warned the people of Judah that if they continue to desecrate the temple through lawlessness and idolatry (7:6, 9), they should not trust in the fact that this is the temple of the Lord (7:4) as a guarantee of their safety (7:10). The prophet asks, accusingly, in the name of Yahweh, “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den [cave] of robbers [hamĕʿārat pāriṣîm; LXX: spēlaion lēstōn] in your sight?” (7:11). He challenges the Judeans to remember the destruction of Shiloh—Yahweh’s dwelling place after Israel entered the promised land (7:12; cf. Judg. 18:31; 1 Sam. 1:3; 3:21; 4:3–4)—a fate that will fall on Jerusalem as its people refuse to listen to God’s message (7:13–15; cf. 7:20). From a form-critical perspective, Jer. 7:1–15 is a sermon exhorting the nation to repent, but the content, particularly the conclusion of the sermon, implies that judgment and destruction are inevitable (von Rad 2001: 2:197–98). The repentance and change that would procure Yahweh’s salvation and the Judeans’ continued existence in the land (7:7) are opportunities that have been forfeited. Jeremiah unmasks the false sense of security of the Judeans who believe that their misdeeds cannot rob them of the protection that the existence of the temple in Jerusalem provides, guaranteeing the presence of Yahweh. Jeremiah is told to proclaim a message of destruction, even though the Judeans will neither listen nor obey (7:27–28): the city, the temple, and the land will be laid waste (7:34). Jeremiah will announce in a later message that Yahweh will leave his “house” (Jer. 12:7).
C. Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11 in Judaism. The prophecy of Isa. 56:7 was understood to refer to the eschatological temple, expecting an influx of Gentiles to Zion to worship Yahweh in this temple (Tan 1997: 188–89, with reference to Ps. 22:27; Isa. 2:2–3; Zeph. 3:9–10; Tob. 13:11; Pss. Sol. 17:31, 34; Sib. Or. 3:702–718, 772–76; T. Benj. 9:2). A different tendency can be observed in Tg. Isa. 56:1–12, which emphasizes the return of the “outcasts of Israel,” who are identified with the “exiles” (56:8), and the victory of “Jerusalem” over the Gentile “kings of the peoples” (56:9), placing Isa. 56:7 in a nationalistic rather than universalistic context (see Str-B 1:852–53; TDNT 5:121).
The Targum interprets “den of robbers” as an assembly of the ungodly. The translation of the LXX renders the Hebrew literally. The prophet Jesus ben Ananias used Jer. 7 to prophecy doom against Jerusalem and against the temple in AD 62–69 (Josephus, J.W. 6.300–309). He does not call the temple a “cave of robbers,” but he does refer to the “voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride,” quoting Jer. 7:34 (for the parallels between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus ben Ananias, see C. A. Evans 2001: 177).
D. Textual Matters. Whereas Mark 11:17 quotes Isa. 56:7 verbatim, Luke has altered the wording, replacing klēthēsetai (“will be called”) with kai estai (“and will be”). The term klēthēsetai is the variant reading in C2 1241 1424 e r1 Epiph, probably a harmonization with the wording of Matthew or Mark, or of Isa. 56:7 LXX. Luke may follow a pre-Markan tradition of Jesus’ words, as suggested by the phrase kai estai, which may suggest a Semitic background (Holtz 1968: 164). Further, Luke omits the phrase pasin tois ethnesin, “for all nations” (see discussion below).
E. The Use of Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11 in Luke 19:46. Jesus’ teaching, occurring in the court of the Gentiles and referring to Isa. 56:7, advocates the holiness of the entire temple precinct, the possibility that Yahweh may be worshiped by the Gentiles, who were allowed to stand here and who were expected to come to Zion in the last days. Note that Jesus does not disturb the sacrifices in the interior temple courts, which did not depend upon the sale of sacrificial animals in the court of the Gentiles, nor does he advocate for a cult without sacrifices.
Why, given his interest in the Gentile mission, does Luke omit the phrase pasin tois ethnesin (“for all nations”)? Some suggest that since by the time of Luke’s writing of the Gospel the temple had been destroyed and had in fact not become a house of prayer for the nations, Luke altered the citation because the temple no longer had any significance after the destruction of Jerusalem (Ploch 1993: 134), perhaps to save Jesus from uttering a false prophecy (Marshall 1978: 721; Danker 1988: 315). This interpretation presumes, however, that Luke did not understand Jesus’ words in an eschatological sense, which the juxtaposition of Isa. 56:7 with Jer. 7:11 clearly presupposes. More plausible is the suggestion that Luke reports Jesus as being more focused on the fulfillment of the promises for Israel/Zion than for the Gentiles (Tan 1997: 191; Ådna 2000: 286).
We should note that the text does not criticize the sacrificial cult of the temple, which makes it difficult to imagine that Jesus’ concern focused solely on the sale of sacrificial animals (and on the changing of money, mentioned in Mark 11:15; Matt. 21:12). The sale of sacrificial animals took place in the outer temple precinct, more specifically in the monumental Royal Portico (stoa basileios [see Josephus, Ant. 15.411–416]), located on the south side of the temenos. This colonnaded hall was eight hundred feet long and had three rows of columns, each twenty-seven feet high, constructed as a basilica that functioned as a market hall (see Ådna 1999). In other words, Jesus’ action took place in the court of the Gentiles—that is, not in the area in which sacrifices and prayers were offered. The activities of selling sacrificial animals and changing money were necessary for worshipers who came from cities outside Judea (see E. P. Sanders 1985: 61–65; Ådna 2000: 247–56; see also Green 1997: 693; Bock 1994–1996: 1572n2). Since the Jewish leadership does not respect the temple as a “house of prayer” characterized by the acceptance and the teaching of God’s revelation, resulting in their not recognizing the time of God’s visitation (19:44), and since the Jewish leadership does not respect the temple as a “house of prayer” characterized by humble openness to God, resulting in their failure to understand the nature of the inbreaking of God’s kingdom, Jesus “stops short of embracing the role of the temple as a house of prayer for all people” (Green 1997: 694; cf. ibid., 693, with reference to Luke 3:21–22; 4:42–44; 9:18–20; 10:21–24, on prayer and divine revelation, and to 18:1–8, 9–14, on the character of prayer). In Jesus’ vision as recounted by Luke, Gentiles would not come to the temple to find Yahweh; rather, the Lord goes to the Gentiles as the apostles go from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
Characterizing the temple as a “den of robbers,” thereby referring to Jeremiah’s temple sermon in Jer. 7:1–15, Jesus denounces the persistent disobedience of the nation and announces the destruction of the temple, since the people and their leaders refuse to listen to God’s message and obey his word. It seems too narrow to interpret the phrase “den of robbers” merely in terms of an assertion by Jesus that “the righteous do not reside at the temple; rather the unrighteous do” (Bock 1994–1996: 1579). In light of Jesus’ teaching concerning Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jer. 7, Jesus’ action can be interpreted as an enacted parable that predicts the imminent destruction of the temple (see E. P. Sanders 1985: 61–76). We should note that Jeremiah’s temple sermon does not merely emphasize the necessity of repentance (Jer. 7:3, 5–7), implying the possibility of a purification of the temple; it also announces the destruction of the city and of the temple (7:7–15), since God has spoken persistently, but the Judeans have not listened and responded (7:13). This focus on judgment is supported by the context in which Luke has placed the temple episode. It follows right after Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (19:41–44), with its prediction of judgment. Jesus’ next statement involving the temple announces its destruction (21:20–24). The “city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it” (13:34) is the city that will be overtaken by the horrors of war. Jesus’ action in the temple symbolically expresses his conviction, expounded in his teaching based on Jer. 7, that the present “visitation” of God (19:44) no longer needs the temple, whose destruction is announced. Jesus’ accusation that the managers of the temple cult have turned the temple into a “den of robbers” indicts them for assuming that the temple guarantees their safety despite their sinfulness, which includes their unwillingness to heed God’s revelation in his messianic ministry that ushers in the kingdom of God (see Ådna 2000: 267–75, 381–87).
F. Theological Use. The point of Jesus’ action is intended neither to purge the temple in order to prepare it for his subsequent teaching nor to eliminate all mercantile activities as violating the purpose of the temple, as some scholars suggest (see C. A. Evans 1990: 291). Rather, Jesus’ action “symbolized his belief that, in returning to Zion, Yahweh would not after all take up residence in the Temple, legitimating its present administration and its place and function within the first-century Jewish symbolic world” (Wright 1996: 423). Interpreted in the context of Jesus’ reference to Jeremiah’s temple sermon in Jer. 7, warning his listeners in the outer temple court of impending judgment and destruction, his quotation of Isa. 56:7 points to an alternative that would follow from the conversion of Israel that Jesus still hopes for: the fulfillment of the eschatological promise of the conversion of the nations on the occasion of the restoration of Israel (Ådna 2000: 283–84). In the context of his message of the dawn of God’s kingdom, Jesus’ action in the temple was a challenge to Israel’s leadership in Jerusalem not to continue the sacrificial cult in the face of God’s new revelation, but to prepare, in the temple, for the time of the eschatological, new worship of God (Stuhlmacher 1992: 84).
After Jesus’ encounter in the temple with the chief priests, legal experts, and elders, representative of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, who seek to shame Jesus publicly by casting doubt on his authority (20:1–8), following Jesus’ demonstration (“cleansing”) in the temple (19:45–48), Luke recounts Jesus’ teaching to the people in the form of the parable of the Vineyard Tenants (20:9–19). Although Jesus refused to reveal the nature and source of his authority to the Jerusalem leadership in 20:1–8, he does so now, in parabolic form, in his teaching to the people (20:9), with the high priests and scribes in attendance (20:19). The parable draws its meaning from two contexts: the designation of Jesus as God’s “beloved son” and the OT background of Isa. 5:1–7 (Green 1997: 704–5; cf. Brawley 1995: 27–41).
First, the larger Lukan narrative indicates that the designation of the son of the owner of the vineyard as “my beloved son” (20:13) reminds the reader of God’s affirmation of Jesus (3:22). The desire of the tenants of the vineyard to kill the son (20:14, 19) reminds the audience of the desire of the Jerusalem leaders to kill Jesus (19:47). The designation of Jesus as (corner)stone (20:17–18) reminds the reader of Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (19:44). The details of the parable are recognized by the people and by the Jerusalem leadership as having “literal” significance in the real world (20:16, 19). Jesus thus uses this parable to teach the people about his rejection and death as “son,” about the judgment that will fall upon those who reject God’s envoy(s), and about the transfer of authority to “others.”
