§41 The Law and the Kingdom (Luke 16:14–18)
Luke 16:14–18 represents a cluster of sayings of Jesus from the sayings source that Luke had in common with Matthew (Luke 16:16=Matt. 11:12–13; Luke 16:17=Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:18=Matt. 5:32; cf. also Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11–12). The passage is loosely related to the wider context in which the proper attitude toward wealth is thematic (Luke 16:1–13, 19–31) by the opening verse (5:14). How vv. 16–18 relate to the theme of money will be seen in the commentary that follows.
16:14–15 / Although Luke 16:1 indicates that Jesus’ Parable of the Shrewd Manager was addressed to his disciples, v. 14 indicates that the Pharisees had overheard Jesus’ teaching (16:1–13). The Pharisees sneer at Jesus’ teaching because they loved money. There is evidence that not only the aristocratic and wealthy Sadducees, but even the Pharisees, were fond of money (see Marshall, p. 625). In the Lucan context the point may be that Pharisees assumed that wealth was a sign of God’s blessing, as well as the means for practicing one’s piety in an ostentatious manner (such as almsgiving or giving large gifts to the temple or a local synagogue). Perhaps in the minds of some Pharisees the poverty of Jesus and most of his followers was a sign that they lacked God’s blessing. (This false assumption is sharpy challenged in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus found in vv. 19–31 below). This seems to be the idea in v. 15 where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for knowing how to justify themselves in the eyes of men. Jesus warns them that, unlike people who look on the outward appearance, God knows their hearts (cf. Prov. 21:2). The things that are considered to be of great value (in the case of the Pharisees, their oral laws and traditions) are detestable in God’s sight (lit. “an abomination before God”; see Prov. 16:5).
16:16–18 / Contained in these three verses are three sayings, originally independent in all likelihood (as comparison with Matt. 11:12–13; 5:18, 32 would seem to indicate). What connection these sayings have with the surrounding context is not immediately clear. In view of Jesus’ teaching about proper standards for living in the new age, Luke possibly wished to clarify how the law, the rule and guide for the old era, should be understood. In the first saying (v. 16) Jesus declares that the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. John the Baptist is both the end of the old era and the beginning of the new. His was a ministry of preparation for the coming of the Messiah (see 1:57–80; 3:1–20). Since John’s time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, that is, it is being preached by Jesus and his apostles (on the last part of v. 16 see note below). As discussed in the Introduction (see pp. 8ff.), Luke 16:16 is an important verse for understanding the evangelist’s concept of God’s saving work in history. Luke seemingly understood history as consisting of three eras or epochs (see Fitzmyer, p. 185). The first epoch is referred to in Luke 16:16a, from creation to the appearance of John. This is the period of the “Law and the Prophets.” With the appearance of John this era is ended and a new one is inaugurated. This second epoch, referred to in v. 16b, is the period of Jesus, during which time the “good news of the kingdom of God” is proclaimed. The third epoch is the period of the church, as can be seen in Acts 1:6–8, during which time the followers of Jesus preach the Easter faith (see Acts 2:16–39). During this period of time the church is commanded to preach the Good News throughout the world (Acts 1:8).
In declaring that the old era is now past, the era of the law of Moses, Luke is anxious to avoid leaving the impression that the law is either irrelevant or, worse yet, broken. The second saying (v. 17) reaffirms the eternal validity of the moral, or ethical, aspects of the law. Acts 15 shows that the Gospel writer believed that the sacrificial aspects of the law were no longer in force, but the ethical commandments were still binding. This idea was seen earlier in 10:25–28, where Jesus is asked what one must do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks his questioner what is written in the law. The commandment to love God (Deut. 6:5) and to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18) is cited, to which Jesus replies: “Do this and you will live” (Luke 10:28; see Lev. 18:5). For Luke, this is the essence of the ethical requirements of the law. In Luke 24:26–27, 44–47, however, the evangelist makes it plain that the “Law and the Prophets” speak of Christ, foretelling his suffering, death, and resurrection. Viewed from this angle, then, it is easier to see how v. 17 would have been understood.
The third saying (v. 18) supplies an example of the ethical aspect of the law that is never to “drop out” (see v. 17b). This saying on divorce upholds God’s perfect will for marriage (that it is not to be broken), as implied in Gen. 2:24. (In Matt. 19:3–9 Jesus acknowledges that Deut. 24:1–4 allows for divorce, but he views this part of the law negatively, as necessary to control and limit a practical evil.) Jesus’ view on divorce captures the spirit of the law and stands in contrast to the Pharisaic interpretation, which by its many rules and regulations made generous allowance for divorce. The real reason Jesus condemns divorce is because divorce is often sought for the purpose of remarriage, and such remarriage is viewed as adulterous (see note below).
With the third saying it appears as if Luke has wandered a bit from the theme of riches. However, the prohibition against divorce would have its readiest application to the wealthy among whom divorce, adultery, and polygamy were more frequent. Thus, in a certain sense, we are not completely unprepared for the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that follows (16:19–31; see also note below).
16:14–18 / Ellis (p. 201) suggests that the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19–31) mirrors the sayings found in 16:14–18. Verses 14–15 parallel vv. 19–26 (contrasting divine and human values), while vv. 16–18 parallel vv. 27–31 (obeying Moses). Talbert (p. 156) accepts the suggestion, since it gives unity to the section.
