THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
After 19:39, Pharisees disappear from Luke. Jesus’ challengers become the high-priestly coterie. From earliest interpretations, debates have raged about exousia (“authority” or “power,” 20:2, 8). The high-priestly party actually asks, “By what sort of power do you do these things? Who gave you this power?” (20:2). The source of power is the issue for both John and Jesus. Both lack authority (20:2–8).
Many interpreters understand the parable of the wicked tenants as rejecting Israel. But Luke correlates the tenants only with the high-priestly party (20:19), differentiated from the people in 19:48. The introduction for the trick question in 20:20 clearly spells out collaboration with the governor in imperial systems. Jesus’ saying about tribute has been taken as indicating what in the United States is now called the separation of church and state. Jesus actually turns the question of tribute back on his interlocutors. The “Tiberius Denarius” of the time bears a “graven image” of the emperor with legends that label him “divine” and “high priest.” The coin also belongs to mammon that derives from injustice (16:9, 11), and it recalls: “You cannot serve God and mammon” (16:13; similarly Green 1997, 716). The interlocutors are left to ponder their own question.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Jesus’ disruption in the temple has strong support as a historical factor in his execution (E. P. Sanders, 253–68). The multitude’s praise and benediction in 19:37–38 is christological but remains theocentric. That is, Jesus’ deeds manifest God’s power and produce praise of God. Arguments that the prediction of the siege of Jerusalem is an anachronistic reading of its devastation in 70 CE back into the life of Jesus are dubious. The prediction borrows from scriptural accounts of sieges (19:43–44) and is a logical deduction from imperial domination (Dodd 1947; Wolter, 634–35). Jesus’ comparison of himself with John in 20:4 recalls John’s economic and political emphases (3:10–14, 19–20). Prominent models for peace today presume that it is dependent on armed strength. In consideration of the larger context of Luke, the things that make for peace in 19:42 are good news for the poor and liberation from oppression.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
Jesus turns to critiques of socioreligious conventions. Luke 20:45–47 does not condemn all scribes, but those who seek honor and abuse widows. The line of thought continues in 21:1–4 with rich people, like the scribes in 20:46, and a poor widow, who is like those abused in 20:47. In destitution, she casts her life (bios) into the temple treasury. She outshines the charity of elites but is hardly an example to emulate. Her offering is qualified by scribes who abuse widows and by Jesus’ immediate prediction of the temple’s destruction (21:4). She casts her bios into a collapsing institution.
Jesus’ audience is unclear. He addresses disciples in 20:45, but others overhear. In 21:7, “they” ask when the collapse will occur. Nevertheless, the imperatives in 21:8 are directed to his followers. Jesus’ response to inquiries about the time of the collapse is indeterminate, but he warns against deception from false claimants (21:8) or portentous events (21:9–11). Jesus warns of persecution in an unspecified period of time from control agents in imperial systems, kings, governors, synagogues, and prisons (21:12). This occasions exhortations for testimony that derives from a continuing relationship with Jesus (21:13–15).
Jesus paints the time of crisis in alarming tones: family and social conflict, military violence, hardships for pregnant women, mothers, and infants (21:20–24)—a time of punishment for, or justice against, evil (ekdikēsis). It is likely that Luke’s audience had already witnessed some such, but would be puzzled by Jerusalem’s rehabilitation after the time of the nations (21:24).
Suspense and uncertainly continue with Jesus’ forecast of confusion over cosmic portents, natural disasters, and the shaking of heavenly powers (21:25–26). This becomes the setting for the ultimate manifestation of the son of man (21:27, alluding to Dan. 7:13). Violence and cosmic dissolution then turn into optimism, because as the ultimate manifestation approaches, evil powers fight violently but in vain. Increased violence signals how close they are to defeat (21:28–31). When Jesus says, “This generation will not pass away until all has taken place” (21:32), Luke’s audience would have understood “this generation” to mean “the human race.” Nolland (3:1009–10) takes “this generation” (21:32) as “Jesus’ contemporaries,” who obviously would have passed away before Luke’s audience heard these words. But the fundamental meaning of the Greek means “what is born” (= “all who live on earth” in 21:35). Wolter (682) is on track when he takes the Greek to mean the “human race.”