Second, the intertextual relationship with Isa. 5:1–7, the Song of the Vineyard, informs the meaning of the parable. Several verbal associations establish this link: the vineyard owner’s statement “I will send my beloved son [ton huion mou ton agapēton]” (20:13) echoes the beginning of the Song of the Vineyard in Isa. 5:1–7, with its repeated references to Israel as God’s “beloved” (tō ēgapēmenō . . . tou agapētou . . . tō ēgapēmenō [Isa. 5:1]). The deliberative question “What will the owner of the vineyard do?” (ti oun poiēsei . . . [20:15]) may echo the question “What more was there to do (for my vineyard)” (ti poiēsō . . . [Isa. 5:4]). The phrase “the owner of the vineyard” (ho kyrios tou ampelōnos [20:15]) echoes the phrase “the vineyard of the LORD” (ho ampelōn tou kyriou [Isa. 5:7]). Other links with Isa. 5, which are included in the Markan version of the parable in Mark 12, such as the fence around the vineyard, the pit for the winepress, and the watchtower (Mark 12:1; Isa. 5:2), are omitted by Luke, not because he wanted to eliminate allegorizing motifs (Schneider 1992: 398), but because the allusion to Isa. 5 was clear enough (Rusam 2003: 230; on the issue of allegory in this passage, see Kimball 1994b: 148–52), or because he wanted to abbreviate unessential details (Snodgrass 1983: 47–48).
In its OT context, Isa. 5:1–7 is a juridical parable in allegorical form (Willis 1977; Yee 1981; Childs 2001: 46; for the following exposition, see Childs 2001: 45–46). The opening lines of Isa. 5:1–7 suggest to the reader, or listener, that the text is a song of a beloved one concerning the vineyard that he has planted, sung by another person (v. 1: “I will sing for my beloved”). Verses 1–2 recount that the beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hillside; he prepared the ground, planted the choicest vines, constructed a watchtower, and built a winepress in expectation of the harvest. However, the vineyard yielded only bitter grapes, which could not be used for the production of wine. The last line of 5:2 thus indicates that the content of the song is a complaint. In 5:3 the owner of the vineyard, the beloved of 5:1, takes over and speaks in the first person: he wants to know what more he could have done (5:4) and asks the audience—the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the people of Judah—to adjudicate between himself and his vineyard (5:3b). Before the audience comes forward with an opinion or a verdict, the owner announces in 5:5–6 his decision, which is formulated as a judgment oracle: “I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will make it a waste; it shall not be pruned or hoed, and it shall be overgrown with briers and thorns.” The final threat, in 5:6, reveals the identity of the speaker: “I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.” The speaker is the owner of the vineyard, which means that the song about the beloved is a parable about the failure of the people of God to meet God’s expectations. The last verse of the song/parable leaves no doubt that this is the prophet’s message: “For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the people of Judah are his pleasant planting; he expected justice, but saw bloodshed; righteousness, but heard a cry!” (5:7). As the song turns out to be a juridical parable in which the prophet indicts the nation for its sin against God, the subtle introduction of the audience in 5:3 is significant: the audience is the nation that God addresses through the prophet as his spokesman; that is, God challenges the people to abandon their neutral stance, forcing them unknowingly to pass judgment on themselves. Other passages that use the metaphor of the vineyard as a symbol for Israel include Ps. 80:8–13; Isa. 27:2; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 19:10–14; Hos. 10:1. The representation of prophets as God’s “servants” evokes texts such as 1 Kings 14:18; 15:29; 2 Kings 9:7, 36; 10:10; 14:25; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Isa. 20:3; 44:26; 50:10; Jer. 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Ezek. 38:17; Dan. 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7; Zech. 1:6 (Kimball 1994b: 156).
The Song of the Vineyard in Isa. 5:1–7 has echoes in Isaiah’s prophecies. He prophesies that on the coming day of ultimate salvation, when God judges Leviathan and the dragon in the sea (27:1), a “new song” of the vineyard will be heard: “On that day: A pleasant vineyard, sing about it!” (27:2). God assures Israel that he continues to be the “keeper” of his vineyard: “Every moment I water it. I guard it night and day so that no one can harm it” (27:3). He will burn up all thorns and briers (27:4), and when they will cling to him for protection, when they make peace with him (27:5) “in days to come,” then “Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots, and fill the whole world with fruit” (27:6). This theme continues in the context of the Servant of Yahweh passages. In Isa. 42, when God will cause “new things” to come to pass (v. 9), when he will judge the earth (vv. 13–15) and initiate a new exodus (v. 16), a “new song” will be heard: “Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the end of the earth! Let the sea roar and all that fills it, the coastlands and their inhabitants” (v. 10); this new song will be heard in the desert and in the villages of Kedar, in Edom, and in the coastlands (vv. 11–12). This “new song” theme entered Israel’s liturgy and became a continuous motif of expectation and hope (cf. Ps. 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; see Childs 2001: 46).
Rabbinic interpretations of Isa. 5 understood Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard as a prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar, equating the watchtower with the temple and the winepress with the altar (cf. t. Sukkah 3:15; see C. A. Evans 1990: 302). In the later Isaiah Targum, the judgment that God sends on “Israel . . . the seed of Abraham” (Tg. Isa. 5:1) includes the removal of the Shekinah, the destruction of “their sanctuaries” (5:5)—presumably a reference to synagogues (Chilton 1987: 11), although the context would suggest that the temple is meant (in 5:2 the watchtower of Isa. 5:2 is interpreted in terms of the Jerusalem temple)—and the cessation of prophecy (5:6). If Jesus’ audience understood his parable of the Vineyard Tenants as an allusion to Isa. 5:1–7, then probably they understood its imagery in terms of the interpretation in the Targum, grasping the fact that Jesus speaks about God’s judgment against the temple leadership (Chilton 1984: 111–14).
Isaiah 5:1–7, when read in the light of the OT Scriptures, reflects the notion of Israel as God’s special possession (cf. Exod. 19:3–6; Deut. 7:6–11; 14:2; Ps. 44:3). This concept of divine election expressed the significance of belonging to the people of God. Since no other nation had been chosen by God as Israel had been chosen (Deut. 10:14–15), it is utterly “foolish, even suicidal, to renounce one’s obligations to the relationship”; and it is thus not surprising that “virtually every passage in Deuteronomy which speaks of Yahweh’s choice of Israel is juxtaposed to admonitions to obey him” (ABD 2:436, 438, with reference to Deut. 7:6–11; 10:12–20; 14:1–2; 28:1; cf. also Isa. 41:8–9; 42:24; Amos 3:1–2).
The intertextual connection between Isa. 5:1–7 and Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard Tenants marks the parable as a short version of God’s dealings with Israel, the climax of which Luke narrates in his Gospel, beginning with the owner’s decision to send his “beloved son” and ending with the tenants decision to kill the son. Luke will narrate the transfer of authority from the tenants to the son (and his envoys) in the second volume of his work, the book of Acts. The OT background underlines the legitimacy of God’s claims on his people, from whom he can rightfully expect righteousness, which includes obedience to his messengers and their message. The form and function of Jesus’ parable corresponds to that of Isaiah’s song: both Isaiah and Jesus “invite the hearers to pass judgment upon themselves” (C. A. Evans 1990: 302).
We need to note two important ways in which Jesus’ parable departs from Isaiah’s song. First, in Isa. 5 the vineyard produces sour grapes, whereas in Jesus’ parable there is no indication that the vineyard does not produce a good harvest or that the tenants have not cared for the vineyard. On the contrary, the fact that they are unwilling to share the profits with the owner suggests that their work in the vineyard was very successful (Marshall 1978: 726). This suggests that the focus is not on “works” (the fruit or harvest of the vineyard), but rather on the authority of the owner: it is the insubordination of the tenants that leads to their dismissal and eviction. Second, in Isa. 5 the owner of the vineyard pronounces judgment on the vineyard for producing wild grapes (Isa. 5:5–6). Jesus, on the other hand, announces that judgment would fall on the tenants and that the vineyard would be given to others (Luke 20:16). This indicates that for Luke, the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. 19:41–44) does not signify the destruction of Israel, as the destruction of the tenants does not signify the demolition of the vineyard (Kimball 1994b: 158; Brawley 1995: 38–41; C. A. Evans 1990: 298; Green 1997: 705).
20:17–18
A. NT Context of Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14–15; Dan. 2:34, 44–45. Luke interrupts the parable of the Vineyard Tenants (20:9–19) in 20:15 to note Jesus asking the audience their opinion concerning the fate of the tenants, providing his own answer in 20:16a: “He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” After noting the horrified reaction of the crowd (20:16b), Jesus quotes Ps. 118:22 and alludes to Isa. 8:14–15 and Dan. 2:34, 44–45, introduced by a phrase that suggests that the answer to the question of what should happen to the insubordinate tenants is self-evident (20:17a: “What then does this text mean?”), since Scripture speaks of God’s judgment on the builders of the house of Israel. Luke suggests that the scribes and the chief priests clearly understood both Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard Tenants and his interpretation of OT Scripture concerning the fate of the insubordinate tenants as referring to themselves, as they wanted to arrest Jesus on the spot (20:19).
Luke quotes Ps. 118:22 with echoes of the reference to the stone of stumbling in Isa. 8:14–15, while the second part of the image derives from the stone in Dan. 2:34, the stone cut, not by human hands, from a mountain, which is later identified as an everlasting kingdom that crushes all other kingdoms (Dan. 2:44–45) (see TDNT 4:280–81; Lindars 1961: 183–86; France 1971: 98–99; Snodgrass 1983: 68; Albl 1999: 270; Marshall 1978: 732; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1286). Some see also an allusion to Ps. 110:5–6 (Wagner 1997: 171), while others doubt that Luke intends an allusion to Dan. 2 (Blomberg 1990: 251) or to Isa. 8:14 (Johnson 1991: 309; cf. Holtz 1968: 161n6). The uncertainty concerning the specific OT background of 20:18 has sometimes been said to be an extreme example of Luke’s “freedom” in his use of OT texts (Rese 1969: 173; cf. Rusam 2003: 232), while others are content to observe, if not a verbal connection, a conceptual allusion (Bock 1994–1996: 1605).
B. Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14–15; Dan. 2:34, 44–45 in Context. For Ps. 118, see the commentary on Luke 13:35. In Isa. 8 the nation is threatened with invasion by Syria and northern Israel, a crisis that prompts Isaiah to challenge the people to fear not conspiracy and invasion, but Yahweh. In 8:14–15 the prophet announces that Yahweh will be a sanctuary for those who fear him, but for those who do not fear Yahweh in Israel he will be a rock on which they will stumble and be broken.