16:14 / On Pharisees see note on 5:17 above. Fitzmyer (p. 1113) has noted that T. W. Manson thought that Jesus originally addressed the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees, since the former were aristocratic and wealthy and would have indeed sneered at the idea of pursuing heavenly wealth rather than earthly wealth. There is no evidence, however, that Jesus (or Luke) had anyone else in mind. Moreover, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, with its emphasis on the afterlife, would hardly be meaningful to Sadducees who did not believe in an afterlife. Thus, the context would argue that the Pharisees were in fact those addressed.
16:15 / You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men: Fitzmyer (p. 1113) has aptly remarked: “Jesus’ words imply that the Pharisaic attitude toward money is rooted in something deeper, in a quest for an image of uprightness before others.” Such “uprightness” would include ostentatious almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (see Matt. 6:1–18).
God knows your hearts: In the Bible the “heart” is the seat of one’s emotions, desires, and loyalty. The heart reveals a person’s character. So when the Bible says that God knows the heart, it means that God knows what a person really is like, what he or she really thinks.
detestable in God’s sight: The language is actually much stronger: “an abomination before God.” Evans (pp. 48–49) suggests that Luke 16:1–18 parallels Deut. 23:15–24:4. It is worth noting that the word “abomination” comes from Deut. 24:4 in reference to divorce and remarriage. Thus, it is possible that Luke’s reference to “abomination” in v. 15 and his later inclusion of the saying on divorce (v. 18), often thought of as curious, may been suggested to the evangelist by the contents of Deuteronomy. (Because he has dismissed the Deuteronomistic parallels proposed by Evans, Fitzmyer [p. 1121] is at a loss to explain why the evangelist has placed the saying on divorce in this part of the Central Section.)
16:16 / The Law and the Prophets: The phrase actually refers to the first two parts of the Old Testament, the Law (Torah or Pentateuch) and the Prophets. (See Luke 24:44 where the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms are mentioned, the latter representing the third part of the Old Testament, the Writings.) The reference here in Luke 16, however, is probably meant to be understood as referring to the whole Old Testament (see 16:29 below).
the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached: What Luke has in mind here is probably the twofold idea that Jesus proclaimed in his Nazareth sermon in 4:16–30. First, the time of the kingdom is at hand. The prophetic Scriptures are fulfilled. The Anointed One, the Messiah, is present. The call to repent and to enter the kingdom now sounds forth. Second, the call to enter the kingdom is an inclusive one; it summons not only the righteous but the unrighteous, the lowly, the downtrodden. Those who by Pharisaical standards are thought unworthy of the kingdom of God are invited to enter. Thus, the “good news of the kingdom” is that it has appeared in the person of Jesus and that it is offered to all who will receive it.
everyone is forcing his way into it: This statement is not easily interpreted, for the meaning of the word translated “forcing” is not readily determined. The fuller parallel in Matt. 11:12 suggests that violent entry is in mind. In the Matthean context, Jesus discusses the ministry and fate of the imprisoned John the Baptist (Matt. 11:2–19). The Matthean parallel reads: “The kingdom of heaven has suffered violence [or is forcibly entered; or has been forcefully advancing, NIV], and men of violence take it by force” (RSV). Commenting on the form of the saying in Matthew, Gundry (pp. 209–10) thinks that the point is that the persecuted and imprisoned John the Baptist serves as an example of the fate many who enter the kingdom will experience. It is unclear, however, if this is the meaning that Luke has intended in his abbreviated and modified form of the saying. If the picture is negative, the Lucan form may have in mind militant messianic figures who advocate bringing the kingdom through violence; two such characters are mentioned in Acts 5:36–37. But the picture may also be positive, that is, all who enter the kingdom are being urged or pressed into entering (recall 14:23; see Fitzmyer, p. 1117; Tiede, p. 287). Leaney (p. 223) suggests the reading, “everyone one oppresses it.”
16:17 / the least stroke of a pen: Lit. “a serif” (RSV, “dot”; KJV, “tittle”), the small point that distinguishes certain Hebrew letters from one another. (In Matt. 5:18 there is mention of a “yod” as well, which the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.) The point of the saying is that nothing in the law of Moses is insignificant. All of it must be fulfilled.
16:18 / Matthew 19:9 gives unchastity (adultery or any other form of sexual sin) as the only acceptable grounds for divorce. There is some debate as to whether or not Jesus actually made this allowance. Quite possibly Jesus himself saw no legitimate grounds for divorce, but Matthew, or the tradition before him, added the exception clause (which also occurs in Matt. 5:32). There is also some debate as to what actually is being “excepted.” Although it has usually been assumed that unchastity provides the grounds for a divorce, the exception clause may only mean that one is not guilty of causing one’s spouse to commit adultery through divorce, if that spouse has already committed a sexual sin. If this latter interpretation is correct, then the exception clause really does not permit divorce. The question may be asked why Jesus was so strict on the question of divorce and remarriage. A. Isaksson (cited by Fitzmyer, p. 1121) has suggested that Jesus’ high standards reflected the rule for priests (Lev. 21:7; Ezek. 44:22), and since his followers had an even higher calling than the priests, their standards could not be any lower. The suggestion is plausible.