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Scribes belong to an established group, but verse 46 is most properly understood as “those scribes who like to walk around in long robes.” Rather than characterize all scribes, Jesus specifies those who seek honor but practice abuse (Nolland, 3:975–76; against Green 1997, 725). Abusing widows contravenes Torah stipulations to care for them. What “devouring houses” means is beyond recovery. Bios (21:4) means “life” or “sustenance for life.” Luke is both looking back on events including the fall of Jerusalem and looking forward beyond his own time (Wolter, 672).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Although the poor widow’s gift shames the rich, feminist and postcolonial interpreters (e.g., Sugirtharajah) correctly resist using her to encourage sacrificial giving. On scribes who abuse widows, Amy-Jill Levine objects appropriately to anti-Jewish attempts to negatively characterize all scribes and temple functionaries (oral presentation at Duke Divinity School, Durham, NC, February 20, 2013). On the other hand, critiques of elite collaborators in favor of preserving Israel’s heritage are hardly anti-Jewish.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
Luke’s narrative changes abruptly at 22:1. Jesus’ didactic encounters with people cease. Execution plots set the tone (22:2). Characters take sides—the high priests, Satan, and Judas over against Jesus, his disciples, and the people (22:2).
Sober realism modifies festivity (Passover recalls liberation and oppression). Jesus vows abstinence for the coming of God’s commonwealth (22:18), presumably the final manifestation of the son of man from 21:27. Moreover, he interprets his final Passover as the giving of himself and a “new covenant.” “New covenant” recollects both the Abrahamic covenant (synthesized with other covenant traditions) and Jer. 31:31, where it means not the replacement of but renewed consecration to Israel’s covenant with God. Table solidarity fades, however, when Jesus announces Judas’s betrayal (22:22).
Unexpectedly, the apostles reflect not God’s commonwealth but imperial rulers—intrigue, betrayal, competition for priority (22:25). Jesus mandates God’s commonwealth as a blunt alternative: “Not so for you” (22:26). Second, he inverts hierarchy into mutuality. He himself is “one who serves” (22:27).
Therefore, when Jesus confers his commonwealth on the apostles, Luke’s audience understands his redefinition of rulers and thrones as mutuality (22:29–30). But when Jesus forecasts a satanic attack, the apostles’ place in God’s commonwealth again comes under threat (22:31–34). In 22:35–38, Jesus enigmatically advises his disciples to arm themselves, amending instructions in 9:3; 10:4. Earlier, they lived in mutuality; now they face animosity. Moreover, Jesus connects swords with fulfilling Scripture—they play the role of outlaws (22:37).
In 22:40, 46, Jesus and the apostles retreat to pray that they not enter into temptation, as in 11:4. Jesus himself appeals to God as Father. The cup metaphor for what lies ahead (22:41–42) also looks back to the new covenant (22:20). Both mean consecration to God. Grief already leads the apostles into temptation—instead of praying, they sleep (22:45).
With swords and failure at prayer, things turn topsy-turvy. Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss (22:47–48). All the apostles are willing to engage in swordplay. One actually does. They really do play the role of outlaws and mimic imperial violence. According to 22:37, this fulfills Scripture. By contrast, Jesus manifests God’s commonwealth by stopping the swordplay and healing (22:49–51). Jesus’ arrest confuses daylight and darkness (22:53).
While Jesus faces the high priest, Peter faces people of insignificant rank, and his promises of fidelity turn into denial (22:33, 54–62). The king who comes in the Lord’s name (19:38) is mocked (22:63). The council demands that the one whose deeds manifested God’s finger (11:20) confess whether he is the Messiah or not (22:67). When Jesus forecasts the manifestation of the son of man, the council ironically calls him “son of God.” The interrogative “Are you the son of God?” can also be declarative: “You are the son of God.” Jesus responds: “That [claim] is on your lips” (22:70). The testimony on their lips then becomes evidence against him.
In chapter 23, things remain topsy-turvy. Before Pilate, the high-priestly party accuses Jesus of being an insurgent king (23:2). Recalling the irony of “son of God” on the council’s lips, Pilate’s question, “Are you king of the Jewish people?” can also be declarative: “You are the king of the Jewish people.” Jesus responds as he did to the council: “[That] is on your lips” (23:3). Herod’s entrance (23:8) recalls repeated appearances in 3:1, 19–20; 9:7–9; 13:31–32. He and his soldiers mock Jesus as if he were a member of the ruling elite in elegant clothing (23:11).