Daniel 2 is concerned with the significance of a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The first scene relates the failure of the king’s diviners to interpret the dreams (2:2–12). The second scene recounts Daniel’s involvement in the matter and the divine communication of the king’s dream, which is, however, not revealed at this point (2:13–23). The third scene (2:24–30) further delays the resolution, until Daniel recounts the dream and its prophetic meaning in the fourth scene (2:31–45). The king saw in his dream a huge statue made of gold, silver, bronze, and iron, which was destroyed by a rock because the statue’s feet were made partly of iron and partly of clay. Daniel interprets the dream in terms of world history, the golden splendor of the head representing Nebuchadnezzar’s empire. The following regimes that replace each other are not identified. The fourth empire will be destroyed as a result of God’s sovereign act (2:34–35, 40) at the time when God will establish a new kingdom (2:44). When God’s time comes, “his kingdom requires the destruction of earthly kingdoms . . . when his moment arrives, his kingdom comes by catastrophe, not by development” (Goldingay 1989: 59).
C. Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14–15; Dan. 2:34, 44–45 in Judaism. In the later rabbinic text Esther Rab. 7:10 (on Esther 3:6), which is evidently messianic (Lachs 1987: 355), the author cites Ps. 118:22 along with a saying that corresponds to Luke’s saying in 20:18: “(The Israelites) are compared to stones, as it says, ‘From thence the shepherd of the stone (i.e., the Messiah) of Israel’ (Gen. 49:24); ‘The stone which the builders rejected’ (Ps. 118:22). But the other nations are likened to potsherds, as it says, ‘And he shall break it as a potter’s vessel is broken’ (Isa. 30:14). If a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot! If a pot falls on a stone, woe to the pot! In either case, woe to the pot! So whoever ventures to attack [the Israelites] receives his desserts on their account” (Str-B 1:877; C. A. Evans 1990: 303). Strikingly, this midrash also quotes Dan. 2:34.
D. Textual Matters. T. Holtz suggests that Luke’s omission of Ps. 118:23 (“This is the LORD’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes,” quoted in Mark 12:10; Matt. 21:42) has theological reasons: the triumph of the crucified Jesus Christ was regarded as “marvelous” during the initial period of the early church, whereas later Christians were no longer surprised about Jesus’ vindication, but rather about the Jews not recognizing Jesus as God’s revelation (Holtz 1968: 161, with reference to John 9:30). It is preferable, however, to note that the omission enables Luke to establish a closer link with the following explanation of the “stone” imagery in 20:18 (Marshall 1978: 732).
E. The Use of Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14–15; Dan. 2:34, 44–45 in Luke 20:17–18. Jesus explains his exposition of Isa. 5:1–2, a text that he interpreted with the parable of the Vineyard Tenants (20:9, 10–16), with a quotation from Ps. 118:22, whose “rejected stone” he links with the “stumbling stone” of Isa. 8:14–15 and with the “crushing stone” of Dan. 2:34, 44–45.
Some scholars argue that Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard Tenants in 20:9–19 is an example of a “proem midrash” (Ellis 1978: 251–52; 1991: 98, 134–35; Blomberg 1990: 251; Kimball 1994b: 162–63; 1993: 91; on the proem midrash, see Ellis 1991: 96–97). The proem midrash has these elements: (1) the biblical text; (2) a second text, the proem or “opening” for the discourse; (3) exposition, with supplementary quotations, parables, and other commentary, with verbal links to the initial and final texts; (4) a final text, repeating or alluding to the initial biblical text, sometimes with a concluding application. Applied to 20:9–19, the OT quotation and allusions fit this midrash pattern as follows: (1) The initial biblical text is provided in 20:9a, reduced to an allusion (Isa. 5:1–2). (2) A second text is omitted; the initial biblical text serves as the opening. (3) The exposition of Isa. 5:1–2 is provided by means of the parable of the Vineyard Tenants in 20:9b–15, linked to the initial text by the catchword “vineyard” (ampelōn [20:9, 10, 13, 15]). (4) The application in 20:16–18 is linked with the initial text and with the parabolic exposition by the catchword ampelōn (20:16) and applies the exposition further in 20:17–18 with several concluding texts: Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14–15; Dan. 2:34, 44–45; these latter texts are connected by the catchword “stone” (lithos). It should be noted that in Luke’s version of Jesus’ exposition of Isa. 5:1–2, there is no link between the “stone” texts and the “vineyard” text. (In Matt. 21:33–46 the link is not very strong either, provided by the reference to the building of the watchtower in Isa. 5:2, implying that the “building” [oikodomeō] was done with stones. As we have noted, Luke omits the reference to the watchtower; the suggested link via the catchword sāqal [“to clear of stones”] assumes use of the Hebrew text of Isa. 5.)
Scholars suggest that Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard Tenants is related to Ps. 118:22 through a wordplay involving “son” (Heb. bēn) and “stone” (Heb. ʾeben). For this wordplay, see Exod. 28:9–29; 39:6–14; Josh. 4:6–21; 1 Kings 18:31; Isa. 54:11–13; Lam. 4:1–2; Zech. 9:16 (Kimball [1994b: 161], who also lists early Jewish and rabbinic texts). Such a wordplay is probably behind the Targum of Ps. 118:22, which reads “the son which the builders rejected” (Snodgrass 1983: 63–65, 113–18; C. A. Evans 1990: 303). Each text that Jesus (and Luke) alludes to serves a distinct function in the context of his interpretation of Isa. 5:1–2.
The quotation of Ps. 118:22 in 20:17 is about a stone that the “builders” rejected as useless but that was destined to become the “cornerstone.” It continues to be debated whether the “cornerstone” or “keystone” is a capstone (see TDNT 4:268–80, esp. 275–76; Derrett 1978: 60–67) or a foundation stone (see BDAG, s.v. kephalē 2b; Snodgrass 1983: 102–3). The latter view is shared by a majority of contemporary scholars (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1282, 1285; Bock 1994–1996: 1603; Green 1997: 709n43). It should be noted, however, that the position of this “keystone” is not significant for understanding Jesus’ exposition of Isa. 5:1–2 with the quotation of Ps. 118:22. As God’s vineyard failed to yield a harvest in the OT text, and as the tenants of the vineyard rejected the owner’s son in Jesus’ parable, and as the stone—the king—was rejected by the builders in another OT text, so Jesus is rejected by the Jewish leaders. But as the stone that was rejected became a cornerstone, so Jesus will be ultimately vindicated. Jesus uses the quotation of Ps. 118:22 with the following perspectives (Green 1997: 709; Constant 2001: 308–12): (1) to provide scriptural warrant for the sequence of events in the parable, implying the divine necessity of these events, including the violent death of the owner’s son; (2) to indicate that the death of the son is not the end of the story, but will be followed by the son’s exaltation (cf. Acts 4:11; 5:30–31); (3) to explain the announcement of judgment of the insubordinate tenants; (4) to suggest to the people that they should distance themselves from the tenants in order not to be implicated in the death of the owner’s son—the crowd’s shocked reaction in 20:16 indicates that they recognize that Jesus places Israel’s leaders and thus, potentially, the entire nation in opposition to God (see Bock 1994–1996: 1603); (5) to vindicate the son in the eyes of his detractors and to emphasize his significance as a “stone” for Israel, the messianic Son of God (Kimball 1994b: 161); (6) the conclusion of the parable suggests, in the context of the reference to builders and a new foundation stone, an ecclesiological perspective as well: the rejected Messiah will build a new house, a new “temple.”
Since the “stone” was a messianic image in contemporary Judaism, Jesus draws on Isa. 8:14–15 and Dan. 2:34, 44–45 to further explain the devastating consequences of rejecting the Messiah (see Bock [1994–1996: 1603n10], who also refers to Isa. 28:16; Gen. 28:17–19; Zech. 4:8–10; 3:8–9; Tg. Ps. 118:24; Tg. Isa. 28:16).
The allusion to Isa. 8:14–15 in v. 18a explains that the “stone” will bring disaster to the people who stumble over it and thus emphasizes the inevitability of judgment. As Yahweh had warned that while he is a “sanctuary” for the people, he has become to the two houses of Israel “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” on which they will stumble and be broken. The allusion implies that Jesus is a sanctuary for those who trust in him and a stone of stumbling for those who do not trust in him, and the latter group will suffer the consequences for their refusal to believe.
The allusion to Dan. 2:34, 44–45 in v. 18b explains a second function of the “stone”: it will bring disaster on the people on whom it will fall in judgment (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1286). As the stone in Dan. 2 crushed the statue of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, so those who oppose Jesus will be crushed. The “stone” that is rejected but vindicated brings judgment (Green 1997: 709; Snodgrass 1983: 105–6).
F. Theological Use. The OT quotation in 20:17 and the allusions in 20:18 serve to establish the legitimacy of Jesus’ assertion that God’s judgment will fall on Israel and its leaders. Jesus’ coming death is explained by a word of Scripture—that is, in a salvation-historical sense (Rusam 2003: 233). As Jesus tells the parable of the Vineyard Tenants in Jerusalem (note “the people” as the audience in 20:9), the “stone” passages in Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14; Dan. 2:34; 44–45 focus the meaning of the parable in terms of a warning to the citizens of Jerusalem to beware of the impending divine judgment, thus challenging the Jewish people to accept the one who is rejected by the Jewish leaders (Green 1997: 709). The “stone” passages that Jesus quotes in his interpretation of the parable of the Vineyard Tenants explain the parable as an accusation and a threat against the Jewish leaders, and at the same time they communicate a veiled claim of Jesus to be God’s authoritative and decisive representative (Snodgrass 1983: 109).
There is evidence for a written collection of testimonia of the early Christians that focused on “stone” texts and was used in five traditions in the NT: (1) the interpretation of Jesus as the rejected cornerstone (Matt. 21:33–46; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–19); (2) the portraits of Jesus and the “stone” testimonia in the Gospels (Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19–21; Acts 6:14); (3) the metaphor of the stumbling stone set in Zion (Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6–8); (4) the stone metaphor for the Christian community and the temple (2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:20–22); (5) the designation of Peter as the rock and foundation stone (Matt. 16:18). Four passages are central for the stone testimonia tradition: Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Ps. 118:22; Dan. 2:34, 44–45 (Albl 1999: 265–85). It appears that the early church adopted Ps. 118:22 as a “resurrection apologetic” because Jesus had used this text in an important parable (Snodgrass 1983: 109–10).
