§35 Lament for Jerusalem (Luke 13:31–35)

We come now to the first of four laments for Jerusalem (see note below) in Luke’s Gospel (13:31–35; 19:41–44; 21:20–24; 23:27–31). The first, second, and fourth laments are found only in Luke, while the third one, although somewhat parallel to and dependent upon Mark 13:14–23 (=Matt. 24:15–28), affords many distinctive features. It is clear from these passages that the fate of the city of Jerusalem is of major interest to the evangelist Luke (see Charles Homer Giblin, The Destruction of Jerusalem according to Luke’s Gospel, Analecta Biblica 107 [Rome: Biblical Institute, 1985]). The main point seems to be that because the city has rejected God’s messenger (Jesus), God will abandon the city to its enemies (see esp. commentary on 19:41–44). According to Giblin, the destruction of Jerusalem is due to the people’s unbelieving response to Jesus and to their toleration of injustice.

13:31–35 / The section is linked together somewhat awkwardly, particularly with respect to vv. 32–33, which seem almost to contradict one another. However, there is a basic overall unity to the passage. Jesus is warned in v. 31 that Herod wants to kill him. This threat leads Jesus to utter the saying on the necessity that a prophet die in Jerusalem. The anticipated rejection and death in Jerusalem then leads to the lament for Jerusalem, the city which has had a long tradition of killing the prophets that God has sent.

The first question that immediately confronts the reader is why the Pharisees, elsewhere presented as Jesus’ enemies (5:17, 21, 30; 6:2, 7; 7:30; 11:38–54; 14:1–6), warn Jesus of Herod’s desire to kill him. Herod had already executed John the Baptist (9:9) for the latter’s condemnation of the former’s immorality. In Jesus’ case, however, Herod may have feared a messianic uprising in Galilee and so sought to put an end to Jesus. (Although it is possible that Herod’s threats were no more than threats designed to frighten Jesus out of Galilee.) Traditionally commentators have interpreted the warning of the Pharisees as devious and hypocritical, either to incite Jesus into acting rashly or to scare him out of Galilee and toward Jerusalem where he might meet his end. There is, however, no hint of animosity in this passage. These particular Pharisees (some Pharisees) may very well have been supportive of Jesus’ ministry and wished to warn Jesus of a very real danger. This piece of synoptic tradition is probably very early and has not yet been filtered through the lens of anti-Pharisaic polemic that is otherwise pervasive in the Gospels (see Fitzmyer, p. 1030). However the warning is understood, the central concern occurs in the following verses. Jesus has tasks to perform today and tomorrow and then he will reach his goal. (It is not likely that the expression, on the third day, is meant to be a veiled reference to the resurrection; nevertheless, Ellis [p. 190] believes that Luke’s readers would have seen an allusion to the resurrection.) Jesus will not be distracted or intimidated. He must be on his way for the time being (the meaning of today and tomorrow), for surely no prophet—one who bears God’s message for God’s people—can die outside Jerusalem. Jesus has “set his face” for Jerusalem (see 9:51) and it will be in that great city of biblical history that Jesus’ destiny will be worked out. As a true prophet, that is, one who truly speaks God’s word, Jesus knows what fate awaits him in Jerusalem, for no true prophet is “acceptable” (see 4:24) to his own people.

Knowing what lies ahead, Jesus is filled with anguish and utters the lament found in vv. 34–35. Jerusalem is the city which had a long tradition of rejecting, persecuting, and killing the prophets and those sent to it (see note below). Jesus’ statement that many times he wanted to gather Jerusalem’s people may imply previous visits (see John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55 where three Passover visits to Jerusalem seem to be implied). The idea is that Jesus had longed to gather all of Israel into the kingdom of God. Within this kingdom (and not the one of popular expectation) would salvation be found. But Jesus and his message had been rejected and so Jerusalem’s house (perhaps the temple, see note below), the center of worship and the symbol of God’s abiding presence in Israel, will be left … desolate, that is, left uninhabited and vulnerable to destruction (see 19:41–44; 21:20–24). By rejecting Jesus, Jerusalem’s chances for peace and safety are nonexistent. The day of reckoning will come. This is Jesus’ last visit, after which his people will not see him again until they say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (v. 35). This statement of blessing is taken from Ps. 118:26, a passage which will be cited later during Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (19:38). At that time the “multitudes” will shout this, not the religious leaders who reject Jesus. Therefore it is unlikely (against Schweizer, p. 230) that Luke 13:35b is uttered in anticipation of the Triumphal Entry, though it is paralleled by it to a certain extent; but rather, the passage looks forward to Jesus’ return (the Parousia) when a religious leadership, as well as the people in general, softened by the pounding blows of defeat, will be ready and eager to receive their true Messiah. (Fitzmyer [p. 1035] thinks that the reference is to both Jesus’ Triumphal Entry and his Parousia.)

Additional Notes §35

13:32 / fox: The designation may imply a person of no significance or consequence, or a person of cunning and treachery. In either case the designation is derogatory and in today’s parlance might be better rendered as “rat.”

13:33 / I must keep going: Lachs (p. 300) suggests that Jesus’ expression might be an allusion to the words of the dying David in 1 Kings 2:2: “I am about to go the way of all the earth” (RSV).

surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem: Lit. “it is impossible that a prophet perish outside Jerusalem.” It is impossible in Jesus’ case, because “the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed” (22:22).

13:34 / Few clear examples exist in the OT of prophets who were either stoned or killed by other means. In 2 Chron. 24:20–21 Zechariah, son of the priest Jehoiada, is stoned to death for speaking the word of the Lord (which is a prophetic activity; 2 Chron. 24:20 also says the “Spirit of God came upon Zechariah”). Jeremiah is placed in stocks (Jer. 20:1–2) and cast into a pit (38:6). There was a tradition that the prophet Isaiah was placed in a hollow log and sawed in two by order of Manassah, a tradition possibly alluded to in Heb. 11:37. The general tradition of the unpopularity of the prophets’ messages is seen throughout the OT, from Elijah down to the post-exilic prophets. In Jesus’ day the idea of the persecuted and stoned prophet had become commonplace. See also the account of the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7:54–60. Evans (p. 47) compares Luke 13:31–34a with Deut. 17:2–7, where the Israelites are commanded to stone those who teach and practice false religion. Obviously, in the eyes of his opponents, Jesus taught a false religion.

as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings: The language recalls the imagery of God’s care and protection; see Deut. 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4.

13:35 / your house is left to you desolate: Ellis (p. 191) thinks that this statement implies the movement of “God’s presence to a new temple, a ‘house not made with hands’ ” (see Acts 7:48; 1 Cor. 3:16–17). This interpretation is rightly questioned by Marshall (p. 576). Jesus’ words may better allude to Jer. 22:5: “this house shall become a desolation” (RSV; see also Jer. 12:7; 4QFlor 1.5–6); Leaney, p. 210.

Jerusalem: See 19:42 and note on 2:22 above.