In 23:22, Pilate declares Jesus innocent for the third time, but then delivers the verdict against him. Luke’s audience could hardly have reacted positively to Pilate or Roman justice. Things are still topsy-turvy. Roman (in)justice condemns an innocent man (Lee, 100). Assertions of Jesus’ innocence also follow the crucifixion: a victim crucified with him declares that Jesus has done nothing wrong (23:41); a Roman centurion declares him innocent (23:47); observers leave beating their breasts in remorse (23:48). Injustice is what Rome’s systems look like. Leaders ridicule Jesus as saving others but unable to save himself, but unwittingly they deny the criterion of life in God’s commonwealth: “Those who want to save their life will lose it” (9:24). Soldiers mock him as carnival king (23:36), daylight turns into darkness (23:44), the temple curtain separating sacred from profane is split (23:45). Like other temporary inversions at Jesus’ crucifixion, there is no indication in Luke that the temple structure is abrogated. Note the resumption of activity in the temple in 24:53 as well as in Acts.
One thing contests utter absurdity. Quoting Ps. 30:6 LXX, Jesus commits his life to God (Luke 23:46). Luke’s audience likely knew the psalm well enough to finish the verse: “Redeem me, Lord God of truth.” A few acquaintances watch, Joseph of Arimathea entombs Jesus’ body, and some women prepare to pay last respects (23:49–56).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Debates have raged over the meaning of “this is my body” (22:19). Roman Catholicism has held that without changing outward features, sacramental bread is transformed into Christ’s body. Lutheranism speaks instead of Christ’s presence in, with, and under the bread. Anything similar for the cup is impossible, because in Luke what is poured out is not blood but a new covenant (22:20). Luke attaches “do this in remembrance of me” only to the bread (22:19). Lack of a referent for “this” leaves uncertain what is to be done. Interpreters often take “remembrance” (anamnēsis) as making present what is remembered. This interpretation is a post—New Testament development (Brawley 1990a).
Accusations against Jesus before Pilate are political (23:2). Crucifixion was reserved for defiant slaves and unpacified foreigners. The mode of execution means that Jesus and the other two victims were executed as rebels. But Jesus’ protest to his arrest as if he were a “brigand” (22:53) means that Jesus was executed “as if” he were a rebel.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
The role of Jerusalem’s populace in Jesus’ execution is heavily debated. Identifying “the people” as the same group in every instance is problematic. Luke 22:2 separates the people from the high-priestly party. A crowd in 23:4 is the council of 22:66; 23:1. Their concern for “this place” associates them with the temple, and their perspective that Jesus stirs up “the [other] people” subtly differentiates them from “the people” (23:5). In 23:13, the context associates “the people” with the high priests. Pilate also says that he examined Jesus in the presence of this coalition (23:14), and thus they are the crowd of the council associated with the chief priests in 23:4. They are never identified as the Jewish people of Jerusalem (against Green 1997, 791; and Wolter, 745–46; Wolter softens this to “representatives”). The summary of opponents in 24:20 omits the people.
A closely related discussion interprets Luke not only as anti-Jewish but also pro-Roman. Postcolonial perspectives shed new light on this. Rome delegated control of local populations to native elite collaborators, whom Josephus identifies as “the high priests” (Ant. 20.251). Native collaborators may resist colonizers out of nationalistic concerns, but also support them in order to maintain privilege in colonial systems. In this light, Jesus’ crucifixion is not a matter of theological ideology but of maintaining order (Lee, 95–96). From Mary’s song (1:46–55) to Jesus’ prescription for disciples in contrast to imperial systems (22:25–26), tensions with imperial systems in Luke is strong (Lee, 97). Although Jesus rejects rebellion, he proclaims God’s commonwealth as an alternative to Rome’s systems. Rome’s systems claimed to bring justice to vanquished nations. By comparison, Pilate’s verdict against Jesus in spite of declaring him innocent makes Rome’s justice a travesty (Lee). Declarations of innocence also reflect negatively on Jewish people (Wolter, 688), but they are on the lips of Pilate, Herod (as Pilate alleges), a victim on a cross, and a Roman centurion. Pilate attempts to persuade the high priests, but they never treat Jesus as innocent of undermining imperial systems.
In the New Testament, “new covenant” occurs only in 1 Cor. 11:25, its parallel in Luke 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6 (alluding to Jer. 31:31); and Heb. 8:8, 13, quoting Jer. 31:31–34. In spite of the prominence of “new” in Christian history and the scriptural canon, “covenant” in the New Testament virtually always (if not always) refers to Israel’s covenant traditions. Jesus’ new covenant as consecration of the heart, as in Jeremiah, is not discontinuous with Israel’s heritage (also Green 1997, 763).