20:25
The controversy dialogue about paying taxes to Caesar (20:20–26) contains several OT allusions. Jesus’ pronouncement in 20:25, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” has been interpreted in terms of two kingdoms, his own kingdom and Caesar’s kingdom, which are not in rivalry with each other. The kingdom of God, which has been inaugurated through Jesus’ ministry, does not suppress or supplant the political kingdoms of the present age (for a list of interpreters who hold this influential view, see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1292). This view, which assumes that Jesus not only recommends that Jews should pay the Roman tax but also seeks to inculcate respect for the political authorities, can refer to Jewish ideas derived from OT passages such as Dan. 2:21, 37–38 (“He changes times and seasons, deposes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. . . . You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the might, and the glory, into whose hand he has given human beings, wherever they live, the wild animals of the field, and the birds of the air, and whom he has established as ruler over them all—you are the head of gold”) and Prov. 8:15–16 (“By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me rulers rule, and nobles, all who govern rightly” [cf. Wis. 6:1–11]). However, this interpretation needs to be linked with the entrapment that the Jewish leaders seek to achieve with their question in 20:22 of whether it is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor in Rome (for a critique of the two-kingdoms view, see Marshall 1978: 736; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1292–93). Some scholars suggest that interpreted in the political context of first-century Judea, Jesus’ reply has to be related not only to the emperor’s image on the coin (presumably the image of Tiberius) but also to the inscription on the coin (“Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, Augustus”), and that Jesus’ reply echoes Isa. 44:5 (“This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’s,’ another will be called by the name of Jacob, yet another will write on the hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and adopt the name of Israel”), a passage in which Isaiah describes serving God in terms of writing “I belong to God” (LXX: tou theou eimi) on one’s hand (Giblin 1971: 520–25). This interpretation probably is too subtle (Marshall [1978: 736] calls it “a (correct) theological deduction from the saying [rather] than an inherent element in the argument”). A similar caveat applies to the suggestion that Jesus’ reply echoes passages that are concerned with the inscription of God’s law on the human person (cf. Exod. 13:9; Prov. 7:3; Jer. 31:33; so Green 1997: 716, with reference to Giblin 1971: 521–23; Owen-Ball 1993: 10–11).
Since Jesus’ pronouncement implies a comparison between the coin that bears the emperor’s image and the Jews (and/or people in general) who bear God’s image, and Jesus often focuses his answers on fundamental theological and scriptural truths, 20:25 may echo Gen. 1:26–27, with its emphasis on human beings being created in the image of God (Green 1997: 715–16; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1293). If Jesus indeed aims at this basic OT text, he emphasizes that since human beings belong to God, whose image they bear, they are obliged to recognize and acknowledge his lordship as they experience the fullness of life not in allegiance to political authorities, but in obedience to God, the Creator of life (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1293).
Luke 20:28
A. NT Context: The Discussion about the Resurrection of the Dead. The quotation in 20:28 belongs to a controversy dialogue (20:27–40) in which the Sadducees attempt to destroy Jesus’ credibility by raising the question of who interprets Moses faithfully, as they seek to demonstrate the alleged unreasonableness of faith in the resurrection of the dead, which Jesus shares. This is the 366 first reference to the Sadducees in the Gospel of Luke, which is not surprising: consider the fact that the Sadducees exercised their aristocratic influence in the city of Jerusalem, and note that Luke focuses his narrative on Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In 20:27 Luke characterizes the Sadducees as people who teach that there is no resurrection of the dead (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.16; J.W. 2.165), a point that influences much of Luke’s reference to the Sadducees in the book of Acts as well (cf. Acts 4:1–2; 23:6–8).
The starting point of the discussion is Moses’ stipulation concerning levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. the examples of Judah and Tamar in Gen. 38:6–11, and of Ruth and Boaz in Ruth 3:9–4:10). The Mosaic provision required a widow whose husband had died childless to be married by one of the brothers of the deceased husband—that is, one of her brothers-in-law. The purpose of the levirate marriage legislation was to continue the name of the deceased husband and to give him an “afterlife” through the children that his wife and his brother would conceive. The term “levirate” is derived from the Latin levir (laevus vir), “husband’s brother, brother-in-law.”
B. Deut. 25:5 in Context. Among the miscellaneous laws listed in Deut. 25:1–19, the third piece of legislation concerns levirate marriage (25:5–10). The law of levirate marriage, which had parallels in other ancient Near Eastern cultures (see ANET 182), stipulated that a man should marry his deceased brother’s childless widow, provided that he and his brother had been living together, and provided that the widow was childless in the sense that she had not given birth to a son. The firstborn son from this levirate marriage would represent his dead brother’s name; that is, he would be the legal equivalent to the son of the deceased (Craigie 1983: 314; cf. Schwankl 1987: 340–42).
C. Deut. 25:5 in Judaism. On the levirate marriage in rabbinic texts, see Sipre Deut. 237, 288; Meg. Taʾan. 4; m. Yebam. 12:6; b. Ketub. 46a. A woman who had been widowed repeatedly was considered to be dangerous. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi argued that twice sufficed to establish the presumption that she had killed her husband, while Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel argued that three dead husbands established the presumption, prohibiting a fourth marriage (cf. t. Šabb. 15:8; b. Yebam. 64b; see Lachs 1987: 361). The term ateknos (“childless”) is attested in several Jewish-Greek inscriptions from Tell el Yehudie (Lietzmann 1923; cf. CIJ 1461, 1500, 1511).
D. Textual Matters. Luke narrates the question of the Sadducean representatives as a generic allusion to the Torah that conflates Deut. 25:5 and Gen. 38:8, giving the substance of the Mosaic provision of levirate marriage. Luke 20:28 reads, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if someone’s brother dies [ean tinos adelphos apothanē], and he has a wife but is childless [echōn gynaika kai houtos ateknos ē], then his brother must take the woman [hina labē ho adelphos autou tēn gynaika] and raise up offspring for his brother [kai exanastēsē sperma tō adelphō autou].” This sentence abridges Deut. 25:5–10 and paraphrases Deut. 25:5 LXX, which reads: “If brothers dwell together [ean de katoikōsin adelphoi epi to auto], and one of them dies [kai apothanē heis exautōn] and he has no offspring [sperma de mē ē auto], the wife of the dead man will not become (a wife) to an outsider not related [ouk estai hē gynē tou tethnēkotos exō andri mē engizonti]. The brother of her husband will go into her [ho adelphos tou andros autēs eiseleusetai pros autēn] and will take her to himself (as) a wife [kai lēmpsetai autēn heautō gynaika] and will live with her [kai synoikei autē]” (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1304). The last clause of Luke’s allusion depends on Gen. 38:8 LXX: kai anastēson sperma to adelphō sou (“and raise up offspring for your brother”).
Luke is dependent not on Deut. 25:5 directly, but rather on Mark 12:19 or on an earlier source on which both authors depend. He follows Mark’s wording, the construction of which is difficult, with slight stylistic modifications (Holtz 1968: 69; cf. Schwankl 1987: 443–61; Rusam 2003: 101–4): (1) he omits the conjunction hoti, which is unnecessary before the following hina; (2) he eliminates Mark’s parataxis (kai katalipē gynaika kai mē aphē teknon) by formulating with a participle (echōn gynaika); (3) he avoids the uncommon use of the verb aphiēmi (see BDAG, s.v. aphiēmi 4) and replaces it with the hapax legomenon ateknos, “childless” (Holtz 1968: 68–70; Marshall 1978: 739). He has not changed Mark’s formulation with hina, which is grammatically difficult (it probably should be interpreted as an imperative; see BDF §470.1; Matthew replaced the awkward hina labē with epigambreusei; cf. Deut. 25:5 [Aquila]; Gen. 38:8 LXX v. l.)
E. The Use of Deut. 25:5 in Luke 20:28. The focus on the resurrection from the dead in Jesus’ controversy dialogue with the Sadducees (20:27, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38) raises the more basic question of the nature of Jesus’ authority and the relationship of his authority with the authority of Scripture and its faithful interpretation (Green 1997: 718). The Sadducees argue that if one takes the levirate marriage legislation seriously, it is obvious that the belief in a future resurrection of the dead is farcical because the reality of levirate marriage potentially leads to a complex web of familial relationships that would be impossible to sustain in the life to come. In other words, since rules such as levirate marriage exist for the present life, it is logically impossible that life goes on after death through resurrection (Nolland 1989–1993: 968). Jesus tells the Sadducees that people who quote Moses—in this case, the legislation concerning levirate marriage in Deut. 25—should also listen to Moses, about, for example, resurrection (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1301; cf. Schwankl 1987: 338–44).
F. Theological Use. The scene of Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees about levirate marriage and the resurrection has been characterized as a “battle over the Scriptures” (Green 1997: 718). In regard to the question of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus argues that the Sadducees’ focus on (levirate) marriage was bound up with a focus on the social conditions of the present world (20:34), whereas entirely different conditions govern the life of those who are deemed worthy of the resurrection (20:35a), conditions that are no longer dependent upon marriage (20:35b) because the new mode of existence of the “children of God” no longer depends upon procreation, but rather corresponds to that of the angels (20:36). This argument does not mean that Jesus holds the view that the meaning of Scripture is not self-evident, but rather that it must be grasped in the context of an eschatological perspective (so Green 1997: 718). Jesus’ assertion in 20:37 demonstrates that this interpretation misses the point of Jesus’ scriptural argument, which implies that the truth of belief in the resurrection of the dead can be ascertained in the plain meaning of the text of Gen. 38:8.
Jesus’ assertion that “those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage” in 20:35 is similar to a statement in b. Ber. 17a: “In the world-to-come there is no eating and drinking, or procreation and childbearing, or trade or business, or enmity and strife, but the righteous sit with crowns on their heads and enjoy the radiance of the Shekinah” (cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 1; see Lachs 1987: 361).
The statement “they are like angels” (isangeloi [20:36]) finds parallels in several early Jewish texts. In 1 En. 104:6 we read, “For you shall become companions of the hosts of heaven,” and in 2 Bar. 51:4, “They shall respectively be transformed, the latter into the splendor of the angels, and the former shall yet more waste away” (cf. Gen. Rab. 8:11; Num. Rab. 21; b. Ḥag. 16a; Pesiq. Rab. 43 [179a]; 16 [80a]; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6 [57a]; see Lachs 1987: 361). Jesus asserts that those who attain resurrection life are “sons of God” and “sons of the resurrection” (20:34): as “sons of God,” they are “like angels” (for the “sons of God” as angels, see Job 1:6; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6 [89:7 MT]). Thus, as “sons of the resurrection,” they are like angels, and angels neither need food nor marry (cf. 1 En. 15:6; 51:4; 104:4–6; Wis. 5:5, 15–16; 2 Bar. 51:10; 1QHa XI, 21–23; XIV, 13; 1Q28b IV, 24–28), which proves that relationships in the age of the resurrection are different from contemporary human relationships, and which means that the dilemma of multiple husbands that the Sadducees had construed disappears (Bock 1994–1996: 1623–24).
20:37–38
A. NT Context. Jesus supports his belief in the resurrection of the dead by referring to the “story about the bush” (NRSV), which recounts Moses’ encounter with the Lord in Exod. 3:1–4:17. Jesus’ statement that Moses “speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (hōs legei kyrion ton theon Abraam kai theon Isaak kai theon Iakōb [20:37]) is a quotation of Exod. 3:6 (egō eimi ho theos tou patros sou theos Abraam kai theos Isaak kai theos Iakōb). Jesus’ reference to Moses in 20:37 harks back to the quotation formula used by the Sadducees in 20:28, and it underlines the common basis of the conversation (Rusam 2003: 105).
B. Exod. 3:6 in Context. The pericope of Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17) recounts one of the most basic events in the history of Israel: Yahweh’s self-identification at Mount Horeb, “the mountain of God” (3:1), and Moses’ call to return to Egypt and lead the people of Israel out of bondage. The passage combines three traditions that define Israel: the patriarchs, the exodus, and Sinai. The first section of this passage, Exod. 3:1–22, is a theophany account. After God told Moses to come no closer (3:5), he reveals himself with the words “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (3:6). The phrase “the God of your father” affirms “that God enters into a personal commitment to individuals” and reminds Israel that their God not only is the mighty and awesome Creator and Lord but also is intimately involved with people (Goldingay 2003: 245). The fact that God describes himself in his revelation to Moses as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” indicates that as God was bound to Israel as a fact of the past, he reaffirms his covenant commitments of long ago in the present, giving the Israelites hope for both the present and the future (see Goldingay 2003: 303). The self-identification as “Yahweh” underscores this reality as well: God promises that he will be there for Moses and for Israel in different situations, but always active and sufficient. Moses’ encounter with Yahweh in the desert initiated the exodus, Israel’s defining experience of salvation (see Goldingay 2003: 337). The self-identification of Yahweh occurs at the moment when he explains to Moses why Israel should respond with faith to the exhortation to leave Egypt: “To mention Yahweh’s name is to move Israel to the greatest trust; because of Him their freedom will be assured” (Kilgallen 1986: 488).
C. Exod. 3:6 in Judaism. The formula “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” with all three elements—self-identification of God, reference to the three patriarchs, and correlation of the three patriarchs to God—is not attested in other OT passages or in early Jewish texts. The phrase “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (without self-identification) occurs in Exod. 3:15, 16; 4:5, while the phrase “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel” occurs in 1 Kings 18:36; 1 Chron. 29:18; 2 Chron. 30:6 (Schwankl 1987: 397). The first of the Eighteen Benedictions of the Shemoneh Esreh, the main prayer of Judaism that was recited three times daily and constituted the central prayer of the synagogue service, begins with the words “Blessed art thou, Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, great, mighty, and fearful God, most high God,” while the second benediction begins with the words “Lord, thou art almighty forever, who makest the dead alive. Thou art mighty to help, thou who sustainest the living out of grace, makest the dead alive out of great mercy.” The Shemoneh Esreh thus links the names of the three patriarchs with the hope of the resurrection of the dead. The litany-type text Sir. 51:12 (Heb. text) includes the lines “Give thanks to the shield of Abraham, for his mercy endures forever. Give thanks to the rock of Isaac, for his mercy endures forever. Give thanks to the mighty one of Jacob, for his mercy endures forever.” Notable is Jacob’s prayer before his death in Jub. 45:3: “And now let the Lord, the God of Israel, be blessed, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, who did not withhold his mercy and his kindness from his servant Jacob.” The Prayer of Manasseh begins with the words “O Lord, God of our fathers, God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their glorious offspring.” Several Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of the patriarchs (cf. T. Jud. 25:1; T. Benj. 10:6), or express the conviction that the deceased patriarchs are in God’s presence (cf. Apoc. Zeph. 13:5; 14:3–4; 17:3), or voice the hope that the pious will be united with the fathers after death (cf. T. Isaac 1:4–5; 4 Macc. 5:37; 13:17; 18:23). In 4 Macc. 7:19; 16:25 the postmortem life of the patriarchs is directly linked with God (16:25: “Those who die for the sake of God live unto God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs”). Other texts of the Second Temple period also express belief in survival beyond death (see Wis. 1:15; 3:4; 8:13; 15:3). The Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul—at least that is how Josephus describes their beliefs (J.W. 2.163; 3.374).
Philo comments on Exod. 3:6, 15 that as God’s name was linked with the names of the patriarchs, he “integrally joins his name with” the human race (Abraham 51). We should note, however, that Philo interprets the patriarchs not as human figures, but as virtues, asserting that “for the nature of man is perishable, but that of virtue is imperishable” (Abraham 55), since it is more reasonable that the name of the eternal God is conjoined with what is immortal than with what is mortal (see Downing 1982).
Rabbinic arguments for the resurrection of the dead appeal to Exod. 6:4; 15:1; Num. 15:31; 18:28; Deut. 4:4; 11:9; 31:16; 32:1, 39; 33:6; Josh. 8:30; Job 19:26; Ps. 16:9, 11; 50:4; 84:5; Song 7:10; Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:9; Dan. 12:2; see, for example, b. Sanh. 90b (baraita); 91b (baraita); 92a; Sipre Num. 15:31 (112); Sipre Deut. 32:2 (306) (see Str-B 1:893–95; TDNT 1:368–72).
D. Textual Matters. Some suggest that the quotation in 20:38 is closer to Exod. 3:15 (eipen ho theos . . . kyrios ho theos tōn paterōn hymōn theos Abraam kai theos Isaak kai theos Iakōb) than the Markan parallel (Kilgallen 1986: 488; Nolland 1989–1993: 966). Some assume a paraphrase rather than a quotation; they suggest that since Luke uses an “implicit” rather than an explicit reference to Scripture, he downplays the issue (Powery 1999: 235). This view is unconvincing: if Luke wanted to downplay belief in the resurrection, he could have simply omitted the story. Some have argued that the unique citation formula in 20:37, which uses mēnyō (“inform, give information, make known”), indicates that Luke deliberately distinguishes pre-Easter arguments for the resurrection and post-Easter arguments, the latter being tied to Jesus’ resurrection (Rusam 2003: 107, with reference to Luke 24:44–48; Acts 2:24–32; 3:15; 5:31; 13:32–39; 26:23). However, this interpretation reads too much into the text.
E. The Use of Exod. 3:6 in Luke 20:38. Luke adapts the quotation to his narrative context by formulating Yahweh’s self-identification in the accusative, with the result that Moses himself says that Yahweh is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (differently, Mark 12:26, where Moses is said to describe his encounter with God at the bush when God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham [etc.]”). This means that “Jesus is made to appeal more directly to the authority of Moses” (Marshall 1978: 742). The authority of Moses, to which Jesus appeals for the belief in the resurrection, is underlined by the present tense of legei. The omission of the phrase “(I am) the God of your father” places the focus entirely on the patriarchs, avoiding an interpretation that might see Moses as the only addressee of Yahweh’s words (Schwankl 1987: 385n180).
Jesus argues by quoting Exod. 3:6, 15, that since Yahweh’s self-identification to Israel challenged Israel to respond with faith and trust, Yahweh’s name implies the reason for the certainty that the dead will rise: the words of this text assert the fidelity of Israel’s covenant God, who committed himself to Abraham and the other patriarchs, expressing a love of God for Abraham “which can only mean that Abraham will be forever with God” (Kilgallen 1986: 488). As “Yahweh” is the name that assures Israel of the love and faithfulness of their God—the name and the covenantal love that constitute the foundation of Israel and of the exodus—Jesus reminds the Sadducees of the absolute confidence that Yahweh expects Israel to have. Jesus asserts that Yahweh’s love that caused the exodus from Egypt also guarantees the resurrection of the dead (see Kilgallen 1986: 489).
Jesus interprets the quotation from Exod. 3:6, 15 with the statement “He is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him they are all alive” (20:38). The last phrase, “for to him they are all alive” (pantes gar autō zōsin), is similar to the Jewish text 4 Macc. 7:19 (cf. 16:25), which asserts concerning the martyrs who imitate Eleazar that “they believe that they, like our patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, do not die to God, but live unto God [alla zōsin tō theō]” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1307; Green 1997: 722). Jesus argues that since Moses designates God as God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, at a time when they had died long ago, they are alive, since “only living people can have a God, and therefore God’s promise to the patriarchs that he is/will be their God requires that he maintain them in life” (Marshall 1978: 743; cf. Rusam 2003: 106).
Jesus’ interpretation agrees in a fundamental sense with the original meaning of Exod. 3:6: since God’s promise to the patriarchs is not a singular but a typical reality, since God’s commitment to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob defines Israel as a people of hope, since God’s promise to Israel has not been completely realized in the history of the patriarchs but became a reality again at the time of Moses in the exodus and will become a reality also in the future, since the formula “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” which stands at the 370 beginning of the exodus events, “works” not only in the past and in the present but also in the future, since Yahweh’s covenant commitment is the constant while the specific historical situation is the variable, Yahweh’s revelatory self-identification assures Israel of his active salvific presence in the past, present, and future. Although Exod. 3:6 says nothing about resurrection, Jesus’ use of this text as proof for the reality of the resurrection fully and completely grasps its meaning as “transfer” from the past and present into the future (Schwankl 1987: 392–95).
Jesus’ argument on the basis of Exod. 3:6, that if God has confirmed his covenant relationship with the dead patriarchs, he will therefore resurrect not only the patriarchs but all the dead who have the same covenant relationship with him, employs Hillel’s third hermeneutical rule about deriving a general principle from one verse (binyan ʾab mikatub ʾehad) (see Ellis 1991: 89, 131). The meaning of the phrase “to him they are all alive” in 20:38 is best understood in terms of the assertion that although the patriarchs and indeed all people die from a human point of view, they are not dead, but alive “so far as God is concerned and because God gives them life” (Marshall 1978: 743).