Postcolonialists have taken references to ruling (22:30) and swords (22:36, 49–50) as mimicry of Roman domination and violence. But before conferring thrones on the apostles, Jesus subverts imperial hierarchies (22:25–27). This subversion defies mimicry and redefines commonwealth and thrones as mutuality. The apostles’ swordplay in 22:49–50 is imperial mimicry, which Jesus stops (22:51).
Luke portrays attempts of Jesus’ opponents, from mockery to crucifixion, to reduce him to absurdity. Crucifixion is not only castigation but shaming to the uttermost. The other side of the story resists reduction to absurdity by irony and scriptural figurations (Brawley 1995, 42–60).
The other two victims crucified with Jesus (23:39–43) reflect the division among the people anticipated by Simeon (1:34–35). One mocks Jesus; the other declares him innocent. The second accepts crucifixion as deserved justice (v. 41) and thereby unjustly internalizes the values of the empire. Crucifixion was a vile form of capital punishment designed to terrorize resistors to the empire administered without “equality under the law” (compare executions of “terrorists” today). Traditionally, the second rebel has been called “penitent.” But more than confess his deeds (v. 41), he confesses Jesus’ commonwealth beyond the crucifixion before anyone else does (Wolter, 760): “Remember me when you come into your commonwealth” (v. 42). Jesus’ reference to Paradise (v. 43) is too brief and inexact to build definitive pictures of the afterlife.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
After Jesus’ violent crucifixion, Luke 24 opens with the softness of dawn. Women resume their solemn task, delayed by Sabbath, of anointing Jesus’ body (23:56). Quickly, mysteriously, their unenviable but compassionate task is canceled, and incidents pile up for an eventful day. The stone—unmentioned earlier—is rolled away. “The” stone (24:2), with the definite article in its first reference, may presume familiarity with the tomb story or may be a cultural presumption that a stone would close the tomb. Jesus’ body is absent. Two men (later called “messengers,” angeloi, 24:23) in clothes shining like lightning startle them (24:1–4). The men ask a succinct question and jog memories: “Why are you seeking the one who lives among the dead? He is not here but has been raised. Remember what he told you.” With the declaration “he is not here,” the tomb loses significance (Green 1997, 836). For the women and Luke’s audience, an empty tomb does not mean resurrection, and the messengers must interpret it by recalling Jesus’ passion predictions (24:5–7). “He is risen” (24:5 NRSV) is a divine passive. “Has been raised” is preferable. Resurrection is God’s act. The women’s task is redefined. They had sought one who was dead among the dead. Astute listeners might have wondered if Jesus predicted his passion on occasions that are unnarrated because in 9:22; 18:31–34, he informed his disciples, not the women. But when the women remember, the predictions belong to their community just as to Luke’s audience.
The women, who are named, report to a small but coherent community. The apostles consider their report nonsense. Because of the reminders of Jesus’ passion predictions, made specifically to the apostles, their unbelief cannot be attributed to the low status of women in the culture (Green 1997, 840; against Nolland, 3:1193). Luke’s audience knows that they are reliable (Tannehill 1986, 7–8, 21–22, 294). Somehow Peter (and others, 24:24) is a partial exception to the evaluation of the women as unreliable. He visits the tomb, sees some linen cloths, and goes home mystified (24:10–12).
Suddenly the story moves with two “of them” toward Emmaus. Their knowledge of “everything” is irony. They are unaware of Jesus’ identity, and this “stranger” knows more than they. Reminiscent of Simeon and Anna (2:25, 38), they recount their hopes for Israel’s redemption, now dashed: “We had hoped” (24:21). They reprise the five brothers in 16:31: they are unpersuaded, even though someone has been raised. Still, they ponder the women’s report and mention others involved in Peter’s experience at the tomb. In spite of the announcement that Jesus had been raised, they do not interpret the empty tomb as resurrection (24:13–24). Jesus, incognito, then provides a key for understanding. He interprets himself from Scripture but also interprets Scripture from himself. The essence of the interpretation is the Messiah’s entering into glory after suffering (24:25–27). “Glory” in 24:26 means manifestations of God’s power.
The travelers, probably husband and wife, extend the stranger hospitality (see 9:4–5). Reminiscent of Jesus’ last supper (22:17–20) and feeding the five thousand (9:12–17), Jesus also plays the role of host in the home where he is the guest, blessing and breaking bread. In this act, they recognize the risen Jesus, but enigmatically, he vanishes (24:28–32). When they immediately return to Jerusalem, they find a coherent group, not scattered, but gathered like a family experiencing death. Luke’s audience expects the two from Emmaus to tell their experience. Instead, the two listen as those in the group relate their experiences, including Jesus’ appearance to Peter, which otherwise goes unnarrated (24:33–35).