The comment in 20:40 that “they”—presumably both the Sadducees and the scribes—“no longer dared to ask him another question” suggests that this controversy dialogue should be linked with Jesus’ third and final temptation in 4:9–12, where the devil uses a quotation from Scripture to test Jesus. We should note, however, that Jesus’ use of Scripture in 20:38 differs from 4:12: whereas he refers the devil to a divine commandment (normative use), he points the Sadducees to Exod. 3:6, 15 as an illustration of the reality of the resurrection (Rusam 2003: 104, 107–8).
F. Theological Use. The quotation of Exod. 3:6, 15 makes at least the following points in the discussion about the resurrection of the dead (Green 1997: 722). First, Jesus argues that when Yahweh was speaking to Moses at the burning bush, he was still the God of the patriarchs who had long been dead. Second, Jesus infers that the suggestion that God would assert a covenant relationship with people who had died long ago is absurd. Third, Jesus concludes that the patriarchs must therefore still be alive in some sense, and/or can be expected to be raised from the dead. Fourth, Jesus deduces that Moses, in relating the passage of the burning bush, attests to the belief in the resurrection of the dead.
The question has been raised whether Jesus uses the quotation to argue that the patriarchs are still alive, an argument that presupposes either their immortality (perhaps implying the notion of the afterlife conceived in terms of Greek dualism) or their continued existence in Sheol. However, it seems most plausible to assume that Jesus’ argument “is not concerned with the niceties of Sheol, immortality and resurrection, but simply asserts that God will raise the dead because he cannot fail to keep his promises to them that he will be their God” (Marshall 1978: 743; cf. Ellis 1974: 235–36).
20:42–43
A. NT Context: The Question about the Son of David. In 20:41–44 Jesus initiates a discussion on a text of Scripture for the first and only time in the Gospel. After the discussion about the resurrection (20:27–39), no one dared to ask Jesus another question (20:40). When Jesus initiates the next round of discussion with “them” (autous [20:41]), he presumably addresses the scribes (20:39, 45) and the Sadducees (20:27–38) as well as the crowds in the temple (20:45) who had been following the previous discussion. Jesus asks a twofold question: “How can they say that the Messiah is David’s son? For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” ’” The implication of the second question, which quotes Ps. 110:1, answers the first question: David, the author of Ps. 110, can indeed be the father of the Messiah, whom he himself calls “lord” because the messianic king is not only David’s son but also indeed David’s lord.
B. Ps. 110:1 in Context. Psalm 110 is classified with the royal psalms (on the objections of France [1971: 166], see Bock 1994–1996: 1637). The scholarly discussion suggests that any reconstruction of its historical setting and original meaning can only be tentative (Allen 1983: 86; for the following remarks, see ibid., 85–86). The psalm can be interpreted as celebrating David’s conquest of Jerusalem and his accession to the throne, highlighting the implication of these events as divine pledges of universal dominion. Scholars debate whether subsequently the psalm was used by succeeding kings in a context of national enthronement. The psalm consists of two parts. The first part is an invitation from Yahweh to the king to take up a seat of honor beside him, emphasizing the fact that Yahweh is the real king: David rules “not in his own right but as co-regent and representative, deriving his authority from his divine counterpart.” Yahweh, who is called “Lord” in the LXX, addresses the king (Heb. nĕʾūm yhwh; LXX [109:1]: eipen ho kyrios), who is called “my lord” (Heb. ʾadōnî; LXX [109:1]: kyriō mou), telling him to ascend the throne and sit at his “right hand.” Yahweh will make the enemies of the king a footstool for his feet; in other words, the king is promised military victory (Kraus 1993: 2:346–47). As the psalm expresses much of the “high theology” of Israelite and Judean kingship, the eclipse of the Davidic dynasty resulted in the fact that “the psalm lived on as an expression of faith in God’s ultimate fulfillment of his king-centered purposes for his people” (Allen 1983: 87). (On the “son of David” traditions, see Fitzmyer 1997: 115–25.)
C. Ps. 110:1 in Judaism. Some scholars point out that neither the LXX nor the echo of the psalm in 1 Macc. 14:41; T. Job 33:3; T. Levi 8:3; 18:1–3, 8, 12 reflects a messianic understanding of Ps. 110 (Hay 1973: 19–33; Albl 1999: 221–22; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1311). There is evidence for the messianic interpretation of the psalm in rabbinic literature, but not before the second half of the third century AD (see Str-B 4:452–65). Assuming that Second Temple Judaism did not interpret Ps. 110 messianically, some argue that if this episode relates an authentic event in Jesus’ ministry, “then the messianic interpretation may have begun with Jesus” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1311).
Other scholars suggest that Ps. 110 was understood in Second Temple Judaism in terms of the enthronement of the expected Messiah (France 1971: 166; Larkin 1974: 402–4; Ellis 1974: 237–38), surmising that the nonmessianic interpretations—for example, among the Tannaitic rabbis—may have an anti-Christian tendency (see Callan 1982; Hengel 1995: 178–79). The interpretation of the enthronement of the son of man/messiah in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, which is dependent upon Ps. 110:1, is an important piece of evidence (1 En. 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2), regardless of the precise date of the composition of the Similitudes, written by a non-Jewish-Christian group that was not later than early Christianity (see Hengel 1995: 185–86). Furthermore, it has been argued that the messianic interpretation of the royal psalms seems to be presupposed by the redaction of the Psalter: note that the relevant texts have been placed at the beginning of a Davidic Psalter (Pss. 2; 107) or at the end of a Davidic Psalter (Pss. 72; 110), which suggests that “for those who composed the collection of psalms in the post-exilic period these psalms apparently had programmatic character, and that can only be a messianic one” (K. Koch [quoted in Hengel 1995: 179]). The Targum of the psalms preserves developed paraphrases of Ps. 110:1 that do not help our understanding of the interpretation of the psalm in the first century. It should be noted, however, that the Targum interprets Ps. 110 in terms of the Davidic (royal) messiah (C. A. Evans 2004: 85–86).
D. Textual Matters. The quotation of Ps. 110:1 follows the LXX, except for the lack of the definite article before kyrios (B D; in Mark 12:36 the article is missing in B D, and in Matt. 22:44 in א B D Z). The fact that most NT manuscripts read eipen ho kyrios (א A L R W Θ Ψ 0117 f1.13 33 𝔐) is explained by most scholars as harmonization with the LXX tradition (Holtz 1968: 51; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1315). The meaning of the quotation is unaffected by this variant. The parallel texts Mark 12:36 and Matt. 22:44 read hypokatō (“under, below”) instead of hypopodion (“footstool” [read in Mark 12:36 by א A L Θ Ψ 087 f1.13 33 2427 𝔐 lat syp.h, and in Matt. 22:44 by W 0102 0161 0281 f1 33 𝔐 lat mae]), which Luke prefers, following the LXX (hypokatō appears only in D it syc.p in Luke 20:43).
E. The Use of Ps. 110:1 in Luke 20:42–43. The quotation of Ps. 110:1 (109:1 LXX) in 20:42 retains the pun of the Greek text: eipen ho kyrios tō kyriō mou (“The Lord said to my lord”). The Hebrew text does not have the pun: nĕʾūm yhwh lʾadonî (“oracle of Yahweh to my lord”). If Jesus quoted the Hebrew text, the pun would have been introduced into the tradition of Jesus’ sayings at a later stage. Since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, he could easily have quoted Ps. 110:1 with the pun that we find in the (later) Greek version: ʾămar māryā lĕmārʾî (Fitzmyer 1979b: 90; 1981–1985: 1312). Jesus asks how it can be possible for the Messiah to be regarded as the son of David (as Jewish tradition does) in view of the fact that Ps. 110:1 states that the Messiah is the lord of David. He assumes with regard to the text of Ps. 110:1 that the “Lord” (kyrios) is Yahweh and that “my lord” (kyrios mou) is the Messiah, and he assumes that David is the author of the psalm and that a son is not superior to his father (France 1971: 163–69; Kimball 1994b: 182).
The conviction in many Jewish circles that the Messiah would be a “son of David” is based on passages such as 2 Sam. 7:14–17; 23:1–7; Ps. 89:29–37; Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1–10; Jer. 23:5–8; 30:9; 33:14–18; Ezek. 34:23–24; Dan. 9:25; Mic. 5:2 (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:23, 36; 18:6, 8; 4Q174 I, 11–13; 4 Ezra 12:32; Shemoneh Esreh 14; b. Sanh. 98a; see TDNT 7:480–82; Fitzmyer 1974: 113–26; more generally, Charlesworth 1992).
Jesus points to an apparent contradiction between these biblical texts and Jewish convictions that assert that the Messiah is the son of David and the assertion of Ps. 110:1 that the Messiah is David’s lord (Juel 1998: 142–43). This contradiction is implicit in Jesus’ first question, and it is made explicit in the citation of Ps. 110:1 and Jesus’ second question (Marshall 1978: 747; Kimball 1994b: 181). Jesus’ hermeneutical question addresses the connection between the Davidic descent of the Messiah and the authority or status of the Messiah as lord (France 1971: 101–2; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1313; Bock 1994–1996: 1640). Jesus argues that the title “son of David” is neither the ultimate nor the only category for understanding the Messiah, since he is David’s “lord” (see Bock 1987: 132). Jesus is not concerned to dispute the traditional idea that the Messiah is of Davidic descent; rather, he is concerned “to overturn its controlling influence on people’s messianic understanding” (Nolland 1989–1993: 974). Jesus does not answer the question that he poses, and Luke records no answer of the scribes. His exposition of Ps. 110:1 argues that “the implication of the second question answers the first. It is not a matter of either/or, but of both/and: Yes, the Messiah is David’s son, but he is more: He is indeed David’s lord” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1310). The text leaves open the further question of how the Messiah/lord sits at God’s “right hand” (20:42), or whether Jesus’ enemies, particularly the Jewish leadership linked with the Jerusalem temple (note the hostile co-text of chap. 20), are in some way related to the enemies mentioned in the psalm (20:43).
Some scholars argue that Jesus’ initiation of a discussion about the identity of the Messiah and quotation of Ps. 110:1 do not make an implicit messianic claim. Some argue that Jesus’ provocative remark was “designed to open up the question of the nature of the hoped-for ultimate intervention of God in the affairs of his People” (Nolland 1989–1993: 972). On the assumption that Jesus’ teaching in the temple (20:1, 9, 21, 45) was connected with his message of the dawn of the kingdom of God, and given that Jesus linked the kingdom of God with his own person (11:20), Jesus’ remarks about the identity and authority of the Messiah suggest, however, that he implicitly raised the question of the character of his own authority.