Jesus astonishingly appears among them. He questions doubts, demonstrates his wounds and materiality (nails were unmentioned in Luke’s crucifixion narrative), and eats (24:36–43). Then reviewing his ministry, he again interprets Scripture in terms of his suffering and resurrection (24:44–46). He also envisages this group’s mission to proclaim repentance and forgiveness, which he universalizes and for which he promises empowerment (24:47–49). Listeners who also hear Acts 1:4–5 might retrospectively pick up allusions to Luke 11:13—God’s eagerness to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Tannehill 1986, 239).
Luke succinctly recounts Jesus’ ascension, accompanied by a benediction (24:50). This becomes the occasion for spontaneous worship reinforced by continual worship of God. Luke begins with Zechariah in the temple and ends with Jesus’ followers likewise in the temple. In spite of Luke’s quarrels with the high priesthood, his audience could not have taken the Gospel as antitemple.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
In contrast to the other Gospels, Luke locates all resurrection events in the environs of Jerusalem. Mark has no resurrection appearances, but anticipates them in Galilee. Matthew and John mix the locales. Luke’s focus on Jerusalem likely has to do with the biblical perspective on Jerusalem as the center of the world, the point of contact between heaven and earth. When Gabriel appears in the temple, the first locale mentioned in Luke (1:8), he steps down from heaven at the central point of contact between heaven and earth. Although Gabriel also appears to Mary in Nazareth, the appearance in the temple emphasizes the direct contact of heaven and earth. At the end of Luke, Jesus ascends to heaven, also in the environs of Jerusalem. Further, Jesus’ followers await the fulfillment of the promise of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem, which in Acts, indeed, happens in Jerusalem (Brawley 1987, 118–32).
When Acts is taken into consideration, it is popular to argue for a shift of the center from Jerusalem to Rome. True, Paul winds up in Rome, but to make his destiny the destiny of the gospel is simply a category error. Beginning and ending the narrative in the temple, resurrection appearances in and around Jerusalem, and the ascension in the precinct of Jerusalem are part of Luke’s emphasis on the validity of the good news as deriving from and centering on God.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Luke’s empty tomb is not the basis for believing Jesus’ resurrection. Various explanations for empty tombs are possible, and resurrection is usually not among them. The proclamation of the messengers provides the crucial interpretation. The empty tomb does not explain Jesus’ resurrection; Jesus’ resurrection explains it (Wolter, 770, 772). Even the proclamation remains incomplete without scriptural interpretations and resurrection appearances.
Schüssler Fiorenza (1992, 213) maintains that even though Luke reports the women at the tomb, he suppresses them by slighting their report (24:11) and ignoring resurrection appearances to them narrated elsewhere. Peter still holds first place in resurrection appearances in 24:34, although no narrative of it exists. The appearance to Peter even takes precedence over the Emmaus couple, likely husband and wife. Those who hear Luke’s account of the place of women in Jesus’ story should find it hard to understand how proclamation of the resurrection could ever have come about without women.
At the beginning, Luke presupposes and builds on a story of God’s deeds that keep divine promises alive. The risen Jesus’ last words in Luke instruct his followers to wait for what God has promised (24:49). Luke’s audience waits with Jesus’ followers to see how this will come to pass. Even without Acts as a sequel, they would expect the story of God’s work to continue.
Alexander, Loveday. 1993. The Preface to Luke’s Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Annen, Franz. 1976. Heil für die Heiden. Frankfurt: Knecht.
Bendemann, Reinhard von. 2001. Zwischen ΔΟΣΑ und ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bovon, François. 2002. Luke: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Vol. 1. Trans. Christine M. Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Braun, Willi. 1995. Feasting and Social Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brawley, Robert. 1987. Luke-Acts and the Jews. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
———. 1990a. “Anamnesis and Absence in the Lord’s Supper.” BTB 20:139–46.
———. 1990b. Centering on God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
———. 1995. Text to Text Pours Forth Speech. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
———. 1998. “Offspring and Parent.” SBLSP, 2:807–30. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
———. 1999. “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke-Acts.” In The Unity of Luke-Acts, edited by J. Verheyden, 109–32. Leuven: Peeters.
Brown, Raymond. 1979. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Carter, Warren. 2000. Matthew and the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
———. 2003. “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class?” JBL 122:467–87.
———. 2006. The Roman Empire in the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon.
Conzelmann, Hans. 1960. The Theology of St. Luke. New York: Harper & Bros.
Cotter, Wendy. 2005. “The Parable of the Feisty Widow and the Threatened Judge.” NTS 51:328–43.
Cullmann, Oscar. 1963. The Christology of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Dodd, C. H. 1947. “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation.’ ” JRS 37:47–54.
———. 1961. Parables of the Kingdom. New York: Scribner.
Egelkraut, Helmuth. 1976. Jesus’ Mission to Jerusalem. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ehrhardt, Arnold. 1953. “Greek Proverbs in the Gospel.” HTR 46:68–72.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1973. “The Virginal Conception of Jesus in the New Testament.” TS 34:541–75.
———. 1981. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX. AB 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
———. 1985. The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV. AB 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Garnsey, Peter. 1970. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon.
Goulder, Michael. 1989. Luke: A New Paradigm. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Gowler, David. 2003. “Text, Culture, and Ideology in Luke 17:1–10: A Dialogic Reading.” In Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins, edited by David Gowler, L. Gregory Bloomquist, and Duane F. Watson, 89–125. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Green, Joel B. 1989. “Jesus and a Daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:10–17).” CBQ 51: 651–52.
———. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hahn, Ferdinand. 1969. The Titles of Jesus in Christology. New York: World.
Herzog, William. 1994. Parables of Subversive Speech. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Jennings, Theodore, and Tat-Siong Benny Liew. 2004. “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5–13.” JBL 123:467–94.
Jeremias, Joachim. 1972. The Parables of Jesus. New York: Scribner.
Jülicher, Adolf. 1888. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Lee, Jae Won. 2011. “Pilate and the Crucifixion of Jesus in Luke-Acts.” In Luke-Acts and Empire, edited by David Rhoads, David Esterline, and Jae Won Lee, 84–106. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.
Lintott, Andre. 1993. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London: Routledge.
Malina, Bruce, and Jerome Neyrey. 1991. “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts.” In The Social World of Luke-Acts, edited by Jerome Neyrey, 25–65. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Mowinkel, Sigmund. 1956. He That Cometh. Oxford: Blackwell.
Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. 1992. Heidenapostel aus Israel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Nolland, John. 1993. Luke 9:21–18:34 and Luke 18:35–24:53. WBC 35b–c; Dallas: Word Books.
O’Day, Gail R. 2004. “ ‘There the? Will Gather Together’ (Luke 17:37).” In Literary Encounters with the Reign of God, edited by Sharon H. Ringe and H. C. Paul Kim, 288–303. New York: T&T Clark.
Patte, Daniel. 1987. The Gospel according to Matthew. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Porter, Stanley E. 1990. “The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–13).” In The Bible in Three Dimensions, edited by David J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter, 127–53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Powell, Mark Allan. 2004. “The Forgotten Famine.” In Literary Encounters with the Reign of God, edited by Sharon H. Ringe and H. C. Paul Kim, 265–87. New York: T&T Clark.
Reid, Barbara. 1996. Choosing the Better Part. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Robbins, Vernon K. 2004. “The Sensory-Aesthetic Texture of the Compassionate Samaritan Parable.” In Literary Encounters with the Reign of God, edited by Sharon H. Ringe and H. C. Paul Kim, 247–64. New York: T&T Clark.
Sanders, E. P. 1993. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin.
Sanders, E. P., and Margaret Davies. 1989. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.
Sanders, Jack. 1987. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Schaberg, Jane. 1987. The Illegitimacy of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Schlüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. 1992. But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Boston: Beacon.
Scott, James. 2004. Hidden Transcripts and the Art of Resistance. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
Sugirtharajah, R. S. 1991–1992. “The Widow’s Mite Revalued.” ExpTim 103:42–43.
Tannehill, Robert. 1975. The Sword of His Mouth. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
———. 1986. The Narrative Unity of Luke Acts. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
———. 1994. “Should We Love Simon the Pharisee?” CurTM 21:424–33.
Theissen, Gerd. 1983. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Tolbert, Mary Ann. 1989. Sowing the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Wink, Walter. 1992. Engaging the Powers. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Wire, Antoinnette. 1978. “The Structure of the Gospel Miracles Stories and Their Tellers.” Semeia 11:83–113.
Wolter, Michael. 2008. Das Lukasevangelium. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.