Psalm 110:1 is the scriptural passage most often quoted or alluded to in the NT, referring to Jesus’ exaltation or vindication after his death, associated with his resurrection, ascension, and parousia, and the subjection of the heavenly powers to him (Hay [1973: 15, 163–66] finds thirty-three NT quotations and allusions; Albl [1999: 217–18] lists twenty-two NT passages). Some scholars suggest that several of the allusions to Ps. 110:1 derive from confessions or hymns of the early church (Hay 1973: 38–43). Others argue that even the confessional or hymnic use of Ps. 110:1 in the earliest Christian circles presupposes prior exegetical activity in which the messianic interpretation of Ps. 110:1 and its significance for explaining Jesus were established in connection with texts such as Dan. 7:13; Ps. 8:6, suggesting that it formed part of two advent collections and of specific testimonia collections (Albl 1999: 216–36).
F. Theological Use. Interpreted in the historical context of Jesus’ teaching in the temple in Jerusalem in the days immediately before his arrest, trial, and execution, the discussion about the person of the Messiah, initiated by Jesus, who quotes Ps. 110:1, indicates that he hinted at his messianic dignity without explicitly affirming this claim at this point (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1313). Since Jesus provides no answer to the question that he posed, and since he does not clarify his dignity as “Lord,” the implicit claim to be “Messiah” as “Lord” remains enigmatic. As Luke quotes Ps. 110:1 again on the occasion of Peter’s sermon at the Feast of Pentecost, in the context of an emphasis on Davidic sonship (Acts 2:25–36) and of specific reference to David (Acts 2:25, introducing the quotation of Ps. 16:8–11; 2:34–35, introducing the quotation of Ps. 110:1), he implies that “the full understanding of Jesus’ relation to David and of the nature of his lordship” comes only with Jesus’ resurrection and with the disciples’ faith in the risen Jesus (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1313). Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God and his authority as “Lord” are linked with his resurrection and ascension and with his provision of the divine Spirit (see Green 1997: 724).
20:47
Jesus’ denouncement of the scribes as “devouring widows’ houses,” interpreted as a prophetic generalization, echoes OT passages about the plight of the widows: Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jer. 22:3–5; Ezek. 22:7, 29; Zech. 7:10–14; Mal. 3:5 (cf. Deut. 10:18; 24:17; 27:19; Job 22:9; 24:3; Ps. 68:5; see TDNT 9:449; Danker 1988: 327; Bock 1994–1996: 1643). If these echoes are intentional, this invests Jesus’ denouncement with prophetic authority, resuming and applying the prophets’ oracles against the rich and influential who oppress the widows. The text does not specify the trouble that the scribes caused. Perhaps they cheated the widows of what was rightly theirs acting as guardians appointed by the deceased husband’s will to care for the widow’s estate (Derrett 1977: 118–28; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1318). A later rabbinic text complains against lawyers who manage a widow’s estate and extract excessive fees (b. Giṭ. 52a–b).
The discourse about the last days (21:5–38) begins with people commenting on the beauty of the temple and with Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple in 21:6: “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.” In regard to the beauty of the temple, note Josephus’s description of one of the temple gates that was completely overlaid with gold (J.W. 5.210–212; Ant. 15.395). In view of Jesus’ reference to Jeremiah’s temple sermon, in which the prophet announces the destruction of the temple (Jer. 7:1–14; cf. 22:5) in the context of his teaching in the temple (Luke 19:46), the announcement in 21:6 clearly alludes to these oracles of the prophet that were fulfilled in the first destruction of Jerusalem in July 587 BC (cf. the description in Jer. 52:12–13; 2 Kings 25:1–21). It has been suggested that first-century Jews believed that the exile had not yet ended and that they prayed and hoped for divine liberation from oppression and for the restoration of the land (Wright 1992: 268–71, 299–301). Whether Jews believed that the exile had ended yet or not, Jesus’ prediction of total annihilation certainly must have been stunning, both with regard to the monumental architecture of the Herodian temple and with regard to religious, social, and political significance of the temple as the center of the Jewish universe (Green 1997: 733).
21:8–11
In the first section of his answer to the question concerning the time in which the temple would be destroyed, Jesus predicts false prophets (21:8), wars and rebellions (21:9–10), earthquakes, plagues, famines, and portents in the sky (21:11). Jesus’ prophecy evokes several prophetic oracles of the OT, implying that Israel’s history will repeat itself as a result of the nation’s disobedience, and warns his followers so that they will not be surprised when “these things” (21:9) happen.
Jesus’ brief description of the false prophets’ proclamation with the phrase “The time is near!” (ho kairos ēngiken [21:8]) possibly echoes Dan. 7:22, a text that belongs to the interpretation of the vision of the four great beasts (Dan. 7:1–28) that signify four great kings who will arise from the earth (7:17). The interpretation of the fourth beast with ten horns (7:9–14) in 7:21–22 underscores its wickedness: “This horn made war with the holy ones and was prevailing over them, until the Ancient One came; then judgment was given for the holy ones of the Most High, and the time arrived when the holy ones gained possession of the kingdom.” The phrase “the time arrived” (LXX: ho kairos edothē; Theodotion: ho kairos ephthasen) does not use the same verb as in 21:8, but the apocalyptic context is similar: expressing Jesus’ words with echoes of Dan. 7 sharpens Jesus’ denial in 21:9b (“the end will not follow immediately”): his followers must not trust these false prophets (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1336).
The assertion in 21:9 that this “must happen first” (dei gar tauta genesthai prōton) but that “the end will not follow immediately” (all’ ouk eutheōs to telos echoes Dan. 2:28, where Daniel says to King Nebuchadnezzar, “There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has disclosed to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen at the end of days [ha dei genesthai ep’ eschatōn tōn hēmerōn].” This link with Dan. 2:28 highlights the notion that Jesus speaks about events that mark the “last days.”
The description of apocalyptic wars in 21:9–10 alludes to 2 Chron. 15:6; Isa. 19:2 (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1335; Nolland 1989–1993: 992). The prophet states in his oracle against Egypt (Isa. 19:1–17) that Yahweh “will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they will fight, one against the other, neighbor against neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom” (19:2). As Egyptians are “stirred up” (epegerthēsontai) against Egyptians, so “nations will rise up against nations” (egerthēsontai ethnos ep’ ethnos [Luke 21:10]). The “wars and insurrections” (polemoi kai akatastasiai) of Luke 21:9 echo Isaiah’s prophecy that the Egyptians “will fight [polemēsei] one against the other, neighbor against neighbor, city against city.” The war of “kingdom against kingdom” (basileia epi basileian [Luke 21:10]) echoes Isaiah’s prediction of the fight of “kingdom against kingdom” (mamlākâh bĕmamlākâh; LXX: nomos epi nomon, where nomos refers to the “districts” or nomes of Egypt [see LEH 2:318]).
It is less obvious that 21:10 echoes the prophet Azariah’s description in 2 Chron. 15:6 of the “great disturbances” that “afflicted all the inhabitants of the lands” (15:5) when Yahweh had punished Israel in the past when the nation was “without the true God” (15:3). The prophet reminds King Asa that “they were broken in pieces, nation against nation and city against city, for God troubled them with every sort of distress” (15:6; LXX: kai polemēsei ethnos pros ethnos, “and nation will fight against nation”). Although the verb polemeō and the phrase ethnos epi/pros ethnos occur in both passages, the context of 2 Chron. 15:6 is not apocalyptic (pace Fitzmyer [1981–1985: 1335], who links the “end” in Luke 21:9 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, citing Josephus’s description in Ant. 6.274, 285, 288–289, although he acknowledges the presence of apocalyptic language in Luke 21:8–11).
Both earlier and later apocalyptic and rabbinic texts consider international conflicts and wars as a sign that the end is approaching: “When you see the kingdoms fighting against one another, look and expect the foot of the Messiah” (Gen. Rab. 42:4; cf. Sib. Or. 3:538, 635–651, 660; 5:361–385; 4 Ezra 13:29–31; b. Sanh. 97a; see Lachs 1987: 379–80).
The description of cosmic cataclysms, which include earthquakes, plagues, famines, and terrifying portents in the sky, reads, “There will be great earthquakes [seismoi te megaloi], and in various places famines and plagues; and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven” (21:11). This is an echo of and possibly an allusion to Ezek. 38:19–22 (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1335, 1337). In Ezekiel’s oracle against Gog of the land of Magog (38:17–39:6), Yahweh declares, “On that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel [estai seismos megas epi gēs Israēl]; the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the animals of the field, and all creeping things that creep on the ground, and all human beings that are on the face of the earth, shall quake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground. I will summon the sword against Gog in all my mountains, says the LORD God; the swords of all will be against their comrades” (38:19–21). Similar apocalyptic announcements are found in Isa. 5:13–14 (hunger); 8:21 (hunger); 13:13 (earthquake); 14:30 (famine); Hag. 2:6 (earthquake) (cf. 2 Bar. 2:3; Jub. 23:13).
21:12–19
The reference in 21:16 to close relatives becoming persecutors (“You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death”) and the prediction of receiving hatred in 21:17 (“You will be hated by all because of my name”) echo several OT passages and early Jewish and rabbinic traditions that speak of the breakdown of family solidarity in the last days, particularly Mic. 7:2, 6; Zech. 13:3 (cf. Jub. 23:19; 1 En. 100:1–2; 4 Ezra 5:9; 6:24; 2 Bar. 70:3; m. Soṭah 9:5; b. Sanh. 97a; see Lachs 1987: 381). Several authors argue that the allusion to 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,” in the parallel text Mark 13:12, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death,” has been removed by Luke (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1340; Nolland 1989–1993: 997). Indeed, unlike Mark, Luke does not list pairs (brother betraying brother, father betraying child, etc.), but rather provides a list of unfaithful relatives and friends. Even though Luke’s list in 21:16 is more general than Micah’s (and Mark’s) list, there is no reason to deny that 21:16–17 echo Mic. 7:6, as well as Zech. 13:3: “And if any prophets appear again, their fathers and mothers who bore them will say to them, ‘You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD’; and their fathers and their mothers who bore them shall pierce them through when they prophesy.”
The proverbial assertion in 21:18, “Not a hair of your head will perish,” echoes 1 Sam. 14:45; 2 Sam. 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52 and occurred in Jesus’ exhortation to fearless confession in Luke 12:7 (see commentary there). Read in the light of 21:16, which announces the execution of some of Jesus’ followers, this proverbial expression does not promise complete physical safety, but rather asserts that nothing will happen to the disciples apart from God’s sovereign will. And, read in the context of 21:17, the proverbial expression implies a promise that “persecution, even death, does not spell the end of life for the faithful” (Green 1997: 738).
The statement in 21:19, “By your endurance [en tē hypomonē hymōn] you will gain your souls,” perhaps reminds the reader of Mic. 7:7, “But as for me, I will look to the LORD, I will wait for the God [LXX: hypomenō epi tō theō] of my salvation”; Dan. 11:32, 35, “The people who are loyal to their God shall stand firm and take action. . . . Some of the wise shall fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed, until the time of the end, for there is still an interval until the time appointed”; Dan. 12:1, 12, “There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. . . . Happy are those who persevere [makarios ho hypomenōn] and attain the thousand three hundred thirty-five days.” For the motif of endurance in an apocalyptic or eschatological context, see also 4 Ezra 6:18; 13:16; 2 Bar. 25:1–7; Lam. Rab. 2:13 (100b); b. Sanh. 97b (Lachs 1987: 382).
21:20–24
In the section about the destruction of Jerusalem, the reference in 21:20 to the “desolation” (erēmōsis) echoes the phrase “abomination of desolation” of Dan. 12:11 LXX (bdelygma tēs erēmōseōs [quoted verbatim in Mark 13:14; cf. Dan. 9:27; 11:31]), which translates the Hebrew šiqqûṣ šōmēm (“desolating abomination”)—that is, the detestable thing that causes the desolation, or desecration, of the Jerusalem temple (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1345). In 1 Macc. 1:54 the phrase bdelygma erēmōseōs is used for the “desolating sacrilege” that the people of Antiochus IV Epiphanes erected on the altar of burnt offering. Luke does not specify what will cause the “desolation”—the encircling armies do not constitute the “desolation” itself but merely signal that it has “come near,” which suggests that for Luke the erēmōsis is the destruction of the city and the temple. Many scholars refer to Josephus’s description of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (J.W. 5.47–97; 6.93, 149–156, 201–211, 271–273, 420; 7.112–115, 118, 138, 154) as the basis for Luke’s account (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1343), while others point to OT descriptions of earlier threats to Jerusalem (Isa. 29:3; Jer. 34:1; 44:6, 22; cf. 2 Kings 6:24–31) (see Nolland 1989–1993: 1000).
In 21:21a the call to flee to the mountains is a common OT and apocalyptic image (cf. Gen. 19:17, 19; Judg. 1:34; 6:2; 1 Sam. 23:19; 26:1; 1 Kings 22:17; Isa. 15:5; Jer. 16:16; 49:8; 50:6; Lam. 4:19; Ezek. 7:16; Amos 5:19–20; Nah. 3:18; Zech. 14:5; cf. 1 Macc. 2:28; 2 Macc. 5:27; T. Moses 9:6; see Marshall 1978: 772; Bock 1994–1996: 1677; Nolland 1989–1993: 1001). The second and third clauses of Jesus’ counsel in 21:21b–c, “Those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it,” focusing strictly on events in Jerusalem, are perhaps an allusion to Jer. 51:45: “Come out of her, my people! Save your lives, each of you, from the fierce anger of the LORD!” Note also Jeremiah’s advice to the doomed inhabitants of Jerusalem in Jer. 21:8–10. The Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, which occasionally provided opportunities for slipping out of the city after an initial encirclement, provides a historical precedent for this kind of behavior (cf. Jer. 34:21; 37:11; 52:7; see Nolland 1989–1993: 1001).
In 21:22 the assertion that “these are the days of vengeance” (hēmerai ekdikēseōs hautai eisin) is an allusion to Hos. 9:7 LXX, which announces that “the days of vengeance have come” (hēkasin hai hēmerai tēs ekdikēseōs, accurately translating Heb. bāʾû yĕmê happĕqûddāh). This announcement belongs to Hosea’s accusation that Israel has rejected Yahweh and rebuffed his prophet, the basis for his prophecy that God will punish the nation (see Neyrey 1985: 118). Luke’s phrase may also echo Jer. 51:6 [28:6 LXX], in which the prophet calls Israel and Judah to “flee from the midst of Babylon” in order not to perish, “for this is the time of the LORD’s vengeance” (kairos ekdikēseōs autēs estin para kyriō). Even though the context is Babylon’s judgment, the fact that Hebrew nĕqāmāh is closer to the Greek ekdikēsis than Hebrew šillūm in Hos. 9:7 and the fact that it follows a reference to fleeing from a doomed city (as in Luke 21:22) suggest to some scholars that an allusion to Jer. 51:6 is more likely: this OT background would prepare for “the move from judgment upon Jerusalem by the Gentiles to judgment in turn upon the Gentiles” (cf. 21:24, 25–26), as Jer. 51:6 predicts that God will inflict upon Babylon what the Babylonians had earlier inflicted upon Jerusalem (Nolland 1989–1993: 1001). Luke is the only Gospel writer who includes this reference to God’s vengeance, although he does not explain in what sense the “desolation” of Jerusalem is “vengeance” (Fitzmyer [1981–1985: 1345], who refers to Deut. 32:35; Jer. 46:10 [26:10 LXX] for similar expressions of God’s vengeance).
The reference to the coming days of vengeance as a “fulfillment of all that is written” (tou plēsthēnai panta ta gegrammena) not only refers to Deut. 28:64; Jer. 20:4–6; Zech. 12:3, which are alluded to in 21:24, but also echoes other OT oracles that announce punishment for Israel as a result of covenantal unfaithfulness (cf. Lev. 26:31–33; Deut. 28:49–57; 32:35; 1 Kings 9:6–9; Isa. 34:8; Jer. 5:29; 6:1–8; 7:8–15; 26:1–9; 46:10; 50:27; 51:6; Dan. 9:26; Hos. 9:7; Mic. 3:12; Zech. 11:6; cf. 8:1–8; see Bock 1994–1996: 1678).
In 21:23b the announcement that “there will be great distress on the earth [anankē megalē epi tēs gēs] and wrath against this people [orgē tō laō toutō]” conceptually recalls Deut. 28:58–68, a passage that announces plagues, diseases, illnesses, disasters, destruction, exile, anxious minds, weariness, despairing hearts, dread, and terror for God’s people if they do not carefully follow all the words of God’s law (Bock [1994–1996: 1679n31], who further refers to Isa. 9:12; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 5:13; 30:3; 32:9). The term anankē (“distress”) stands for the term thlipsis (“tribulation”), used in the parallel text of Mark 13:19, which frequently occurs in apocalyptic contexts (Dan. 12:1; Hab. 3:16; Zeph. 1:15; cf. 2 Bar. 15:8; 48:50; 4 Ezra 7:89; 1QM I, 12; 1QHa X, 6–12).
The prophecy of 21:24, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem “will fall by the edge of the sword [kai pesountai stomati machairēs] and be taken away as captives among all nations [aichmalōtisthēsontai eis ta ethnē panta], and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles [Ierousalēm estai patoumenē hypo ethnōn], until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,” recalls several OT predictions of God’s judgment upon Jerusalem. For OT descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem, see Jer. 20:4–6; 39:1–10; 52:5–10. For prophecies of judgment upon Jerusalem and/or Israel/Judah, see Isa. 10; Jer. 50–52 (see Nolland 1989–1993: 1004). For the concept of being “trampled” by hostile armies, see Isa. 28:3; 41:25; Ezek. 26:11 (see Neyrey 1985: 118).
The first part of the prediction echoes Jer. 20:4, “They shall fall by the sword of their enemies. . . . He [the king of Babylon] shall kill them with the sword [pesountai en machaira echtrōn autōn],” a passage that predicts the destruction of Jerusalem following Jeremiah’s symbolic action of smashing a potter’s jar to pieces (Jer. 19:1–15).
The second phrase of Jesus’ prophecy alludes to Deut. 28:64 LXX, “The LORD your God will scatter you among all peoples [diasperei se kyrios ho theos sou eis panta ta ethnē], from one end of the earth to the other,” a text that records Moses’ explanation of the curses that will bring Yahweh’s judgment upon disobedient Israel in Deut. 27. The assertion that in Luke’s context the captivity would refer to that of the Romans (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 1346) must not be misinterpreted. It is certainly true that the reference is to the events of AD 66–70 when a Roman army besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and carried thousands of Jews into captivity. We should note, however, that we do not know how many of the ninety-seven thousand Jews taken prisoner during this entire period (Josephus, J.W. 6.420) were sold into slavery and forced to leave Judea. Furthermore, not all of these Jewish slaves were taken to Rome and Italy: at one point during the war, Vespasian transported six thousand Jewish prisoners to Corinth to work on Nero’s canal through the isthmus there (Josephus, J.W. 3.539).
The third part of Jesus’ prediction is an allusion to Zech. 12:3 LXX: “And it will come to pass on that day that I shall make Jerusalem a stone trampled upon by all the nations [thēsomai Ierousalēm lithon katapatoumenon pasin tois ethnesin]; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth shall come together against it.” This is a paraphrase of the Hebrew text of Zech. 12:3, which reads, “On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples.” This text belongs to Zechariah’s oracle against Jerusalem, whose citizens are summoned to repent of sin and infidelity.
In regard to the fourth and final phrase in 21:24, “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (achri hou plērōthōsin kairoi ethnōn), the notion of a limit to apocalyptic sufferings recalls Dan. 8:13–14; 12:5–13 (cf. 1QS IV, 18), while the idea of a fixed period of rule echoes Jer. 27:7: “All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes.” The language of the phrase is similar to Tob. 14:5, “God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one, until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come [B: heōs plērōthōsin kairoi tou aiōnos],” part of Tobit’s last words before he dies, reassuring the reader that the word of God spoken through the prophets will come to pass, as God will bring them back from exile into the land of Israel (see Marshall 1978: 773). The suggestion that the phrase “times of the Gentiles” refers to the period of the Gentile mission in which Gentiles are converted (see Bock 1994–1996: 1680–81, with reference to Rom. 11:25–26)—a thought that is found in Tob. 14:6 (see also Zech. 8:12–14) and may recall the explicit reference to the preaching of the gospel to “all the nations” before the end comes in Mark 13:10—is possible, although other scholars interpret the “times of the nations” in terms of “the time for a turn of judgment for each one of the nations” (Nolland 1989–1993: 1004).